| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| The Sage |
Posted - 24 Jul 2003 : 15:19:35
This was just something I was thinking about after I left my last exam for today -
Were prestige classes invented just for the power hungry gamer?
At it's most basic (at least according to 3e DMG, and Monte Cook's idea) a PrC is supposed to build and specify on your characters background and abilities. Somewhere along the way though some of these classes went from being a basic building block to a power gamers best friend.
Just what exactly is the purpose of these classes?
Are they simply tools to make your PC harder than it would normally be by adding more depth to your characters chosen direction?. Or should you just stick to a single class?.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this?.
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 28 Jul 2003 : 02:56:56
I think they also offer some exciting 3e Netbook project as well too. I remember reading through the NetBook on Time. It was a great addition piece to the accessory Chronomancy for AD&D.
|
| Salabasha |
Posted - 28 Jul 2003 : 02:53:40
In response to the prestige classes that are to powerful. I heard that the Spirit Warrior (Basically makes you a DBZ character  ) is quite powerful.
I stumbled across the Orc Grunt and he is quite sweet.
If you want a list of new classes click on the link www.community3e.com That is where I get them. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 28 Jul 2003 : 02:44:32
I have never really changed many D&D rulings unless I could find no particular way to ignore or replace it. Even then I only really consider changing it if that ruling is going to cause more than one or two problems during game play, otherwise I just leave it as is.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 28 Jul 2003 : 02:43:35
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Typically I have found when people come up with alternate rules, it usually is not much better than the original rule... it just makes that person feel better and rids them of frustration. I have never really changed rules, just systems. IF there was a rule I didn't like I never changed it, just eliminated or ignored it.
No . . . must . . . mess . . . with . . . rules!
|
| Mournblade |
Posted - 27 Jul 2003 : 20:46:37
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
I don't know. I think this is possibly overpowered. I can't tell for sure, though, without playtesting it. (Something I can't do.)
Aha, someone who realizes they can't gauge game rules at a glance better than massed playtesters and professional game designers. Amazing how many messageboard posters think they can.
Typically I have found when people come up with alternate rules, it usually is not much better than the original rule... it just makes that person feel better and rids them of frustration. I have never really changed rules, just systems. IF there was a rule I didn't like I never changed it, just eliminated or ignored it.
|
| Faraer |
Posted - 27 Jul 2003 : 18:35:32
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
I don't know. I think this is possibly overpowered. I can't tell for sure, though, without playtesting it. (Something I can't do.)
Aha, someone who realizes they can't gauge game rules at a glance better than massed playtesters and professional game designers. Amazing how many messageboard posters think they can. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Jul 2003 : 13:14:10
The 'ultimate expression of spellcasting combinations' I believe they said when they first previewed the class back in 2001.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 27 Jul 2003 : 13:07:36
I don't know. I think this is possibly overpowered. I can't tell for sure, though, without playtesting it. (Something I can't do.) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Jul 2003 : 12:34:20
No, I was wrong. It was previously posted on the WotC website. I'll find the older version and provide a link for it, for those who may be interested.
Okay, here is the link for this class.
Enjoy  .
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Jul 2003 : 12:33:12
It is from the 3.5 DMG, but before the revision I believe it was in another product...possinly FR. I'll try the listing.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 27 Jul 2003 : 12:30:51
What's that one from? |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Jul 2003 : 12:11:25
The Mystic Theurge PrC is interesting, but this particular class seems to generate a lot of negative opinions on other forums. I am curious as to what others think about it here.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 27 Jul 2003 : 10:49:35
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Also have you seen the AVALANCHE press stuff? This company irritates me becasue they ALWAYS sell their product with a pretty girl on the cover. For example they had a NORSE supplement, with a picture of a typical comic girl heavy metal blonde, with skin tight leather armour, a bow and a ... KATANA???? OH! how VIKING of them! Worthless supplement.
Ring of Rant Repulsion!
You've ranted on that before. However, I still agree with you. If they can't pay enough attention to actual historical record, then I don't pay any to them. Same goes for all those other oddities -- such as Viking helmets with horns on them (the real Norsemen didn't do that) or armor that couldn't possibly protect the wearer.
