Review of Prestige Bard, Paladin & Ranger [Archive] - Wizards Community

Review of Prestige Bard, Paladin & Ranger [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Kilsek of Sheverash
08-21-04, 02:00 AM Well, I thought there was a prestige class version of the paladin, and I went looking for it. The "Prestige Paladin." It's in UA of course, as I thought, along with Prestige Bard and Prestige Ranger. They're really unusual in the fact that they're the first 15-level prestige classes I've ever seen. Plus they really encourage multiclassing BEFORE getting into them at around 5th level.

Read them from start to end, and I have to say, I found them all underwhelming, with the Prestige Paladin being the best of a weak crop.

Maybe it's just me, but I didn't like the direction the prestige versions of these classes took in the UA variants. Bards are much more arcane-spell oriented (in the strictest sense too - i.e. no healing spells).

All all three of them picked up the capability of picking up higher level spells though, which is good, but I wonder if some of the costs in combat or special abilities or healing magic (bard) are worth it.

Anyone like, dislike - or better yet, PLAYED - the Prestige Paladin, Bard, and Ranger? Why or why not? What do you think of the heavily arcane magic direction they took the Bard in?
Jack Daniel
08-21-04, 11:58 AM I really didn't like the way they forced divine spellcaster levels on the pally & ranger, and I especially hated how they made these classes "+1 level" type spellcasters when they already had their own spell lists (the bard especially). I loved the *idea* of these classes being prestige classes, though, and so I changed things so that single-classed fighters could become paladins or rangers, the fighter/rogue is the quickest path to becomming a bard, and they get back their own spell lists with 15-level spell progressions. Since that actually weakened their spell ability by a whole heck of a lot, I had to increase the power of their special abilities slightly to balance it out, but so far I'm pretty happy with my tweaks (http://people.ku.edu/~ivan327/pdfs/Re03.pdf).
Kilsek of Sheverash
08-21-04, 02:43 PM I wholeheartedly agree that 15-level prestige class versions of the bard, ranger, but most especially paladin are great ideas.

On the spells though, there is a sidebar in that section of UA that does say to allow access to spells specific only to the bard, ranger and paladin as they pick up prestige version levels. That is, the ranger and paladin would have access to spells exclusive to those classes as normal, and the bard would get bard-only arcane spells too from the bard spell lists.

Can't think of too many off the top of my head - maybe lullaby or holy sword? In total, each of the three classes probably has very few class-exclusive spells, but it's a nice little benefit to keep.

I guess there would be a bit of combing through the lists to see exactly which spells are class-exclusive, but it's still cool that you keep those spells that fit the class' style most. Still doesn't let a bard ever learn any cure wounds spell though... which I just find a big departure from the standard bard class.

And thanks for your link, I'll check out your prestige versions :)
Factol Rhys
08-31-04, 12:37 PM Jack, that thing is awesome. I recommend to anyone to snatch that up, and go to his website and check out everything else he's come up with. Very good stuff, very nicely written, and very nicely presented.
St. Maelstrom
09-01-04, 08:27 PM I really did not care for the Prestige Bard, Paladin, and Ranger. I personally don't care for a 15 level prestige class. If you can go that far in a class why not leave it core? That just seemed ridiculus to me. I have a hard time with 10 levels of prestige sometimes. The 5 level prestige classes are generally my favorite.

I feel paladins Should have been a prestige class from the get go. In my games it is. You cannot choose Paladin as a first level character. So, I was looking forward to the prestige paladin, I was extremely disappointed.

Just my 2 cps.
Kilsek of Sheverash
09-01-04, 08:41 PM Honestly, I'm right there with you on prestige classes - why do they have to usually be 10 levels, and nevermind 15?

The 5 level prestige classes always feel like REAL prestige classes, the way they were meant to be - prestigious, extremely powerful, and difficult to attain.

Reminds me of how only the very last hour of Final Fantasy 1 (back in the DAY!) was when your characters hit their "prestige classes" of knight, master, ninja, black wizard, and so on. They really felt special bc it took so long to get there and bc you weren't able to be them for very long - they were an ultimate award of the best kind.

Getting back to the prestige Paladin, Ranger, and Bard, I've decided they've achieved "suck" level now too, devolving from my previous "underwhelmed." You make a very good point that drove me to this - why bother creating a 15 level prestige class when you're that close to original 20 level core class anyway? What's so prestigious and interesting about that?

