Starve.Org White Noise Usenet Archive: "'Re: Prestige Class Mania?"

"Xeno" <mlsheltn@SPAM.memphis.edu> wrote in message
news:3aa4bd05.97487084@news.memphis.edu...
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2001 14:49:26 GMT, "Steve Jaros" <sjaros3@home.com> wrote:

(snip)

> I suppose a better question for this is, "is such a duality necessarily a
> bad thing?"

Not necessarily, but in this case, for the reasons i've given, i think it
is.

> To me, the prestige class rules are there to allow such relative oddities
> as specialist clerics, unusual arcane spellcasters (such as those from the
> Player's Option Spells & Magic book),

I agree with you that this is one purpose of the prestige class. But IMO
there's no need for a section on prestige classes in the rules to "allow"
for these kinds of things, because their existence (as a concept) is already
"allowed" or recognized, and indeed encouraged, in the sections on modifying
and customizing classes.

> and character concepts that can't be
> easily duplicated by any core class or multiclass. Modifying either the
> Wizard or the Fighter class to produce the Arcane Archer is a lot of work.

Ok, let's take the Arcane Archer as an example of a contradiction i'm
talking about. A detailed description of the AA like the one in the DMG can
save the DM lots of work if he adopts this class as described - or a version
of it that is very close to how it is described - in the DMG. But if this
happens, then the DM will not have customized anything, he will just have
adopted a class straight out of the rulebook! Thereby defeating the primary
purpose of the prestige class concept, which is to encourage the DM to
customize classes to his campaign. If, otoh, the DM reads the description of
the Arcane Archer as just an example of how to design a prestige class, he
is saved virtually none of the work required to design one that really fits
the uniqueness of his world...

> The ability to completely customize the core classes to generate anything
a
> DM has in mind may be easy enough for an experienced or talented DM, but
3E
> has to be written with players and DMs of all kinds.

Absolutely. And it is these newer DMs who are really the object of my
concern. An experienced DM will just read over the descriptions of the
prestige classes and take whatever he finds useful from them, or just
disregard them entirely, because even a cursory glance at the rules will
tell him/her that the prestige classes are about customization, and they
already know all about that. But the inexperienced one is likely to receive
the mixed signals i've described, is likely to succumb to player pressure to
include these classes because they are described in the core rules, and is
likely to use them as-is, not as an example of how to design one
themselves...

>Pretty much the only
> thing the 3E books safely assumes is that you're literate and that you
> understand the basic terms used in English for playing games (what dice
> are, what a "point" is, and so forth). The books were written so that rank
> newbies could pick the core books off the shelf and learn how to play the
> game as it was meant to be played.

I like 3e. Much better than 2e. But IMO the prestige classes are an example
of 2e thinking insinuating itself into the 3e rules - the tendency to nanny
us with all kinds of unnecessary optional rules. It's ironic, but when the
rule books formalize creative/customizing processes, they may very well tend
to stifle them instead...

> Perhaps they were allowing for both specialists (who want to hone their
> skills in ways not offered by any one core class) and uber-characters (who
> forgo the top levels of their core class(es) to take some levels in a
> prestige class instead)?

Again, IMO this is all unnecessary. A DM can do that on his own if he wants.
No need to clutter up the rules with this.

In 1989, one could argue that it was helpful to put all this optional stuff
in official rules products (as 2e did), because the alternative sources of
new ideas for DMs was somewhat limited -mainly your gaming group, Dragon,
and the occasional Con. I didn't agree with that argument, but it was
defensible. But now, given the internet, there's no need for it at all. Any
newbie DM who is wondering how to go about modifying stuff can come to an ng
like this, or type "dungeons and dragons" into a search engine and get a
lifetime's worth of information and ideas...

> I am not sure that this is such a problem. Think of a well-rounded
> character as a pyramid. Their core class(es) form the foundation, their
> prestige classes form the elite middle section, and the character's
> personality and the unwritten aspects of the character you give it every
> time you roleplay the character form the capstone.

Hmmm. The DMG seems to indicate that prestige classes being more powerful
than non-prestige classes would be a problem, because it bends over
backwards to encourage the DM to balance it all out...

(big snip)

> >Two other points: 1) I think the prestige classes are a problem for the
> >rules not just because in practice they will tend to be designed as more
> >powerful than non-prestiges, but also because the 3ed. classes seem to be
> >somewhat "powered-up" to begin with, and the prestiges exacerbate that.
2)
>
> Well, many 3E classes are indeed more powerful, but so are NPCs and
> monsters (who have access to those same classes).

I know it's just an aside, but i've never understood the benefits in the
move to power-up everything in the game.

> Kits were bad because there was no attempt made to integrate kit rules and
> standards into the core rules. At least with 3E, they knew they were going
> to incorporate some sample prestige classes in the DMG and future
> supplements, and that players were going to want some kind of kit-thing
for
> 3E too, so they made the effort to "compensate" (not the best word for it)
> for prestige classing when hashing out the core rules from the beginning.

Dealing with the problem of integration you describe here is important. But
IMO -i know it's not a popular one and stirs up old debates from 4-5 years
ago - in general there's more confusion created by including optional rules
in core rulebooks than is resolved by including them therein. I would have
just kept parts of the discussion in the PHB and on pp.25-27, the parts
which basically amount to "hey all you new DM's, don't feel bound to play
these classes as they are described here in the PHB. Customize them to fit
your world, because that will create a unique flavor you and your players
will enjoy. But remember that it's a good idea to keep game balance in mind
when you do so"...And omit the stuff on prestige classes entirely.

> Perhaps the case for legitimizing prestige classes can be stated well in
> this one sentence:
>
> Prestige classes are meant to *define* powerful characters, not *create*
> them from weaker ones.

... I fail to see why customized character classes should be more powerful
than standard ones. IMO, game balance -and ultimately player enjoyment- in
DD depends in part on a rough equality among all the classes. All classes
should be prestige classes, in the sense that they are customized to fit the
DMs world. If a DM does that, then there's no duality and the chances of
imbalance are reduced.

> If your campaign is suffering due to prestige classed characters, perhaps
> your campaign just can't abide having high-powered characters in it; the
> fault lies not with the prestige classes themselves but with the player
> characters having outgrown their status as unretired PCs.

Any game should be able to abide high-power characters, because even "normal
class" characters will become very powerful as they advance in level. So
that's not an issue that is unique to running prestige classes.