Class labels as a mechanical straightjacket in D&D.

[Draco_Argentum]

Personally I thought the old Broad Classes thread had the right idea. Your class should tell people the general theme of your character. It shouldn't be like the fighter and give you nothing more than a combat role.

[RobbyPants]

Everyone wanted to PrC, even the spellcasters. I mean, I can't tell you the number of times I tried to explain to to people how True Necromancers were actually objectively worse necromancers than single-class Wizards or Clerics and they just shouted at me.

Or Gish characters. People loved flushing caster levels down the toilet for the chance to stab people.

People love PrCs and multclassing. The Op Boards would crap themselves every time someone lost a BAB or a casting level, but people still kept posting builds that lost either or both to get the character they wanted.

This was always my experience as a DM. When we'd do character creation, everyone would either:

1) Figure out a base class, then look for a fun PrC to match, and start planning entry requirements based on that, or

2) Start with a cool PrC, and figure out how to get into it quickly.

One of the last games I ran with that group, one player decided to play a Druid because she'd never tried one. She then reached for the Complete Divine, opened it, and asked me what a good PrC was for Druid. She totally thought I was fucking with her when I told her "Druid". I had to actually get pretty detailed to convince her that I was totally serious, and anything in that book would make her worse.

Although, if anything, I was proud of her for considering her PrC choice at level 1 instead of level 5.

[Shazbot79]

Although, if anything, I was proud of her for considering her PrC choice at level 1 instead of level 5.

Planar Shepherd.

[Plebian]

people don't PrC because it's fun. people do it because they're commonly accepted to be more powerful than base classes, usually.

which is what people are after; they want powerful characters. when the way to get power is jump through hoops and get a PrC, that's what people will do. not because they just love them some requirements but because they want their characters to be better.

so, no, PrCs are not something that people just love the idea of, becoming more powerful than a base class is.

[Hicks]

LOLWAT? People totally take PrC because they are fun, and flesh out their character concept more. Lore Master, Mage of the Arcane Order, Kensai, and Invisible Blade were all ho-hum power wise but had huge traction in my group, boatloads more than Incantrix, Red Mage of Thay, or Planer Shepard, despite their naked power. Power gamers may pic PrCs for actual power, but the vast majority of players Picked a PrC because the fluff was cool/it had a neat full color picture/they wanted "Assassin" or "Shadow Jumper" written on their character sheet.

[Plebian]

perhaps power is the wrong word. people choose PrCs because the PrCs make the character 'better' in their eyes. power usually enters into it but not necessarily, as different people have different ideas of better.

so, no, it's not PrCs they're in love with. the system was ridiculous and system mastery. it's about fleshing out their characters, be that through sheer power or by having nifty abilities. implying that PrCs are a good way to do this is silly and overly complex for no reason other than promoting building your character a certain way from the very beginning, which is horrible for new players.

[erik]

It is certainly a bit of both. I will say that the reason I don't take something for pure ultimate power isn't because it is boring or retarded, but mostly because I don't need or want pure ultimate power. If I am a caster that's usually good enough, and in fact I am looking for ways to handicap myself a wee bit.

If only prestige classes didn't have ridiculously specific requirements then I imagine that 3e would have been a lot less aggravatingly char-op oriented. People could pick up a prestige class that made sense for their character without planning all their race, levels, skills, and feats in advance.

"Character level X, Y levels in Z class". BAM, that could have been case-closed for 90% of Prestige classes, and the required character planning is cut down to negligible amounts, letting non-character optimizers enjoy prestige classes.

[Judging__Eagle]

I think that's a problem with core and 3.5 PrCs in general.

The use of the Tomes has Classes that can do their jorb, and PrCs that are balanced. How is any PrC balanced with a class? Easy, when you can look at a PrC, and the Base Class and say "Gee...I don't know if I want to delay my Barbarian/Samurai/Knight/Fighter class progression by taking a level in Death Knight/Legendary Strategist/Bear Warrior/Frenzied Berserker".

That's the break point between Classes and PrCs being balanced with each other. When a player can look at both and not be sure which is actually going to be better for their character. At least, right away. A person should only be eager to take a PrC if it fits the current PC in question.

[Username17]

Honestly, while I hated 4e and I hated D20 Modern even more, I think that 4e's mandatory paragon paths were a good idea and D20 Modern's short base classes were an even better idea.

Players should be shunted into new vistas that expand their character and their interaction with the campaign world.

-Username17

[RobbyPants]

Although, if anything, I was proud of her for considering her PrC choice at level 1 instead of level 5.

Planar Shepherd.

I don't own that book, and I wouldn't allow it anyway.

perhaps power is the wrong word. people choose PrCs because the PrCs make the character 'better' in their eyes. power usually enters into it but not necessarily, as different people have different ideas of better.

