The Gaming Den

To combine two words that I’m fed up with hearing, I present you with the Prestige Fallacy, which goes something like this: Prestige classes are the secret to a satisfying D&D experience. Want to make your character unique? Don’t bother thinking creatively, just take a PrC! Need a set of specific abilities for some NPC foes? Well they’ll have to be at least sixth level, but there’s a PrC for that! Playing in a game above fifth level? Better take a PrC, or everyone will laugh and call you NEWB! Playing a non-magical character? Well you NEED at least two base classes plus at least five PrCs, just to pull your own weight!

The first word of the term ‘prestige class’ doesn’t even apply to most games; players take PrC levels simply as a matter of course. No prestigious organizations, just pointless prereqs that force players to plan out their stat minutiae from level 1. God forbid that all those cool special abilities should be available to single classed characters as alternate class features, feats and spells! Or even as base classes!

Some PrCs are simply means to circumvent artificial restrictions in core. Example: blackguard and holy liberator, which exist solely to bypass the paladin’s needlessly restrictive alignment requirement. That’s downright moronic. God forbid these character concepts should be available from level 1!

And then there’s the combo-concept PrCs. How many gish PrCs came out before someone in R&D finally said “Hey, why don’t we just make this a base class? We’ll call it the duskblade!”? Five? Six? Seventeen? All of those combo-concept PrCs would be better off as base classes; mystic theurge & co., arcane trickster, I’m sure there are others. Again, god forbid players and DMs have these options at level 1, ‘cause that would be insanity!

There are PrCs that exist to compensate for the suckitude of the game mechanics; Tempest and that TWF PrC from Bo9S comes immediately to mind. Why is everyone’s first impulse when encountering a problem with the basic game rules to fix it with a PrC, rather than fixing the problem itself? Great, so if I want to be a decent dual wielding warrior, I have to wait until sixth level? No thanks, I’ll play a different character concept until sixth level, then make a suicidal decision, and then play the concept that I really want to play. Gee, that’s brilliant game design right there!

There are PrCs that exist solely as magnifications of base classes; I’m looking at you, Radiant Servant of Pelor and Frenzied Berserker! There is zero reason that the benefits which these classes grant should not be feats, class abilities or else banned for being stupidly overpowered.

Finally there’s the mess of PrCs that might have a right to exist in certain games, but would also be better off as feats, class abilities and spells in most games.

Discuss.

Tequila Sunrise wrote: Why is everyone’s first impulse when encountering a problem with the basic game rules to fix it with a PrC, rather than fixing the problem itself?

Well for a game designer this is often the only course of action they have, because most of the time, the problem happens to be in core and you're not allowed to change that. Instead all you can do is add extra material.

This is why 3.5 is full of bandaids, the core is so flawed and all the designers could do was build and build onto it.

A mansion built on sand crumples under the slightest of strain.

Like say, a 14th level Wizard, Cleric or Druid.

That isn't slight strain, it's a bunker-buster. A bunker-buster applied to a mansion built on quicksand.

Anyway, one thing I really hate about prestige classes is that they force so much thinking ahead and planning (because sometimes players don't want to worry about 'builds' and want 'organic' characters, or other players bitch and moan about the Power Gamer Menace that plans ahead too much) for requirements. Which is even worse when suddenly a new book comes out with a PrCl that perfectly represents your character idea, but they randomly include some bullshit feat as a requirement so you can't take it because you didn't gaze into the future.

It'd be better to jut say "You must be this level or higher", then granting "Assumed or recommended abilities" and leaving it up to the DM and player to determine whether the character should take that class.

That or turning the abilities into alternate class features, feats or whatever.

Koumei wrote:That isn't slight strain, it's a bunker-buster. A bunker-buster applied to a mansion built on quicksand.

:3

Tequila Sunrise wrote:No thanks, I’ll play a different character concept until sixth level, then make a suicidal decision, and then play the concept that I really want to play.

I have done this. More specifically, in two campaigns spanning more than three years real time, I have played two long-term "temp" characters until I got to the appropriate level. I then retired them and played the Pc's I wanted to play from the beginning.

