Pestige classes - Opportunity for roleplaying or for power? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Pestige classes - Opportunity for roleplaying or for power? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Trydan
11-26-03, 10:35 AM My query is based on a post in another thread (Call for a new Min/Max standard (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1931781#post1931781)) where there was discussion about whether or not taking the odd level here and there of multiple prestige classes was valid.

Now one of the replies (the one I've highlighted in the link) suggested that Prestige Classes give more opportunities for role-playing. Well... this surprised me, coming from the CO board (where Barbarian 1/ Fighter 1/ Ranger 3/ Horizon Walker 1/ Frenzied Berserker 10/ Holy Liberator 3/ X 1 is perfectly reasonable - for an example, see The 3.5 Barbarian thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=111360#post1521894))

However, rather than getting flamed for mentioning the "RP" on the CO board ;), I thought I'd start the debate here. So... how would you answer the following two questions:
[list=1]
Do you take prestige classes for power or role-playing reasons?
What do you consider to be the maximum reasonable number of prestige classes?
[/list=1]
Ranthanas
11-26-03, 11:58 AM It depends entirely on the PrC which I take it for. The ones I take for raw power are the "multiclass patches"- the Arcane Trickster, the Mystic Theurge, the Eldritch Knight, the Spellsword (maybe not), the Loremaster.

Ones where you don't actually need the PrC to be a viable character, but if you don't take the PrC you are going to be near impossibly weak. (Fighter 10/Wizard 10 is not a really viable build. Fighter 4/Wizard 6/Eldritch Knight is (although I'd tweak it a little on top of that).

I don't In Game take classes like the Templar unless I'm planning on defending temples- the organisational PrCs must be taken for RP reasons. (Red Wizard of Thay is perhaps a better example than Templar- I have never had a red wizard character and have no plans to take one). This doesn't stop me proposing them on the Character Optimisation board.

The remainder (Deepwood Sniper is a good example) I take for a mixture of reasons- a ranger who specialises in the longbow often ends up as something akin to a DWS with or without the class. DWS makes a better archer than straight ranger and it's roughly what I'm RPing anyway so I head for that. Possibly this slightly warps my RP (or more likely my feat selection).

A final and perhaps minor category is the kid who always wanted to be a bladesinger when he grew up. There, the character is often in it for the power. (Whether the player is is another story). Also remember that a person regularly risking life and limb will want to be as sure of surviving as possible.

It's not an either or question.

As for the maximum number of PrCs, in a 20 level build I'd say 19. It simply depends how the character develops.

On the other hand, I started out with a classless system (GURPS) and tend to prefer classless systems over class based ones. If you are constrained to a class one, using many separate classes to approach your vision is a good thing if there is no class that quite fits. You might even get a diletante character, who picks up one hobby and puts it down fairly soon (although you'd probably call him a bard :) )
Kolo
11-26-03, 12:05 PM 1. Why not both? :)

I like taking them for RP purposes mostly... Occasionally, I'll even make a character that learns a prestige class he doesn't WANT to learn, and thus quits later (reasons can be family and school and even sadistic former masters). A character's complex personality and history is all more apparent if he has a variety of skills and abilities to go with it. It doesn't hurt if he's all the better at doing his job while he's at it either. :D

2. There isn't one, really... As long as the character is properly played out to be or have been a member of all of them. I hate seeing characters with levels of (for example) Holy Liberator never actually behaving as if they believe in any of the Liberator's tenets.

Also important is the character's outlook on life and how other members of the same PrC's look at them for having just skimmed the surface of their teachings, so to speak. a 1-level Hospitaler or Sacred Fist is obviously not going to endear himself to other members of these classes if he's simply quit and gone on to do something else...

Plenty of plot hooks, adventures and RP opportunities there.