Of course they do something to make their character better. It's part of the leveling process. Taking another level of Barbarian can make your character "better".

Every non-power gamer I've ever gamed with picks PrCs because the either think they look cool or they like the concept. They seem to be motivated more by variety than actual power. They want a new trick, even if that new trick is demonstrably worse than what they can already do.

[mean_liar]

Honestly, while I hated 4e and I hated D20 Modern even more, I think that 4e's mandatory paragon paths were a good idea and D20 Modern's short base classes were an even better idea.

Players should be shunted into new vistas that expand their character and their interaction with the campaign world.

Totally agree. My standard leveling mechanic for players when I'm running DnDv3.5 is that they get 5 levels of base classes, then either a custom 10-level PrC followed by a custom 5-level one, or a 5-level followed by a 10-level. We work out what kinds of abilities they want to see and develop for their character both mechanically and thematically and write to suit the general campaign minmax/power level.

[shadzar]

Honestly, while I hated 4e ~~~, I think that 4e's mandatory paragon paths were a good idea~~~

Players should be shunted into new vistas that expand their character and their interaction with the campaign world.

-Username17

Expanding ones character here of course means having more mechanical bonuses as you level up....

Hitting more often and doing more damage at level up does not expand a character, it only strokes players egos. It doesnt really serve to help the classes either.

It expands only the range of damage able to be done between current level and previous levels, not the character, nor the class itself.

It actually causes a tighter straightjacket created by the classes, to make them more meaningless no matter what the names are.

Along the lines of something akin to "Name Level" to get a player more involved, then the idea of the paragon path for that is worthy, but as implemented, it is just more +1s to damage dice. Being mandatory, is never really a good thing though, but having somethign optional to develop the character to have a deeper connection to the campaign world, is good.

[Quantumboost]

Honestly, while I hated 4e ~~~, I think that 4e's mandatory paragon paths were a good idea~~~

Players should be shunted into new vistas that expand their character and their interaction with the campaign world.

-Username17

Expanding ones character here of course means having more mechanical bonuses as you level up....

Approving of a concept doesn't mean approving of how that concept was implemented. Frank is doing the former.

[erik]

Honestly, while I hated 4e ~~~, I think that 4e's mandatory paragon paths were a good idea~~~

Players should be shunted into new vistas that expand their character and their interaction with the campaign world.

-Username17

Hitting more often and doing more damage at level up does not expand a character, it only strokes players egos. It doesnt really serve to help the classes either.

...

Along the lines of something akin to "Name Level" to get a player more involved, then the idea of the paragon path for that is worthy, but as implemented, it is just more +1s to damage dice. Being mandatory, is never really a good thing though, but having somethign optional to develop the character to have a deeper connection to the campaign world, is good.

Actually, being able to hit and fight stronger things does have a meaningful impact on a character development. There is certainly a story difference between being strong enough to fight a stone giant versus only strong enough to fight a wolf. 4e powers are balls however and even if you had epic powers at level 1, they would be blah.

But the bigger thing about having shorter classes and different class tiers is that you can have a much, much easier time of giving out level appropriate powers since you aren't having to compare level 1 of a Prestige class with level 1 of a core class.

Problem with 4e is that the Paragon classes are if anything, even more boring and flavorless than the base classes, which is saying something. Largely they are boring because they are just adding on a couple lame powers and since every power in 4e is underwhelming, there wasn't much chance of breaking that trend.

There should have been in each Paragon/Epic level an OMGWTFBBQPWN power that gives some large (and preferably interesting) combat advantage to distinguish between the tiers, in addition there should have been an equally impressive non-combat story altering power. Bare minimum. Then throw in some interesting non-ubertier abilities to keep things colorful.

[shadzar]

Honestly, while I hated 4e ~~~, I think that 4e's mandatory paragon paths were a good idea~~~

Players should be shunted into new vistas that expand their character and their interaction with the campaign world.

-Username17

Expanding ones character here of course means having more mechanical bonuses as you level up....

Approving of a concept doesn't mean approving of how that concept was implemented. Frank is doing the former.

did you read my entire post?

Along the lines of something akin to "Name Level" to get a player more involved, then the idea of the paragon path for that is worthy

I agreed with him, TO AN EXTENT. I also wanted to make clear that the involvement wasnt better had by increased mechanical bonuses.

Honestly, while I hated 4e ~~~, I think that 4e's mandatory paragon paths were a good idea~~~

Players should be shunted into new vistas that expand their character and their interaction with the campaign world.

-Username17

Hitting more often and doing more damage at level up does not expand a character, it only strokes players egos. It doesnt really serve to help the classes either.

...

Along the lines of something akin to "Name Level" to get a player more involved, then the idea of the paragon path for that is worthy, but as implemented, it is just more +1s to damage dice. Being mandatory, is never really a good thing though, but having somethign optional to develop the character to have a deeper connection to the campaign world, is good.

