Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Everach 03-02-04, 11:06 AM	I like the idea of the Prestige Bard, but haven't taken the time to build one or play test it. Anyone give these three a rundown?
Crusher Nate 03-10-04, 08:20 PM	Personally, I'm not too keen on any of them. The whole option seems a bit too 2nd Edition for my liking. While I had my share of good times playing old-school AD&D, I really like the wealth of options you have for creating unique characters in 3rd Edition. By taking Bards, Paladins, and Rangers out of the base class loop, you strip away a lot of those options. You also strip the unique flavor from these classes when you make them offshoots of other classes. Those are my main problems with the prestigious classes in general. I also have problems with each of these "prestigiuos" classes in particular... :b: Bard: I don't know if this was deliberate, but it seems to me that this class heavily favors Wizard-based builds over Sorcerer-based builds, from its kinda strict spellcasting requirements to its (usually) odd-numbered optimum caster level. While the "scavenging" aspect of the Wizard does fit the Bard nicely, I'm disturbed by the fact that this means the best Bards have no need for Charisma. Best access using the remaining core classes: Rogue 3/Wizard 2. :b: Paladin: Looks really powerful. Maybe a bit overpowered; I'm not sure yet. But it definitely seems to combine the best aspects of both Clerics and Paladins. I'm not too crazy about the fact that you absolutely must be a Cleric before you can be a Paladin, either; I was hoping for more options, not fewer. Best access using the remaining core classes: Cleric 4/Fighter 1. :b: Ranger: My main problem with the Prestige Ranger is a conceptual one. For a Druid to aspire to become a Ranger makes no sense to me. I can't see a Druid thinking "I gain great power from being one with nature. But soon I'm gonna give it up so I can shoot a bow really well!" The Prestige Ranger actually strikes me as what a Druid might become after getting kicked out of his order. Best access using the remaining core classes: Human Druid 4/Barbarian 1. That's my take on this option.
Jack Daniel 03-10-04, 10:13 PM	I personally love the concept and jumped right on the idea as soon as I got Unearthed Arcana. Maybe it's because I'm still kind of a 2nd edition groupie, but I think making the bard, paladin, and ranger more "special" than the other classes is actually a good thing. Plus, the class system as it was in my campaign setting was getting a little unwieldly. This whittles it down to a nice, even twelve basic classes: | Non-magical | Magic-users | -------------------------------------------- Heavy | Fighter | Wizard | Attackers | Barbarian | Sorcerer | -------------------------------------------- Healers & | Monk | Cleric | Defenders | Noble | Druid | -------------------------------------------- Jacks of | Rogue | Psion | All Trades | Artificier | Wilder | -------------------------------------------- From there, I took the other "hybrid" type classes I was using -- the ninja and the psychic warrior -- and converted them into 15-level prestige classes. I'll probably do the same to the assassin and the blackguard very soon. The paladin I left as written, but for the bard and the ranger, I added some tweaks. In 1st edition, bards were built by being a fighter/thief and multiclassing druid. In order to retain that possibility, I allow bards to fulfull their spellcasting requirements with either arcane or divine spells. Also in 1st edition AD&D, rangers could cast both druid spells and magic-user spells. So again, in order to bring that back, I altered the ranger's requirements so that rangers can cast arcane spells, but a ranger who goes that route casts spells at -2 caster levels. This is me being a 2ed/3.0 groupie, but I give rangers the d10 hit die, 4 skill points, & the poor reflex save. Two-Weapon Fighting lets you be a ranger, but Rapid Shot doesn't. So, that's pretty much it. I'm happy with my class system now. It's nice and even, and players not only have twelve options to start with, they have five classes to aspire to that aren't as tough to get into as your run-of-the-mill 10-level prestige classes (which, trust me, I don't make it at all easy for players to attain).
