The Prestige Fallacy [3e]

[Tequila Sunrise]

To combine two words that I’m fed up with hearing, I present you with the Prestige Fallacy, which goes something like this: Prestige classes are the secret to a satisfying D&D experience. Want to make your character unique? Don’t bother thinking creatively, just take a PrC! Need a set of specific abilities for some NPC foes? Well they’ll have to be at least sixth level, but there’s a PrC for that! Playing in a game above fifth level? Better take a PrC, or everyone will laugh and call you NEWB! Playing a non-magical character? Well you NEED at least two base classes plus at least five PrCs, just to pull your own weight!

The first word of the term ‘prestige class’ doesn’t even apply to most games; players take PrC levels simply as a matter of course. No prestigious organizations, just pointless prereqs that force players to plan out their stat minutiae from level 1. God forbid that all those cool special abilities should be available to single classed characters as alternate class features, feats and spells! Or even as base classes!

Some PrCs are simply means to circumvent artificial restrictions in core. Example: blackguard and holy liberator, which exist solely to bypass the paladin’s needlessly restrictive alignment requirement. That’s downright moronic. God forbid these character concepts should be available from level 1!

And then there’s the combo-concept PrCs. How many gish PrCs came out before someone in R&D finally said “Hey, why don’t we just make this a base class? We’ll call it the duskblade!”? Five? Six? Seventeen? All of those combo-concept PrCs would be better off as base classes; mystic theurge & co., arcane trickster, I’m sure there are others. Again, god forbid players and DMs have these options at level 1, ‘cause that would be insanity!

There are PrCs that exist to compensate for the suckitude of the game mechanics; Tempest and that TWF PrC from Bo9S comes immediately to mind. Why is everyone’s first impulse when encountering a problem with the basic game rules to fix it with a PrC, rather than fixing the problem itself? Great, so if I want to be a decent dual wielding warrior, I have to wait until sixth level? No thanks, I’ll play a different character concept until sixth level, then make a suicidal decision, and then play the concept that I really want to play. Gee, that’s brilliant game design right there!

There are PrCs that exist solely as magnifications of base classes; I’m looking at you, Radiant Servant of Pelor and Frenzied Berserker! There is zero reason that the benefits which these classes grant should not be feats, class abilities or else banned for being stupidly overpowered.

Finally there’s the mess of PrCs that might have a right to exist in certain games, but would also be better off as feats, class abilities and spells in most games.

Discuss.

[Fax Celestis]

From a design perspective, prestige classes are easier to create; from an end-user perspective, prestige classes are easier to swallow and/or ignore. Especially in the case of something as silly as TWF and the Tempest/Bloodclaw Master, where it can be created in a fashion where one character's specific training simply makes things work differently for them.

Yes, the classes like Holy Liberator et al. are silly: they were created for the express purpose of fulfilling one specific character's ideal design path without actually handwaving the alignment requirement on the base paladin. Do note, however, that it is possible to be a Blackguard at level 1, assuming you start above 6th level...its' one of the weird side effects of the blackguard's trading class features.

But I think the fundamental reason behind prestige classes is as I said first: the basic reason for "fixing things" in a prestige class rather than a revamp of the original rules is that the prestige class can be ruled away as inaccessible or ruled as, "it just works differently for them." In short, a PrC doesn't change the whole world: it just changes one character.

[Sucrose]

Well, if it really comes up that much, I agree with you. If you want a given PrC's abilities, then rather than trying to hamfist it into the campaign, you and the DM should ideally just homebrew something with the same abilities. The prestige classes themselves do give both a common ground to start from, and some useful design ideas, though.

I also agree that they're a poor way to correct problems with the basic ruleset. Same goes for using feats that way, also.

I haven't experienced some of the complaints that you mention here in any significant quantity, though, so I can't sympathize with the vitriol. There's plenty of nonmagical, worthwhile classes to play as for all twenty levels. It's just that depressingly few of them are Core.

[Darrin]

Discuss.

Prestige Classes are both the BEST and WORST part of D&D 3.5.

Best: So many options! Spend hours, days, weeks thinking of new ways to customize your PC, pick up unique abilities, endless ways to optimize. Also the concept of "rules mastery", rewarding more hardcore players with greater effectiveness... ok, balance issues aside, almost a license to print money.

