Feats OR Prestige Classes, Not Both

[User]

I think the title says it all really, it's just something that has been bothering me. As I see it feats and prestige classes fill the same basic role in the game, both mechanically and conceptually, and thus we should have one or the other, but not both. Here is what I see the primary jobs of prestige classes as: a) to add flavor to a character, and b) to provide bonuses and new abilities. And feats: a) provide bonuses and new abilities, and b) in doing so add flavor to a character. It would be possible to get rid of feats and have all of their powers rolled into prestige classes (& base classes). One upside of this is that it would be easier to balance these smaller number of powers packages against one another, but it would limit some aspects of customization. Or prestige classes could be converted into feat chains and all the base classes could get more feat options. This would help reduce some of the problems with multiclassing, since there would be less multiclassing to do. Thoughts?

[Lago PARANOIA]

We can't just have prestige classes; or rather, we shouldn't have them.

There's no reason to make a 'Barbarian who can drive a chariot' prestige class, even if it's only for one level. It's just too much extra work.

[NineInchNall]

Unless you're getting feats every level, and they're all at the same power level as class features, I'm going to stick to multiclassing as a way to make my character my own. 'Cause honestly, seven feats is not enough to provide significant mechanical differentiation.

[User]

There's no reason to make a 'Barbarian who can drive a chariot' prestige class, even if it's only for one level. It's just too much extra work.

I think that the argument here is that if you are playing a game with classes then barbarians shouldn't be driving chariots, and shouldn't have the ability to just pick that up. He's a barbarian, and barbarian's don't drive chariots - too uncivilized I guess. Gladiators do, though (hypothetically). So if he wants to multiclass into gladiator, and become less of a pure barbarian, then he can drive chariots. It creates stronger role protection, in a way.

Also in response to NIN:

Or prestige classes could be converted into feat chains and all the base classes could get more feat options.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I think that the argument here is that if you are playing a game with classes then barbarians shouldn't be driving chariots, and shouldn't have the ability to just pick that up. He's a barbarian, and barbarian's don't drive chariots - too uncivilized I guess. Gladiators do, though (hypothetically). So if he wants to multiclass into gladiator, and become less of a pure barbarian, then he can drive chariots. It creates stronger role protection, in a way.

That's the exact problem I'm talking about. You need to make the classes you do have have a ton of options associated with it, which means that if the fighter wants to learn to sneak well he needs to also learn how to sneak attack, apply poison, disarm traps, etc.--which completely destroys any advantage of role protection.

Or you need have an assload of classes to model concepts as basic as 'fighter that can sneak well' or 'barbarian that can drive a chariot'. See, right there in your own example, you had to invent a gladiator class and now everyone who wants to use a chariot needs to take a detour into gladiator. What if I want to learn how to swim hardcore? What if I want to learn how to navigate dark caves in the dark? What if I want to speak to animals? Gotta have more classes. And honestly, that's just too much work.

[User]

That's the exact problem I'm talking about. You need to either A) make the classes you do have have a ton of options associated with it, which means that if the fighter wants to learn to sneak well he needs to also learn how to sneak attack, apply poison, disarm traps, etc.--which obviously completely destroys the advantage of role protection.

How does this destroy the advantage of role protection? First, to get those options he has to become a weaker fighter. Secondly, by having less levels in the associated class he should be worse at them than the thief. I can't see a problem for role protection here. I can see a problem in that it limits customization: there is no such thing as a fighter who sneaks without other thief skills, but sneaks as well as the thief. But that's probably an unavoidable consequence of having a strong class based design.

Having said all that, I hope I haven't given off the impression that I'm against that all-feats option. I like that option better, I just think they both should get a fair shake.

[Lago PARANOIA]

How does this destroy the advantage of role protection?

Role protection isn't there to make fighters different thieves, it's there to prevent a person from playing a fighter from doing too many things another person who plays a thief can do.

The whole point of that design goal is to make it so that characters have clear areas where they shine and areas where they do not.

[User]

The whole point of that design goal is to make it so that characters have clear areas where they shine and areas where they do not.

Right, and having 1 level in thief doesn't (or rather, shouldn't) make you as good as the player who has 7 level of thief when it comes to things that define the role, so there isn't a problem here.

[PhoneLobster]

He's a barbarian, and barbarian's don't drive chariots - too uncivilized I guess.

History says to say hi.

But that's largely not really important.

Prestige classes, especially as implemented, and even as described as a mission statement "Better but narrowly focused" must DIE DIE DIE.

They don't need to be replaced by feats but the more whatever replaces them looks like feats (that is, working reasonably powered feats) the better it would be.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Right, and having 1 level in thief doesn't (or rather, shouldn't) make you as good as the player who has 7 level of thief when it comes to things that define the role, so there isn't a problem here.

Role protection also isn't just there to make sure you're not better than other players, it's also there to make sure that you're not sucking too much at what you're doing.

