Legends & Lore: Wrapping Up 2012

185 posts / 0 new
Last post
Legends & Lore
Wrapping Up 2012

By Mike Mearls

In the last Legends & Lore for the year, Mike discusses prestige classes and invites you to fill out a survey regarding your favorite prestige class.

Talk about this column here.

This Week in D&D

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Yay prestige classes.
 Expert5/Reindeer Handler10/Ace Sleigh driver 5
Um, are prestige classes the only thing in this packet or did they finally decide to fix the monster math?
Prestige classes built upon feats and mechanics is more preferable than how 'characters act in the world and how they pursue their goals'. I just threw up. Balance of play over fluff- any day of the year. Boo to D&D Next!
PrCs suck! In 3e/3.5e they were one of the biggest reasons the game broke.  Having said that I think as long as they all, without exception, have role-playing requirements for entry it can be okay.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

Also depends on how they implement them I suspect they will resemble 4th ed paragon paths with the prestige class label on them. I don't think they will be heavily detailed lists of stuff like they were in 3.5.
    I've removed content from this thread because vulgarity is a violation of the Code of Conduct.  You can review the Code of Conduct here www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
So, let me get this straight: priority is the 'core', but we don't get to see a draft of the remaining core classes, we don't get to see a first stab at multiclassing either. 

We get Prestige Classes ??

Color me puzzled. 
As a 4E player primarily. with ancient AD&D and some Pathfinder experience, I was unfamiliar with many of the Prestige Classes in the survey. Doing a little research, some seem pretty interesting...

I definitely want a Forsaker option in 5E!

My problem with paragon paths/prestige classes is that it sets the bar on concepts outside low-levels or even 1st level. For example, lets take the Bear Warrior. Prior to 4E the only way to get access to this was to be a Barbarian and enter 8th level. 4E started it as a Paragon path (10th level) but then Themes came along and allowed it at 1st level. I think having them in the game is fine so long as its not the only way go play a particular concept.
My problem with paragon paths/prestige classes is that it sets the bar on concepts outside low-levels or even 1st level. For example, lets take the Bear Warrior. Prior to 4E the only way to get access to this was to be a Barbarian and enter 8th level. 4E started it as a Paragon path (10th level) but then Themes came along and allowed it at 1st level. I think having them in the game is fine so long as its not the only way go play a particular concept.



Yeah, I would love it if most prestige classes were available by 2nd or 3rd level in 5E-- if it's all roleplaying requirements, than that shouldn't be much of an issue. But if it's a (very dependent upon mechanics/character power) thing like "defeat an adult chromatic dragon in single combat," Prestige Classes will be imited in their ability to play concepts at 1st/low level, and will result in a lot of characters who change their identity halfway through their career, IMO.
@Diffan- good point about themes being accessible at 1st level. Maybe they can make themes as prestige classes for levels 1-10. Who knows...not a fan of 4E themes.
I like that Prestige classes can provide players and DMs with a ton of adventure ideas and campaign goals to work toward and may have more story-based oriented benefits rather than feats or extra abilities.  

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

PrCs suck! In 3e/3.5e they were one of the biggest reasons the game broke.  Having said that I think as long as they all, without exception, have role-playing requirements for entry it can be okay.



I agree with the sentiment. And thinking about role-play requirements, why don't we just handle this with roleplay and refluff? Why do we need hard rules for everything?

You are now the Knight of the Order of Whatever. Awesome! Roleplay it! 
Prestige classes in 3.x came with several significant problems, the biggest ones (IMO) being:

1. As Mike mentioned in the article, prestige classes had feat, skill and other requirements that forced players to pre-plan their characters in advance. This made character creation and advancement much more tedious. It also made it so you couldn't really just play your character out and then gain a prestige class as the story dictated.

2. Prestige classes were often very overpowered or underpowered compared to normal classes. This caused players to take them (or not) for purely mechanical reasons. Those that grant mechanical advantages were highly sought after, while those that didn't were avoided like the plague, no matter how rich in roleplaying flavor they were.

3. Because prestige classes were gained via multiclassing, there was not only a minimum level required, but also a mechanically optimal level to take them. Most couldn't be taken until level 6 or later. Whatever level was required, it was almost always mechanically optimal to take levels in them as soon as possible. This created akward situations where player levels and prestige classes didn't quite fit with the story.

