Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 77im Dec 03, 2003 9:22:18	I like creating new prestige classes (it's fun -- everyone should try it!). For a long time I just wrote down whatever sort of class sprang from my inspiration. But recently I started thinking about the published prestige classes that I like, and the one's I've made that I'm happy with, and came up with a set of guidelines for myself to use when making a PrC. I now have a much better understanding of why I do and don't like certain classes, and I like my own classes much better for it, so I've decided to share. These are my guidelines that I use to create prestige classes that I happen to like; your mileage may vary. They are sort of like steps I follow, but I follow them over and over again as I revise a class. 1. Consider the role of the class. I like to think of prestige classes in several categories. Is the class a generic character archetype (like duelist) or a truly original creation (like shadowdancer)? Is the class designed to fit well with any D&D world (like archmage) or is it tied to some particular campaign world elements (like red wizard)? Is the class one that requires special training or membership in an organization (like dwarven defender) or is it one that folks pick up pretty much on their own (like dragon disciple)? Do the characters of the world recognize the class ("She's an arcane archer") or does it exist only on a game-mechanical level ("She calls herself a 'duelist' or a 'fencer' or a 'swashbuckler' or something, but they're all just fast fighters to me")? What role does the class play in the party -- melee brute (dwarven defender, dragon disciple), magical might (archmage, red wizard), mobility/skill specialist (duelist, horizon walker), or weirdo (shadowdancer)? There are no right or wrong answers here, of course, but it helps to think about these things before I get started because it provides a context for the class's non-standard abilities. 2. Outline the class's abilities from a high level. It's tempting to give a PrC a whole slew of special abilities that only tangentially relate to the class's core concept. To avoid this, I begin by coming up with 3 or 4 broad ability categories I want the class to have. It often helps me to visualize a member of the class in action. For example, I recently came up with a Pikeman class, and decided its abilities would be: "Fighter-type; good at fighting in a formation; can twirl a polearm around gracefully as though it were a double weapon." An example for the Duelist might be, "Fighter-rogue hybrid; great at parrying and dodging and avoiding hits even without armor; does extra damage by striking precisely; good at acrobatics." If I look at a class I've made and find I can't sum it up with such a brief description, it's usually to powerful or too unspecialized. I then force myself to come up with such a description and trim away any abilities that don't fit. Focusing the class's abilities in a few key areas helps me to avoid overpowering the class by giving it too many abilities that are useful in too many ways or combinations of powers that are devastatingly strong. More importantly, though, I believe that the best way to express the flavor of a PrC is through its special abilities. A lot of times, just reading the rules and ability names for a class will give me a clear idea what the class is for, while classes with few abilities or which are too generic (ex. bonus feats) have correspondingly weak concepts. Plus, most people skip over flavor text and go straight to the crunchy bits when reading a prestige class, and if the two conflict the flavor text just seems silly and gets ignored. 3. Compare the class to one or more core classes. This doesn't mean I base my prestige classes off of core classes; I merely compare them. I think about the combination of core classes, feats, spells, equipment, etc. most closely resembles the class I am trying to build. This serves several purposes. First, it helps me to balance the class. I like to try to balance my prestige classes against the core classes because it's just so much easier than balancing against a nebulous standard of "slightly more powerful." (Of course, my PrCs usually end up a tad more powerful anyway, but as long as I haven't rendered the core classes obsolete, that's OK.) Second, it helps me figure out what sort of BAB, class skills, HD, etc. my new class should have in order to fulfill the roles I want (see point 1). Saving throw progressions, BAB, etc. define upper and lower boundaries for many important check modifiers, and it's best not to exceed the core classes in this regard. Third, it shows me what abilities are available to a core class character, so that I can avoid them in favor of unique and interesting special abilities. The arcane trickster, for example, is very similar to a multiclass rogue/wizard; but his ranged legerdemain and impromptu sneak attacks highlight the way magic and thievery work together. The duelist gets combat abilities unavailable to a straight fighter/rogue. The eldritch knight, on the other hand, is not the kind of class I would make, because although it fixes a problem with the multiclass system (multiclass spellcasters lagging hopelessly behind in spell level), it has no distinct flavor to make it interesting (see the Complete Warrior's spellsword for a more interesting variation on the same concept). 