Koumei wrote:Anyway, one thing I really hate about prestige classes is that they force so much thinking ahead and planning...

I hate that a lot too. It forces bad choices. You can choose to play a suck character or you can waste hours learning the intricacies of a bad system in order to make a good character. You can "choose" between not playing your character concept because you can't build it, or you can spend hours nitpicking bullshit until you actually get the concept you wanted in the first place.

Funnily enough, it is the "anti-roleplaying munckin min-maxxers" who are actually the ones able to realize their character concepts. So the game is inherently rewarding people for bending the rules, with fun and realized characters.

Total bullshit.

...Or you could have your DM make champaign based prestige classes to have fun with.

But finding DMs willing to move from the Word, is so difficult.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:...Or you could have your DM make champaign based prestige classes to have fun with.

But finding DMs willing to move from the Word, is so difficult.

-Crissa

Demonstrate an interest to me and I will write that sucker myself.

I agree with the sentiments expressed here: most PrCs are crap for one reason or another, and they are rarely used in the manner intended. I almost never use them myself, perhaps because finding one close to what I want and salvagable leaves me feeling like I'm drowning in damp paper towels.

This is a shame, because PrCs can and should add a lot to a game.

I particularly hate the varied and esoteric requirements that often boil down to "this specific race/class/skill/feat build AND NO OTHER!" I'd like to see the requirements section read:

5th character level;
[one other requirement - feat, skill ranks, spell, whatever].
[non-mechanical RP requirement]

There; done.

Heh, most of the PrCs my players have taken have been "Elothar, Warrior of Bladereach" style PrCs, tailored to the PC in question.

For example, I took thief-Acrobat and altered the prereqs and abilities to take into account that the player taking it was a 12th level natural wereboar (human) monk/psychic warrior.

I particularly hate the varied and esoteric requirements that often boil down to "this specific race/class/skill/feat build AND NO OTHER!" I'd like to see the requirements section read:

5th character level;
[one other requirement - feat, skill ranks, spell, whatever].
[non-mechanical RP requirement]

That seems to be going a bit too far. Still. If you want only elven paladins (say) taking a prestige, say so.

My ideal list.

5th (or more) character level.

A couple feats, tops. Skill ranks, etc. permited only if logical.
Non-mechanical stuff.

So for Cavalier:

5th level.
Lawful Alignment. (maybe even LN or LG, but that tweaks things a bit)
Mounted Combat, Spirited Charge
Ride 8 ranks.
Must swear allegiance to a lord, church, or other fitting cause.

Done.

Elennsar wrote: 5th level.

Fine. Would be nice to get some flavor earlier, but there's always something like Monk 4/Samurai 1 or Something 2/Something Else 3, so it can stand.

Elennsar wrote:Lawful Alignment. (maybe even LN or LG, but that tweaks things a bit)

No. No NO NO NO FUCKING NOOOOO. Why does someone who rides a horse have to be lawful? Within the context of whatever that may mean to you, it's still bullshit. Unless you're trying to turn this into a "Holy Mounted Warrior," but that's not a Cavalier. That's a Holy Mounted Warrior Dude. (tm)

Elennsar wrote:Mounted Combat, Spirited Charge

Fine. I hate both of those feats as they stand, but whatever.

Elennsar wrote:Ride 8 ranks.

Reasonable.

Elennsar wrote:Must swear allegiance to a lord, church, or other fitting cause.

What. The. Fuck. Again, this isn't a cavalier. This is a "Mounted Paladin."

So call it that. Or keep your shiny little divine bullshit out of my horse warrior.


I have to go with Talisman on this one. Simple, Easy, Effective. There.

"Done."

You might be fine with "I'm just a guy with HUGE BONUSES TO COMBAT ON HORSEBACK", I'd rather have Cavalier mean a cavalier...a knight.

Since you're not forced to use any house rule I propose, fuck off about how you DON'T WANT TO DO THIS STUFF.

No, really. If you have a list you prefer, post it. If you disagree with mine, saying NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO doesn't do anything but make your post more obnoxious to read. Say you disagree and would prefer ____ or just that you disagree.