So you have a fighter with one level of thief. So what's that level of thief doing for him? It has to make up for that level of fighter that he doesn't have in some way--but fighters don't do the same things as thieves. He's worse at the roles than other level 7 fighters and worse than other level 7 thieves.

In a game with weak or no role protection, like 3E, that's fine because that level of thief somehow combo'd with his abilities to make up for that level. But we're talking about games where fighters do Fighter things and thieves do Thief things.

[User]

So you have a fighter with one level of thief. So what's that level of thief doing for him? It has to make up for that level of fighter that he doesn't have in some way--but fighters don't do the same things as thieves. He's worse at the roles than other level 7 fighters and worse than other level 7 thieves.

Why must the game protect players from boneheaded choices? Do we need rules that prevent people from doing stupid things in combat too? Multi-classing a fighter with some other class that also fights makes sense and should work - it should help increase his base competence at fighting and give him some different tricks. But I see no reason that the game must support a jack of all trades. Again, it seems like supporting a jack of all trades simply isn't something that can work with a strong class based design, and so I'm more than happy if people who make bad class choices end up with bad characters.

[Lago PARANOIA]

'Fights good in combat' is not a role, at least not in the context of Dungeons and Dragons.

But I see no reason that the game must support a jack of all trades. Again, it seems like supporting a jack of all trades simply isn't something that can work with a strong class based design, and so I'm more than happy if people who make bad class choices end up with bad characters.

Intentionally providing bad choices is uncool and will get you yelled at by PhoneLobster.

And if you don't want to support a jack of all trades, then why have a strong multiclassing system? That's the entire purpose of it. If you didn't intend for people to step outside of roles you would just have a robust feat-based system with a lot of prerequisites or 4E's bullshit paragon path system.

[User]

'Fights good in combat' is not a role, at least not in the context of Dungeons and Dragons.

But fights with weapons, w/o sneak attack, is. Your point?

And if you don't want to support a jack of all trades, then why have a strong multiclassing system? That's the entire purpose of it. If you didn't intend for people to step outside of roles you would just have a robust feat-based system with a lot of prerequisites or 4E's bullshit paragon path system.

Because it's easier to permit all multiclassing choices than to permit only a select few you think are good (because the second is hard to make work with expansion material). In fact what you are suggesting, only certain multiclassing combos allowed, is 4e exactly; it's so scared of letting people make mistakes that it limits choices. And even there you can fuck yourself up with multiclassing through a bad multiclass paragon path choice. And again, do the rules also need to ban doing nothing in your round of combat or attacking your allies? No, those are obviously stupid. And so is trying to smash together two classes that have nothing in common. It's like spending half your time training for pro-football and half your time studying physics and expecting to be just as good in both as those who devote their full time to just one.

[Lago PARANOIA]

But fights with weapons, w/o sneak attack, is. Your point?

That's still not a role. That is way too generic to be a role; we don't know whether this character dashes around the field and slices enemies, beats the shit out of enemies that ignore them, locks enemies in place and wails on them, or what.

Because it's easier to permit all multiclassing choices than to permit only a select few you think are good (because the second is hard to make work with expansion material).

That's completely absurd.

If you permit MORE multiclassing choices then you have to make sure that they're balanced with MORE classes, which means more work on the game designer's part for classwork.

It's not very hard to balance multiclassing fighter with a barbarian, ranger, or paladin. It's very hard to balance it with a wizard.

3E should've made multiclassing fighter with a wizard complete viable. Players could do it and certain rules encouraged it. But it didn't. In that case they should've either made it viable or stopped people from doing the wizard/fighter multiclass. The wrong option would be to just let wizards multiclass with fighter and them tell them to suck it up if they didn't like it--like you very vindictively suggested back there.

In fact what you are suggesting, only certain multiclassing combos allowed, is 4e exactly; it's so scared of letting people make mistakes that it limits choices.

And even there you can fuck yourself up with multiclassing through a bad multiclass paragon path choice.

If you have a system with strong role protection, you have to limit multiclassing. Otherwise you have a system where one player can do too many things nor not do the things they're supposed to do level-appropriately. Now 4E thinks it has strong role protection even though it doesn't, so the fact that wizards can't do anything with 3/4ths of the classes in the book makes us cry since it loses additional functionality. But if 4E's system of role protection actually worked, then limiting paragon-pathing and whatever would've actually been vital.

It's like spending half your time training for pro-football and half your time studying physics and expecting to be just as good in both as those who devote their full time to just one.

It depends on what your game is. If you're playing Call of Cthulhu then yes, this would be a perfectly valid choice. If you're playing AFL vs. NFL then you shouldn't be able to trade points in football for points in physics.

