The Prestige Fallacy

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:04 am

1) It's dumb.
2) It requires you to write up a class for every conceivable job in the world.
3) That's dumb, too.

Look, do we have to stop every thread for a twenty-page explanation for why we do or don't have various fallacies or sayings?

-Crissa

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:06 am

No, but you do have to explain why something is a fallacy instead of saying "Trust us, we're so smart that we know more than you can imagine."

You can PM it, IM it, e-mail it, or whatever...twenty pages not required in any medium, but saying "We've discovered/decided this is a bad idea, so don't do it!" without saying why its a bad idea isn't very helpful to those who weren't around when you guys decided that.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:09 am

You know what? I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:12 am

We probably should have a storehouse of this information, but at this point, we don't. And any one of us while capable of acting upon the knowledge which has been shared here may not be able to explain each little concept to you as individuals.

But it's interrupting other threads.

-Crissa

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:16 am

Crissa wrote:We probably should have a storehouse of this information, but at this point, we don't.

Except that we do. It's called "thread list".

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:17 am

Bigode: How about "No."?

There is a little too much to read anything and everything that might possibly relate to game design before posting anything here.

So no fething thanks.

Crissa: Then don't refer to stuff that isn't common knowledge to everyone who knows what RPG stands for (and doesn't say "Rocket" as the first word.) unless you can refer to something defining it.

If you don't want to interupt a thread, then PM the info when someone requests it. Not hard.

And speaking of this thread...

So, there's no way gnomes (for instance) could have something that no one else does?

Or presumably, the Church of Heironeous, in the same way.

I'm not against having a generic "Circle Mage", for instance, but I don't think its a good idea to have "Slayer of the Undead." be open to any character who wants to slay undead if there is a group that specializes in it and keeps their secrets secret.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:20 am

So you're asking us to PM you material already written on this forum, for your own personal laziness? If you're not willing to read up, don't demand explanation.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:21 am

I'm asking you to point to where it is instead of "somewhere on this site", which covers a lot of stuff.

"Page 28, (Thread name)" works. "Somewhere" doesn't.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:31 am

See, it's normal for people who learned a variety of things long ago to be unable to (readily) name where each specific thing was learned. Also: you can solve your own problems for a long time, alone, instead of asking for help for every tiny instance of them.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:32 am

Or, if you have a question try the search feature.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:37 am

Or ask for those who are using something that is a conclusion formed here or name formed here (the ELH = the joke book is something you can easily state).

Is actually giving information like giving blood, only with blunt needles or something, to you guys?

Tequila Sunrise · Post by **Tequila Sunrise** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:49 am

Bigode wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:On the issue of alignment requirements, I think they are a perfectly valid requirement for PrCs (but not any base class), assuming that Sir Duncan has eligible candidates screened with detect alignment spells before letting them join the Knights in Shining Armor. But then again if a PC is clever enough to misguide those spells, he should be able to take the PrC.
Get back to me when you have the skill rank/feat detector, or when you assume that spells can bypass basically any non-roleplay-only prerequisite I can remember (includes skills, feats, race IIRC, etc.). Also, if you wanna simulate anything (and I presume you do - if you didn't you wouldn't be arguing that cleverness can mislead prerequisite checking), you might also consider that training a new class takes in-game time in many people's interpretations and, assuming your scenario of the PrC being taught, that the teacher might boot a student during training. Also, the hypothesis that a student that doesn't actually fulfill the prerequisites can't even grasp whatever secrets the PrC offers.

All I'm saying is that if a DM wants to treat PrCs as in-game organizations, he or she should be ready to use a bit of common sense and be able to make judgment calls rather than relying solely on a rigid set of prerequisites.

TS

zeruslord · Post by **zeruslord** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:54 am

Elennsar wrote:Is actually giving information like giving blood, only with blunt needles or something, to you guys?

I hate to do this, but: LURK MOAR. Seriously, it works. name_here, Tequila Sunrise and I have few posts but know the terminology and such.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:58 am

Elennsar wrote:To what extent should "only for members of X race and/or Y class" exist at all?

