The Prestige Fallacy

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:28 am

Elennsar wrote: 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.

Hi, Elennsar. You don't know me, so let me make a quick intro:

I started roleplaying with D&D 3.0, and got my ass handed to me by Frank in so many discussions that I lost count. My mind rebels when mechanics are discussed in depth because I don't care about math. I don't roleplay because I like to spend an hour using Excel to level my character; I roleplay because it's fun, a great de-stresser, a good excuse to get together with friends, and helps me sleep at night. It's not unheard of for me to tell D&D to shove it and go off and play Everway - which pretty much defines me as the RPG ditz of these boards and definitively one of the most incompetent people to speak on the subject.

With that in mind, please understand that when I propose something like "must have been to the capital city of each major world empire" as a prerequisite for a PrC, I'm not being literal. What I mean is "some flavor text based prereq that seems to make sense and is decided by the DM. As far as I'm concerned, what the DM says, goes - unless the DM is a prick, blatantly breaks the rules for story purposes, and/or can't tell a good story.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:33 am

Right, but even with say, Talisman, who we trust is a pretty good guy and a pretty good DM, it'd be nice to know when we've achieved these kind of goals.

Going "Am I there yet?" is going to get old fast.

Otherwise, accepted. Personally, for the reason above and my own quirks, I'd like them spelled out a little more. If nothing else, spelled out by the DM, even if the book leaves major up to him to decide, I want to know what he decided.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:36 am

"You must have had intimate relations with an elemental, or your ancestors had such a relation. Don't fill in the details." - Actual in Game PrC requirement.

-Crissa

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:13 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).

If its something like ELH = Joke Book then ask in thread. If its something that you feel you may wish to debate start a new thread. We go off topic enough without you starting up old debates in other people's threads.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:16 am

If its something not like ELH = joke book, that's a different matter.

If its a "HEY WE HAVE REACHED THE TRUE ANSWER AND YOU MUST BOW BEFORE OUR WISDOM!", then I'd like to know why I should find your arguement so convincing, and "because I said so." is not a good reason, however.

And if those people mind, they're welcome to ask for it to be moved (and I'm fine with it being moved).

Hicks · Post by **Hicks** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 4:24 pm

Elennsar, Just read the archive, seriously. Everybody's gotta do it some time or another. Start at page 50 somethin', then work your way back to the front page untill you stop whining on how damn long it is. Think of it as reading a version of Plato's Dialogues on Workable Game Theory and Application. It is an interesting and educating read, and sorely needed in your specific case, as you find the truisms, hammered out after extremly victrolic debate. This is The Gaming Den, and everything has to pass the Acid test to see if its actually wothwile, or go the way of Captain Bleach and shitty ideas.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:47 pm

Hicks wrote: or go the way of Captain Bleach and shitty ideas.

... you mean they forever return under a different name?

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:56 pm

Like me, only I keep returning under the same name.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:57 pm

PhoneLobster wrote:
Hicks wrote: or go the way of Captain Bleach and shitty ideas.
... you mean they forever return under a different name?

I thought about saying as much. Do you actually think it's Elennsar this time?

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:17 pm

Elennsar wrote:Right, but even with say, Talisman, who we trust is a pretty good guy and a pretty good DM, it'd be nice to know when we've achieved these kind of goals.

Going "Am I there yet?" is going to get old fast.

Otherwise, accepted. Personally, for the reason above and my own quirks, I'd like them spelled out a little more. If nothing else, spelled out by the DM, even if the book leaves major up to him to decide, I want to know what he decided.

These kinds of RP/fluff requirements need to be hashed out between the individual GM/player, of course. To use the "major cities" example, if a player came to me and wanted to take that PrC, I would probably say "Okay, you've been to Biggistan, Jotunsholm and Megapolis. Get to Superzisedville and Largeistan and you're in."

IMO, RP requirements in a published PrC are suggestions. Heck, if gnomes are a tribal people, "swearing alliegiance to the Gnome King" is meaningless for the Gnome Badass PrC. That doesn't mean the PrC is useless, just that the requirement becomes "swearing alliegiance to your tribal chief," or "to Garl Glitternose, god of gnomes," or something equally appropriate.

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:52 pm

No, Elennsar is from Brilliant Gameologists. At one point people thought he was a sock puppet account of mine.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:02 pm

Elennsar, Just read the archive, seriously.

No. I will read it I feel there's something I want to look up, but saying "NO. WE WILL NOT EXPLAIN ANY OF THIS TO YOU. GO AND READ THE HUGE ARCHIVE!" (with or without caps) can go straight to hell.

What is sorely needed is for you guys to grasp that you are not the founts of all wisdom and game design savvy and that someone arguing with you is not necessarily wrong.

Beyond that, I'm fine with reading it. I'm just not fine with "read everything here before posting because we refuse to answer or explain anything and assume anything we've concluded before is forever sealed as awesome and win."

Talisman: Sounds good. Still, for an official thing (which is irrelevant for any of our materials at this point, I think), it should spell out what "Major" would mean officially.

Whether the DM changes that is up to him, but it ought to be easy to figure out "Okay, that's too easy (or hard)." and modify, but "Major" being "Ummmm, what's major?" is not helping at all.

But more to the point, I think you hit it, so...

Now for the next question on prestige classes.

I take levels in Dwarven Defender after it has been made worth taking.

Should I be

a) more powerful than if I took straight fighter levels.
b) more specialized, because its a narrow class and fighter is broad, but very good within the speciality.
c) Equally powerful, just with different abilities that require being in this class to get, just like multiclassing.