Worst: Ugh, well balance issues do rear their ugly heads, and more casual players get shafted. And the shear glut of sourcebooks... particularly the mess of third-party material. Who can keep track of all the sourcebooks, feats, magazine articles, online content? Is a high-testosterone uber-optimized PrC dipfest the only way to enjoy the game?

So, yeah, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about PrCs... on one hand, an extremely effective way to sell a lot more sourcebooks. On the other hand... OMG the shear number of sourcebooks (and thus invoking Sturgeon's Law). One of those "Be careful what you wish for" kinda things.

[Eldariel]

How is this a Fallacy as much as Wizards' game designing mistake?

[Matthew]

I would suggest that Prestige Classes would better be understood as "Power Ups", rather than as "niche fillers" (which they also are). If you need a specific role filled from level one, a variant base class is usually the best way to go.

[MisterSaturnine]

How is this a Fallacy as much as Wizards' game designing mistake?

The fallacy, I think, is the misconception that a Prestige Class is necessary to optimal advancement of your character.

[Avilon Rayne]

Wait... does this mean that my core only Elf Wizard 20 that horribly breaks things (both literally and figuratively) isn't optimized? *GASP* Oh noes!

I personally don't like to use PrCs, mostly because base classes often have the exact things I'm looking for. I have been known to use Master Specialist, Archmage (and the divine version of it), and a couple of the other amusing caster PrCs on occasion, but I just do that to have some fun. I just love the expression on the DM's face when your fatespinner says "Oh, was that a natural 20? Yeah, reroll that." XD

As for PrCs as a mechanics thing... they get very annoying, especially when I'm GMing. I tend to enforce a one PrC only rule in games I run, and I restrict the total amount of PrC levels to 10. A few PrCs get around this one-only rule by being very generic, such as the Archmage, thus leading to the 10 levels total rule. The only other rule I use is that, if it's not in a published D&D book, it's not an option. These little rules help keep the level dips to a minimum while still giving people options.

Do PrCs really try to fix problems with the system? I've built many fine TWFers using only core base classes. A dash of rogue here and a sprinkle of fighter there and you're good to go. I don't see any PrCs that actually fix the perfectly fine TWF system. Though, I won't go into ToB (Bo9S), since that entire book is broken beyond belief (and no, I won't go into that here).

What else was there? Oh yes, the "powerful" PrCs... have you ever actually tried to play a Radiant Servant of Pelor? Can you say "boring beyond belief"? Yes, you're an awesome turnbot and healbot, but guess what! That's all you do. I hope you packed an extra case of Dew (tm? I don't really know...). If you want a good example of how RSoPs act, get the second D&D Move, Wrath of the Dragon God, and listen to the commentary. Jozan is very much a RSoP. They don't make for good party members really. The RSoP gets more power because they are horrid things to be. Why do you think the DMG very clearly states at the beginning of the PrC section that they are intended more for creating NPCs than PCs? Why do you think they're in the DMG in the first place, instead of being in the PHB? I'll just let you all think on that :)

[Keld Denar]

PrCs and multiclassing in 3.5 exist for the sole reason (well, other than making WotC money) of giving players customization. You aren't pigeonholed into taking them, and some builds are actually stronger without them (Swift Hunter, Daring Outlaw, and Devoted Performer builds mostly, oh, and druid20). The problem is, in order to satisfy EVERYONE's desired massive number of permutations of character concepts, they would need dozens of base classes and hundreds of class features. I think this is one of the problems with 4e (nother discussion), that they cut down a lot of the customization possible from 3.5 - 4e and replaced it hamhandedly, as you say, with a bunch of class features (At Will, Encounter, Daily Poweres) that you can pick and choose from.

Also, what classes you take only influence your RP if you look at a PC as a combination of class features. So your character wields a Dwarven Waraxe, and took a level in Exotic Weapons Master to get Uncanny Blow. Does your character know he's an Exotic Weapons Master? Maybe, but he's probably thought that since level 1 given his weapon choice, not because he "dinged" and picked up a class level in it. Class levels should be a means to express a character, rather than a shackle that binds them to a certain default persona. PrC levels or base class levels are a tool, not a restraint.