That's more than good enough to make any legitimate point you have.

The alignment restriction is unreasonable for the generic medieval knight (which is what the cavalier's supposed to represent flavor-wise). As long as he can get by with swearing fealty to a noble, medieval style (which Elennsar's requirements do, as written), the swearing allegiance requirement isn't a game breaker.

The alignment restriction is assuming that "true to the code" is also part of it (instead of just lance and sword on horseback guy) is the case. Otherwise, I agree, it doesn't belong.

Elennsar wrote:The alignment restriction is assuming that "true to the code" is also part of it (instead of just lance and sword on horseback guy) is the case. Otherwise, I agree, it doesn't belong.

Because chaotic characters can't be "true to a code?"

Oh yes, and while I'm not obligated to use any house rule you propose, you posting it here makes it eligible for deconstruction and criticism. If you don't like hearing people say, "I don't like this," then don't post.

Was it rude? Yes. But that was the point. As to not providing examples, I certainly did.

Get this shit out of the thread. Yes, that means you Elenn. No, don't respond. Shut the fuck up.

I think that's the one instance in some time of him not doing anything wrong.

PrC debates good.
Alignment debates bad!

Stop or Nazi Donald smash!

RandomCasualty2 wrote:Well for a game designer this is often the only course of action they have, because most of the time, the problem happens to be in core and you're not allowed to change that. Instead all you can do is add extra material.

I have little sympathy for this excuse. I don't blame the designers though, I blame capitalism and WotC's marketing department for knowing that PrCs are worth $ while paying designers to write errata is like flushing money down the drain.

The fact is, you can change core, if the boss lets you. But whatever. I'm so over it.

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.

TS

Knight = Freelance?

I don't see how.

A freelance doesn't need to be tied to anything, and can still be an honourable mounted warrior.

A knight is minor nobility, so you better include that into the class; potentially landed nobility; so that better be included into the class. Nobility, that expands in power, grants land, serfs, bondsmen, lackeys etc.

Basically it ought to grant you auto-diplomacy in certain situations, minor cohorts, a home base and simply let you hand-wave away stuff like "buying horses".

Cavalier is someone who rides a Caval->Cheval->Caballo, or horse. Cavalier = Horse Rider, not knight.

That class has more to do with being a mounted warrior.

Also, "Nobility" could also be a feat; right now it's a backgroun, and could be a PrC.

I think it's clear that Elennsar's example of a Cavalier is his idea of a Cavalier, and could probably stand to have a clearer name. "Knight-Errant," or "Tourneyman," or some such.

Doesn't change the validity of his statements. Swap out the name for "Knight Horseman" and keep the requirements. Does it work?

Looks okay to me.

Oh yes, and while I'm not obligated to use any house rule you propose, you posting it here makes it eligible for deconstruction and criticism. If you don't like hearing people say, "I don't like this," then don't post.

I don't mind "I don't like this."

If you find my method less preferable than another method, saying that you think it sucks and is stupid isn't making that point any clearer, its just making you an ass. "I would rather do X" is far more legitimate than "doing your way would be STUPID!" when you're stating your -own- opinion.

As for nonlawful and a code: Sure. It'd be a code different than the code that demands lawful behavior, which chivalry does.

And cavalier, the word, is used as a word for knight, not just any horseman, as a rule, so one could easily keep the name intact.

So "Cavalier" is fine unless you feel it has to mean "horseman" without any knightly implications, in which case that's on your understanding of the word.

Now here is a question, going back to requirements.

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

Tequila Sunrise wrote:The fact is, you can change core, if the boss lets you. But whatever. I'm so over it.

Not being able to staple errata onto the books might've been considered a problem in 3.x times. The reason it isn't might well be "we can get lazier that way". Case in point: I've seen arguments on the WotC boards based on "they're gonna fix it quickly, I'm sure", without any problem with the product (especially printed, which I guess many people still use) actually being defective.

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.

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.

It's the old conflating-Class-with-Job trope.

-Crissa

What exactly is wrong with class-as-job?

Not "how is this different with free multiclassing (which we support, by the way) etc."

What's wrong with it?