Actually, being able to hit and fight stronger things does have a meaningful impact on a character development. There is certainly a story difference between being strong enough to fight a stone giant versus only strong enough to fight a wolf. 4e powers are balls however and even if you had epic powers at level 1, they would be blah.

But the bigger thing about having shorter classes and different class tiers is that you can have a much, much easier time of giving out level appropriate powers since you aren't having to compare level 1 of a Prestige class with level 1 of a core class.

Problem with 4e is that the Paragon classes are if anything, even more boring and flavorless than the base classes, which is saying something. Largely they are boring because they are just adding on a couple lame powers and since every power in 4e is underwhelming, there wasn't much chance of breaking that trend.

There should have been in each Paragon/Epic level an OMGWTFBBQPWN power that gives some large (and preferably interesting) combat advantage to distinguish between the tiers, in addition there should have been an equally impressive non-combat story altering power. Bare minimum. Then throw in some interesting non-ubertier abilities to keep things colorful.

this is the problem in how people view a "character" in current days. They view it as a collection of modifiers, rather than a creature in the fictional world whose story is being told.

If the problem with getting involved with the game word, campaign world, is not having enough bonuses, then maybe D&D wasnt the game for those people.

It comes to a point to decide what you are making and accept it isnt for some people, and those people likewise have to accept that D&D isnt for them, rather than whine and throw a tantrum.

D&D shouldnt have been changed to the 4000 splits in wizard class to give each a name, set of special this and that, and blah blah blah more bonuses and damage.

Engagement comes form the story, not the amount of power you have. Otherwise no matter what your class is, you can boil it down to a dice roll. Wizards gets a d20 to represent his power, and the orc he is fighting gets a d8, the fighter gets a d10. Just roll your dice and whoever gets the higher number wins. So a wiazard vs orc is a lot farther away chance for the orc to win vs a fighter vs orc because the odds are better the orc can roll higher than the fighter as opposed to the wizard.

Really that is all the mechanics try to do without being so directly obvious with all the bonuses.

The engagement should come from MUCH MUCH more than a few bonuses based on some mechanic of the class, but the gameplay should spur the want for continued engagement in it.

[Plebian]

the point of 4e is an attempt to balance classes, though, and balance gets exponentially more difficult when you start throwing every class a free rocket launcher for levelling up.

and I disagree that PPs and EDs are more boring, but hey that's just me. some are generic, some have tons of flavor, and it's pretty easy to qualify for one you just love the flavor of by taking a multiclass feat. it's certainly better than building a character from scratch to qualify for PrCs. and that's what it's about; keeping things somewhat balanced, due to a lack of immensely powerful abilities, and making it so that you don't have to plan your character out from 1 to qualify for a few neat addons to your character.

but then you also think 4e powers are boring but, hey, I think saying "I full-round attack" or "I move and then attack once" is even more unforgivably boring.

[Winnah]

I really don't understand 'class balance' as a mantra. It's fucking stupid. True balance would lead to bland, homogenous characters, or worse, decent arrays of options being watered down or removed. I want characters to be unique. Balanced mechanics is another issue entirely.

If I'm going to be given the option of making a character, then I expect to have some input into the creation of that character. Real choices. If I am going to play a campaign, then I expect to be able to influence the game world in a meaningful fashion. A campaign (unless you're on a railroad) develops over time and adapts to the players. Character development should also be an ongoing process and I would like there to be more real options in character development than collecting a feat and getting a +1 every couple of levels.

[Plebian]

I really don't understand 'class balance' as a mantra. It's fucking stupid. True balance would lead to bland, homogenous characters, or worse, decent arrays of options being watered down or removed. I want characters to be unique. Balanced mechanics is another issue entirely.

true balance is nearly impossible, but the power disparity found in earlier editions is incredibly silly and easily leads to situations where one character can easily make most people nearly worthless except to soak hits and CdG helpless stuff. this should be avoided in any cooperative game.

If I'm going to be given the option of making a character, then I expect to have some input into the creation of that character. Real choices. If I am going to play a campaign, then I expect to be able to influence the game world in a meaningful fashion. A campaign (unless you're on a railroad) develops over time and adapts to the players. Character development should also be an ongoing process and I would like there to be more real options in character development than collecting a feat and getting a +1 every couple of levels.

um, okay? character development and player agency aren't anything that mechanics can enforce, though. they're up to the players and the DM. some groups only want a murder simulator, some groups want heavy roleplay with a bit of combat mixed in, and both of these groups will follow the mechanics of the game.

[Winnah]

true balance is nearly impossible, but the power disparity found in earlier editions is incredibly silly and easily leads to situations where one character can easily make most people nearly worthless except to soak hits and CdG helpless stuff. this should be avoided in any cooperative game.

