My players have expressed a desire to include prestige classes. I being the "old school" DM that I am tend to be subconsciously resisting this.
My concerns are wide and varied, and as Follows.
I don't want to ruin the flavor that is Greyhawk.
I don't want a prestige class that circumvents another class's skill and progressions and thus making 1> no reason to play the core class, 2> unbalances the mechanics of the game.
I do want separation between published and homebrew (so ID source) so we have common ground to discuss, and I have reference for players.
So after reviewing here (and else where) and to avoid usurping another's thread, I started this culmination with the intent of single point listings. And to set the Perimeters and Goals as identifiying pros/cons of introducing the prestige classes (indetail) into a campaign. Identifying the good for PC use, the better for NPC use, and the Broken will wreck your game aspects if any in a prestige class offiering.
I begin by saying there are ove 700 variants of prestige classes according to WOC HERE Which (to this old school Grognard) seems EXCESSIVE... I realized after seeing that list that all may not/ Don't apply to Greyhawk.
So no 1/2 Dragon 1/4 Demon 1/8 Hafling !/8 Dark Dryder Elves ok????
I figure this will give people like this
Phalastar wrote:
PS: Side issue - this 3e forum doesn't have a high visit rate. Do any 3e specific articles get published on CF? I have a bunch of 3e specific material that I have created, especially prestige classes that could be useful to others?
I'm to the point where I allow any published prestige classes and am happy to work with a player to invent one that fits their desire for a special character. As a long-term DM, I have no problem adapting adventures for parties of any combination of PCs at any level of power.
I require new players to play one of the basic classes and races initially, but allow them to branch out after that.
I require new players to play one of the basic classes and races initially, but allow them to branch out after that.
SirXaris
ditto, that's kinda where I stand, to me a new player must first get a feel for the mechanics of the game AND the style of the DM before adding options. Too many choices can be as daunting as too few.
I allow prestige classes, but they must be approved. Approval hinges upon the PrC making sense for the character, actually being available ("Sorry, dude. The Greyhawk Mages' Guild doesn't have a satellite office here in the Amedio Jungle for your wizard to be able to take a level of Guild Mage."), must not be overpowered/lame (i.e. no holy bursts of "Thad Goodheart" awesomeness, etc.). _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
My players have expressed a desire to include prestige classes...
-I put "Any and all with approval".
First, it's never come up IMC for a player, but for NPCs, it really adds up to I automatically accept anything in the DMG, anything Greyhaw official (e.g., Knights of Azharadian), and anything I like.
Dark_Lord_Galen wrote:
...I being the "old school" DM that I am tend to be subconsciously resisting this...
-Actually, prestige classes are pretty "old school". Waht was the AD&D1 Bard, if not a prestige class?
-Actually, prestige classes are pretty "old school". Waht was the AD&D1 Bard, if not a prestige class?
Disagree, Actually the bard was an origin class that first appeared in The Strategic Review - Volume 2, Number 1. It later reappeared as an "afterthought" because it was felt in the issuance of the original AD&D Handbook most DMs would not allow it. (1E PHB p117 in the Appendix). It was more alike to an elf fighter magicuser character of OD&D.
Like the F-MU that was Elf (when elf was a class not a race) the bard was restricted then to two races. Further the Bard had to be multi-classed with fighter first, then thief, and then druid as the career path.
It was later used a a template to model for bridging differing classes for abilities and what became skills to what became Kits, then prestige classes. So in a matter of speaking it is a GreatGrandfather maybe, but more differences than similiarities.
I guess one similarity would be DMs possibly disallowing it.
Are there any that the group as a whole feel are a bad fit for greyhawk? or the opposing tangent, a good fit?
Personally I can see the dragon born, and maybe Tieflings not being good fits. And best left to the Planescape & the Forgotten Realms respectively.
Are there any that the group as a whole feel are a bad fit for greyhawk? or the opposing tangent, a good fit?
Personally I can see the dragon born, and maybe Tieflings not being good fits. And best left to the Planescape & the Forgotten Realms respectively.
