Can Prestige Classes Be Salvaged?

[Foxwarrior]

This is a post-Tome post, it really has nothing to do with any other games.

So, I was thinking about how I almost never prestige with any character, and I think it comes down to this: Prestige Classes as they are have a bunch of design philosophies, and most of them are terrible. Well, and that it's just hard to search through them because they're not sorted by what character can even think of taking them.

• Prestige Classes Should Be Weirdly Over-Specific: By RaW, you're supposed to make up a Prestige Class for your character in the middle of the campaign based on what happened. So you'd spend a year on the river Styx, and then you'd write a Boatman of Styx prestige class that requires you to do that, which conveniently you happen to qualify for. It's an amusing idea, but any prestige class written and posted according to this philosophy inherently violates this philosophy. Except Elothar, because it's a joke.
• Prestige Classes Should be an Awkward Patch for Multiclassing: Like a third of all Prestige Classes are just "class type A and class type B multiclass poorly, what if we made a class that advanced both core features but set them back 3 levels in each?" And then if you actually try to take them you find a way to get set back only one or two levels in each, because there usually is one. At the point where you're thinking of writing a bunch of prestige classes like this for your class, maybe you should step back and just say "this class advances its [class feature] according to its level -3 when multiclassing" or something like that.
• Prestige Classes Should Let You Expand Your Character Concept in Ways That Aren't Appropriate for Level 1: This sounds like a nice and sensible idea, but there was another Tome design philosophy: "Your character concept should be playable from level 1". That philosophy won, almost every character concept that is available as a prestige class is also available as a base class at this point.
• Prestige Classes Should be Pseudo-Gestalt for Spellcasters: This one is fine actually. Basically you give a set of side features that are a bit too involved to be a feat or feat tree on top of your spellcasting, and spellcasters are kind of written with this in mind, and it works out more or less.

I have a couple of ideas for alternate design philosophies one could try:

• Allowing Late-Entry To Classes That Aren't Multiclass-Friendly: Base classes are generally written to give level 1 abilities at level 1. For fighter-types it actually sometimes works fine to just multiclass, because fighter-type abilities are often multiplicative (boosting actions you can already do) rather than additive (giving you an exponentially more powerful alternative use of your action) like a wizard. A 1 level dip into Kineticist continues to give level appropriate benefits to a level 11 character. Spheredipping works fine too. But what if you want something that isn't? Of course, the problem with this is that if the PrC is written to be level-appropriate, then you'd need to write an alternate version for level 7 entry vs level 9 entry...
• Integrating Alternate Abilities Into an Existing Class: Sometimes people write classes with unique and interesting resource management. Naturally this doesn't multiclass well, because even if you could find another class that was powerful enough to combine it with, it would be a pain to manage two resource systems at once. Potentially one could write a PrC that added necromantic powers to the Elemental Siphon's axes or let a Crusader cast Divine spells with their maneuver slots to let the player grow and change their character's concept without overconvoluting how they play. Of course, the problem with this is that if you write the resource system you could just write multiclassing-friendly rules for multiclassing with other classes that use the same resource system, and then write all the PrCs as base classes that use that system instead...

[Kaelik]

The thing is, you should do the elkothar thing with your last thing.

It would be a lot of work for me to somehow write a base class for every single class in the game that used and elementalist axi system and also multiclassed well for every other class in the game.

It would be a lot easier to write a prestige class that let's an elementalist get some illusion abilities when fox wants to hybrid into illusion on his elementalist, amd then repeat this every time someone wants to in our game.

Also this solves the level 7 vs level 9 entry problem.

[Foxwarrior]

I know, I know, but there's a kind of fun I find in poking around in the content that's already been written and looking for unexpected interactions to add to my character and amuse the other players with. And I'd totally miss out on that if the class was designed specifically for the character, ya know?

[deaddmwalking]

There's a lot of things you identified as a problem, and a few more that you didn't (though many are solved by tome classplosion). Sometimes a class offers an ability that seems critical to a concept (like not provoking AoO using a ranged weapon which was originally only available through the Order of the Bow Initiate iirc). Even if you really like Halflings or Dwarves, do you need a CLASS that highlights how well you defend them?