It would be cool to see if anyone had a 10 level prestige class for them instead.

And it would be very cool to set up ONLY 5-level prestige classes that aren't super-specialized, but more reflect mastering the basic concept of each core class - just like Sorcerer & Wizard goes easily into Archmage. These prestige classes would be a lot like the original Final Fantasy prestige classes in theme - like I said, advanced versions of the core concepts and basic strengths of each core class.

There's simply a staggering saturation of prestige classes out there. Far too many, and a billion supplemental ones that D&D and other companies put out. And yet they're optional according to the DMG? Doesn't seem that way considering all the support and interest they get.
Xeviat-DM
09-01-04, 10:09 PM They are 15 levels for the sheer purpose of making them more class like than other PrCs. In my games, we refer to the PrC Ranger and Bard as Advanced Classes, and many others have seemingly taken up that name as of late. Paladins don't exist in large numbers in my world, so I've reduced the Paladin to a PrC like the Blackguard, but I have made a Templar Advanced Class to take the Paladin's place.

If you enter the Paladin Advanced class, going back to UA rules, as a Fighter 3/Cleric 2, you will feel almost no differences from a regular paladin. In the early levels, you will even feel like a paladin, though squire you truely are till level 6.
geministranger
09-02-04, 01:14 AM For some reason I am of the understanding the 15 lvl PrC Brd, Pal, Rng were designed mainly for use with the generic classes also presented in UA.

Would this change your opinion of them?
Glak
09-02-04, 01:11 PM Neither the paladin nor the ranger should require that you have spellcasting ahead of time. I think of the paladin, not as a cleric who is even better at fighting, but as a fighter who becomes a holy knight. So they did a very poor job in my estimation.
St. Maelstrom
09-02-04, 02:14 PM Neither the paladin nor the ranger should require that you have spellcasting ahead of time. I think of the paladin, not as a cleric who is even better at fighting, but as a fighter who becomes a holy knight. So they did a very poor job in my estimation.

I could not agree more. Just another flaw in a poor design, in my opinion
Xeviat-DM
09-02-04, 03:22 PM Neither the paladin nor the ranger should require that you have spellcasting ahead of time. I think of the paladin, not as a cleric who is even better at fighting, but as a fighter who becomes a holy knight. So they did a very poor job in my estimation.

Then we disagree on this fundamental level. Don't think of it as a cleric who learns to fight and then becomes a paladin, think of it as a fighter who "finds god" and starts developing spells at level 3 (just before the paladin gets it anyway). Go 2 levels of Fighter, then 3 levels of Cleric, and you won't notice much difference from the standard Paladin (minus not having your key paladin abilities for some time, but you have fighter bonus feats to make up for them for the time being).

Same with the Ranger. A hunter and warrior developing their skills in the wild is suddenly blessed by nature in the form of druidic abilities before they pick up true Ranger levels. In the game, not everyone knows what class they are.
Jack Daniel
09-02-04, 04:43 PM I implemented the 15-level bard, paladin, and ranger as a way of putting back that AD&D feel into my games. Back in the day, the bard, paladin, and ranger were special classes. You needed good stats to play them, and they weren't seen in every party. In 3rd edition, you can't have stat requirements for classes, or even prestige classes (except indirectly, through required feats that have stat reqs), but you can have other requirements that call for previous advancement.

I see the paladin and ranger as "upgraded fighters" and the bard as an "upgraded fighter/rogue," and so I tailored the requirements for those classes in my setting to meet that idea. In 2nd edition, playing a paladin was like playing a lawful good fighter who managed to roll Charisma 17 at the outset. In my homebrew, playing a paladin is like playing a 6th level fighter who has "found religion." I like that better (it reminds me of Final Fantasy IV), but it results in the same basic feel: paladins are a rare, special breed of fighter. I certainly prefer it to the 3rd edition's standard of "paladins are generic lawful-good holy warriors who can't multiclass well." [To say nothing of the ultra-shoddy 3.5 "rangers are tree-hugging rogues" motif.]
hisderfness
10-22-04, 01:38 PM perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I think that the idea is a good one.
The prestige bard I easpecially like. If you combine the class with the generic spellcaster it's really the way I've always envisioned bards, and a nice walk around some of the bardic restrictions I never understood, like why the bard can't cast knock or any direct damage spells.
As far as the under/over powered thing goes, I don't think that they are unbalanced in any way. Maybe a smidge this way or that, but really they are more about flavor, and I'm glad to finally have something like that in the game.
Pysker Nel'Restynn
10-28-04, 02:09 AM ..
Psyker Nel'Restynn
10-28-04, 03:46 AM I agree with you about the Paladins being a Holy Knight, one who has within him great goodness and a will to destroy all things evil.