4. Use requirements that encourage role-playing more than elaborate character planning and optimization. When coming up with the requirements, I try to answer the question, "If there were only core classes, and someone was building a character to have the same flavor I want for my PrC, what abilities would they probably have?" Those become my entry requirements. Let's take duelist as an example. The duelist-like core character would probably be a fighter-rogue, and I want this class to be available around 8th level, so let's say a BAB of +6. As a Dexterity-based fighter, I'd definitely expect him to be proficient with the rapier, have the Weapon Finesse feat, and probably have 5 ranks in Tumble (a valuable and useful skill). So those would be my duelist requirements -- they're easier than the official requirements, but they don't exactly open the class up to many non-duelist-type characters and I really see no need for any stricter prerequisites. I don't like the fact that so many prestige classes have elaborate prerequisites, and that gaining entry requires planning from day one. Feat prerequisites are quite problematic -- most non-human, non-fighters get very few feats and shouldn't have to follow a strict feat regiment to get a cool class, nor should a player be forced to get feats they don't want just because some PrC requires them. (I try to limit myself to at most one feat prereq, and I like feat prereqs along the lines of "any one of the following four feats: " etc.) On the other hand, skill rank, BAB, and spell (or spell level) requirements work pretty well, as they are easier to get and more generally useful than feats so characters are more likely to have them already. 5. Make the class easy to understand. By using the standard progressions and values, the class is easy to understand because players can compare the PrC to a core class at a glance. I try to avoid giving out skill bonuses or feats (they are boring), but if it's the best way to model the class feature I want, it's easier to just say "the character receives the Improved Critical feat, but only when wielding a polearm" or "the character gets a bonus on all Jump checks equal to twice their class level." Instead of giving a class a skill bonus (boring) I'd rather offer them creative ways of using that skill to entice players to buy ranks in it normally (such as the rogue's trapfinding and the ranger's free Track feat). Spell-like abilities are good (they have a lot more variety), especially if I restrict the usage somehow, like "Polymorph 1/day, but only into aquatic forms" or "mage hand at will, but only targeting metal objects." The goal is not to hand out free stuff, but to use the existing large body of rules to cover class abilities that resemble an already existing effect, so that I can focus on creating unique abilities. I like special ability names that are somewhat descriptive of the ability, but also contribute to the class's flavor. For example, contrast the druid's Venom Immunity and the monk's Diamond Body; both confer poison immunity, but sound very different. If an ability increases or changes with levels, I like to include that in the ability's name (like "sneak attack +1d6," "ki strike (lawful)," "wild shape 1/day" and "+1 save against poison"). If an ability is purely a bonus or increasing quantity, I like to make an additional column for it on the class chart, like the monk's unarmed damage, speed increase, AC bonus, etc. (I would have made the rogue's sneak attack damage a column on the rogue class chart.) In general, I try for around 1 special ability per level or fewer. I like classes with minor (seemingly useless) abilities, but sometimes they pile up and the class becomes a three page collection of tiny one-sentence powers with unhelpful names. Not every level needs a special ability, and I find classes easier to understand when multiple abilities tie together or comprise one large ability (like the druid's wild shape progression). A strong or defining ability that increases in power or uses per day can "anchor" a prestige class, giving it a clearly visible hook that the class's flavor and minor abilities can revolve around (like the rogue's sneak attack or the paladin's smite). Conclusion I found the creation of these guidelines (indeed, the very writing of this post) a valuable exercise, and am already seeing an improvement in my prestige classes. If you are serious about creating good prestige classes, I recommend you try to come up with your own set of guidelines that produce the sort of classes that you like. Then, please share your guidelines on these boards! -- 77IM
#2 l337_monkey_dup Dec 05, 2003 11:23:14	In my opinion a core class (or base class, or whatever you want to call it) is something that should, under normal conditions, be very flexible. A Fighter, for example, is incredibly flexible. While the abilities remain constant and unchanging, the direction you take can vary greatly. The Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard classes are examples of flexible classes as well, each giving you a hefty amount of variety in how you wish to present your character. Some of the core classes, such as the Paladin, are not really flexible at all in the sense of class features. I presume that it is simply supposed to be a variant core class of the Fighter, as it was in 2E. Variant core classes would be those that are designed with a specific intent in mind, much as a player might do to create a unique Monk with abilities he would rather have to fit his concept (though the Monk itself is a rather straightforward class unto itself). A prestige class, on the other hand, should be built around a specific concept. It should not be terribly flexible beyond feat and skill selection, but should be molded after an occupation or goal that the creator had in mind. An Undead Slayer should be tailored with abilities suited towards detecting and eliminating undead, and really nothing else. With that in mind try to keep abilities per level as balanced as you can with what other classes get. Generally the prestige class will be far better at doing what it was meant to do than another class that is tailored in that same direction. For example, a Fighter will not be as good as an Undead Slayer when it comes to fighting them, although in other situations an Undead Slayer will not be as good a warrior as the Fighter.
#3 Endarire Dec 07, 2003 23:42:57	Some PrCs are difficult to compare and fit in 3, 5, or 10 levels. My Magesmith is based around making magic items of all kinds cheaper and more efficiently than the average caster, culminating at L10 (character level 20) with the ability to craft a greater artifact. While this may seem unbalancing, note that making any item of such power will attract beings that want it and that costs will be great. The first 9 levels lead up to this, granting abilities, usually multiple per level, though there's only 'good' ability per level. I made it worth taking for 9 levels for nearly everyone (I guess around 90% of people) 10 levels for a slightly smaller crowd.