There are already Feats and Alternate Class Features that you could potentially offer. If you have well designed classes that offer a benefit every level that are themselves level-appropriate, you could offer a list of alternate class features that they could take instead. Alternatively, you could have Prestige Feats that give you benefits based on your Character level. That would (at least almost certainly) be significantly less powerful than Leadership.

Note that alternate class features doesn't work well with standard 3.x (where classes don't receive class benefits every level), and it's highly likely that you have a feature that isn't really level appropriate for every class at every level!

Still, the Prestige Feat that has a requisite like 'you spent 1+ week on the River Styx and survived' can allow you to maintain a special flavor and make those abilities available.

Alternatively, if Prestige abilities represent awards for adventuring, you can potentially think of them as EQUIPMENT. Instead of finding a Magical Sword, you find 'Elf Friendship' and get all the abilities that entails.

But all of those side-step the issue of whether it can be saved 'as a class'. I don't think so. Since you can by definition enter a Prestige Class at different points, each ability cannot be equally appropriate for both 6th level and 11th level. Basing the Prestige Class Benefits on your Total Character Level might avoid that issue, but then there's really no reason to call it a Prestige Class and/or for it to be taken in place of your existing class(es).

Existing Prestige Classes are best as a grab-bag of abilities that you can use other places to better effect.

[Foxwarrior]

Okay ACFs are a good suggestion, as an alternative to prestige classes designed for one specific class and no other. As it is, ACFs are usually designed to replace a bunch of features and be taken right when you start the class, but this is mainly a formatting issue, maybe you could write an ACF that lets you pick and choose different class features to replace as you get them.

Dunno why you mentioned standard 3.x, a completely different game.

Feats are also a fine system for adding a theme to your character, and there's no need to add the word "Prestige" before them, there are already feats with prerequisites that are designed to give you things that continue to be useful. I often end up using feats to diversify my character and not Prestige Classes.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

If your plan with "Prestige Classes" requires GMs to make custom prestige classes at all it is bad enough. Classes should really be fixed at either game selection or at least setting selection in order to do the things they need/want to do.

But if the end point gets to making a unique class for each and every unique character and player.

That's just straight up a classless system. Only the GM gets to pick your classless options and you as a player do not get choices.

If the unique class is something they just inevitably change to from a more traditional class system for early levels... that's just a classless system with a selection of premade starters.

I think on some level every class system should be at a design level approached as a classless system for class design purposes. But the Designer/GM has to stop making more classes at some point or it never gains any function from the class mechanics.

It's not what people around here want to hear, but once you have written lets say your 20th character class for a system/campaign you have basically stomped all benefits of it having a class system in the first place into a dusty dry grave.

[Foxwarrior]

Nah I think the 1000 classes of Tome are actually fine and cooler than doing classless in some ways. Each class has its own unique flavor and when you mix and match and combine them the flavor still shines through.

Could you get almost the same effects with a tenth as much writing/reading if you went classless? Yes. But the Tome classes are already made so

[Kaelik]

Why on earth would it be limited the GM.

I mean I think Fox, and definitely I, am talking about our ongoing Tomish games, not trying to design a system to sell to people. The GM is not making everyone's class. Everyone CAN use existing classes, all nine million of them, including ones written by other people, but also, I'm going to be the one writing my class for my PC every game. As a player in the game, someone might ask me to write theirs, or they can write their own.

I get that your thing is being mad about dick GMs, but no one said it was the GM who wrote everyone's class.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

I, am talking about our ongoing Tomish games

I rarely consider a specific individual user when discussing a rules concept and honestly find it weird and difficult to do so. Much less how their specific rebranded version of the Gentleman's Contract with the serial numbers filed off definitely effects game play to the point of informal rules written on the spot trust me it just does ok.