But probably my biggest problem with 3rd Edition was the Ranger class. A watered down fighter and a knock off druid. Although they did improve upon the class in v3.5, but none the less it still a let down. In my mind, the Ranger and Paladin were, in essence, the same class. Each being master swordsmen and an acute archer, able to channel the power of the earth and the power of the heavens. None of this casting magic shat. Spells are left to dank, dusty towers, they hold no place in the heart and mind of the wandering hero.

In my games, Rangers wandered the world, acquiring knowledge and wisdom as they went. They can heal through their innate connection with the rock and tree. The are not the tree huggers protesting outside a lumber camp thats been clear cutting the forest and havesting dryads, they are the guerilla fighters destroying the camp and bringing justice to realm. Stree Justice, noble vigilantes. They are content to allow the reinging lord do as he wishes as long as it doesnt harm the people or the land, thats when they put their hand in and take charge.

Adept woodsmen, content on the road, sleeping beneath the stars or chilling at the lords mannor, enjoying the high life. None are better at stalking and going unnoticed as a trained ranger.

Unlike Forgotten Realms, Rangers arent common, they are rare and even if you have met one, you wouldn't have known that he was one of the rangers. Much tabboo and rumour permeats the enigmatic group of wanderers, often seen as cut throats and brigands, when in reality they are the wayward defenders of little guy.

On the other side of the coin, is the Paladin, a righteous hero and zealous champion of goodness; a hero for the people. Riding in on the white stalion in full plate, killing off the zombies and enjoying a pint with the townsfolk.

Where the Paladin is all about honour and doing what is right, A Ranger is more about doing what needs to be done and doing whatever it takes. Each has the same goals, but how they get there is entirely different.

Both groups channel magic but do not cast spells in the same manor as a druid or cleric, they have special abilities and supernatural powers that they can call upon.

