Classes that should be Prc's [Archive] - Wizards Community

Classes that should be Prc's [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
thasis
03-08-05, 10:00 AM I personally am a little tired of people creating classes that could be made as Prc's. Hell they probally would be better as Prc's. Classes I always thought were supposed to be generic classes, with the exception of the Monk and Paladin (but even they can fit into a lot of diffrent roles). Classes that are specilizing in a specific acpect of arcane magic, or a specific group should be made Prc's. I'm not saying that all these classes arn't cool, and I'm not saying that they're not balanced, but do they realy need to be a Core (Base, or whatever ya want to call it) Class?
Yak of Darkness
03-08-05, 10:08 AM *shrug* When WotC makes specialized classes, people complain that they should be PrCs. When WotC makes PrCs, people complain that there are too many out there and that people can make do with base classes. When WotC makes neither, people complain that they can't adequately play the image of their character without a bunch of multiclassing, abilities they don't want, a sub-par build that sucks compared to the rest of the party, and possibly favored class XP penalties.

Quite frankly, I'm of the mind that if there's a base class written for a player's image of his character and the DM approves it, it's a best-case situation for everyone. If you don't like it, don't use optional splat book rules (optional both because they're not in the core rules, and because their purpose is to provide the players with more options).

If you really want something to be a PrC instead of a base class, use the mechanics WotC give you to make it so. It's what I'm doing with the Spellthief and it can work for you.
spamfiltre
03-08-05, 10:18 AM The problem is that people don't look at their fighter2/rogue3 as someone who is good at fighting from the shadows and stealthily infiltrating enemy camps. Because levels represent rather large blocks of a character's career, they see someone who trained as a fighter and decided to become a thief.

On the other hand, the Navy S.E.A.L. character class is obviously someone who has trained to fight stealthily from the beginning.

The same goes for PrCs. A character essentially has to be something else in order to qualify for what the player wants to begin with. I have yet to play in a campaign that has characters advance beyond 10th level. That might not be typical, but when presented with an option to build a class that is what they want from level 1, rather than wait 5 or 8 levels for a PrC, many players are going to devise their own class. In the current classed system, I think multiclassing works very well, but some people can't get beyond the idea that THIS level they are training as a rogue, instead of looking at it as a progression.

WotC has picked up on this, and has started creating core classes that are a hodge-podge of abilities (the mimic one from a recent splatbook comes to mind) to cater to the needs of people who can't stand to level up and switch to advancement in another class.

As long as the class system is in place, you will see this problem. Only when you can advance a character's abilities independently of any traditional career archetype will you see this problem go away.

Reality check: it's not going to happen because WotC's gravy train is splat books, and they are mostly new PrCs and races with the occasional core class.

So to sum up, I agree that many classes should be PrCs, but I also understand someone's desire to create a class that fits their character concept from the beginning. If classes went away, the new munchkin character class of the week (day, hour, minute...) would go away as well.
DM Zoc
03-08-05, 10:26 AM In this aspect at least, second edition got it right. Kits allowed people the flavor and unique abilities they wanted at first level. As much as it makes sense rules-wise to make a barbarian prestige class, it makes no sense that you would have started from a fighter and "become" uncivilized.

I'm all in favor of paladin being a fighter/cleric prestige class, though.

I guess it goes back to the 3E philosophy that you're not really established until 7th level or so. Like how an expert with ranks in Tailor is just considered an apprentice, you can consider that the military training and the religious training were just your apprenticeship until you became a real paladin at level 7, or whatever.

All that being said, I'm in favor of making prestige classes into core classes for those who want to play them (banning prestige classes as a mechanic altogether).
Kolo
03-08-05, 10:41 AM I agree with the decisions made so far concerning prc/base class division. A common theme in PrC's is that there is a specific organization attached; the order of the bow initiate is most certainly a member of the order of the bow. Alternatively, PrC's focus on specialized aspects of the class; For instance, the bard and the differently focused PrC's presented in complete arcane for the bard, and also for the wizard. And then there's the tranformational PrC's, which has no equivalent among the core classes- the only classes that come under the heading transformational (Acolyte of the Skin, Dragon Disciple) are prestige classes.

On the other hand, we have the core classes, which although specialized have not only many generic abilities but also are not specifically attached to any organization-and some are not even specialized at all (fighter and rogue come to mind). Even clerics and paladins have a lot of freedom in that regard, even though they must adhere to a certain code of conduct. Even classes that seem specialized turn out to be very generic at a closer look; the paladin doesn't have to wear only heavy armor and can use his mount as a fighting companion rather than ride it in battle, the monk has many combat styles and weapons to choose from and the ranger can be anything from a sniper to a melee skirmisher/battlefield medic to a long-range forward scout. Even later inclusions, such as the Hexblade, Warlock and Ninja, follow this concept of flexible usage not commonly found (if at all) amongst the PrC's.