Depends on whether you like "broad" classes or "narrow" classes. I favor broad classes and narrower PrCs myself...I think narrower classes would benefit from broader PrCs.

As for race, I think racial PrCs should exist only to highlight archtypal aspects of a given race (the arcane archer is a good example flavorwise, regardless of how much it fails mechanically). I would say not more than 2 or 3 PrCs per race, and the majority of PrCs should be race-neutral.

Of course, racial restrictions are much more of a RP/setting flavor decision. Your Cavalier might forbid orcs because they're barbaric savages, while my setting might be more cosmopolitan and allow orcish Cavaliers. It's an individual decision for each game crew.

Crissa wrote:If the class has a roleplay flag, that should mean it gives roleplay or setting based bonuses.

If it does not, then it should not have those flags.

Not necesarily. As I noted above, it could simply be a way of highlighting racial archtypes without making all members of that race conform to said archtypes.

And I am in favor of RP requirements for every PrC...they should be mutable and conform to the setting, but they're cool, flavorful, and not in the least unbalancing.

Jeez, what's the deal Bigode, Crissa? Why do you have such a violent reaction to answering a simple question? That's what the Intarwebz are should be about...exchanging information.

It's one post. It takes, like, 2 minutes to write.

Leave the insults out of the next ten posts and you've got your time back.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:05 am

All I'm saying is that if a DM wants to treat PrCs as in-game organizations, he or she should be ready to use a bit of common sense and be able to make judgment calls rather than relying solely on a rigid set of prerequisites.

TS

Yeah. Of course, someone who doesn't measure up to the prequisites might not be capable of passing muster, but that's another story. "Ride 8 ranks" could be done as "Ride modifier +8" just as well if not better (I'd say better. If I want a level requirement, I'd actually spell it out, and I'm not sure why I would beyond the "must be this good before you can begin getting this stuff at all")

Of course, racial restrictions are much more of a RP/setting flavor decision. Your Cavalier might forbid orcs because they're barbaric savages, while my setting might be more cosmopolitan and allow orcish Cavaliers. It's an individual decision for each game crew.

Sounds good to me. Same with the rest of the broad vs. narrow (including but not limited to one race or a few races only), but this seems to be the part worth quoting to sum it up. If it applies, its for setting reasons, not system reasons, other than the system being designed for the setting etc.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:07 am

Talisman wrote:Jeez, what's the deal Bigode, Crissa? Why do you have such a violent reaction to answering a simple question? That's what the Intarwebz are should be about...exchanging information.

It's one post. It takes, like, 2 minutes to write.

Leave the insults out of the next ten posts and you've got your time back.

One might argue there's over 10 pages of posts hinging on "simple questions" whose answers are unknown pretty much just to him, and I'm offering for him to end (a good part of) that in one fell swoop. In case you didn't notice (not saying you should pay attention to my posting schedule, just that some might've noticed even without doing so), I'm stopping replying to him at all, one subject at a time, once it gets stupid enough, so I'm getting my time back anyway; my insistence on him reading's intended to save other people's time, actually.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:58 am

Fighter isn't a job, it's a class. It's a set of skills. A tool for making a character that does what you want. Monk is a class, not a job. It's a way of working with the setting. Look at the writeup for Paladin in the 3.x PHBs - a Paladin is any fighter that gets powers from a higher source; be that a god, internal morals, etc.

Just because you have thieving skills does not mean you make your living being a thief. Maybe you're just better with your hands, or are a fighter that likes to fight dirty rather than out in front.

If the story is told better, mechanically, with a different d20 class - use that class. If the guy who darts in and out of the woods works better as a Rogue, Bard, Fighter, or Paladin, then don't use Ranger if it's not the powers or tools you want!

Classes are tools. Like a Hammer. A hammer is used by more than just carpenters.

That is the classes equals jobs fallacy. Where people get stuck thinking they need a 'Ranger trainer' or be part of a 'Thieves guild' to learn Rogue stuff. You don't. The base classes are tools for which to shape the attitude and powers of your character. If your fights-unarmed character is better served by being a Rogue or a Fighter than a Monk, DO IT.