(On a side note, I notice that there are very few DM's out there that actually seem to use these "built-in" hooks in their campaigns- sometimes you don't even meet anyone of the same prestige class as you or even hear about them much. Am I wrong or are the DM's I know just too stuck on pulp-adventure gaming?)
Basaxerxes the First
11-26-03, 04:27 PM Well now...

1) Certainly the role-playing aspect is the major reason I've gone after prestige classes. My druid has just started taking levels of Animal Lord (from MotW), which actually weakens him in some ways, since he can't get access to the higher level druid spells through the prestige class. The only other prestige class I've ever taken was Undead Hunter, and that was for a fighter type who lost a loved one to a vampire.

2) Trickier question. Part of me would say one or two at most, on the grounds that prestige classes are supposed to be special, but on the other hand, if the player can justify taking more than that, I don't see why not. I'm with Kolo, though, as far as having the charater played properly for all his/her prestige classes in concerned.
Poukis
11-26-03, 04:32 PM I too take PrC mostly for rp reasons... Actually when I am making a character I envision him in the future and try to think of a PrC that would suit him... About the number of PrC... I think it's a bit strange to take levels in many PrC's since most of the time you are joining organizations and have to agree to "strict", well sometims not so, rules. Of course I don't believe that one could take levels in opposed PrCs like a harper/red wizard. If there is a backround that can coer it I would consider to take a maximum of two PrCs... I think it would be really difficult for a character to take more and be able to do what everyone (every other member of the PrC) expects him to do.
phaedron
11-26-03, 05:58 PM I don't buy it. All deference to Basaxerxes, but very few people I know take a PrC that they think will make their character weaker. I admit it, I take them for power. They make my PC cooler and tougher. Why would I ever want to take one that I thought sucked? Once I've decided what I want to do, then it's fun to spin out the RP side of it, but that's just our way as players of rationalizing why our PCs make their choices. Nothing wrong with it, coming up with a fun character story to make sense out of your power gaming choices is part of the game.
Crusher Nate
11-26-03, 07:53 PM I have to disagree with Phaedron. I was planning on making my drow bard a Dragon Disciple and finish off his 20-level progression with a few Shadowdancer levels, but then some kooky curse changed his alignment to chaotic good. There's no reason not to take the build I had in mind initially, but I discovered a build I like better because it seems more fitting to the character. His new outlook on life got him to thinking that it's not all that cool to be a bard. Having lived all his life in drow society, he believed that all songs are about pain and oppression and betrayal. As a result, he stopped singing and decided to concentrate on healing.

He's now a Bard 2/Healer 1. I've got a new PrC in mind now (Virtuoso); this will, in the long run, result in an overall weaker character than I initially had in mind. But this is the decision that made the most sense RP-wise. He'll discover some cheerful and inspiring songs, and eventually learn to enjoy singing again. If his curse is lifted, he'll remember that he felt better as a good character and work to get back to a good alignment for real. And he may, in that case, be denied his healer abilities for a while until he returns to good. But I'm not worried about that, nor am I worried about his relatively low Wisdom (13). So he'll struggle a bit with his spells as he advances in level. I'll deal with that somehow.

So, this is a situation where a character is arguably made weaker by multiclassing and later choosing a prestige class just because it's "right for him." Keep in mind that as it stands he'll end up with around 80 HP (compared to about 100) and a +10 BAB (compared to +15), plus a wide but shallow pool of skills. Oh, and no better armor than studded leather. And yet I took my first couple of feats while planning to make a decent fighter. I still like the character and look forward to playing him more.

As for the second question, any number of prestige classes that can be justified in concept should be permissible. If you play it that PrC's represent specialized training by an organization, then that is a great balancing factor if you're looking for one. This'll justify you raising the requirements just to make the PC prove his loyalty to the second organization. It'll even justify you telling the player flat-out that he can't pick a new prestige class until he finishes one of the three he's already got. I personally don't see a problem with a PC having trouble deciding what he wants to do with his life, but then finding a way to use all the miscellaneous low-level stuff he's learned to make a 20-level progression that's stronger than the sum of its parts. I guess that's just me, though.
LiXinjian
11-26-03, 08:07 PM I take Prestige Classes primarily for roleplaying reason. I'll read the entry and if I like what the description says, I'll go on and read what abilities the PrC will grant. On the other hand, if I find the PrC's benefits are lame, I won't adopt it. Perhaps I'll just pick the roleplaying element of it but keep my class progression "normal".