SunTzuWarmaster · Post by **SunTzuWarmaster** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:07 pm

Sorry, didn't read the whole thread this time. As for specific race-class combination:

Nazi
Must be Blond of hair and Blue of eye.
No jews (or gays/gypsies/some other stuff)

Nazi's are racist and like killing people. I wouldn't apply to be a nazi if I didn't meet the requirements if I was you.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:28 pm

Elennsar: question already answered ... somewhere. And if it wasn't obvious to me even before reading it, it'd be by the time I finished.

JE: it was me who thought that, BTW, because - IIRC - you both sigged the Uwe Boll petition (thought it does sound I didn't RC).

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:32 pm

Elennsar wrote:I take levels in Dwarven Defender after it has been made worth taking.

Should I be

a) more powerful than if I took straight fighter levels.
b) more specialized, because its a narrow class and fighter is broad, but very good within the speciality.
c) Equally powerful, just with different abilities that require being in this class to get, just like multiclassing.

B or C. A is wrong, because it makes PrCs objectively better than base classes, and thus makes base classes 5 levels long (The Sorcerer Paradigm).

B and C are really just variations on each other, since "specialized in a narrow field" should mean "more options in a narrow field," not "bigger numbers in a narrow field."

If you take Dwarvan Defender, you should:
~Be equal in general power to a [base class] of the same total level;
~Have more defensive options than you otherwise would (although not necessarily bigger AC numvbers);
~Have options that reinforce your unique dwarf-ness.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:33 pm

I know its answered somewhere, but as part of the whole "When designing prestige classes, the Den suggests: ", it needs to be available as much as the other answers.

And neither should be "somewhere on this site", if and when a specific design comes up.

I can imagine a case for either b or c, even with A rejected.

But anyway. Does this thread have any other discussion fodder?

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:35 am

SunTzuWarmaster wrote:Sorry, didn't read the whole thread this time. As for specific race-class combination:

Nazi
Must be Blond of hair and Blue of eye.
No jews (or gays/gypsies/some other stuff)

Nazi's are racist and like killing people. I wouldn't apply to be a nazi if I didn't meet the requirements if I was you.

So...that's a ranger prestige class?

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:46 am

Leress wrote:
SunTzuWarmaster wrote:Sorry, didn't read the whole thread this time. As for specific race-class combination:

Nazi
Must be Blond of hair and Blue of eye.
No jews (or gays/gypsies/some other stuff)

Nazi's are racist and like killing people. I wouldn't apply to be a nazi if I didn't meet the requirements if I was you.
So...that's a ranger prestige class?

Nope. Cleric of the Cause: Aryan Superiority.

Or possibly a variant paladin build with Smite Other Ethnic Group and immunity to reason.

Tequila Sunrise · Post by **Tequila Sunrise** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:01 am

Elennsar wrote: a) more powerful than if I took straight fighter levels.
b) more specialized, because its a narrow class and fighter is broad, but very good within the speciality.
c) Equally powerful, just with different abilities that require being in this class to get, just like multiclassing.

As Talisman said, B or C.

Btw, what was it that Elennsar asked that made everyone want to jump down his throat, again?

TS

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:43 am

Talisman wrote:
Leress wrote:
SunTzuWarmaster wrote:Sorry, didn't read the whole thread this time. As for specific race-class combination:

Nazi
Must be Blond of hair and Blue of eye.
No jews (or gays/gypsies/some other stuff)

Nazi's are racist and like killing people. I wouldn't apply to be a nazi if I didn't meet the requirements if I was you.
So...that's a ranger prestige class?
Nope. Cleric of the Cause: Aryan Superiority.

Or possibly a variant paladin build with Smite Other Ethnic Group and immunity to reason.

By the way, what's up with the Nazi Donald?

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:52 am

CatharzGodfoot wrote:By the way, what's up with the Nazi Donald?

You're the third person on TGD to ask me about that.

I felt the need for a new avatar and found Herr Duck on this website, specifically, this article. He seemed so delightfully psychotic that I decided to share his glory with you all.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:53 am

They recently released a DVD with that cartoon on it.

-Crissa

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:28 am

Leress wrote:
SunTzuWarmaster wrote:Sorry, didn't read the whole thread this time. As for specific race-class combination:

Nazi
Must be Blond of hair and Blue of eye.
No jews (or gays/gypsies/some other stuff)

Nazi's are racist and like killing people. I wouldn't apply to be a nazi if I didn't meet the requirements if I was you.
So...that's a ranger prestige class?

Now, now. Rememeber, Rangers are haters of everything. Even people like them. Possibly even themselves.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:54 am

Elennsar wrote:And if those people mind, they're welcome to ask for it to be moved (and I'm fine with it being moved).

So now you expect fbmf to do work for you just because you're too lazy to start a new thread. Props on selfishness.

PrCs are a shit concept that exists only to patch badly written, imbalanced and overly narrow base classes. There is nothing that can't be either fluff only, part of an existing base class or a new base class. If you ever find yourself toying with the idea of creating one follow my PrC creation guidelines.

If you have a couple cool ability ideas add to a base class. Same if you have enough material to make 10 interesting levels of PrC. Attach it to the most relevant base class.

If you have a concept that can be done for 20 levels but isn't covered at all by a base class make a base class.

If you're trying to fix an imbalanced base class do that instead.

If you're trying to fix a multiclass combo make a base class.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:02 am

So now you expect fbmf to do work for you just because you're too lazy to start a new thread. Props on selfishness.

No, I expect someone to say "Um, El, could you start a new thread? Leave this one to (purpose)." the way Talisman (and more strongly) told me and Bigode to drop an arguement we were having on his magic bling thread that was unrelated.