Hengwrt Ellesmere 03-11-04, 01:54 AM	I'm thinking along similar lines as Jack Daniel. The paladin deserves the power boost for adhering to his code. The ranger is a little harder to get by without as a core class, but I've found a replacement: rogues can choose either the ranger or the rogue skill list at first level, and maybe get both at a later level. This should satisfy fans of 2nd ed. and 3.0 who thought the 3.5 ranger was too roguey, because the PrC ranger is definitely more martial with his fighter and/or barbarian base levels. After long consideration, I've decided I don't like the prestige bard. Or rather, I like the core bard too much to give him up. There are other martial/caster PrCs that work just as well if someone wants to play a fighter/caster/rogue. My game is set in the west, so for the time being there aren't any monks around. So that gives us eight core classes: ----------Classic------Wild Melee--Fighter and barbarian Divine--Cleric and druid Skills----Rogue and bard Arcane--Wizard and sorcerer In an eastern game, monk would replace bard, and I'd find eastern core classes for some of the others where appropriate (Wu Jen and Shaman? Samurai and Ninja?) I don't have OA, so I couldn't say exactly. Now the rules for druids in my world are a little looser. First, there are five orders, one for each cardinal alignment and neutral, and a druid's alignment just has to match his order's. So a chaotic good ranger wannabe could train with either the good (white robes) or chaotic (red robes) orders. Before or after that, he'd fight as a fighter or barbarian (or even a rogue if he's patient enough) for the martial feats and BAB. He'd then go on to represent his drudic order as a ranger, continuing his training in druid spellcasting, but he'd learn the skills of the hunt rather than wildshaping. The other change to druids I'm making is that metal armor only interferes with wildshaping, not some silly oath, so a druid who goes ranger can wear his studded leather or chain shirt and still cast his spells. He just can't wildshape in it, which he probably never learned how to do anyway. What's nice about the paladin PrC is that it requires the character to follow the code prior to becoming a paladin. That way you already know that the player can handle it before giving him the class, rather than having to take it away from someone who volunteered to play one but doesn't know how. It's also a very powerful PrC, which is what the paladin deserves to be. I might try making PrC versions of the other three paladin types in UA as well, though I'm not sure I'll use them. The two evil ones would be nice for BBEG's, but I'm not sure I want a PC whose CoC REQUIRES him to be chaotic, as does the Paladin of Freedom.
Wil_Hyral 03-11-04, 02:09 AM	Yeah for what i've examined, it seems like they got what they were looking for, which was a look back to 2e. I like them enough. Bards are questionable but I'm fairly secure they wouldn't be overpowered.
Crusher Nate 03-11-04, 02:39 PM	Some other ideas... I might consider using this option in conjunction with Generic Classes; if every core class is converted to a 15-level PrC and everyone starts as a generic class, that could be fun. If you do use the Prestige Bard, you might want to ban some of the Bard-compatible PrC's or make Bardic Music a requirement for them. Otherwise, I, for one, would probably want to skip Bard and go straight to Virtuoso for better spells and music. I think it'd also be cool to use the Racial Paragon classes and the Variant Specialist Wizards to allow for more variety in the prestigious classes. I've also thought about changing the requirements to allow more options, like Jack Daniel did. I think a divine-casting Bard, based on the Healer, should be an option, for example.
Salla 03-12-04, 08:47 AM	I grabbed the Prestige Paladin because I'm not a big fan of alignment restrictions for basic classes (I've removed the alignment restrictions from the barbarian, bard, and monk ... the jury's still out on Samurai). The Paladin is such a specific role that I think it should be a Prestige Class rather than a basic class. (Random question: How are these a throwback to 2e? Paladins, Rangers, and Bards were regular basic classes in 2e. Now, in 1e, the bard was effectively a PrC, requiring levels of Fighter and Thief first.)
Crusher Nate 03-12-04, 11:46 AM	I personally see it as a throwback because... Every Paladin, Bard and Ranger under this system will be more or less the same, since you have to put your character together to meet some fairly stringent requirements. Back in 2nd Edition, the only thing that really separated one Paladin or Bard from another was their equipment. Paladins and Bards couldn't multiclass or dual-class; Rangers could multiclass but only in one very specific circumstance (half-elf Ranger/Cleric). The prestige versions of these classes can multiclass, but you've built them specifically to be good at what they did under 2nd Ed, and so further multiclassing seems kind of pointless. Prestige Bards don't get healing spells, and are best built as Int-based casters. This is how they were in 2nd Edition, too. This system makes it much more difficult to defy stereotypes for these classes.