I would never consider taking levels in a PrC if it's description doesn't match what I'm looking for. Especially not to abuse the game mechanics.

As far as having multiple PrC goes, I don't know. Having more than two regular classes seems already like a lot. As a DM, I would oppose to a player having more than one PrC, unless he could demonstrate how it fits with his character, and explain how the heck it could have happened. You don't have to take levels in the Red Wizard PrC to be a red wizard. Taking a PrC means (to the character, at least) investing a lot of time and energy towards a very specific and desireable goal. It's unlikely you would want to later change that goal. If you started taking karate classes, would you quit after reaching green belt, to start over in another discipline like judo? I don't think so, unless you happened to dislike karate in the first place.

I don't think the spirit of the game is well served by having characters taking more than one PrC. Those classes were included to bring some diversity and provide some measure of identity, not to abuse the game mechanics by finding a way to stock up on free feats. That's what I'd consider one PrC too many: the mechanically-abusive one.
Otto the Bugbear
11-26-03, 09:47 PM 1. I take PrCs, when I take them, for RP reasons. I know this may seem a little off coming from a C.O. board regular, but most of my PCs tend to be on the lower half of the party power levels. Recently, I've gone through a few PCs due to a few deaths or retirements, and the character's have varied from a high of 2 core classes and 2 PrCs to 1 core class to 3 core classes with no PrCs (currently). Mechanically, after playing my current character, he'd probably be just as well served with levels of bard and rogue instead of ranger, cleric and rogue, but that's not the history I'd imagined for him.

2. Any amount. I really don't see the point of counting things like this. A character isn't defined by what "classes" he has. I'd say to try a little experiment. Think of a character something like Ranger 2 / Rogue 5 / Cleric 3 / Thief Acrobat 2. Ignore the classes and levels from the top of a character's sheet (or cover them with your finger if you're afraid you might forget ;) ) and describe in a first person perspective this character's past. All the places he's seen, things he's done, NPCs he's met, adventures he's had. Also describe, in first person, some of the abilties and skills he has.

Now, is the skill set and abilities described only possible with that combination of classes? Nope, but many D&D players and DMs only see the number of classes at the top of some character sheet.

Now, does it really matter what's written on the top of that character sheet? Not to me. This, in a round about way, is one of the things wrong with class-based systems. Not that I want switch games, it's just a realization about D&D. The minute that something as limiting as a "class designation" comes into play, people start to pigeon hole characters into certain roles based on those classes. (By people, I mean as a general rule, not pointing fingers here.)

Is there a better way to do it? Probably. Do I have the answer? Not likely.

I must amend my "any amount" comment with two things. A) If there are serious conflicts within the PrCs, then there ends up being a problem. Wizard/Harper Mage was given as a great example, Assassin/Purple Knight is another good one. In either case, I'd say a character that attains one PrC, then later on gets the other, would likely lose all abilities associated with the previous one (except BAB, Saves, Hit Dice). For example, a Red Wizard comes to see the light and turns from his evil ways. After a long enought trial period and sponsorship, he may join the harpers and take levels in Harper Mage, but would lose all benefits of the Red Wizard PrC. Maybe that's the RP-centric view I have to taking PrCs in game, as opposed to putting them in a theoretical build like would be presented on the C.O. board.

B) Whatever the group as a whole deems okay. If the DM tries to enforce a No PrC rule, but the players all want multiple PrCs, maybe it's best to either have someone else DM, or try to work out a middle ground that everyone can be happy with.