Now if you want to cry legacy rules and continue to cling onto Tome++, OK. But if you are discussing the actual rules concept directly or in abstract... Tome did it wrong. Tome could have done different. Tome could have done better.

And wait a second wasn't Tome designed by guys with a pretty strong adherence to the idea that Classes should be unique, identifiable, known in advance and of limited number? Wasn't a lot of the bloat and the discussion of Prestige classes itself a thing Tome felt grudgingly shackled to in the original documents because they shackled Tome to 3.x? Isn't a vast amount of the class bloat in Tome++ FROM the ++ not from Tome?

And whether you want to shackle yourself to Tome or not, you should probably be more receptive in your abstract rules discussions to discussing things it didn't choose to do so as to better understand what it does do.

But hey, I guess I should have read the "Post Tome" line with more seriousness and assumed that means no criticism of Tome methodology, or even extended third party "Tome" methodology, and no discussion of any alternative to it will be permitted. My bad, you settled on the exact RPG rules set you wanted as you settled into middle age and you will brook no minor changes or challenges to your established orthodoxy ever. I get it. That's fine. I mean. If you want to be those sorts of guys.

Personally, for me, that's pretty much the death of any reason to continue dabbling with writing any of my own RPG rules at all.

[Kaelik]

I rarely consider a specific individual user when discussing a rules concept and honestly find it weird and difficult to do so. Much less how their specific rebranded version of the Gentleman's Contract with the serial numbers filed off definitely effects game play to the point of informal rules written on the spot trust me it just does ok.

Now if you want to cry legacy rules and continue to cling onto Tome++, OK. But if you are discussing the actual rules concept directly or in abstract... Tome did it wrong. Tome could have done different. Tome could have done better.

Weird to treat "the concept of the thread" as a thing you reject and shouldn't have to engage with. There's not a lot of point in 2024 of discussing tome stuff application without considering that it might involve individual small number of games. Even less point in saying you reject the idea of talking about Tome stuff in a thread about Tome stuff.

And whether you want to shackle yourself to Tome or not, you should probably be more receptive in your abstract rules discussions to discussing things it didn't choose to do so as to better understand what it does do.

But hey, I guess I should have read the "Post Tome" line with more seriousness and assumed that means no criticism of Tome methodology, or even extended third party "Tome" methodology, and no discussion of any alternative to it will be permitted. My bad, you settled on the exact RPG rules set you wanted as you settled into middle age and you will brook no minor changes or challenges to your established orthodoxy ever. I get it. That's fine. I mean. If you want to be those sorts of guys.

I think you failed to understand the point of the thread. The point was not to hypothesize about writing a completely new RPG set from scratch. It was to talk about the existing games being played and what to do about them.

That's not the only type of conversation that can ever be had, but to get all mad and tell people they should simply stop discussing the games and systems they play and instead invent a new one from scratch is a little silly. Inventing new games from scratch is a lot of work. People often times don't want to do that.

[Foxwarrior]

If you're writing your own system there are loads of other (more elegant) things you could do. For example, you could establish some character concepts as "high level" and some as "low level" and then classes that offered high level concepts requiring a higher level as a prerequisite could make sense. I specified that this was about Tome because these elegant things are irrelevant to the idea of writing content to add to the (already massive) Tome corpus.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

I think you failed to understand the point of the thread. The point was not to hypothesize about writing a completely new RPG set from scratch. It was to talk about the existing games being played and what to do about them.

But then my advice is something you REALLY don't want to hear.

Because within those limitations this is the correct Prestige classes advice.

The Tome approach to Prestige classes is incomplete and broken. The Tome++ approach to Prestige classes is just plain broken.

The correct way to run Prestige classes in a Tome or Tome++ game is to not use them at all and stick to the parts of Tome that actually work.

[deaddmwalking]

The benefit of a class system is that characters invest in the ability that they want (say rage) and they get a bunch of abilities that they wouldn't have selected 'for free (like saving throw bonuses, skills, etc). In a point based system you can sacrifice defenses for more of or more powerful attacks (super rage) and neglect those things that you got with a class system.