If your big beef is with the "prestige" aspect, then write a letter to WotC and complain about their naming sceme. Call them Expanded Classes (ExC) if it helps you get through your day. If its the concept that PrCs are an option that a character can persue to help actualize a design so that mechanics somewhat reflect character developement, then don't play D&D. Play a freeform classless levelless game. You'll probably be much happier with a game system that suits your style, if that is indeed your style. And if its not, and you don't like ANY published game system out there, make up your own. Then you can call it whatever you want, though people you don't know will probably still complain about the naming sceme. :P

And if your beef is with latecoming products like Tome of Battle, or the Beguiler/Duskblade classes, chalk it up to market experimentation and response. WotC probably had no idea at the beginning that a "gish" style character would be so popular. They found a lot of people really liked the Eldritch Knight, so they built mechanically similar classes like Spellsword (more martial than magic) and later Abjurant Champion. Each pushes a different boundry on mechanics and balance, with the latest considered the most powerful "gish" PrC, simply because its full BAB and full casting. Its a continuing developement experiment, and we all end up being unwitting playtesters whether you like it or not. You know, origionally, cars only came in one color. You got black, and you liked it. But people wanted to customize, so eventually cars came in different colors. Same thing with game design. People wanted more gish support, so they came up with AbChamp and Duskblade. People complained that melee was boring, so they came out with the mechanics for ToB. ToB was so popular that they based a goodly portion of their 4e product on similar mechanics. Company's grow and company's learn, or company's go the way of the dodo bird. Some of the origional 3.0 and 3.5 content was perfect as written, and a lot of it wasn't, so we ended up, through our feedback and purchases influencing later products, of which likewise, some was good, some was crap. We'll see how 4e does, and if 5e goes back to more of a 3.x style or evolves into a completely different animal based on research done and feedback given on the 4e product. Its all business.

[kamikasei]

OP, is your beef with WotC for releasing prestige classes, or the members of these forums for making use of them?

I will present one quick defense of prestige classes within a game: when decently designed, they let a player play a general version of a character and then take her in a particular direction once she gets a feel for her focus. (The extent to which one must "build towards" many PrCs, of course, works against this.)

As for the forums: well, sure, we could just say "houserule in the ability you want to have". But if someone wants advice on a build, presumably they want to know what they can do with the rules already in the books before they start writing their own.

[1of3]

Why is everyone’s first impulse when encountering a problem with the basic game rules to fix it with a PrC, rather than fixing the problem itself?

That's because WotC doesn't make mistakes. That's why they don't have errata - only updates. I guess in 3.5 it's even worse with feats than with PrCs.

But PrCs got fixed after all. That's why there are only Paragon Paths in 4e.

- A character will have only one. That's it.
- There are very few prerequisites, so the character doesn't need to be planned from level one on.
- Since nobody bothered about the "prestige" anyway, most Paragon Paths are not associated with an organisation in the first place.

[Narmoth]

Personally, by core, I would prefer to be able to play a LE paladin with reversed paladin powers / spells rather than the lvl 6 paladin / lvl 4 blackguard i play (i switch at lvl 6 to get 2d6 sneak attack dmg), as the sneak attack don't really make up for the pathetic spell list of the blackguard. Then again, I pretend to be a paladin, so I don't have the blackguard specific followers that kind of are a boost.
But except for that, if I play 3.5, I'll play a race without lvl penalty and one single class only (usually mage) and are a lot more powerful than the triple-class template users I play with. So I really have to agree. Especially since a lot of the prestige classes don't improve the build that much over the core class

[kjones]

The thing that really annoys me is how many of the prestige classes just out-and-out suck. Most notable are pretty much any full caster PrCs that don't advance casting fully - you're inevitably better off taking another caster level.

This means that, if I want to build a character, I have to sort through hundreds of cool-sounding-but-worthless options just to find the few PrCs that are worth more than a level in a base class. (And that's not even to mention the really brokenly overpowered PrCs... I'm looking at you, IotSV) And as a DM, I have to keep letting down my players by telling them, "Yeah... that really isn't that good."

Come to think of it, feats have the same problem. Hundreds, if not thousands of them, and maybe only a few dozen worth taking for any given character.

[Matthew]

Come to think of it, feats have the same problem. Hundreds, if not thousands of them, and maybe only a few dozen worth taking for any given character.