The latter usually ends up on a female body, too. I find that insulting, myself. It's as if they think all men prefer female skin to getting such things right. And this is true even for actual TSR/Wizards material. Look at the cover for the 2e FR Guide to the Savage Frontier. All I can say about that one is that at least it's an equal-opportunity exposed-flesh freezing. 
Hmm, maybe I need to borrow that ring myself. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Jul 2003 : 08:02:59
The Blackguard is indeed an official PrC. It is detailed in the 3e/3.5e DMG.
|
| MuadDib |
Posted - 27 Jul 2003 : 07:33:01
Apologies for the late reply:
It was indeed the BlackGuard I was talking about that I thought was too powerful. I dont know if he is an official one or not, I just saw him on the shadows of Undrentide website |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Jul 2003 : 03:04:53
I agree, although sometimes I find myself looking over the older kits, especially in some of my Planescape material. Some of those kits were really balanced and well constructed. These are things I hope are made into PrC when the 3e setting is finally released.
Just before I go, Mournblade, are those AVALANCHE press people the same people who published those 'Norse' and 'Greek' pantheon books a while back?.
|
| Mournblade |
Posted - 26 Jul 2003 : 20:25:30
I always liked Ed's work, but since I am not playing in HIS game, and since he is not the master of the REALMS campaign I run, I am not too concerned if I am playing his D&D or not. the 3e system is radically different from the 2e system. I find that Prestige Classes are far better than Kits in most cases, and I do not think that Prestige Classes are put out due to a lack of creativity on anyone's part. The prestige classes are OPTIONAL and there are plenty I do not allow. In fact I pore over texts analyzing the balance and then I decide. If a class is unbalanced but a nice concept I might keep it. The converse is true. If the PrC is balanced but a lousy concept, I just won't allow it even if it will have no game bearing. I try to fit the PrC's into the realms, and If I can't then I scrap them. I found the PrC's in sword and fist to have to many SOCIETY prestige classes. SOme I was able to fit into the realms, and some I scrapped because I could not find a place for them.
I forgot to mention the PrC's in most of the Quintessential books are completely off the wall balance wise and concept wise.
Also have you seen the AVALANCHE press stuff? This company irritates me becasue they ALWAYS sell their product with a pretty girl on the cover. For example they had a NORSE supplement, with a picture of a typical comic girl heavy metal blonde, with skin tight leather armour, a bow and a ... KATANA???? OH! how VIKING of them! Worthless supplement.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 26 Jul 2003 : 11:28:24
And you would probably be right as well . Although I have been studying the revisions to the Dweomer Keeper PrC that will soon be released. I must say that this is an impressive reworking.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 26 Jul 2003 : 09:43:49
Maybe the question should be: "Which prestige classes are actually worth using?"
(Bet I know which one Sage likes the most! ) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 26 Jul 2003 : 08:22:11
I actually felt the same way when I looked over the Master Harper PrC. It seemed so overpowered, and it really devalued - at least for me - what a Harper is supposed to represent.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 26 Jul 2003 : 06:55:17
I have to agree with that Harper Scout bit. It's a bad representation of the Harpers. Sure, a Harper might pick up some interesting things along the way, but that PrC is just off. It's balanced game-wise, but not in the story. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 25 Jul 2003 : 16:07:25
Roleplaying says 'you can make you own art/entertainment'. Then a lot of supplements implicitly say, 'You're not a professional author or actor. You can't be expected to make an interesting character. Here are some nice simple discreet prestige classes/feats/clans/factions/races/templates that will make your character stand out.' It's blatantly insulting, and it demeans the source material by transforming nuances and tendencies into simple categories -- the most absurd of example of that is (I'm not sure this is so in current material) in Vampire: The Masquerade the Toreador clan is literally divided into two factions, the Artistes and the Poseurs.
And in order that some players not feel deprived because the other guy has a prestige class but none suits their character concept, a lot of them are trumped up with even less cause than others. The Harper scout: Harpers don't get special abilities beyond being rangers, bards, mages, or whatever. The slicer class for the Star Wars RPG: all those extraneous mechanics when all you need is a Slicing skill. And so on. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 25 Jul 2003 : 15:52:14
Faraer said -
quote:
they buy into the con that you make your character interesting with rules gimmicks instead of how you play 'em.