How many classes do you need? Well that's just a question of how explicit you want to be. We've talked about how a cleric of undeath is a Necromancer and a cleric of Fire is a Pyromancer. You might want them on the same chassis or you might not. So whether that’s one class or two (or one class or two hundred) depends on a semantic game that usually has nothing to do with resource management.

Unless it does. Which might mean you have 3 classes that do the same thing (command an army of undead) but approach it in different ways. While that might appear redundant, there are times where you want a campaign to distinguish between the Death Priests of Evil God and the Zombie Elders of Neutral Tribe and having different flavors is still helpful.

[Foxwarrior]

The correct way to run Prestige classes in a Tome or Tome++ game is to not use them at all and stick to the parts of Tome that actually work.

Well given that the premise of this post was me mulling over "why do I almost never use Prestige Classes" it's not as horrifying a thought as you say.

In a point based system you can sacrifice defenses for more of or more powerful attacks (super rage) and neglect those things that you got with a class system.

The distinction between "class-based" and "point-based" is more confusing than helpful I think. Depending on how the character creation rules are written, all sorts of different things might be bundled together or bought with separate pools of character resources or whatever. After playing Shadowrun 4e for a bit I was terribly amused to realize that the borders between the different classes in that game are much less violable than in D&D, even though it's point based and supposedly doesn't have classes at all.

Which might mean you have 3 classes that do the same thing (command an army of undead) but approach it in different ways.

I actually have an idea for how to make a (um, actually I'm not sure if it would count as "classless" or not) game where different characters have dramatically different resource management systems even when they use the same powers... but that's system design and thus not relevant to this thread.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

The benefit of a class system is that characters invest in the ability that they want

No it isn't.

But lets change that to "players" so it isn't total insanity.

Then I can say, no it isn't. The enforcement of options clustered together in a class isn't the end goal. It's the methodology. The end goal is distinct identifiable desirable classes that cover the required bases for your setting/game play with minimal overlap. And very specifically no more classes than that.

Specifically in Tome, no it isn't. Tome as an example is not a system in which the boundaries of the cleric class were up for grabs. Decisions WERE made, and they were made with classes like the broad 3.x Cleric as an intended design goal.

And if it were, your assertion that having three classes that all did the same thing (be necromancers) might be a good thing is almost diametrically opposed to the expressly stated design philosophy of the Tomes as I understand it.

[Foxwarrior]

And if it were, your assertion that having three classes that all did the same thing (be necromancers) might be a good thing is almost diametrically opposed to the expressly stated design philosophy of the Tomes as I understand it.

Did I miss this? I don't know what you're referring to. And there are four base classes with Necromancer in their names on the den.

[Kaelik]

And if it were, your assertion that having three classes that all did the same thing (be necromancers) might be a good thing is almost diametrically opposed to the expressly stated design philosophy of the Tomes as I understand it.

I mean the Tome of Necromancy explicitly lays out necromantic options for three different classes that all do necromancy.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Did I miss this? I don't know what you're referring to. And there are four base classes with Necromancer in their names on the den.

I think maybe you overestimate my interest in any Tomes++ material, and ESPECIALLY additional stand alone classes, even if written bv Frank or K.

And that tome of necromancy jab might I don't know in part be because Tome was shackled to 3.x and pretty much had to, and it still wasn't what DeadDM was presenting as a good goal to have. Also. Tome of Necromancy... the worst Tome by far. To the point that it was the one I most quickly and entirely abandoned when I was adding my own ++ to Tomes materials back in the day.

If we are going to be all "Tomes 100% Final Destination" then I very much am Tomes core and do not recognize additional piecemeal documents and threads, and even then I'm selective because some of the Tomes were (far) better than others, and even the good ones had workable and unworkable material in them.

Meanwhile. Despite being a pro classless system guy when I am using classes I am VERY strict and limited about it. I do NOT go seeking out individual class documents in sub forums no matter who wrote them in what stage of project creep and abandoned original design goals and they might have been in at the time.