So yea, thats my take on the whole Ranger - Pally bit.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kilsek of Sheverash 08-21-04, 02:00 AM	Well, I thought there was a prestige class version of the paladin, and I went looking for it. The "Prestige Paladin." It's in UA of course, as I thought, along with Prestige Bard and Prestige Ranger. They're really unusual in the fact that they're the first 15-level prestige classes I've ever seen. Plus they really encourage multiclassing BEFORE getting into them at around 5th level. Read them from start to end, and I have to say, I found them all underwhelming, with the Prestige Paladin being the best of a weak crop. Maybe it's just me, but I didn't like the direction the prestige versions of these classes took in the UA variants. Bards are much more arcane-spell oriented (in the strictest sense too - i.e. no healing spells). All all three of them picked up the capability of picking up higher level spells though, which is good, but I wonder if some of the costs in combat or special abilities or healing magic (bard) are worth it. Anyone like, dislike - or better yet, PLAYED - the Prestige Paladin, Bard, and Ranger? Why or why not? What do you think of the heavily arcane magic direction they took the Bard in?
Jack Daniel 08-21-04, 11:58 AM	I really didn't like the way they forced divine spellcaster levels on the pally & ranger, and I especially hated how they made these classes "+1 level" type spellcasters when they already had their own spell lists (the bard especially). I loved the idea of these classes being prestige classes, though, and so I changed things so that single-classed fighters could become paladins or rangers, the fighter/rogue is the quickest path to becomming a bard, and they get back their own spell lists with 15-level spell progressions. Since that actually weakened their spell ability by a whole heck of a lot, I had to increase the power of their special abilities slightly to balance it out, but so far I'm pretty happy with my tweaks (http://people.ku.edu/~ivan327/pdfs/Re03.pdf).
Kilsek of Sheverash 08-21-04, 02:43 PM	I wholeheartedly agree that 15-level prestige class versions of the bard, ranger, but most especially paladin are great ideas. On the spells though, there is a sidebar in that section of UA that does say to allow access to spells specific only to the bard, ranger and paladin as they pick up prestige version levels. That is, the ranger and paladin would have access to spells exclusive to those classes as normal, and the bard would get bard-only arcane spells too from the bard spell lists. Can't think of too many off the top of my head - maybe lullaby or holy sword? In total, each of the three classes probably has very few class-exclusive spells, but it's a nice little benefit to keep. I guess there would be a bit of combing through the lists to see exactly which spells are class-exclusive, but it's still cool that you keep those spells that fit the class' style most. Still doesn't let a bard ever learn any cure wounds spell though... which I just find a big departure from the standard bard class. And thanks for your link, I'll check out your prestige versions :)
Factol Rhys 08-31-04, 12:37 PM	Jack, that thing is awesome. I recommend to anyone to snatch that up, and go to his website and check out everything else he's come up with. Very good stuff, very nicely written, and very nicely presented.
St. Maelstrom 09-01-04, 08:27 PM	I really did not care for the Prestige Bard, Paladin, and Ranger. I personally don't care for a 15 level prestige class. If you can go that far in a class why not leave it core? That just seemed ridiculus to me. I have a hard time with 10 levels of prestige sometimes. The 5 level prestige classes are generally my favorite. I feel paladins Should have been a prestige class from the get go. In my games it is. You cannot choose Paladin as a first level character. So, I was looking forward to the prestige paladin, I was extremely disappointed. Just my 2 cps.
Kilsek of Sheverash 09-01-04, 08:41 PM	Honestly, I'm right there with you on prestige classes - why do they have to usually be 10 levels, and nevermind 15? The 5 level prestige classes always feel like REAL prestige classes, the way they were meant to be - prestigious, extremely powerful, and difficult to attain. Reminds me of how only the very last hour of Final Fantasy 1 (back in the DAY!) was when your characters hit their "prestige classes" of knight, master, ninja, black wizard, and so on. They really felt special bc it took so long to get there and bc you weren't able to be them for very long - they were an ultimate award of the best kind. Getting back to the prestige Paladin, Ranger, and Bard, I've decided they've achieved "suck" level now too, devolving from my previous "underwhelmed." You make a very good point that drove me to this - why bother creating a 15 level prestige class when you're that close to original 20 level core class anyway? What's so prestigious and interesting about that? It would be cool to see if anyone had a 10 level prestige class for them instead. And it would be very cool to set up ONLY 5-level prestige classes that aren't super-specialized, but more reflect mastering the basic concept of each core class - just like Sorcerer & Wizard goes easily into Archmage. These prestige classes would be a lot like the original Final Fantasy prestige classes in theme - like I said, advanced versions of the core concepts and basic strengths of each core class. There's simply a staggering saturation of prestige classes out there. Far too many, and a billion supplemental ones that D&D and other companies put out. And yet they're optional according to the DMG? Doesn't seem that way considering all the support and interest they get.
Xeviat-DM 09-01-04, 10:09 PM	They are 15 levels for the sheer purpose of making them more class like than other PrCs. In my games, we refer to the PrC Ranger and Bard as Advanced Classes, and many others have seemingly taken up that name as of late. Paladins don't exist in large numbers in my world, so I've reduced the Paladin to a PrC like the Blackguard, but I have made a Templar Advanced Class to take the Paladin's place. If you enter the Paladin Advanced class, going back to UA rules, as a Fighter 3/Cleric 2, you will feel almost no differences from a regular paladin. In the early levels, you will even feel like a paladin, though squire you truely are till level 6.