Enough rambling.

Cheers

Otto :)
Otto the Bugbear
11-26-03, 09:56 PM I just wanted to add something else regarding the whole PrC issue.

I really dislike how WotC has railroaded the adoption of PrCs by having set requirements.

It does nothing for good RPing to say, "must have 5 ranks of these 3 skills, plus 2 feats, plus this special class ability (evasion, turning undead, etc.)"

A better system, and one that I think I'm going to adopt, is to change all the 'requirements' to 'suggested abilities'. In addition to that, the description, or "fluff", at the beginning of a PrC description should be something that a character has already hinted at following. Instead of taking levels of Holy Liberator, then acting like one, a character would act like one before he could take the PrC. To me, this would make it easier for a DM to okay a PrC for a character that's already acting in a way that is consistent with the PrC.

Anyone else dislike the hard requirements? See any problems with the new way I'm thinking of using?

I know there's always rule zero to allow that cat-burgler type character to take levels of thief-acrobat without meeting the requirments. I'm just looking for some input and problems that may arise.

Thanks

Cheers

Otto :)
MoogleEmpMog
11-26-03, 11:01 PM Personally, I tend to plan a class progression for effectiveness and then see what I can come up with in terms of the character's past and personality. I've actually found that this method makes better and more interesting PCs than the RP-first, PrC-later method, and the process of making the character's background is a lot of fun in and of itself.

(CO board regulars will note that I always try to include a suggested character background when I propose a build, mostly for my own enjoyment but also to help the person requesting it to get his DM to accept it).

Very rarely do I encounter an in-game event that will significantly alter my character's outlook or future advancement (and when I do, it's usually something I've worked out with the DM to move me to the next stage of my advancement). As such, I can progress my PCs along the path I originally laid out. Of course, I never rely on items for anything for just this reason.

In part, this is because the lethality of my current DM's campaign is on the high side (my PC is the only one who has made it from 1st to 8th level in our current run, and some of the other players are very good Min/Maxers in their own right). In part, it's because I enjoy being useful to the party.

In part, it's because I make cooler, more complex, more interesting characters when I do them this way.
hell0
11-27-03, 11:55 AM As was recently added into my signature, I tend to ignore whatever the flavor text of the PrC says and just look at the abilities. Before I make the build, I come up with some sort of story and then (try) to get a progression that can do it.

But, to each their own. I have frequently been called a power gamer by those who wish to roleplay something other than a very skilled archer when I had a deepwood sniper/order of the bow initiate/peerless archer. Was it justified? Probably not. But, I can't agree with someone who believes they cannot take a level of a class before they take a week-long (ingame) hiatus to study on the arcane arts. IMHO, PrC's give players a chance to roleplay their character to the fullest. They shouldn't set a defining set of actions for the character to roleplay, though, because that takes away from the creativity of the player and gives some players an excuse not to roleplay their character (instead, a prestige class).
hell0
11-27-03, 11:55 AM As was recently added into my signature, I tend to ignore whatever the flavor text of the PrC says and just look at the abilities. Before I make the build, I come up with some sort of story and then (try) to get a progression that can do it.

