Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Surgo 10-02-05, 04:58 PM	I picked up D&D again after not playing for over a year. In the course of this, I read some of the new books and I must say that I am seriously impressed at how far PrC designs have come in this time. It seems that with most of the 3.0 books and the older 3.5 books, PrCs were just added on as an afterthought. For the most part they were bland and boring, though there was the occasional good one (if you swing the bat often enough, you're bound to hit the ball sometimes). But I think that with the advent of Frostburn and Sandstorm, they have made some remarkably good PrCs. Two of these come to mind immediately: the Ashworm Dragoon and the Winterhaunt of Iborighu. The Ashworm Dragoon is an incredibly cool idea; executed really well without being overpowering. It's the kind of PrC that inspires me to go out and build a character based around it (as opposed to the bland PrCs that are all too common, picked up solely for the benefits they confer). The Winterhaunt of Iborighu is an equally cool idea; it's a bit powerful, but I wouldn't call it overpowering. It's not as inspiring as the Ashworm Dragoon, but it's still really good. I haven't looked at other recent books yet, or even much in-depth at the other PrCs (I mostly build clerics and warriors). Let's hope they keep up the streak they're on. (Oh, and let's see what my sig looks like for the first time in over a year.)
Sulaco 10-03-05, 02:14 PM	The problem I have with most prestige classes is that they miss out on the "prestige" part of the equation. They are more often than not simply advanced classes with no real need or niche in the world IMO.
Mercurius 10-03-05, 02:27 PM	The problem I have with most prestige classes is that they miss out on the "prestige" part of the equation. They are more often than not simply advanced classes with no real need or niche in the world IMO. See, that's the opposite of me. My problem with prestige classes is that they still have the "prestige" part of the name in them, when they've obviously become something more akin to advanced classes, which are infinitely more useful in the long-run. If something comes with built in niches, such as organizations or what-not, then you've gotta figure out how to work those in. If I want to assign something prestigious to an advanced class, I can write that myself, and have it fit much better into my campaign setting. I'm much more of a fan of the options that advanced classes can offer that may not be a viable part of a core class.
Lord Ian Stark 10-03-05, 02:30 PM	The problem I have with most prestige classes is that they miss out on the "prestige" part of the equation. They are more often than not simply advanced classes with no real need or niche in the world IMO. I would say that this is done to harmonize the PrC's with the average home brew world. If all PrC's were like the Harper or Red Wizard of Thay, too many peeps would have to add in such organizations whether it be the actual one or similar one. Too me a PrC is used by players to better define thier character and thier characters abilities. A group of all fighters without PrC's will look/act a lot alike no matter the feats or races. However if all those Fighters were only allowed to take PrC's then it makes them look more "specialized" IMO. Of course they could just multiclass with a another non-Prc but it's all in the DM/players hands. Besides a lot of character sacrifices are made when they take certain feat combinations early on that may not be the most helpful to the cause until they begin there PrC. I for one like the PrC's and am glad they enhanced the "kits" from 2ed.
Majorafire77 10-03-05, 08:02 PM	I would say that this is done to harmonize the PrC's with the average home brew world. If all PrC's were like the Harper or Red Wizard of Thay, too many peeps would have to add in such organizations whether it be the actual one or similar one. I agree, and I don't want to have to add 50 organizations to my game to get the most out of the book which I bought. PrCs in generic supplements (complete series, races of series) that are overly specific and are too prestigious annoy the hell out of me. Of course, I think that PrCs presented in setting-specific books (such as Magic of Faerun) should be as specific as possible. To me there are 3 different kinds of PrCs: Very Specific These PrCs are usually keyed to certain religions or ogranizations. They should not be put into generic D&D supplements because they simply do not work out in every campaign. While they can be tinkered with to fit another setting, it is kind of a pain to do so. However, being very specific allows for increased detail and role-playing potential, so they should be put into setting-specific books (if not the only type of PrC in those books). Examples: Knight of the Chalice, Order of the Bow Initiate, Fochlucan Lyrist Somewhat Specific These PrCs, while not limited to an organization presented in the book that they are shown in, still probably require a guild, order, or organization to have them make sense in a world. They are slightly more adaptable than the very specific ones, but are still maybe a bit of a pain for a DM who wants to use them in their setting. Examples: Shadow Sentinel, Elemental Savant, Geometer Not Specific These PrCs can fit in a bunch of different places and there is generally no setting where they don't fit in. This doesn't mean that they're not "prestigious", it simply means that they fit in almost anywhere. In my opinion these are generally the best PrCs for a generic supplement to have. Examples: Cavalier, Loremaster, Duelist
Gilean 10-04-05, 01:46 PM	I think that PrCs have far too specific requirements. If someone makes an advanced calss for agile characters, it can have requriements such as reflex save, dexterity, dodge, lightning reflexes, balance, tumble... They should simply have an appropriate level and a required class test (succeed at a specific task with certain ways, if applicable). As written, it is strange that assassin don't accept spellcasters with invisibility, alter self and silence, for example. Or character with 5 ranks and a skill focus.
Bulabase 10-04-05, 02:02 PM	Gilean said, I think that PrCs have far too specific requirements. If someone makes an advanced calss for agile characters, it can have requriements such as reflex save, dexterity, dodge, lightning reflexes, balance, tumble... I think the designers build some oppertunity costs into the requirements. A character should have to try to enter a PrC. Majorafire77 said,These PrCs are usually keyed to certain religions or ogranizations. They should not be put into generic D&D supplements because they simply do not work out in every campaign. While they can be tinkered with to fit another setting, it is kind of a pain to do so. However, being very specific allows for increased detail and role-playing potential, so they should be put into setting-specific books (if not the only type of PrC in those books). I disagree. As a DM I like having a few specific PrCs included to inspire me. I don't find adapting them to be especially onerous either. I adapted both the Order of the Bow Initiate and Radiant Servant ot Pelor and they worked fine. Remember, you don't need the organization to use the mechanical side of the class.
Lina_Inverse 10-04-05, 02:16 PM	The new PrC format is crap. Any good dm will throw out the flavor text and substitute his own. Thus i just want my list of balenced advanced classes that fill a niche. Like mystheurg and Duelist.
Surgo 10-04-05, 04:43 PM	Oh, yeah, I don't disagree. I was talking more along the lines of the mechanics of the class. I didn't actually read about what the Winterhaunts or Ashworm Dragoons were supposed to be or represent, I just thought the mechanics were cool.