Well put Faraer. I can agree with this. To me, the more plain and bland a player, the more likely he will chose a PrC. Instead of utilising the particular abilities of the character class you already have to their fullest potential, you have some players willing to abandon that and settle for rule-defined character roles, instead of player-defined character roles.
|
| Faraer |
Posted - 25 Jul 2003 : 15:36:55
Some reasons I don't like prestige classes (I've posted them elsewhere):
they promote the PC-power-centric type of sourcebook which retards the roleplaying industry by limiting it to a mentality only some people have, and they consume sourcebooks (and design man-hours) with material that's of little use to other play styles
they're bad ways of defining a lot of character types because they only work with mid- and high-level characters
they rarely allow a character to do anything not already possible in the rules, and so are 'bad' game design because D&D represents everything twice (once with abilities, classes and levels; once with skill and attack bonuses and saving throws). They often have abilities driven by game- rather than world-oriented thinking.
they're inevitably less well balanced than the core classes which, for a system that theoretically takes a lot of the DM's 'burden' onto the rules, means the DM must be alert for munchkin combinations
by being more powerful than core classes they weaken the archetypes and the core of the game at the expense of supplements (that cost money)
they buy into the con that you make your character interesting with rules gimmicks instead of how you play 'em.
the ethos of what character types are appropriate for prestige classes has been variable and incoherent since the concept was introduced
Above all this, they just come out of a very different kind of D&D than the one Ed plays, and so the one that fits the Realms. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 25 Jul 2003 : 09:51:34
The PrC's from the 'Quintessential Guides' are among the worst. The most troubling aspect about those classes at least for me, is that most of my players normally look to these guides for ideas as to what PrC to select.
I have never really thought that much about the Alienist PrC from Tome and Blood either. There was a kit in 2e Planescape that was similar to this idea, but it was far better designed and was not so bland. I think it was in the Guide to Hell supplement, although I could be wrong about that.
|
| zemd |
Posted - 25 Jul 2003 : 09:01:56
I think the Wotc PrC are quite well balanced. They allow players to add more depth to their characters. On the contrary, some prestige class from D20 books are far too much munchkin PrC (I'm thinking of the Quintessential guides!).
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 25 Jul 2003 : 08:29:25
I haven't really studied most of the other PrCs, since I haven't been thinking about playing anything other than a wizard, an archer, or a duelist (the latter after seeing the PrC of the same name).
However, how about the Drunken Master? Don't you think that one's a bit . . . off? |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 25 Jul 2003 : 07:02:47
THe hokey PrC come from the CLASS SPECIFIC books I think. Generally there are good PrC's in these books, but each one has one or two that I think are very poorly designed. The Dragon Disciple and Blood magus are two that come to mind. The other books had some I don't like, for instance the exorcist I thought was a little pointless, but not overbalanced. BUT if you wanted this very specific type of character go for it. I guess I am thinking that the Tome and Blood had some of the worst PrC. I can't think of any from the other books right off the bat, so they could not of left that bad of an impression on me:)
 |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 25 Jul 2003 : 06:55:17
I have to agree with that, Mournblade. I believe that much of anything else I would say would just be repeating you. Of course, I've seen some hokey PrCs in Wizards-published material, too. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 24 Jul 2003 : 23:09:39
I think there are some very carelessly designed prestige classes out there, mostly form independent d20 publishers, but in general I think they are excellent for character depth. Before in D&D, an archmage was just a very powerful wizard of 18th level or higher (someone who could cast 9th level spells). Now it actually MEANS something to be an archmage. If a DM is competent and knows the system, there is NOTHING that can overbalacne his/her game. A powergamer has no chance in my game, because I have it WAY under control.
Also prestige classes give you great benefits but you sacrifice some core benefits. Lets take an arcane archer at level 10. THe abilities are sweet yes. But she cannot be that high a level in mage, and must sacrifice spells. She needs a minimum attack bonus of +6 so she must be a 6th level fighter minimum or 12th level mage. Of course you would combine these, but my point is, you need prerequisites to balance it, and also must take into account the abilities they lose. So a FTR6/WIZ4/ARC10 is not going to have alot of devastating spells. Sure imbue arrow is nice, but if you want a nice area effect spell to add to it, again you have to sacrifice on fighter FEAT/AB. I think the good prestige classes work out. I have found alot of the hokey ones are from Dragon Magazine, or independent publishers.
|