This is even better served by classes which are balanced.

-Crissa

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 5:35 am

Elennsar wrote:Or ask for those who are using something that is a conclusion formed here or name formed here (the ELH = the joke book is something you can easily state).

Is actually giving information like giving blood, only with blunt needles or something, to you guys?

Yes, it takes time.

I honestly try to use the search feature whenever I'm trying to look up stuff that was written here. In the last few weeks I've looked up Bards Suck (the Frank Bard) and Monks Suck (the grapple wizard) several times.

I've only honestly asked where a thread was because I couldn't find it, or an idea that was discussed in one thread was resolved in an other. That has happened a few times.

I'd honestly suggest spending the next 2 weeks going backwards in the threads here and opening threads that seem interesting to you in new tabs. Once you've done that, read these newly tabbed threads one at a time.

I found out a lot of interesting things here that way, and I only signed up in the tail-end of 2006 (dec 6; and yes, I dug around on the old BBBoy board to find this out). The archives here are both ancient and interesting. You don't really think that Frank got a 6k-something post count starting march of 2008, I hope.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 5:37 am

No, and I've been reading this site longer than I've been posting on it.

However, if there's some term or the like that you use and don't intend to confuse newcomers with, define it when asked. Not hard.

Or point to where it is defined, and "somewhere in the hundreds or more threads here" is useless.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 5:46 am

Ask in another thread. Start a thread with the question, tho search with your keywords first.

Don't derail a thread with questions. It's rude.

Even if the class-as-job fallacy is one of my pet peeves.

-Crissa

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 5:49 am

Asking for clarification in a thread is rude?

Oh please.

Back to the original thread, because this has gone throughly off topic.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:18 am

Part of my annoyance is the built-in assumption that if you're in a PrC, you've got to incredibly awesome and able to wrestle a dire bear. I remember back in the old days everyone and their dog seemed to give the advice of "never expressly require levels" and hide your minimum level requirements behind subterfuge, like skill ranks and BaB.

Speaking of skill ranks prerequisites, half the time they're like some kind of hazing ritual, and the other half of the time they're skills that are integral to the class to function where you'd be a moron to leave them at anything other than maximum ranks; in which case, you might as well just say "must be level X" to enter.

One (but not the only) problem with prestige class design is that D&D has no assumed setting more specific than 'pseudo-medieval Bollywood Europe with monsters and magic!'. Writing a PrC for D&D means you have to leave it generic and bland because that's the only way it would fit. If there was more to the setting, then finding niches could help.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:49 am

I'm spoiled because in our games, each person makes up their own class with the DM's help before the game starts. That way, they get what they actually want when they want it.

However, I can see PrCs being OK for the sole purpose of ensuring that all members of a group have similar skills and similar talents. For example, there's that three level PrC that's all about getting people from one place to another (Wayfarer's Guild?). Being able to Teleport is kind of a prerequisite there. And if story reasons are OK prereqs, then perhaps another could be "must have been to the capital city of each major world empire."

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:56 am

How, incidently, would one define major world empire?

That's my problem with fluff totally distinct from numbers. Is Rome "Major"? Okay, fair enough. But how about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Visigoth_Kingdom.jpg ?

Would that count in its day?

No, I'm not proposing a discussion. I'm just pointing out that something like that has to be spelled out just as much if not more so than "must vist Rome (the city)" or "must have 3rd level spells" would be in order to make it as clear.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:25 am

Elennsar wrote:How, incidently, would one define major world empire?

That's my problem with fluff totally distinct from numbers. Is Rome "Major"? Okay, fair enough. But how about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Visigoth_Kingdom.jpg ?

Would that count in its day?

No, I'm not proposing a discussion. I'm just pointing out that something like that has to be spelled out just as much if not more so than "must vist Rome (the city)" or "must have 3rd level spells" would be in order to make it as clear.

Well, D&D actually defines things like that in the rules. There are actually classifications like "city", "metropolis", and "planar metropolis" which you can use to determine whether it's a city you need to visit.