I believe Monte Cook once ventured an explanation for that... The Reason for Imbalance in D20. I agree, though, it is very annoying.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Do PrCs really try to fix problems with the system? I've built many fine TWFers using only core base classes. A dash of rogue here and a sprinkle of fighter there and you're good to go.

When I play a dual wielding warrior, I want to play a warrior, not a sorta-warrior-sorta-sneaky-guy. And I don't want to feel stupid for playing a character that is clearly inferior to a 2HF in almost every way. I might be a needy gamer, but my d20 tells me that I'm hott so I can afford to be picky.

What else was there? Oh yes, the "powerful" PrCs... have you ever actually tried to play a Radiant Servant of Pelor? Can you say "boring beyond belief"?

Yes I have played a RSoP, and it was awesome. I had all the spell power of a single classed cleric, plus great healing and turning ability. The only downside was 1 less hp per level, which I didn't care about because I wasn't playing a battle cleric anyway.

PrCs and multiclassing in 3.5 exist for the sole reason (well, other than making WotC money) of giving players customization. You aren't pigeonholed into taking them, and some builds are actually stronger without them (Swift Hunter, Daring Outlaw, and Devoted Performer builds mostly, oh, and druid20). The problem is, in order to satisfy EVERYONE's desired massive number of permutations of character concepts, they would need dozens of base classes and hundreds of class features.

You mean like the dozens upon dozens of PrCs we have, that take up ten times the space that a few extra base classes plus a bunch of feats and class features would? Yeah, I stand by my PrC embargo.

OP, is your beef with WotC for releasing prestige classes, or the members of these forums for making use of them?

A little of both. My rant was really just the result of reading one too many posts which boiled down to "there's a PrC for that!" which underscores this mindless obsession and reliance on PrCs that so many gamers seem to have. The straw that broke the camel's back, and all that.

TS

[Starsinger]

Need a set of specific abilities for some NPC foes?

In response to this in particular, I've never had NPCs need to meet PrC requirements, and often have them take levels in it without a base class. I've ran say a level 3 Assassin NPC before or a level 6 Radiant Servant of Pelor NPC without them having base class levels. NPCs are not PCs, they are not bound to the same rules.

[kamikasei]

A little of both. My rant was really just the result of reading one too many posts which boiled down to "there's a PrC for that!" which underscores this mindless obsession and reliance on PrCs that so many gamers seem to have. The straw that broke the camel's back, and all that.

3.5 has flaws, lots of them. It's also a class-based system with a whole lot of material published for it. I think it's rather unreasonable to complain that people construct builds using classes which work around the system's flaws instead of ignoring 90% of the material published and homebrewing everything they feel a need for.

Or to put it another way, it sounds like your issues run a good deal deeper than just PrCs, and approach being mad with people for playing 3.5 at all.

[Oslecamo]

When I play a dual wielding warrior, I want to play a warrior, not a sorta-warrior-sorta-sneaky-guy. And I don't want to feel stupid for playing a character that is clearly inferior to a 2HF in almost every way. I might be a needy gamer, but my d20 tells me that I'm hott so I can afford to be picky.

Multiclassing rogue doesn't mean you become sneacky. Nobody pointing you a gun and forcing you to take hide and move silently or any other sneaky ability when you take rogue levels.

You get a little squishier(lower HD and bad fort save) but get better at hiting precisely and dodging(sneack attack and good reflex saves), wich are both very warrior-ish things.. Spend the skill points in warrior-ish skills like intimidate, ride and whatever else you feel like it suits you.

If you want to play a brute force dual wielding warrior and is good at it, well, then you may as well be asking for chain mail bikini to grant +20 armor class to your female character. Isn't gonna happen in D&D.

[Keld Denar]

You mean like the dozens upon dozens of PrCs we have, that take up ten times the space that a few extra base classes plus a bunch of feats and class features would? Yeah, I stand by my PrC embargo.

Did you even read my post? It wasn't just about the paper space required to print all of the whatevers on. I'm talking about the sheer intellectual demand to harvest all of the millions of concepts players could potentially come up with and grind them into a number of base classes. People would still be unhappy that they couldn't fully actualize "what their character is" and make stuff up or modify things anyway.