Power disparity was not just about combat. It was about being able to influence the campaign in a variety of ways. The problem with watering things down to the level of the fighter is that the game is reduced to a poor combat simulation.

The options and choices I was referring to should be more than a choice of using a weapon or implement. It should encourage creativity, problem solving and involvement in the campaign world.

[Ice9]

The problem with watering things down to the level of the fighter is that the game is reduced to a poor combat simulation.

Watering down makes things dull, true. But the status quo was no picnic either. If Fighter is supposed to be a PC class, then it needs to be "watered up" to the level of the others. The place for "guy who can only sword things, and never affect the plot" is as an NPC.

[CCarter]

My 2c for PrCs (probably unrelated to anyone else points): I liked these as a way of giving characters different options - making them different mechanically from other characters I've played before.

As a GM, I've mostly come to like PrCs that *don't* have setting fluff attached to them, since it often seems you get a character background that's just built around explaining why a character has a particular PrC or couple of PrCs, rather than making them interesting as a character. It does depends a bit on whether the player is really invested in the background of the PrC or is just doing writing the background to get the powerz though.

Also, the level a character gets a PrC doesn't necessarily mesh organically with how their concept grows in-game either: you might join an organization before you're ready to level up, for instance, or a pirate or outlaw type character can be on the high seas or exiled in the woods robbing people long before they become eligible to take PrC levels.

[Novembermike]

this is the problem in how people view a "character" in current days. They view it as a collection of modifiers, rather than a creature in the fictional world whose story is being told.

If the problem with getting involved with the game word, campaign world, is not having enough bonuses, then maybe D&D wasnt the game for those people.

It comes to a point to decide what you are making and accept it isnt for some people, and those people likewise have to accept that D&D isnt for them, rather than whine and throw a tantrum.

D&D shouldnt have been changed to the 4000 splits in wizard class to give each a name, set of special this and that, and blah blah blah more bonuses and damage.

Engagement comes form the story, not the amount of power you have. Otherwise no matter what your class is, you can boil it down to a dice roll. Wizards gets a d20 to represent his power, and the orc he is fighting gets a d8, the fighter gets a d10. Just roll your dice and whoever gets the higher number wins. So a wiazard vs orc is a lot farther away chance for the orc to win vs a fighter vs orc because the odds are better the orc can roll higher than the fighter as opposed to the wizard.

Really that is all the mechanics try to do without being so directly obvious with all the bonuses.

The engagement should come from MUCH MUCH more than a few bonuses based on some mechanic of the class, but the gameplay should spur the want for continued engagement in it.

The problem is that DnD is inherently about this aspect of the game. The murder simulator bit is (theoretically) balanced while the character simulator bit has absolutely no intentions of being balanced. A fighter is lucky if he can jump, climb and swim while rogues can do a dozen different things and a wizard "has a spell for that".

[Plebian]

Power disparity was not just about combat. It was about being able to influence the campaign in a variety of ways. The problem with watering things down to the level of the fighter is that the game is reduced to a poor combat simulation.

and casters were automatically able to influence the campaign more, and in more ways?

also I love the assumption that fighters are, and rightfully should be, at the lowest possible rung of power. and that anything that balances the playing field is automatically making everyone that horrible. that kind of bias against fighters explains a lot about the 4e hate I see; everyone is at least nominally equal to a fighter! everyone must suck, even though fighters are pretty damn good now.

The options and choices I was referring to should be more than a choice of using a weapon or implement. It should encourage creativity, problem solving and involvement in the campaign world.

okay? this is, again, up to the players and the DM, not the system.

[K]

also I love the assumption that fighters are, and rightfully should be, at the lowest possible rung of power. and that anything that balances the playing field is automatically making everyone that horrible. that kind of bias against fighters explains a lot about the 4e hate I see; everyone is at least nominally equal to a fighter! everyone must suck, even though fighters are pretty damn good now.

You've got it backwards. People always craved equality with other classes and they hate 4e because everyone was powered down to NPC status (even the Fighter). Being forced to play "mother-may-I" gaming is really annoying.

[Plebian]

You've got it backwards. People always craved equality with other classes and they hate 4e because everyone was powered down to NPC status (even the Fighter). Being forced to play "mother-may-I" gaming is really annoying.

of course people crave equality, 3e just never managed to actually give equality to anyone who wasn't a caster.

but they're not powered down to NPC status even by 3e standards, though I do have to say that the argument of "well by 3e standards 4e characters are't as powerful" is really pointless. of course there's a difference in characters; it's a different damn edition. 4e characters are balanced for the system they exist in, and 3e characters are kinda sorta sometimes balanced for the system they exist in.

also if you don't want to play mother-may-I games you probably should stick to board games or anything without a DM