4. Another problem with prestige classes (and 3.x multiclassing in general) is that they screwed up the math of attack and saving throw bonuses. Certain class/level combinations gave you inferior attack/save bonuses, while others gave you higher bonuses than a single class character.

The article suggests that they are at least going to try and avoid problem #1 this time. That's a good start, but the other problems also need to be addressed.

I think prestige classes would work better as something more like 2e kits, templates for your character rather than classes you gain levels in. 4e did something like that with paragon paths and epic destinies, but I'd rather prestige classes not be mandatory and I'd rather them not be tied to any particular level.
I would like prestige classes to behave differently than they have in the past. When you qualify, you don't 'take a level' in one, which leads to mechanical optimisation of when to take PrC levels and  exactly how many, but a true benefit on top of your current character. So, if you qualify at 5th level you get the benefits associated for levels 1-5 (though they may not start until later levels of course), and as you level up in Fighter or Wizard, you acquire more benefits. The tradeoff would be a limitation of just one such class per character, and a strict set of rules that require you to follow the group's code of conduct, or force you to give up some other mechanical benefits. Cue whining about giving out power in exchange for roleplay limitations and how that doesn't work - sure, if the DM doesn't care, it's free power, just as the DM can give you a million GP at first level if they want to.

An example might be, for instance, a specialist wizard. You can qualify immediately if you desire, or opt to join a specific school of magic later in your career. In exchange for better/more spells in your chosen school, you would have to give up your knowledge of spells of an opposing school. This could be for in-game metaphysical reasons (illusionists lose the ability to evoke 'real' elements), or for fluff reasons (the illusionists fell out with evokers eons ago and the two groups despise each other).
I know Paragon Path came around at level 11, what was the minimum level for a Prestige Class in 3.X ? Level 3-5 ?

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

I know Paragon Path came around at level 11, what was the minimum level for a Prestige Class in 3.X ? Level 3-5 ?


Level 5.

Thanks ! That's slightly sooner. 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

My problem with paragon paths/prestige classes is that it sets the bar on concepts outside low-levels or even 1st level. For example, lets take the Bear Warrior. Prior to 4E the only way to get access to this was to be a Barbarian and enter 8th level. 4E started it as a Paragon path (10th level) but then Themes came along and allowed it at 1st level. I think having them in the game is fine so long as its not the only way go play a particular concept.



Any concept you can have at 1st level should be a standard core class.  PrCs in particular should be for entrance into prestigious organizations and should never be something you can take at 1st level.  That's why I had trouble picking from the lists provided.  Harper would be a good PrC, as would concepts like Archmage, or Hierophant.  Something that is a flavor of a class should be a theme.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

Prestige classes built upon feats and mechanics is more preferable than how 'characters act in the world and how they pursue their goals'. I just threw up. Balance of play over fluff- any day of the year. Boo to D&D Next!



I think any rules that take away some of the ability of players to CharOp their characters is a great idea!  If you can't be certain you will get a specific magic item, gain entry into a specific PrC, or gain access to a specific spell it makes it a lot harder for a specific single player to break the game, or ruin a campaign.  Yay Mike Mearls and team!

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

I'd be much obliged if anyone not using up their "extra notes" section to comment on the concept and implementation of PrCs in general might take a moment to note how the True Necromancer was a trap option that gave up so much, and got so little in return, that taking it made made your character considerably worse at everything, including their specialty, and that such trap options are terrible and should be avoided.

Perhaps put forward by contrast the Pale Master, which paid a hefty, but not crippling price in overall effectiveness up front in exchange for several useful, unique, and thematic abilities within its specialty which still didn't make it, overall, more powerful than a non-PrC'd character, even in that specialty.  It could just do some cool things that characters within the specialty who didn't take the PrC wished they could do - enough so that it was maybe worth doing as a PrC and not a couple feats.

If they're going to do PrCs at all, that seems to me to be how they should work, although for most concepts PrCs have been used for in the past, particularly the 'multiclassing enablers', I'd argue that options available at 1st level without multiclassing would be a better way to go.  For instance, the Bard and especially the Beguiler always struck me as way better implementations of the Rogueish Arcanist concept than any multiclass rogue with any caster class, regardless of which PrCs were used to try and patch over the poorly fitting pieces.  Sometimes a new class is a better call for a concept than trying to staple two vaguely related but poorly fitting classes with a PrC, but that's another topic.