Well, those two are races, not prestige classes. But, I agree that they are not what I consider typical Greyhawk races. This may be simply because they are new and I am old school in my attitude toward Greyhawk. Or, it may be that they seem childish to me. I don't mean any insult to people who like them, but they just seem to be the D&D equivalent to Pokemon and other cartoons the younger generation grew up on.
Are there any that the group as a whole feel are a bad fit for greyhawk? or the opposing tangent, a good fit?
Personally I can see the dragon born, and maybe Tieflings not being good fits. And best left to the Planescape & the Forgotten Realms respectively.
they just seem to be the D&D equivalent to Pokemon and other cartoons the younger generation grew up on.
ROFL well you have said what I have thought my friend!
SirXaris wrote:
Well, those two are races, not prestige classes. But, I agree that they are not what I consider typical Greyhawk races. This may be simply because they are new and I am old school in my attitude toward Greyhawk.
SirXaris
Point taken and maybe I was abit broad brush, but seems these (and other deviations) "races" were never designed with core classes inmind, which is why I grouped them thusly.
Just seems with over 2700 prestige classes (Kits) there seems a pattern to attempt to please all. And as Lincoln has said, "You can't please all........
And I guess my opposition to most of them is the fact that the tendancy for younger players are unwilling to accept that ALL classes have their strengths and weaknesses. Prestige Class for the most part just seems an attempt to legitimize(with a "rule") a PC to circumvent what creates group balance.
And before somebody rushes to pick up the defense gauntlet, yes I know there are some that do not, but of the 2700+ they are the exception, not the "rule".
I want to provide, diversity, without removal of group interdependancy, by AVOIDING the creating of a PC that is essentially a swiss-army knife.
So to re-table the goal
Dark_Lord_Galen wrote:
Are there any that the group as a whole feel are a bad fit for greyhawk? or the opposing tangent, a good fit?
Are there any that the group as a whole feel are a bad fit for greyhawk? or the opposing tangent, a good fit?
Well, I like the Assassin as a prestige class better than as a base class. This kind of fits well with 2nd Ed. doing away with the class in The Fate of Istus before bringing it back in The Scarlet Brotherhood, but that's really neither here, nor there, in this 3.x/Pathfinder forum.
I have always liked the original monk class - in any edition. I like that they are jacks-of-all-trades, masters-of-none, without spellcasting abilities. They are a good option to balance the bard, who is a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none, with some spell-casting abilities. I also like that the original monk class is a cross between Western monasticism and Eastern fighting skills. This fits better in the Flanaess, in my opinion, than a Oriental Adventures monk.
If there was ever a prestige class that I thought was perfect for elves and rangers of the Flanaess, it is the Arcane Archer. That is an incredibly fun and, in my opinion, appropriate, prestige class for many of the wild places in the World of Greyhawk.
I don't care for the Dragon Disciple as an option for a PC, but I have to admit that it is a great template for a BBEG.
I certainly like the Dwarven Defender/Stalwart Defender prestige class. It seems well-suited to the demi-humans of the Flanaess.
I have to say that I don't care for the gunslinger class, except as an extreme rarity that is affiliated with Murlynd. I do admit that it would be fun to use some antigue gunpowder rules for a piratey campaign, but in a regular dungeon, wilderness, or city adventure, I nix gunpowder in my campaign. That said, I did play a gunslinger NPC for a few sessions when my PC died in a campaign I participated in a few years ago. It was fun, but his gunslinging was literally hit or miss. Really! He missed twice as often as he hit anything and usually only got off a single shot before melee combat was required. But, on the rare occasion that he did hit, he did some massively impressive damage.
I'm fine with all the others listed in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook and the Advanced Player's Guide, but am not familiar with many outside those two sources. I'm not even well-read on all the archetypes in Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic, so can't say whether I especially like or dislike any of them.
I have always liked the original monk class - in any edition. I like that they are jacks-of-all-trades, masters-of-none, without spellcasting abilities. They are a good option to balance the bard, who is a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none, with some spell-casting abilities. I also like that the original monk class is a cross between Western monasticism and Eastern fighting skills. This fits better in the Flanaess, in my opinion, than a Oriental Adventures monk.