Also, as for the NAVY-seal example spamfiltre brought up; keep in mind that the navy seal has undergone a large and varied amount of normal military training before joining the s.e.a.ls. as such, the s.e.a.l could be a PrC (and very prestigous it is) with a common lead to the class being the "U.S. Marine" base class to represent this background training. Also, this explains why everyone doesn't just enter the Navy S.E.A.L class right away- you need some expertise before you can even think about it. You don't just join the army and enroll in the program.
Yak of Darkness
03-08-05, 10:50 AM All that being said, I'm in favor of making prestige classes into core classes for those who want to play them (banning prestige classes as a mechanic altogether).
I agree with most of your post, but I have to take issue with this--I think there is still a place in the game for prestige classes, just not the "alternate archetype" or "multiclassing patch" kind.

An "advanced specialist," someone like the Spellthief, Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, or possibly even the Archmage fits better as a prestige class (IMO) than a base class. These aren't really roles that seem to fit something you can do from the beginning and instead would develop out of taking a specialized track through your career (like the Initiate's specialization in abjuration to a degree that few other wizards would). I can possibly see abilities like this working like the UA alternate monk fighting styles (where you choose a style that changes your abilities as you level up), but for something like a wizard with few real class abilities, it works fine to have them take feats off the beaten path (Greater Spell Focus {Abjuration}???) in order to reap the rewards of the PrC down the line.

The "transformational" PrCs, like Dragon Disciple, Greenstar Adept, Cancer Mage, and Elemental Savant can't really work as base classes either, but the PrC format is perfect for starting someone at level one and having them explore arcane secrets that fundamentally change them as they level. They work well, and they can make for nifty stories.

The "guild member" PrCs (I'm thinking Mage of the Arcane Order here) also work well in their current form. Now for many cases, you can just RP the joining of a guild, with dues paid and tests taken in the game, with the payoff of connections willing to house you/give you jobs/give you info/otherwise help you out as the reward. However, for guilds centered around major abilities, like the MotAO's spellpool, giving a player free access to something like this without the more formal PrC entry structure could severely hack off the other players at the table.

Still, I'm with you on the idea that PrCs that could be serviceable as base classes tend to work out better that way, and appreciate the new base classes because of it.
Arcane Guyver
03-08-05, 11:24 AM New base classes are ok, as long as there's a reason why the class shouldn't be prestigious. As of this point, the only ones that don't pass for me are the Hexblade and Spellthief. Most of the other classes I can see being useful in multiple situations, and be trained from a young age. The PsyWar would have made the list if Mr. Cordell hadn't given it a fairly unique power list and manifesting stat.
Thanatos02
03-08-05, 11:57 AM Yak brings up a good point, but I'd like to suggest another catagory, the "iconic" PrC. This is a PrC that was created because it's something like a Swashbuckler or a Ninja or a Samurai that doesn't always cross over from a players concept to a Base class. The rules, being rather straight foward, don't allow for certain degrees of cusomization - for example, you can't switch Base Saves, you can't raise or lower Hit Die, and you can't increase Skill Points per level. The best you can do is hope they've printed a Feat that allows you to spend one of your prescious Feats to allow you to fix the problem.

Now, I actually think this is a good thing in many ways, because I believe this is what Feats were meant to do - not always give you video-game like fighting techniques, but represent something that made your character special. However, new base classes give you something to work with, added flexability until someone comes up with a decent point-construciton system. (Hint, I'm working on it. ^___^)

Of course, I got a couple in my sig. Merciless Pimping Techniques! (I took a Feat to be able to do it!)
Clawhound
03-08-05, 02:04 PM There are many "iconic" hero types out there, not just the basic ones in the books. I very much enjoy the swashbuckler and the scout classes. These both make sense to me.

You also have different ages/empires/cultures to deal with. Do you want a realistic samurai or a wire-fu samurai? Is a Roman officer a fighter or some type of noble? What would a musketeer be? Should wizards look different or have diffent abilities in a magic limited world?

You can better fit a setting with a core class, rather than a prestige class. You can better ensure that a core class is well balanced. You can ensure that the entire class synergizes well, and has a reason to keep advancing.

Finally, some abilities are not available as feats, nor do they work as feats. In these cases, you are left needing either classes or prestige classes to handle the ability.