But, to each their own. I have frequently been called a power gamer by those who wish to roleplay something other than a very skilled archer when I had a deepwood sniper/order of the bow initiate/peerless archer. Was it justified? Probably not. But, I can't agree with someone who believes they cannot take a level of a class before they take a week-long (ingame) hiatus to study on the arcane arts. IMHO, PrC's give players a chance to roleplay their character to the fullest. They shouldn't set a defining set of actions for the character to roleplay, though, because that takes away from the creativity of the player and gives some players an excuse not to roleplay their character (instead, a prestige class).
Israfel666
11-27-03, 04:59 PM It doesn't happen often, but I don't have anything to say about my view on PrCs that has not been said by Ranthanas. I agree with him wholeheartedly and totally; the only difference between me and I is that I started with Vampire, not GURPS, but otherwise, if you want to know my opinion on the matter just go check his post. ;)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Trydan 11-26-03, 10:35 AM	My query is based on a post in another thread (Call for a new Min/Max standard (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1931781#post1931781)) where there was discussion about whether or not taking the odd level here and there of multiple prestige classes was valid. Now one of the replies (the one I've highlighted in the link) suggested that Prestige Classes give more opportunities for role-playing. Well... this surprised me, coming from the CO board (where Barbarian 1/ Fighter 1/ Ranger 3/ Horizon Walker 1/ Frenzied Berserker 10/ Holy Liberator 3/ X 1 is perfectly reasonable - for an example, see The 3.5 Barbarian thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=111360#post1521894)) However, rather than getting flamed for mentioning the "RP" on the CO board ;), I thought I'd start the debate here. So... how would you answer the following two questions: [list=1] Do you take prestige classes for power or role-playing reasons? What do you consider to be the maximum reasonable number of prestige classes? [/list=1]
Ranthanas 11-26-03, 11:58 AM	It depends entirely on the PrC which I take it for. The ones I take for raw power are the "multiclass patches"- the Arcane Trickster, the Mystic Theurge, the Eldritch Knight, the Spellsword (maybe not), the Loremaster. Ones where you don't actually need the PrC to be a viable character, but if you don't take the PrC you are going to be near impossibly weak. (Fighter 10/Wizard 10 is not a really viable build. Fighter 4/Wizard 6/Eldritch Knight is (although I'd tweak it a little on top of that). I don't In Game take classes like the Templar unless I'm planning on defending temples- the organisational PrCs must be taken for RP reasons. (Red Wizard of Thay is perhaps a better example than Templar- I have never had a red wizard character and have no plans to take one). This doesn't stop me proposing them on the Character Optimisation board. The remainder (Deepwood Sniper is a good example) I take for a mixture of reasons- a ranger who specialises in the longbow often ends up as something akin to a DWS with or without the class. DWS makes a better archer than straight ranger and it's roughly what I'm RPing anyway so I head for that. Possibly this slightly warps my RP (or more likely my feat selection). A final and perhaps minor category is the kid who always wanted to be a bladesinger when he grew up. There, the character is often in it for the power. (Whether the player is is another story). Also remember that a person regularly risking life and limb will want to be as sure of surviving as possible. It's not an either or question. As for the maximum number of PrCs, in a 20 level build I'd say 19. It simply depends how the character develops. On the other hand, I started out with a classless system (GURPS) and tend to prefer classless systems over class based ones. If you are constrained to a class one, using many separate classes to approach your vision is a good thing if there is no class that quite fits. You might even get a diletante character, who picks up one hobby and puts it down fairly soon (although you'd probably call him a bard :) )
Kolo 11-26-03, 12:05 PM	1. Why not both? :) I like taking them for RP purposes mostly... Occasionally, I'll even make a character that learns a prestige class he doesn't WANT to learn, and thus quits later (reasons can be family and school and even sadistic former masters). A character's complex personality and history is all more apparent if he has a variety of skills and abilities to go with it. It doesn't hurt if he's all the better at doing his job while he's at it either. :D 2. There isn't one, really... As long as the character is properly played out to be or have been a member of all of them. I hate seeing characters with levels of (for example) Holy Liberator never actually behaving as if they believe in any of the Liberator's tenets. Also important is the character's outlook on life and how other members of the same PrC's look at them for having just skimmed the surface of their teachings, so to speak. a 1-level Hospitaler or Sacred Fist is obviously not going to endear himself to other members of these classes if he's simply quit and gone on to do something else... Plenty of plot hooks, adventures and RP opportunities there. (On a side note, I notice that there are very few DM's out there that actually seem to use these "built-in" hooks in their campaigns- sometimes you don't even meet anyone of the same prestige class as you or even hear about them much. Am I wrong or are the DM's I know just too stuck on pulp-adventure gaming?)