Overall, I'm not overwhelmingly thrilled with the ideas on display in the article, but what else is new.  If PrCs don't have prereqs, aren't they then just "classes that need your DMs permission to take"?  Aren't all classes that already?  It seems to me that a non-class, less mechanics-based organization membership & prestige tracker system would work for that better than multiclassing.
Necromancy: Friendship is Magic
It was a gencon I believe(it was a while ago). Wyatt came out and basicly trashed 3rd. while saying 4th. was the savior reborn, promising alot of stuff at launch that never even made it in 4th.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

I want to see the Runesmith redone with a bit better balance. I loved the concept though.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
With new stats for a tarrasque in this weeks dragon, I must say it is strange, that some people claim 4e is dead.
Um, are prestige classes the only thing in this packet or did they finally decide to fix the monster math?

I don't know about the monster math, but I don't think the packet being distributed today is about prestige classes (at least, that wasn't the impression I got from the article). I think he said there would be a packet today, and then started talking about prestige classes as something that will be coming in the future. We still haven't seen multiclassing, which was promised to be in a "future" packet, so I don't think they'd jump past that to PrCs already when this is the first time PrCs have been brought up seriously for discussion. With the survey being about PrCs, that means they're just starting to decide which ones to include, not that they've been built out.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

5e should strongly stay away from "I don't like it, so you can't have it either."

For all intent and purposed, D&D is shelved until 5e is released in 2014. 

How long do you think each edition was "active" then? Because if you say that you think 2E was "active" for 11 years, then I'm going to at the hypocracy.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Um, are prestige classes the only thing in this packet or did they finally decide to fix the monster math?

I don't know about the monster math, but I don't think the packet being distributed today is about prestige classes (at least, that wasn't the impression I got from the article). I think he said there would be a packet today, and then started talking about prestige classes as something that will be coming in the future. We still haven't seen multiclassing, which was promised to be in a "future" packet, so I don't think they'd jump past that to PrCs already when this is the first time PrCs have been brought up seriously for discussion. With the survey being about PrCs, that means they're just starting to decide which ones to include, not that they've been built out.




this
What does 2e have to do with D&D being shelved until 2014?

I'm basically asking when it is that you consider D&D "active" or "not shelved". What are your criteria for that? People still play D&D and there's still content actively officially published for it, so what is it that makes it "shelved" to you?

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
For all intent and purposed, D&D is shelved until 5e is released in 2014. 

How long do you think each edition was "active" then? Because if you say that you think 2E was "active" for 11 years, then I'm going to at the hypocracy.


OD&D
Two years, seven months (31 months)
Start: January 1974 (three volume set of rules)
End: August 1976 (Swords & Spells)

Hiatus: One year, four months (16 months)

AD&D
Nine years, six months (114 months)
Start: December 1977 (Monster Manual)
End: June 1987 (Manual of the Planes

Hiatus: One year, eight months (20 months)

Second Edition
Eight years, seven months (111 months)
Start: February 1989 (Players Handbook)
End:  September 1997 (Of Ships and Sea)

Hiatus: Two years, eleven months (35 months)

Third Edition
Seven years, one month (85 months)
Start: August 2000 (Players Handbook)
End: September 2007 (Exemplars of Evil

Hiatus: Nine months (9 months)

Fourth Edition
Three years, eight months (44 months)
Start: June 2008 (Players Handbook)
End:  February 2012 (Heroes of the Elemental Chaos)

Hiatus (speculation): Two years, six months (30 months)

Fifth Edition
Only time will tell
Start: August 2014 (Gencon)
When it comes to prestige class, we have some pretty simple design goals. We want them to represent interesting elements of the world, rather than just new mechanical options or a source of power. Prestige classes should be something that you earn membership in through your actions in the campaign world, rather than just a new set of feats or special abilities that come with prerequisites.

That worries me. There is a huge conflict between game balance and campaign plotting here that needs to be resovled somehow. The problem being that a prestige class that actually does anything will only be balanced at certain character levels, so that means the campaign events to gain entry into the prestige class need to be setup to happen at exactly the right point in the campaign.

There is also a posssible side issue if that only some special action is required to gain entry, then character will figure out how to abuse the rules to pass the tests at low level. As long as the entry requirements are not baked in and too stupid, that shouldn't be a huge issue though.

