Ben Milton at Questing Beast has a fun bit where he puts fantast RPG content creators in a game show format and challenges them to identify which edition of D&D various quotes come from. I've got one of them queued up here where Mike Mearls talks about Prestige Classes in 3E
https://youtu.be/KyaLs1t1UXI?t=1460
As you've seen me comment before, the abuse of the Prestige Class system (and multi-classing in general) is one of the main reasons why 3E has a reputation for being bloated and unplayable, and for the culture of musing multi-classing to 'dip' into a class just to get a special power, or to meet the criteria for a prestige class in the shortest number of levels, and then staying in the prestige class just long enough to milk them for benefits.
Based on the language being quoted in the game, it's clear that this was never the intent, and one of the reasons that Emirikol worked as well as it did because none of the players took that attitude. Yes, Tom's PC was an Rogue/Fighter/Aristocrat who got to my modified Paladin prestige class, but he also stated up front he wanted to play a highly agile fighter from an extant noble family who wanted to be made a Paladin. The progression WORKED for the very clearly in game concept character class. And once he hit Paladin, he was locked in. Likewise Rebecca's Sorcerer, when she discovered the volumes that would teach her to be an Arcane Fencer - a class that really only makes sense in the Emirikol milieu- also settled in for that Prestige Class for the rest of the game.
The structure of building your milieu specific prestige classes that let the players slot characters into the world's culture and power structure once they are in middle levels is a good one. Shame it got wrecked by <checks notes> Players.
I'd argue it wasn't entirely players.
ReplyDeleteMost of the multiclass abuse wasn't -entirely- the fault of players -- pum pum and multiclass of giant claws aside.
It was often that a prestige class had onerous entry requirements, demanding that you bounce around and build Just So -- or that a class or prestige class stopped providing benefits at a certain point, so the player started looking around for something new.
Your custom prestige classes are likely a good example -- the players wanted a particular flavor; you made prestige classes that provided that flavor, all the way through.
Obviously, the inversion is also improtant. I remember in 3.5 we had players taking on a prestige class (and adjusting their character concept to match) because it was powerful and suited their concept Well Enough that they could adapt. This I'd argue was a combination of design issues on both the source class (wizard in the case I have in mind) and the destination -- if the designers have classes that offer nothing other than spellcasting after a certain point (like the 3e/3.5e Wizard; unless you really liked the minor buffs to familiars there was nothing to stay for) -and- offer full BaB/spellcasting (or both) prestige classes, then of -course- players are going to look for excuses to switch away from "nothing" to "something." Ideally, every level of a class should offer just a bit more..a bit of extra ROI (return on investment) to those who want the concept it offers.
Obviously, that concept runs afoul of the need to frontload a class or prestige class a bit so players get a quick shot of the concept it offers. But if classes are also backloaded a fair bit, so players have that 1e feel that if they just hold out for a Few More Levels they'll get something really great, it will compete favorably with the "1 level dip in everything of nonsense" for all but the most abusive players.
I know you and I have gone round and round on 3e design decisions before (and sorry for the delay in getting the comment up; I thought I had approved it earlier....) but I want to pull out one part of this
ReplyDelete"It was often that a prestige class had onerous entry requirements, demanding that you bounce around and build Just So -- or that a class or prestige class stopped providing benefits at a certain point, so the player started looking around for something new."
OK, the first half I'll give you, but with the caveat that the bulk of the time the players were the ones pushing for the inclusion of new prestige classes into the sourcebooks and then into the game. They weren't all being added ex nihilo. The addendum to the caveat is that the DM is also a _player_ in this instance, and are skipping the intended obligation to tailor the prestige classes to their world by accepting anything.
The back half of that remains a mystery to me, and it's one of the central problems with character class + level as optimization tree that has plagued D&D since 3E. I just premise reject the entire line of argument that the class levels are supposed to give you an ROI on every level. D&D 0-2nd edition and Basic/Expert didn't/don't do that and they work just fine. The concept of multi-classing as it is used today didn't exist and it worked just fine. Players tailored their character concept with the GM in chroming and magic items and, again, just fine. To paraphrase, there is no moral justification for optimization inside multiclassing. To me, making multiclassing a minigame with powerful results based on player system mastery deforms the play experience.
YMMV, of course. We've covered this ground before.