D&D's PrC system is kind of like playing with legos. Most people start with a big box of bricks. Some people buy the pirate ship to use the whole boat with the castle they built, and some people buy the pirate ship to get the flag from the top of the ship to add to their pirate lair. And some people are able to build anything their imagination comes up with just from the big box of bricks they started from. Regardless, its a modular delivery system of different characteristics and properties in different ways.

Would you have a problem with an elven rogue taking 3 levels of swashbuckler to gain +int to damage because his whit is as sharp as his sword? Or the same rogue taking 2 levels of Champion of Correleon, who favors a graceful combat style, to gain +dex to damage? The end results are the same, +x stat to damage, but one comes from being more dashing, and the other comes from being more graceful. One comes from a base class, one comes from a PrC. If you have a problem with both, then your problem is with multiclassing in general, not PrCs. If you approve of the first, but not the 2nd, then you are being hypocritical. Why is a dip in a base class less taboo than a dip in a PrC? Just because you don't like the modular nature of PrCs? Are you biased against them because they don't have 20 levels, so you can't play the class 1-20? Because you can't play an assassin without actual levels in assassin, or a samurai without actual levels in samurai or master samurai? Or something else? I dunno.

[Maerok]

Why not go for prestige classes? They spice up the typical archetypes. If you wanna specialize in squirrel nun-chucks or some weird ability through a prestige class, go for it! If not, sit down and let others have their own fun.

I do like the concept of shorter base classes. Sort of like, oh, (a game that will be discussed in no further detail within the context of this thread) 4e which at least has some basic set-up it with the path choices.

I'd prefer something like what d20 Modern has going on for it. Otherwise, the custom class system of UA might be of some interest.

[JellyPooga]

I was going to present a fairly long rant in defence of PrC's after reading the OP, but Keld Denar already seems to have said everything I was going to say! Ah well...if I'd been here earlier...*shrugs*

[Avilon Rayne]

When I play a dual wielding warrior, I want to play a warrior, not a sorta-warrior-sorta-sneaky-guy. And I don't want to feel stupid for playing a character that is clearly inferior to a 2HF in almost every way. I might be a needy gamer, but my d20 tells me that I'm hott so I can afford to be picky.

As was stated by Oslecamo, rogues are not always sneaky. Rogue levels make amazing additions to a fighter type.

Another thing to consider with your "clearly superior" 2HF is that they fail. You know what happens with magic weapons that add bonus damage dice? Yeah, that doesn't get increased just because you're using it with two hands. You know what happens with those same weapons when you have two of them? More attacks means more damage. Sure, power attack can make for wonderful single-hits, and spectacular crits, but when you start comparing that low accuracy high spike damage to the raw damage output of a large number of highly accurate attacks that all have several dice of damage on top of the same weapon damage Mr. 2HF has (and yes, with a whopping two feats you too can dual wield bastard swords), you will always make Mr. 2HF look like a pathetic nobody that can't hurt a fly to save his life.

Another question... why do you mention the Warrior? What reason could you possibly have for wanting to play an NPC class? ;)

Yes I have played a RSoP, and it was awesome. I had all the spell power of a single classed cleric, plus great healing and turning ability. The only downside was 1 less hp per level, which I didn't care about because I wasn't playing a battle cleric anyway.

Yes, you had the spell power of a single classed cleric with a bit of extra healing and turning. I would guess that you forgot something. This something is called the very specific personality of character that fits the RSoP model. Unlike many other PrCs, this one is only available to those who uphold every tenet of Pelor. If you did not do this, you just used the stats without actually using the class. This is called being a munchkin, and it is generally frowned upon.

The main drawback of the RSoP is the very strict roleplaying that happens with the character. They must be the self righteous stuck up snob that everyone expects them to be. If the character isn't highly judgmental, you're doing it wrong. If the character doesn't think Pelor is the only deity worth worshiping, guess what! You're doing it wrong.

Again I will reiterate that this is one of the few PrCs that actually does this and requires a character that fits a specific mold. It's like a reward for being extra anti-social!

[woodenbandman]

In response to this in particular, I've never had NPCs need to meet PrC requirements, and often have them take levels in it without a base class. I've ran say a level 3 Assassin NPC before or a level 6 Radiant Servant of Pelor NPC without them having base class levels. NPCs are not PCs, they are not bound to the same rules.