In fact, this is just reminding me just how much distaste I find towards the endless "Here is a thread about 1 character class no one asked for" and "here is a thread with a character class no one asked for per page" threads that are out there. Even in the rare hands of someone with some design knowledge discipline, like say Kaelik who I generally would trust to at least write something that functions, they fundamentally offend me as useless bloat that hurts the over all game regardless of execution.

[deaddmwalking]

The benefit of a class system is that characters invest in the ability that they want

No it isn't.

What I said isn't crazy. A player may want an ability, but a character ALSO wants an ability. They're expected to adventure in the world and they want to be good at what they do and they want to survive. If you want me to put some Username17 quotes from 2004 that support what I said, I will.

Then I can say, no it isn't. The enforcement of options clustered together in a class isn't the end goal. It's the methodology. The end goal is distinct identifiable desirable classes that cover the required bases for your setting/game play with minimal overlap. And very specifically no more classes than that.

That doesn't have to be true. Like you're literally just making that up without any kind of source or reference. What about genre emulation? A Knight of the Crown and a Knight of the Dark Lord can be different classes that have significant overlap - but having multiple similar classes may be necessary to support the shared imaginary game world. Having 'not-samurai' and 'not-knights' could potentially help elucidate cultural differences to create a feeling of epic scope to the world as one example. You don't have to do it that way, but it is certainly a justifiable position, in which case having a variety of culturally specific similar classes is a design goal, and limiting them is contrary to that goal. Let me just say, I REJECT your claim here.

Further, options clustered together is not specific to a class design. We might talk about abilities 'on theme', but in 3.x parlance saves, skills and attack bonuses aren't specifically 'clustered' with a class - and since those features are repeated on every class in some degree or another with some variation, they qualify as 'free defenses' that come with the level abilities that you're selecting for.

And if it were, your assertion that having three classes that all did the same thing (be necromancers) might be a good thing is almost diametrically opposed to the expressly stated design philosophy of the Tomes as I understand it.

There are potentially several design goals with the Tomes, and I've been reading through some very old threads to make sure I have a good sense of where some of these debates started. I'm constantly wondering 'how did some of these positions become so intractable' - but I digress - one important aspect that I'm aware of is the recognition that taking a level in a class has an opportunity cost - all of the classes you could be taking and aren't. Since Martial classes, particularly, were front-loaded, and 1st level classes received additive benefits for good saves, it was clearly better to do something like Fighter 2/Paladin 2 than Fighter 4. Making sure that each level of the class gave you a level-appropriate ability was one of the major design goals of Tome Classes - and while there is much more to read through before I could say definitively, it seems like that was a higher priority item than restricting each class concept to a single archetype with a single resource mechanic.

they fundamentally offend me as useless bloat that hurts the over all game regardless of execution.

Noted. I went down the road of having a Rogue, and a Bandit, and a Brigand, and a Desperado, and a Thug, and then I turned back. I realized that many of the abilities that I was giving applied to all of them equally because I was just naming classes with the help of a Thesaurus and they're all basically the same thing. BUT, making a class that is well-designed and achieves what you're looking for even if it is only used by one player isn't a problem - sure it means more potential options that someone might theoretically look through while looking for a class to play, but this theoretical person either hasn't found what they're looking for (forcing them to expand into disparate online options of unknown provenance) OR they're curious and wish to explore and theorycraft these classes.

So I guess I have to ask, why did you feel like 'contributing' to this thread if you're not interested in Fox's question about designing Prestige Class like abilities for a Tome game? It's not that it can't be done - and it doesn't really matter if it doesn't appeal to YOU when it is patently obvious that it appeals to SOME people. Classplosion may offend your design sensibilities, but it isn't inherently WRONG.

Edit - Also related to my review of ancient threads You Shouldn't Have To:

For example, I really think there's room for a character who communes with spirits and eventually sicks wraiths and spectres on people without ever animating corpses. This means that either there have to be selectable abilities in the Necromancer class - or there has to be more than one available class which is basically a necromancer.