Prestige classes built upon feats and mechanics is more preferable than how 'characters act in the world and how they pursue their goals'. I just threw up. Balance of play over fluff- any day of the year. Boo to D&D Next!



I think any rules that take away some of the ability of players to CharOp their characters is a great idea!  If you can't be certain you will get a specific magic item, gain entry into a specific PrC, or gain access to a specific spell it makes it a lot harder for a specific single player to break the game, or ruin a campaign.  Yay Mike Mearls and team!



Except 3E's prestige classes were originally supposed to be based primarily on RP requirements rather than mechanics, which is why the original PrCs were in the DMG. 

And the concept failed. Failed hard. 

Which is why it's so surreal to read that they plan to try it again. It's like Ford declaring that next year's car line will take its design cues from the Edsel and the Pinto.
I hope that with prestige classes, they are a lot like backgrounds in that they can combine with any character class.  Sure, I might plan for a particular goal for my character, but I want things to be able to work out differently than my plans, and I don't want to limit the story in any way.
First of all: very excited for a new playtest packet today!

Regarding prestige classes, I like what was said in the article.  Linking them to the campaign world rather than just focusing on mechanics is a good idea.  Prestige classes should have a very clear story behind them, rather than simply being a collection of mechanics that let you do something fancy.

The last part of the article was the best.  Giving DMs the tools they need to make their own prestige classes is very important.  Because of the fact that they will be linked to the world, any prestige classes presented in the core books will really just be examples.  Those in specific campaign setting books will be different, because they are part of the lore of the world (such as Purple Dragon Knights from Forgotten Realms, or Knights of Solomnia from Dragonlance), but ones presented in the PHB (Or DMG) won't be linked to a specific campaign.  DMs may or may not like the lore that is presented with them, and being free to make our own Prestige Classes with proper guidelines is fantastic.

Lastly, in terms of how they work, I hope it will be similar to 4E's Paragon Paths, where your Prestige Class adds on to your character instead of taking the place of your class.  Like Backgrounds, Prestige Classes should speak more to who you are.  I don't want to see the return of, "I'm a Fighter 5/Wizard 3/Eldritch Knight 4."  Instead, I would much rather simply see, "I'm a Fighter/Wizard Eldritch Knight."  Even as I type it, I see that the distinction is pretty vague...but it is a difference to me.
At first I was a bit taken back at the mention of PrCs.    I really don't want to see PrCs, PP, and EDs return to the game at all.      

My only hope is that the game does not facilitate the concept of 'builds.'    If the focus is on role playing as Mearls has suggested I'll be fine with it.     In fact, redefining the definition of the PrC is most likely the only way I'll be able to imbrace it.     

At the end of 3e I had completely lost track of all the different PrCs floating around in the system.   4e had the same problem with sub classes, PPs, and EDs.      

In game requirements for entry are a great idea because it keeps the default focus of the game on role playing.    Those groups who don't role play will most likely just ignore them anyway and focus on the mechanics.  

My only suggestion is that the PrC class starts at level 1 or has no entry level prerequisite.  If the system has 100 different PrCs and each one of them has a different entry level that just makes the DM's job more difficult.    It might also be a good idea to prohibit those who take PrCs from multi-classing.   I really don't want to see stat blocks like "PrC XYZ 3  / Prc ABC 11 / PrC XXX 20" ever again.   

 


I think that new abilities that prestige class can give a character should be able to picked up just from normal character building.  I much rather being a part of some organization gives just that... Prestige and RP advantages instead of extra powers.


If I want to be a shadowdancer and gain the ability to summon shadows to my aid then I want being part of the Shadowdancer's Union gives me access to new feats and maneuvers in the class I have and not really change my class into something else.  
Second Edition
Eight years, seven months (111 months)
Start: February 1989 (Players Handbook)
End:  September 1997 (Of Ships and Sea)

Hiatus: Two years, eleven months (35 months)



What are you basing the start and end on? Just publication or active development?

There was a lot of 2nd edition stuff published after that. It just wasn't under TSR. I think the last thing published for 2nd edition was "Die Vecna Die!" in 2000.

When exactly WotC stopped active development on 2nd edition material, I don't know... but I'm sure they kept publishing it after the buyout.


If you can't be certain you will get a specific magic item, gain entry into a specific PrC, or gain access to a specific spell...