Yes they are. You don't just give your NPCs untyped bonuses from god, do you?

Stuff like this really GRINDS MY GEARS , because it's a betrayal of the Player-Dm trust. It's like a DM coming out and saying "I'm using this supplement, but I'd never let you use it because it's far too powerful." This can't work, because you're flat out saying that you are setting your players up to fail, and you're not even playing the same game with them.

And the sad part is, you don't even need to break the rules to do this. Check out PHB2 Rebuilding, and you find that can actually do what you think you're breaking the rules for. Congrats, you're now cheating your players completely unnecessarily! Or at least you've admitted that you think it's a good idea.

[Kizara]

Yes, you had the spell power of a single classed cleric with a bit of extra healing and turning. I would guess that you forgot something. This something is called the very specific personality of character that fits the RSoP model. Unlike many other PrCs, this one is only available to those who uphold every tenet of Pelor. If you did not do this, you just used the stats without actually using the class. This is called being a munchkin, and it is generally frowned upon.

I agree.

The main drawback of the RSoP is the very strict roleplaying that happens with the character. They must be the self righteous stuck up snob that everyone expects them to be. If the character isn't highly judgmental, you're doing it wrong. If the character doesn't think Pelor is the only deity worth worshiping, guess what! You're doing it wrong.

Absolutely not. Pelor, and the NG alignment, are all about helping others and spreading good as well as eradicating evil. RSoP doesn't make you a paladin, in fact its a less martial class then standard cleric. I don't see how the hell you could get "highly judgemental" from the RSoP description/flavor. I can see the "think Pelor is the only deity worth worshiping" part, but even that is not a 'must have' aspect of the RP.

Again I will reiterate that this is one of the few PrCs that actually does this and requires a character that fits a specific mold. It's like a reward for being extra anti-social!

You really need to take a look at the class, some of the material on Pelor, and what his clergy means. Its not like its the "Zealous Knights of Justice" class that dictates you play Lawful Arrogant, its nearly the opposite.

[Tequila Sunrise]

3.5 has flaws, lots of them. It's also a class-based system with a whole lot of material published for it. I think it's rather unreasonable to complain that people construct builds using classes which work around the system's flaws instead of ignoring 90% of the material published and homebrewing everything they feel a need for.

You're right; it's easier for most people to just use what they're given even if it's not ideal. House ruling and home brewing are just so second nature to me that every once in a while I snap and have a AMGWTFCAN'TEVERYONESEEHOWMUCHBETTERTHISCOULDBEWITH FIVEMINUTESOFWORK?! moment. And then I post a rant.

It wasn't just about the paper space required to print all of the whatevers on. I'm talking about the sheer intellectual demand to harvest all of the millions of concepts players could potentially come up with and grind them into a number of base classes. People would still be unhappy that they couldn't fully actualize "what their character is" and make stuff up or modify things anyway.

We would need about a dozen more base classes to cover all the basic concepts, plus several dozen new feats, spells and alternate class features. I'm not seeing any more 'intellectual demand' than is involved with all our PrCs. And if players still complain that they can't actualize their character concept, they should play GURPS. Or freeform.

As was stated by Oslecamo, rogues are not always sneaky. Rogue levels make amazing additions to a fighter type.

*Sigh* Yes, I know that I don't have to be sneaky just because I take rogue levels. I'll rephrase: When I want to play a dual wielding warrior, I want to play a warrior, not a sorta-warrior with less BAB and hp because I had to dip into rogue just to be competitive.

Another thing to consider with your "clearly superior" 2HF is that they fail.

Do you really want to turn this thread into a 2WF vs. 2HF discussion? There are about a jillion threads clearly demonstrating how the latter is superior to the former in nearly every way unless you have extra damage dice. And you don't even have to crunch numbers to see it (I don't like number crunching); all you have to do is compare all the basic methods of damage dealing.

Another question... why do you mention the Warrior? What reason could you possibly have for wanting to play an NPC class? ;)

My apologies; when I say 'warrior' I mean 'fightery-type' because my assumption is that nobody uses NPC classes.