[Hicks]

I bet that physics/football player could map the inertial shift out of any pass, and intercept like it was nobody's buisness because he "knows" that a player of that size and at that speed has a greater statistical chance of being "there" instead of "over there" and that he should be "here" to take the ball through those guys who could realistically move that way and... you get the point.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I bet that physics/football player could map the inertial shift out of any pass, and intercept like it was nobody's buisness because he "knows" that a player of that size and at that speed has a greater statistical chance of being "there" instead of "over there" and that he should be "here" to take the ball through those guys who could realistically move that way and... you get the point.

Sure, if your game has that kind of functionality. I think it would be pretty cool to roleplay a football team where a player's off-field hobbies influenced what they could do in the stadium, like a player who had a hobby of 'video games' could predict the movement of the offensive line or a player or a player who had a hobby of 'rap music' could trash-talk the quarterback to try to wreck his Throw check.

But those games where having a physics or philosophy major don't help you on the field then you shouldn't be able to trade Catch points for them.

[Josh_Kablack]

Heh.

Way back in high school, the football team QB was in my physics class. The teacher insisted the team would perform better if he would work out the parabolic trajectories of his passes in the huddle.

[NineInchNall]

Also in response to NIN:

Or prestige classes could be converted into feat chains and all the base classes could get more feat options.

Um, ... You can quote yourself. Good for you? I don't see what that has to do with my post. Having more options from which to fill your feat slots is not the same thing as having more feat slots.

[User]

Um, ... You can quote yourself. Good for you? I don't see what that has to do with my post. Having more options from which to fill your feat slots is not the same thing as having more feat slots.

It's pretty obvious that it meant "feat slots" in context.

[Username17]

I don't agree with the initial premise. Now feats and PrCs as implemented need to change. A lot. But the purposes available to them are sufficiently different to warrant being separate.

A class is a set of abilities that one gets that collectively stay level appropriate s well as thematically related. Prestige Classes in a theoretical sense exist to allow themes that have no lower level equivalent to be in the game. You might have a dragon rider or something, which is a compelling theme, but simply does not exist when players are fighting zombies, rats, and rat zombies with castoff weapons. So the players would begin as a forester or a dog trainer or something, and only become a dragon rider when that was a level appropriate thing to be.

A feat is a selectable ability that need not have anything to do with your class. And indeed, almost certainly shouldn't. If your Forester/ Dragon Rider wants to personally freeze things that's plausibly acceptable from a power standpoint and could make for a memorable character. But there's no fuckin way that's on the Forester powers list. So you're going to need a small reservoir of omnislots - like feats - to get those extra personal touches.

The problems we see is that there are prestige classes like Frenzied Berserker and feats like Spell Focus. That shit has to stop.

-Username17

[Wulf]

I kinda agree with Frank there. Feats are general abilities that anyone can learn (with certain limitations) while prestige classes are a whole package around a specific theme.

Now, there is a whole bunch of prestige classes that can easily be "converted" to feats if you just look at the class abilities , but most prestige classes are a bit more then just "a few class abilities".

Frank, what do you mean with "prestige classes like Frenzied Berserker and feats like Spell Focus"? I am not saying I disagree or agree with you, just wondering about your thoughts behind it for mentioning those two specific cases.

[Leress]

Frenzied Berserker- All it does is say you do is hulk out and smash...which is pretty much what a barbarian was doing in the first place so it doesn't need to be a new class.

Spell Focus - All it is is a numerical boost. That's it. It really doesn't say that you are focus on a school of magic except it makes them slightly harder to resist the bad stuff. Also see Weapon Focus.

[PhoneLobster]

Prestige Classes in a theoretical sense exist to allow themes that have no lower level equivalent to be in the game.

I had always been of the impression that the stated goal for prestige classes was to allow characters to become "narrowly specialised". Better at one narrow role compared to non prestige characters of their level but not as good in general.

Now that was clearly a load of crap and very badly executed to boot. But I was pretty sure that was the claimed intent and a large part of the explanation as to why they sucked.

The whole Might and Magic version of advancing character class where you go from like apprentice to wizard to necromancer to liche to death god or what have you... that's OK and it may even be what a tiny minority of 3.x prestige classes attempted, or accidentally did. But I didn't think that was the stated intention or the actual result of the majority.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I don't know where you're getting that interpretation, PhoneLobster.

The DMG quite clearly says that prestige classes are a different kind of multiclassing. It doesn't say anything about being more narrowly focused or trading general power for specific power. ... which even if that was the design goal, it would be retarded, because PrCs like the Mystic Theurge or the Arcane Trickster hand out more filthy power for free.

Anyway, in a system with no role protection like 3E anyway, you can't trade 'general' power for 'specific' power with the class system anyway. You can pick options and guess how much they come up, but that's not trading so much as gambling.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

I always heard that PrCs were something Monte Cook tacked onto the DMG at the last minute for flavor reasons. They wanted something to represent "the King's elite guard," not any particular mechanical concept. That's why they ended up with so many different ideas of what PrCs could/should be.