Basaxerxes the First 11-26-03, 04:27 PM	Well now... 1) Certainly the role-playing aspect is the major reason I've gone after prestige classes. My druid has just started taking levels of Animal Lord (from MotW), which actually weakens him in some ways, since he can't get access to the higher level druid spells through the prestige class. The only other prestige class I've ever taken was Undead Hunter, and that was for a fighter type who lost a loved one to a vampire. 2) Trickier question. Part of me would say one or two at most, on the grounds that prestige classes are supposed to be special, but on the other hand, if the player can justify taking more than that, I don't see why not. I'm with Kolo, though, as far as having the charater played properly for all his/her prestige classes in concerned.
Poukis 11-26-03, 04:32 PM	I too take PrC mostly for rp reasons... Actually when I am making a character I envision him in the future and try to think of a PrC that would suit him... About the number of PrC... I think it's a bit strange to take levels in many PrC's since most of the time you are joining organizations and have to agree to "strict", well sometims not so, rules. Of course I don't believe that one could take levels in opposed PrCs like a harper/red wizard. If there is a backround that can coer it I would consider to take a maximum of two PrCs... I think it would be really difficult for a character to take more and be able to do what everyone (every other member of the PrC) expects him to do.
phaedron 11-26-03, 05:58 PM	I don't buy it. All deference to Basaxerxes, but very few people I know take a PrC that they think will make their character weaker. I admit it, I take them for power. They make my PC cooler and tougher. Why would I ever want to take one that I thought sucked? Once I've decided what I want to do, then it's fun to spin out the RP side of it, but that's just our way as players of rationalizing why our PCs make their choices. Nothing wrong with it, coming up with a fun character story to make sense out of your power gaming choices is part of the game.
Crusher Nate 11-26-03, 07:53 PM	I have to disagree with Phaedron. I was planning on making my drow bard a Dragon Disciple and finish off his 20-level progression with a few Shadowdancer levels, but then some kooky curse changed his alignment to chaotic good. There's no reason not to take the build I had in mind initially, but I discovered a build I like better because it seems more fitting to the character. His new outlook on life got him to thinking that it's not all that cool to be a bard. Having lived all his life in drow society, he believed that all songs are about pain and oppression and betrayal. As a result, he stopped singing and decided to concentrate on healing. He's now a Bard 2/Healer 1. I've got a new PrC in mind now (Virtuoso); this will, in the long run, result in an overall weaker character than I initially had in mind. But this is the decision that made the most sense RP-wise. He'll discover some cheerful and inspiring songs, and eventually learn to enjoy singing again. If his curse is lifted, he'll remember that he felt better as a good character and work to get back to a good alignment for real. And he may, in that case, be denied his healer abilities for a while until he returns to good. But I'm not worried about that, nor am I worried about his relatively low Wisdom (13). So he'll struggle a bit with his spells as he advances in level. I'll deal with that somehow. So, this is a situation where a character is arguably made weaker by multiclassing and later choosing a prestige class just because it's "right for him." Keep in mind that as it stands he'll end up with around 80 HP (compared to about 100) and a +10 BAB (compared to +15), plus a wide but shallow pool of skills. Oh, and no better armor than studded leather. And yet I took my first couple of feats while planning to make a decent fighter. I still like the character and look forward to playing him more. As for the second question, any number of prestige classes that can be justified in concept should be permissible. If you play it that PrC's represent specialized training by an organization, then that is a great balancing factor if you're looking for one. This'll justify you raising the requirements just to make the PC prove his loyalty to the second organization. It'll even justify you telling the player flat-out that he can't pick a new prestige class until he finishes one of the three he's already got. I personally don't see a problem with a PC having trouble deciding what he wants to do with his life, but then finding a way to use all the miscellaneous low-level stuff he's learned to make a 20-level progression that's stronger than the sum of its parts. I guess that's just me, though.