Yes, you had the spell power of a single classed cleric with a bit of extra healing and turning. I would guess that you forgot something. This something is called the very specific personality of character that fits the RSoP model. Unlike many other PrCs, this one is only available to those who uphold every tenet of Pelor. If you did not do this, you just used the stats without actually using the class. This is called being a munchkin, and it is generally frowned upon.

My character was an ex-prostitute priestess of Pelor who was wise beyond her years, and whose goal was to lift up the destitute and the helpless.

Yes they are. You don't just give your NPCs untyped bonuses from god, do you?

I do. It's a great way to create NPCs that are actually worth their CR while keeping PC wealth in line.

TS

[Avilon Rayne]

To get back on topic, my point was that you do not need PrCs to make good characters. I referenced TWF and RSoP characters simply because others mentioned them before me. If you disagree with my understandings of these types of characters, fine; discuss it elsewhere.

[Kris Strife]

Wow... Did I really see two people in the same thread say 'you have to play X class in Y way or you're doing it wrong'? WTP? Your character is not and should not just be a race/class/alignment combo. On paladins: Miko, O-Chul, Hinjo, and Thanh are all LG paladins and they have very different personalities. Every character can be played differently by every player. If you really feel a character is pigeon holed by their class/race/alignment... Then you need to learn to roleplay, not rollplay. [/rant]

[Roderick_BR]

Wait... does this mean that my core only Elf Wizard 20 that horribly breaks things (both literally and figuratively) isn't optimized? *GASP* Oh noes!

Of course not. You *should* have taken a PrC that gives you full casting while giving a crapload of new abilities at each level. Preferably at 5th level, so you could even add a 2nd PrC later. Gaining everything, and losing 3 bonus feats, and familiar progression (that can be bough back with a simple feat)

noob

And people complains about classes that give full BAB, and one ability each level, because "it makes fighters too powerful"

[Matthew]

I do. It's a great way to create NPCs that are actually worth their CR while keeping PC wealth in line.

Yep, I do as well. In fact, the designers do something similar when they assign "bonus feats" to monsters. As long as the resulting NPC or Monster remains an appropriate challenge level, I see no problem with doing so, unless the game master has previously agreed not to, in which case it is a breach of trust between him and the players.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Okay, just to clarify:

Radiant Servant of Pelor is NOT "stick up his you-know-where" arrogant. They're specifically NG. They're not lawful, which is where the paladin problem generally comes from. They're all about doing good deeds and making the world a better place. They also have a Thing about undead... a really big Thing. But that's about their only hang up.

Frenzied Berzerker IS A TRAP and a TPK waiting to happen. The moment you fail a Will save to snap out of it, the PARTY will be subject to hundreds of damage, which they can take far less than most CR appropriate encounters. Easiest way to beat one is to throw BUNCH of mooks at him, forcing him to make a bunch of Will saves (and Will just happens to be his poor save...). Even the 'Holy FB' will eventually screw it up and wipe the party, it just takes longer.

Also, you can be a perfectly servicable Fighter with TWF. That's what they do... they get craptons of feats. Weapon Finesse and Specialization actually become worth taking at this point, if you're duo-wielding the same weapon. In fact, below level 6, you're actually BETTER than the Rogue at it, despite his theoretically higher damage output, because you're almost certain to hit more frequently. The Rogue's extra damage is also heavily dependent on being able to get Sneak Attacks. Deny him sneak attacks, and the Fighter has more damage output, if for no other reason than he tends to have a higher strength.

Granted, Fighter20 is underpowered compared to any other class (except possibly monk20), but that's high levels, not low levels.

Having said that, yes, PrC's massively ramp up the 'power creep', however YOU DON'T NEED TO DO IT. If the players all play reasonable characters, then everything is balanced. However, when you get one guy who minmaxes his way into some obscenely powerful PrC (I'm talking to you, Incantatrix), then the other players feel the need to do the same so they don't look like they're inferior, which starts the power creep.

Nothing says you HAVE to take PrC's. There's ways of doing almost any flavor you want with base classes. Granted, not all of them may be the most efficent in terms of combat power, but who is to say that combat power > all? What if you're in a political intregue game, and resorting to violence is an almost guarenteed FAIL?

A large part of the problem isn't that PrC's are required, it's that most GM's set up their campaigns in such a way that it is almost always more beneficial to get them, or even worse, the power level is so high that you HAVE to have them.