-Username17

[deaddmwalking]

Apologies for the double-post, but didn't want this to get lost in a response to Phonelobster.

The distinction between "class-based" and "point-based" is more confusing than helpful I think. Depending on how the character creation rules are written, all sorts of different things might be bundled together or bought with separate pools of character resources or whatever. After playing Shadowrun 4e for a bit I was terribly amused to realize that the borders between the different classes in that game are much less violable than in D&D, even though it's point based and supposedly doesn't have classes at all.

In systems where you rank categories of abilities, but you must take some abilities from each category, you end up looking a little bit like a class. But some point systems let you spend your points in whatever manner you want, and you absolutely can have 'all offense' characters that have no other relevant abilities...

Ideally, with a class based system you can say 'my character is level x' and that means something relative to someone else who also has a level x character. Total points may serve a similar function, but they don't have to.

A buffet where you're served and you get a choice of one entree/one veg/one starch/one dessert may end up looking like a buffet where you're free to grab whatever you want, but there's always that one guy who loads up on prime rib and doesn't take anything else. If you're required to choose from each category and you can't overspend, you are making a point system that is similar in many ways to a class system, but there's still benefit of talking about 'pure systems' and comparing and contrasting them, even if some systems are muddled and mixed.

[Kaelik]

Ideally, with a class based system you can say 'my character is level x' and that means something relative to someone else who also has a level x character. Total points may serve a similar function, but they don't have to.

I find it interesting in a way I don't have any clear articulable point about that Fox's post was about the ability for different characters to move between classes and/or infringe on other peoples class stuff in a classless vs classed system, and in your response you decided to describe a classed system by talking about character level.

Presumably you could have character levels in a classless system as well as a classed system and you could even have a classed system with no character levels.

I do find Fox's point about the incredibly hard barriers in Shadowrun between the non class classes of Mage, Possession Mage, Technomancer, and Street Sam to be very interesting, with Face/Hacker/Rigger being more blended, as compared to D&D where you end up with people doing a lot of very similar things with lots of classes, especially fighter types, who almost all boil down to "here's some bonus damage" (which is also Rogue and Assassin) in Tome class designs.

[deaddmwalking]

I'd take classes that blend together to be a repudiation of PL's contention that classes must be distinct.

For anyone that wants to join me in my archival investigation, Feat chains rob people has a fair bit of discussion of class versus point based starting half-way down the first page and continuing to the end of the conversation (page 3).

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

I'd take classes that blend together to be a repudiation of PL's contention that classes must be distinct.

If that blending is more than the minimal amount, I'll just point at it as an example of failure in class system design. Kaeliks mentioning all the D&D classes that mostly just do extra damage IS an example of design failure.

"Oh my god did you just see the raw damage that guy dealt with a sword hit he must be a... never mind that doesn't really narrow it down." IS a Class System failing to do one of the main things they exist for.

[deaddmwalking]

"Oh my god did you just see the raw damage that guy dealt with a sword hit he must be a... never mind that doesn't really narrow it down." IS a Class System failing to do one of the main things they exist for.

That's at most a failure of descriptive elements. If you as a player and your character can't tell the difference between someone entering a berserk rage (dealing extra damage) and someone using precision strikes against off-balance enemies to get sneak attack (dealing extra damage), that's not a failure of the class system.

I would agree that if a class does the same thing in the same way and the only difference is whether you describe your laser beam as red or blue that doesn't justify an additional class. But my sense is that's not really true for the Tome classes - and based on Fox's comments about 'the flavor shining through' - I'm not the only one.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

"Descriptive failure". What. So you want the GM to just name the class on sight for you? Or if they for some reason do not do that say "your description did not allow me to identify the class from their action, please add more fluff description until I can identify the game mechanical class".

Good or bad ways to manage fluff descriptions or reveal game information can be debated. But you are trying to exploit fluff to win an argument about rules.

Having a bunch of classes that primarily just add d6s to damage is not having a sufficiently diverse and interesting class list. You do NOT get to say you make your class list more diverse and interesting by adding more flowery fluff descriptions alone.