LiXinjian 11-26-03, 08:07 PM	I take Prestige Classes primarily for roleplaying reason. I'll read the entry and if I like what the description says, I'll go on and read what abilities the PrC will grant. On the other hand, if I find the PrC's benefits are lame, I won't adopt it. Perhaps I'll just pick the roleplaying element of it but keep my class progression "normal". I would never consider taking levels in a PrC if it's description doesn't match what I'm looking for. Especially not to abuse the game mechanics. As far as having multiple PrC goes, I don't know. Having more than two regular classes seems already like a lot. As a DM, I would oppose to a player having more than one PrC, unless he could demonstrate how it fits with his character, and explain how the heck it could have happened. You don't have to take levels in the Red Wizard PrC to be a red wizard. Taking a PrC means (to the character, at least) investing a lot of time and energy towards a very specific and desireable goal. It's unlikely you would want to later change that goal. If you started taking karate classes, would you quit after reaching green belt, to start over in another discipline like judo? I don't think so, unless you happened to dislike karate in the first place. I don't think the spirit of the game is well served by having characters taking more than one PrC. Those classes were included to bring some diversity and provide some measure of identity, not to abuse the game mechanics by finding a way to stock up on free feats. That's what I'd consider one PrC too many: the mechanically-abusive one.
Otto the Bugbear 11-26-03, 09:47 PM	1. I take PrCs, when I take them, for RP reasons. I know this may seem a little off coming from a C.O. board regular, but most of my PCs tend to be on the lower half of the party power levels. Recently, I've gone through a few PCs due to a few deaths or retirements, and the character's have varied from a high of 2 core classes and 2 PrCs to 1 core class to 3 core classes with no PrCs (currently). Mechanically, after playing my current character, he'd probably be just as well served with levels of bard and rogue instead of ranger, cleric and rogue, but that's not the history I'd imagined for him. 2. Any amount. I really don't see the point of counting things like this. A character isn't defined by what "classes" he has. I'd say to try a little experiment. Think of a character something like Ranger 2 / Rogue 5 / Cleric 3 / Thief Acrobat 2. Ignore the classes and levels from the top of a character's sheet (or cover them with your finger if you're afraid you might forget ;) ) and describe in a first person perspective this character's past. All the places he's seen, things he's done, NPCs he's met, adventures he's had. Also describe, in first person, some of the abilties and skills he has. Now, is the skill set and abilities described only possible with that combination of classes? Nope, but many D&D players and DMs only see the number of classes at the top of some character sheet. Now, does it really matter what's written on the top of that character sheet? Not to me. This, in a round about way, is one of the things wrong with class-based systems. Not that I want switch games, it's just a realization about D&D. The minute that something as limiting as a "class designation" comes into play, people start to pigeon hole characters into certain roles based on those classes. (By people, I mean as a general rule, not pointing fingers here.) Is there a better way to do it? Probably. Do I have the answer? Not likely. I must amend my "any amount" comment with two things. A) If there are serious conflicts within the PrCs, then there ends up being a problem. Wizard/Harper Mage was given as a great example, Assassin/Purple Knight is another good one. In either case, I'd say a character that attains one PrC, then later on gets the other, would likely lose all abilities associated with the previous one (except BAB, Saves, Hit Dice). For example, a Red Wizard comes to see the light and turns from his evil ways. After a long enought trial period and sponsorship, he may join the harpers and take levels in Harper Mage, but would lose all benefits of the Red Wizard PrC. Maybe that's the RP-centric view I have to taking PrCs in game, as opposed to putting them in a theoretical build like would be presented on the C.O. board. B) Whatever the group as a whole deems okay. If the DM tries to enforce a No PrC rule, but the players all want multiple PrCs, maybe it's best to either have someone else DM, or try to work out a middle ground that everyone can be happy with. Enough rambling. Cheers Otto :)