If you consider that the PHB consists of races, classes, equipment, combat rules, and spells, it's not a big stretch to think that supplements will deal with races, classes, equipment, combat rules, and spells.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
thasis 03-08-05, 10:00 AM	I personally am a little tired of people creating classes that could be made as Prc's. Hell they probally would be better as Prc's. Classes I always thought were supposed to be generic classes, with the exception of the Monk and Paladin (but even they can fit into a lot of diffrent roles). Classes that are specilizing in a specific acpect of arcane magic, or a specific group should be made Prc's. I'm not saying that all these classes arn't cool, and I'm not saying that they're not balanced, but do they realy need to be a Core (Base, or whatever ya want to call it) Class?
Yak of Darkness 03-08-05, 10:08 AM	shrug When WotC makes specialized classes, people complain that they should be PrCs. When WotC makes PrCs, people complain that there are too many out there and that people can make do with base classes. When WotC makes neither, people complain that they can't adequately play the image of their character without a bunch of multiclassing, abilities they don't want, a sub-par build that sucks compared to the rest of the party, and possibly favored class XP penalties. Quite frankly, I'm of the mind that if there's a base class written for a player's image of his character and the DM approves it, it's a best-case situation for everyone. If you don't like it, don't use optional splat book rules (optional both because they're not in the core rules, and because their purpose is to provide the players with more options). If you really want something to be a PrC instead of a base class, use the mechanics WotC give you to make it so. It's what I'm doing with the Spellthief and it can work for you.
spamfiltre 03-08-05, 10:18 AM	The problem is that people don't look at their fighter2/rogue3 as someone who is good at fighting from the shadows and stealthily infiltrating enemy camps. Because levels represent rather large blocks of a character's career, they see someone who trained as a fighter and decided to become a thief. On the other hand, the Navy S.E.A.L. character class is obviously someone who has trained to fight stealthily from the beginning. The same goes for PrCs. A character essentially has to be something else in order to qualify for what the player wants to begin with. I have yet to play in a campaign that has characters advance beyond 10th level. That might not be typical, but when presented with an option to build a class that is what they want from level 1, rather than wait 5 or 8 levels for a PrC, many players are going to devise their own class. In the current classed system, I think multiclassing works very well, but some people can't get beyond the idea that THIS level they are training as a rogue, instead of looking at it as a progression. WotC has picked up on this, and has started creating core classes that are a hodge-podge of abilities (the mimic one from a recent splatbook comes to mind) to cater to the needs of people who can't stand to level up and switch to advancement in another class. As long as the class system is in place, you will see this problem. Only when you can advance a character's abilities independently of any traditional career archetype will you see this problem go away. Reality check: it's not going to happen because WotC's gravy train is splat books, and they are mostly new PrCs and races with the occasional core class. So to sum up, I agree that many classes should be PrCs, but I also understand someone's desire to create a class that fits their character concept from the beginning. If classes went away, the new munchkin character class of the week (day, hour, minute...) would go away as well.
DM Zoc 03-08-05, 10:26 AM	In this aspect at least, second edition got it right. Kits allowed people the flavor and unique abilities they wanted at first level. As much as it makes sense rules-wise to make a barbarian prestige class, it makes no sense that you would have started from a fighter and "become" uncivilized. I'm all in favor of paladin being a fighter/cleric prestige class, though. I guess it goes back to the 3E philosophy that you're not really established until 7th level or so. Like how an expert with ranks in Tailor is just considered an apprentice, you can consider that the military training and the religious training were just your apprenticeship until you became a real paladin at level 7, or whatever. All that being said, I'm in favor of making prestige classes into core classes for those who want to play them (banning prestige classes as a mechanic altogether).
Kolo 03-08-05, 10:41 AM	I agree with the decisions made so far concerning prc/base class division. A common theme in PrC's is that there is a specific organization attached; the order of the bow initiate is most certainly a member of the order of the bow. Alternatively, PrC's focus on specialized aspects of the class; For instance, the bard and the differently focused PrC's presented in complete arcane for the bard, and also for the wizard. And then there's the tranformational PrC's, which has no equivalent among the core classes- the only classes that come under the heading transformational (Acolyte of the Skin, Dragon Disciple) are prestige classes. On the other hand, we have the core classes, which although specialized have not only many generic abilities but also are not specifically attached to any organization-and some are not even specialized at all (fighter and rogue come to mind). Even clerics and paladins have a lot of freedom in that regard, even though they must adhere to a certain code of conduct. Even classes that seem specialized turn out to be very generic at a closer look; the paladin doesn't have to wear only heavy armor