|
6 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 12:17PM
#91
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
Or you put a hard limit on the number of PrC's (1) or make them complete one first before gaining another one.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 12:20PM
#92
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I would propose the following solutions:
- Prestige classes are taken on top of a class -- it does not use the multiclass rules. It's a package of powers released over several levels (say, 5), much like a paragon path. This makes them a bit more like 4e Paths than 3e PrCs
- You cannot take another prestige class until you have finished receving the benefits of the first one. So you can only take one every six levels, at the least. You can, however, drop a presitge class (and all associated benefits) in exchange for a new one -- i.e., you can retrain a prestige class.
- You cannot take more than three prestige classes throughout your adventuring career.
- Prestige classes should have minimum levels for balance purposes. So if the first power of a prestige class is equivalent to, say, a third-level spell, you'd have to be 5th level to take the prestige class.
That said, I think prestige classes should have primarily roleplaying prerequisites, other than the level pre-req, which exists solely for balance, and perhaps a racial prereq for some PrCs.
One interesting option a Prestige Class may offer is access to feats that you can opt to take in place of the feats offered by your Specialty or, if yiou make your own Specialty out of mix-and-match feats, simply new feats that you can take (or retrain) for levels 3, 6, and 9.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 12:22PM
#93
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2011
|
I think 1 PrC per character sounds reasonable. It prevents shameless min/maxing, and it gives more emphasis to the player's choice.
Also, if a PrC is really OPed, the DM can always ban it from his campaign. "I'm sorry, but there are no Verdant Lords in Dark Sun."
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 12:24PM
#94
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
1) I'm not sure why you say it should not use the multiclass rules. If said rules are written well enough, the mechanical interleaving between class, multiclass, and prestige class could be very straightforward.
2) This is HUGE. I cannot agree with this enough. Not only is it thematically appropriate, but it removes nearly all of the major failures of the 3e PrC system.
3) Eh. Not sure this sort of restriction is necessary, given 2), the total number of levels, and the number of levels of each paragon class.
4) No. Minimum levels do not work. Sorry, they just don't - they worked in 4e, when everyone had the same minimum, and people only got them once. Adjusting the minimum level based on the PrC in question would be a total nightmare. PrCs should be balanced, period. Not overpowered yet hard to achieve.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 12:25PM
#95
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2009
|
I totally agree. Anything to reduce confusion and class bloat is optimal. It just wouldn't be right to create a PrC for every concept.
If the PrC class is just about in game "prestige" then the name is correct. The problem is that the term "prestige class" has another connotation that 3e introduced.
I really don't know why the designers are insisting on re-using terms. They still haven't removed the term "Hit dice" either.
I see your point about the term "prestige." How about "prestige path" or "prestige kit?"
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 12:27PM
#96
|
|
|
Wrecan, I'd add a default option for Fighter+, Wizard+, ect packages of powers take the place of prestige classes in their absence.
...whatever
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 12:28PM
#97
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
I would propose the following solutions:
- Prestige classes are taken on top of a class -- it does not use the multiclass rules. It's a package of powers released over several levels (say, 5), much like a paragon path. This makes them a bit more like 4e Paths than 3e PrCs
- You cannot take another prestige class until you have finished receving the benefits of the first one. So you can only take one every six levels, at the least. You can, however, drop a presitge class (and all associated benefits) in exchange for a new one -- i.e., you can retrain a prestige class.
- You cannot take more than three prestige classes throughout your adventuring career.
- Prestige classes should have minimum levels for balance purposes. So if the first power of a prestige class is equivalent to, say, a third-level spell, you'd have to be 5th level to take the prestige class.
That said, I think prestige classes should have primarily roleplaying prerequisites, other than the level pre-req, which exists solely for balance, and perhaps a racial prereq for some PrCs.
1. Fine
2. Fine
3. Seems too much. I'd say 2 at most: neater and less min/max friendly
4. Not sure: I liked how themes (e.g. Dark Sun 4E) could be picked up from the start
And I would add:
5. PrC are completely optional and the game can be played without them withtout creating imbalance.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 12:29PM
#98
|
|
|
PrCs get a lot of flak for being over- or under-powered compared to 3.5 base classes, but I think that a lot of that blame should actually fall on the base classes themselves. If you're trying to design a fighter-type PrC and your design constraints are:
- Fighter-type stats (d10 HD, Full BAB)
- Exciting
- Doesn't make the core fighter look bad
- At least one good save
That's pretty much not doable, short of building penalties into the PrC to offset its benefits. A level of 3.5 fighter is so utterly garbage that giving it up in exchange for anything is fine.
The underpowered line of reasoning is generally similar. The core caster classes are so absurd that almost nothing is worth giving up a caster level for - and at the same time, the wizard and sorcerer get nothing else meaningful, so if you don't make them give up a caster level to PrC, they have no reason not to.
Much like 3.5's core base classes were obviously designed without giving an iota of thought to how multiclassing would work, they also don't seem to have been designed to take PrCing into account.
I think that a lot of the over/underpowered mess becomes much less of an issue when you have core base classes that aren't all severely over/underpowered themselves and which are designed to better integrate into PrCs.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 12:30PM
#99
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
5. PrC are completely optional and the game can be played without them....
Thread winner!
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 12:31PM
#100
|
Date Joined:
Oct 22, 2009
|
For me, prestige classes are a deal breaker.
They occupy a crossroads where role-playing, world-building, min-maxing, optimization, trap choices, and campaign narrative all catastrophically collide.
|
|
|