Otto the Bugbear 11-26-03, 09:56 PM	I just wanted to add something else regarding the whole PrC issue. I really dislike how WotC has railroaded the adoption of PrCs by having set requirements. It does nothing for good RPing to say, "must have 5 ranks of these 3 skills, plus 2 feats, plus this special class ability (evasion, turning undead, etc.)" A better system, and one that I think I'm going to adopt, is to change all the 'requirements' to 'suggested abilities'. In addition to that, the description, or "fluff", at the beginning of a PrC description should be something that a character has already hinted at following. Instead of taking levels of Holy Liberator, then acting like one, a character would act like one before he could take the PrC. To me, this would make it easier for a DM to okay a PrC for a character that's already acting in a way that is consistent with the PrC. Anyone else dislike the hard requirements? See any problems with the new way I'm thinking of using? I know there's always rule zero to allow that cat-burgler type character to take levels of thief-acrobat without meeting the requirments. I'm just looking for some input and problems that may arise. Thanks Cheers Otto :)
MoogleEmpMog 11-26-03, 11:01 PM	Personally, I tend to plan a class progression for effectiveness and then see what I can come up with in terms of the character's past and personality. I've actually found that this method makes better and more interesting PCs than the RP-first, PrC-later method, and the process of making the character's background is a lot of fun in and of itself. (CO board regulars will note that I always try to include a suggested character background when I propose a build, mostly for my own enjoyment but also to help the person requesting it to get his DM to accept it). Very rarely do I encounter an in-game event that will significantly alter my character's outlook or future advancement (and when I do, it's usually something I've worked out with the DM to move me to the next stage of my advancement). As such, I can progress my PCs along the path I originally laid out. Of course, I never rely on items for anything for just this reason. In part, this is because the lethality of my current DM's campaign is on the high side (my PC is the only one who has made it from 1st to 8th level in our current run, and some of the other players are very good Min/Maxers in their own right). In part, it's because I enjoy being useful to the party. In part, it's because I make cooler, more complex, more interesting characters when I do them this way.
hell0 11-27-03, 11:55 AM	As was recently added into my signature, I tend to ignore whatever the flavor text of the PrC says and just look at the abilities. Before I make the build, I come up with some sort of story and then (try) to get a progression that can do it. But, to each their own. I have frequently been called a power gamer by those who wish to roleplay something other than a very skilled archer when I had a deepwood sniper/order of the bow initiate/peerless archer. Was it justified? Probably not. But, I can't agree with someone who believes they cannot take a level of a class before they take a week-long (ingame) hiatus to study on the arcane arts. IMHO, PrC's give players a chance to roleplay their character to the fullest. They shouldn't set a defining set of actions for the character to roleplay, though, because that takes away from the creativity of the player and gives some players an excuse not to roleplay their character (instead, a prestige class).
hell0 11-27-03, 11:55 AM	As was recently added into my signature, I tend to ignore whatever the flavor text of the PrC says and just look at the abilities. Before I make the build, I come up with some sort of story and then (try) to get a progression that can do it. But, to each their own. I have frequently been called a power gamer by those who wish to roleplay something other than a very skilled archer when I had a deepwood sniper/order of the bow initiate/peerless archer. Was it justified? Probably not. But, I can't agree with someone who believes they cannot take a level of a class before they take a week-long (ingame) hiatus to study on the arcane arts. IMHO, PrC's give players a chance to roleplay their character to the fullest. They shouldn't set a defining set of actions for the character to roleplay, though, because that takes away from the creativity of the player and gives some players an excuse not to roleplay their character (instead, a prestige class).
Israfel666 11-27-03, 04:59 PM	It doesn't happen often, but I don't have anything to say about my view on PrCs that has not been said by Ranthanas. I agree with him wholeheartedly and totally; the only difference between me and I is that I started with Vampire, not GURPS, but otherwise, if you want to know my opinion on the matter just go check his post. ;)