and can use his mount as a fighting companion rather than ride it in battle, the monk has many combat styles and weapons to choose from and the ranger can be anything from a sniper to a melee skirmisher/battlefield medic to a long-range forward scout. Even later inclusions, such as the Hexblade, Warlock and Ninja, follow this concept of flexible usage not commonly found (if at all) amongst the PrC's. Also, as for the NAVY-seal example spamfiltre brought up; keep in mind that the navy seal has undergone a large and varied amount of normal military training before joining the s.e.a.ls. as such, the s.e.a.l could be a PrC (and very prestigous it is) with a common lead to the class being the "U.S. Marine" base class to represent this background training. Also, this explains why everyone doesn't just enter the Navy S.E.A.L class right away- you need some expertise before you can even think about it. You don't just join the army and enroll in the program.
Yak of Darkness 03-08-05, 10:50 AM	All that being said, I'm in favor of making prestige classes into core classes for those who want to play them (banning prestige classes as a mechanic altogether). I agree with most of your post, but I have to take issue with this--I think there is still a place in the game for prestige classes, just not the "alternate archetype" or "multiclassing patch" kind. An "advanced specialist," someone like the Spellthief, Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, or possibly even the Archmage fits better as a prestige class (IMO) than a base class. These aren't really roles that seem to fit something you can do from the beginning and instead would develop out of taking a specialized track through your career (like the Initiate's specialization in abjuration to a degree that few other wizards would). I can possibly see abilities like this working like the UA alternate monk fighting styles (where you choose a style that changes your abilities as you level up), but for something like a wizard with few real class abilities, it works fine to have them take feats off the beaten path (Greater Spell Focus {Abjuration}???) in order to reap the rewards of the PrC down the line. The "transformational" PrCs, like Dragon Disciple, Greenstar Adept, Cancer Mage, and Elemental Savant can't really work as base classes either, but the PrC format is perfect for starting someone at level one and having them explore arcane secrets that fundamentally change them as they level. They work well, and they can make for nifty stories. The "guild member" PrCs (I'm thinking Mage of the Arcane Order here) also work well in their current form. Now for many cases, you can just RP the joining of a guild, with dues paid and tests taken in the game, with the payoff of connections willing to house you/give you jobs/give you info/otherwise help you out as the reward. However, for guilds centered around major abilities, like the MotAO's spellpool, giving a player free access to something like this without the more formal PrC entry structure could severely hack off the other players at the table. Still, I'm with you on the idea that PrCs that could be serviceable as base classes tend to work out better that way, and appreciate the new base classes because of it.
Arcane Guyver 03-08-05, 11:24 AM	New base classes are ok, as long as there's a reason why the class shouldn't be prestigious. As of this point, the only ones that don't pass for me are the Hexblade and Spellthief. Most of the other classes I can see being useful in multiple situations, and be trained from a young age. The PsyWar would have made the list if Mr. Cordell hadn't given it a fairly unique power list and manifesting stat.
Thanatos02 03-08-05, 11:57 AM	Yak brings up a good point, but I'd like to suggest another catagory, the "iconic" PrC. This is a PrC that was created because it's something like a Swashbuckler or a Ninja or a Samurai that doesn't always cross over from a players concept to a Base class. The rules, being rather straight foward, don't allow for certain degrees of cusomization - for example, you can't switch Base Saves, you can't raise or lower Hit Die, and you can't increase Skill Points per level. The best you can do is hope they've printed a Feat that allows you to spend one of your prescious Feats to allow you to fix the problem. Now, I actually think this is a good thing in many ways, because I believe this is what Feats were meant to do - not always give you video-game like fighting techniques, but represent something that made your character special. However, new base classes give you something to work with, added flexability until someone comes up with a decent point-construciton system. (Hint, I'm working on it. ^___^) Of course, I got a couple in my sig. Merciless Pimping Techniques! (I took a Feat to be able to do it!)
Clawhound 03-08-05, 02:04 PM	There are many "iconic" hero types out there, not just the basic ones in the books. I very much enjoy the swashbuckler and the scout classes. These both make sense to me. You also have different ages/empires/cultures to deal with. Do you want a realistic samurai or a wire-fu samurai? Is a Roman officer a fighter or some type of noble? What would a musketeer be? Should wizards look different or have diffent abilities in a magic limited world? You can better fit a setting with a core class, rather than a prestige class. You can better ensure that a core class is well balanced. You can ensure that the entire class synergizes well, and has a reason to keep advancing. Finally, some abilities are not available as feats, nor do they work as feats. In these cases, you are left needing either classes or prestige classes to handle the ability. If you consider that the PHB consists of races, classes, equipment, combat rules, and spells, it's not a big stretch to think that supplements will deal with races, classes, equipment, combat rules, and spells.