Why can't you be certain of it though? If entry in the Order of the Wyvern is based on me surviving a night among the dream wraiths of the Slumbering Barrows, then I can certainly plan to do that and if I really, really want entry into the Order then I'll dedicate myself to doing so, which is part of what Mike says he wants (interest in the world). But then you have to ask yourself, why do I want to become a member of the Order of the Wyvern? I might be doing it simply because I like the mechanical benefits that it provides or because it matches the character concept that I want to achieve, but the effect is the same: I got in because I wanted to.

I don't know how they are going to thread the needle with Prestige classes in 5th edition. They certainly seem to be moving away from the 4e way of getting a Paragon path at a specific level, so if you can pick up a Prestige class at any time and some players might never get one, then it can't be an added series of mechanical benefits at no cost, but if the cost is that it replaces a level of your existing class (ie. taking a level in the Order of the Wyvern means I don't get my next level of Fighter), then how are they going to balance that properly without knowing what level I am going to be getting in? Looking at the Fighter, for example, if I get into the Order of the Wyvern on an otherwise dead level, then I get lots of benefits at no real cost, but if I go in on a level when I am supposed to get my second Expertise die, then I gave up quite a lot, so the knightly order better be packing some mechanical punch.

I suppose they could cop out and say that Prestige classes are like magic items: we don't "plan" for anyone to get one and they can be unbalancing if not handled correctly, so DMs better handle them correctly.
What are you basing the start and end on? Just publication or active development?

There was a lot of 2nd edition stuff published after that. It just wasn't under TSR. I think the last thing published for 2nd edition was "Die Vecna Die!" in 2000.

When exactly WotC stopped active development on 2nd edition material, I don't know... but I'm sure they kept publishing it after the buyout.

Third-party material doesn't count.  I could make something for Basic, but that doesn't mean Basic is still supported.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
What are you basing the start and end on? Just publication or active development?

There was a lot of 2nd edition stuff published after that. It just wasn't under TSR. I think the last thing published for 2nd edition was "Die Vecna Die!" in 2000.

When exactly WotC stopped active development on 2nd edition material, I don't know... but I'm sure they kept publishing it after the buyout.

Third-party material doesn't count.  I could make something for Basic, but that doesn't mean Basic is still supported.



Sorry - I should have been more clear. when I said it wasn't TSR, I didn't mean it was third party material, it was WotC material.
At the end of 3e I had completely lost track of all the different PrCs floating around in the system.   4e had the same problem with sub classes, PPs, and EDs.


Why is that a problem? By the end of 2e, I had completely lost track of all the different kits floating around in the system. Not to mention all of the spells. Any system that has mechanical "pieces" that can be added to with releases is going to get new "pieces" with each splat book released. So what if no single person can keep every single "piece" perfectly memorized in their mind. The limits of Human memory should not be a barrier to the number of character creation "pieces" they put into a game (on a character at any one time, certainly, and deciding between at any single level, maybe, but not in total).

My only suggestion is that the PrC class starts at level 1 or has no entry level prerequisite.  If the system has 100 different PrCs and each one of them has a different entry level that just makes the DM's job more difficult.


3rd edition had something like that with Weapons of Legacy where you had a magical weapon that grew in power with you as you gained experience, but it would plateau at certain levels until you completely certain role-playing tasks that were unique to each item. Something like that might be good with your idea of level 1 / no entry requirement PrC classes.
If you can't be certain you will get a specific magic item, gain entry into a specific PrC, or gain access to a specific spell...


Why can't you be certain of it though? If entry in the Order of the Wyvern is based on me surviving a night among the dream wraiths of the Slumbering Barrows, then I can certainly plan to do that and if I really, really want entry into the Order then I'll dedicate myself to doing so, which is part of what Mike says he wants (interest in the world). But then you have to ask yourself, why do I want to become a member of the Order of the Wyvern? I might be doing it simply because I like the mechanical benefits that it provides or because it matches the character concept that I want to achieve, but the effect is the same: I got in because I wanted to.



In a system where RP is the only way to get in, if your character pisses off those NPCs making the decision, or has an unknown enemy among those responsible for granting entry to the organization they cannot...at least not until they RP their way around the obsticle.  I want a removal of the circumstances where builds and 30 level planning dominate the game.

Examples of PrCs that can be handled this way would be organizations like the Harpers, a thieves' guild, and the Circle of Eight. 

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.