geministranger 09-02-04, 01:14 AM	For some reason I am of the understanding the 15 lvl PrC Brd, Pal, Rng were designed mainly for use with the generic classes also presented in UA. Would this change your opinion of them?
Glak 09-02-04, 01:11 PM	Neither the paladin nor the ranger should require that you have spellcasting ahead of time. I think of the paladin, not as a cleric who is even better at fighting, but as a fighter who becomes a holy knight. So they did a very poor job in my estimation.
St. Maelstrom 09-02-04, 02:14 PM	Neither the paladin nor the ranger should require that you have spellcasting ahead of time. I think of the paladin, not as a cleric who is even better at fighting, but as a fighter who becomes a holy knight. So they did a very poor job in my estimation. I could not agree more. Just another flaw in a poor design, in my opinion
Xeviat-DM 09-02-04, 03:22 PM	Neither the paladin nor the ranger should require that you have spellcasting ahead of time. I think of the paladin, not as a cleric who is even better at fighting, but as a fighter who becomes a holy knight. So they did a very poor job in my estimation. Then we disagree on this fundamental level. Don't think of it as a cleric who learns to fight and then becomes a paladin, think of it as a fighter who "finds god" and starts developing spells at level 3 (just before the paladin gets it anyway). Go 2 levels of Fighter, then 3 levels of Cleric, and you won't notice much difference from the standard Paladin (minus not having your key paladin abilities for some time, but you have fighter bonus feats to make up for them for the time being). Same with the Ranger. A hunter and warrior developing their skills in the wild is suddenly blessed by nature in the form of druidic abilities before they pick up true Ranger levels. In the game, not everyone knows what class they are.
Jack Daniel 09-02-04, 04:43 PM	I implemented the 15-level bard, paladin, and ranger as a way of putting back that AD&D feel into my games. Back in the day, the bard, paladin, and ranger were special classes. You needed good stats to play them, and they weren't seen in every party. In 3rd edition, you can't have stat requirements for classes, or even prestige classes (except indirectly, through required feats that have stat reqs), but you can have other requirements that call for previous advancement. I see the paladin and ranger as "upgraded fighters" and the bard as an "upgraded fighter/rogue," and so I tailored the requirements for those classes in my setting to meet that idea. In 2nd edition, playing a paladin was like playing a lawful good fighter who managed to roll Charisma 17 at the outset. In my homebrew, playing a paladin is like playing a 6th level fighter who has "found religion." I like that better (it reminds me of Final Fantasy IV), but it results in the same basic feel: paladins are a rare, special breed of fighter. I certainly prefer it to the 3rd edition's standard of "paladins are generic lawful-good holy warriors who can't multiclass well." [To say nothing of the ultra-shoddy 3.5 "rangers are tree-hugging rogues" motif.]
hisderfness 10-22-04, 01:38 PM	perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I think that the idea is a good one. The prestige bard I easpecially like. If you combine the class with the generic spellcaster it's really the way I've always envisioned bards, and a nice walk around some of the bardic restrictions I never understood, like why the bard can't cast knock or any direct damage spells. As far as the under/over powered thing goes, I don't think that they are unbalanced in any way. Maybe a smidge this way or that, but really they are more about flavor, and I'm glad to finally have something like that in the game.
Pysker Nel'Restynn 10-28-04, 02:09 AM	..
Psyker Nel'Restynn 10-28-04, 03:46 AM	I agree with you about the Paladins being a Holy Knight, one who has within him great goodness and a will to destroy all things evil. But probably my biggest problem with 3rd Edition was the Ranger class. A watered down fighter and a knock off druid. Although they did improve upon the class in v3.5, but none the less it still a let down. In my mind, the Ranger and Paladin were, in essence, the same class. Each being master swordsmen and an acute archer, able to channel the power of the earth and the power of the heavens. None of this casting magic shat. Spells are left to dank, dusty towers, they hold no place in the heart and mind of the wandering hero. In my games, Rangers wandered the world, acquiring knowledge and wisdom as they went. They can heal through their innate connection with the rock and tree. The are not the tree huggers protesting outside a lumber camp thats been clear cutting the forest and havesting dryads, they are the guerilla fighters destroying the camp and bringing justice to realm. Stree Justice, noble vigilantes. They are content to allow the reinging lord do as he wishes as long as it doesnt harm the people or the land, thats when they put their hand in and take charge. Adept woodsmen, content on the road, sleeping beneath the stars or chilling at the lords mannor, enjoying the high life. None are better at stalking and going unnoticed as a trained ranger. Unlike Forgotten Realms, Rangers arent common, they are rare and even if you have met one, you wouldn't have known that he was one of the rangers. Much tabboo and rumour permeats the enigmatic group of wanderers, often seen as cut throats and brigands, when in reality they are the wayward defenders of little guy. On the other side of the coin, is the Paladin, a righteous hero and zealous champion of goodness; a hero for the people. Riding in on the white stalion in full plate, killing off the zombies and enjoying a pint with the townsfolk. Where the Paladin is all about honour and doing what is right, A Ranger is more about doing what needs to be done and doing whatever it takes. Each has the same goals, but how they get there is entirely different. Both groups channel magic but do not cast spells in the same manor as a druid or cleric, they have special abilities and supernatural powers that they can call upon. So yea, thats my take on the whole Ranger - Pally bit.