SirXaris
Agreed the OA variant seems to have abit toooo much Asian influence, at least for a western Flanness IMO/ Better suited for another continent (which is where EGG was headed as I recall)... I've been leaning toward an article submitted by Argon to rectify this and I like how he made it more of a western GH flavor. Located Here for those that haven't seen
-Actually, prestige classes are pretty "old school". Waht was the AD&D1 Bard, if not a prestige class?
Disagree, Actually the bard was an origin class that first appeared in The Strategic Review - Volume 2, Number 1. It later reappeared as an "afterthought" because it was felt in the issuance of the original AD&D Handbook most DMs would not allow it. (1E PHB p117 in the Appendix)...
-Counter-disagree!
The AD&D1 bard functioned exactly like a prestige class: With all prestige classes, you have to have gain levels in common classes; the only modification to that is that to become a bard, you had to have levels in two specific classes (fighter and thief).
Well James if we were to apply your sense of logic Elves and Dwarves are prestige classes as well.....
Because they started off as "classes"... not "races."...
While comparisions to Bards for a similary could be "streached" , a comparitive to the cavalier, the barbarian, the witch, the assassin, etc could also be made... all of which existed pre-dawn of prestige by distinction(ie before the intro of 3.xxx). I'm certain they used all as a platform for the idea of prestige classes on their inclusion in the game mechanic in 3.0 forward.
Further, since the Bard exists as a "core class" now (again meaning 3.xxx for purposes of this thread) all of this comes as a mute point.
Lastly, as this is listed as a 3.xx thread you are failing to understand the root intent of the thread in the first place. AS IT RELATES to 3.### I would happly discuss the histories of various classes and their origins (and am not necessarily in oposition to some of your views) but it is not the point of this thread.
Which brings me full circle as to the ORIGINAL intent of this thread. WHICH of the MANY variant ADD on CLASSES have worked for you and have not and why.
...Well James if we were to apply your sense of logic Elves and Dwarves are prestige classes as well....
-Yeah, technically, in OD&D Elves an Dwarves were "classes", but they were so at first level. You didn't have to be some other class before becoming an Elf or a Dwarf, which would have just been weird.
Dark_Lord_Galen wrote:
...Further, since the Bard exists as a "core class" now (again meaning 3.xxx for purposes of this thread) all of this comes as a mute point....
-I only brought up the AD&D1 bard because you implied that the entire concept of prestige classes (a "high" class which can only be attained by going through other classes) are new to D&D3X, while the AD&D1 bard class required the same thing, in that there was no such thing as a 1st level bard, but rather (e.g.) 4th level fighter/4th level thief/1st level bards.
So, it's not like the idea is unprecedented. I actually thought it was a crock. I was glad when they changed it so that bards started out as new, 1st level types like anyone else.
That's the only reason I'm bringing it up.
Dark_Lord_Galen wrote:
...Further, since the Bard exists as a "core class" now (again meaning 3.xxx for purposes of this thread) all of this comes as a mute point...
-Ah! to whit...
Dark_Lord_Galen wrote:
...Lastly, as this is listed as a 3.xx thread you are failing to understand the root intent of the thread in the first place...
-To recreate the original style bard, you could go back to how it was set up originally set up. It would probably require something like +5 BAB, the ability to backstab, foreign language ability, and +7 in Listen, Move Silently, and Hide. At that point, you could become a bard.
Dark_Lord_Galen wrote:
Just seems with over 2700 prestige classes (Kits) there seems a pattern to attempt to please all... And before somebody rushes to pick up the defense gauntlet, yes I know there are some that do not, but of the 2700+ they are the exception, not the "rule"...
-That's why I go with the DMG, anything GH official, and the rest on a case by case basis, not so much because a specific prestige class is always bad, but it come with a context, like any other class. Even with the dragon disciple example from the DMG, it should be established long before that there's something a little hinky in the would-be disciple's ancestry.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
