Presitige Classes for Regents

[Trithemius]

Elton Robb:
> Thus, as you can see, it restricts the PC`s options in progress.

So?

If players choose to sacrifice versatility for specific powers then I
would allow them. They should realise what they are doing though. I`m of
the opinion that all PCs who work towards a PrC work towards
specialisation in some way. The ones that aren`t doing this, don`t take
PrCs.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 04:32 PM 10/8/2002 +0200, Mark_Aurel wrote:

>

What I`m saying is that the prestige class concept is assumed to be
>based on particular organizations in particular campaign settings. Because
>there`s no limit to the number of such organizations and campaigns possible
>that assumption means there is no reason why there shouldn`t be a similarly
>endless number of prestige classes to express them.

>
>The thing is, only certain organizations, or types thereof, warrant
>prestige classes. In BR, strictly speaking, pretty much every domain can
>be considered an organization - however, only a very few of those have
>enough character or flavor to tie a prestige class to them. We don`t need
>"guild member type 1" and "guild member type 2" prestige classes.

I think we`re basically in agreement here. There have been several
objections to the way prestige classes have been presented in the core
materials and supplements. I agree with those objections. What I`m saying
is that at the root of many of those objections are some fundamental ideas
behind the prestige class concept that have led to the problems with how
the concept of prestige classes has developed. To wit: that prestige
classes are organization based.

In fact, for BR players there`s probably an even better illustration of the
point. Most of the organizations behind the prestige classes in the
published materials don`t rise to the domain level. They are usually
adventure level, role-playing effects. One could assign some sort of
holding or two to them, but more often than not a small BR domain is going
to represent a much more influential organization than the organizations
that inspire the average prestige class. It wouldn`t take much effort then
to conclude that every BR domain should have its own prestige classes,
maybe even two or three each. Most temple domains could have at least
three classes associated with it; a knightly one, a monk-brother one, a
patriarchal/matriarchal leader. In effect, that`s what`s been going on
with the plethora of prestige classes that have been coming out. Because
so little is needed to inspire them we get them by the truckload.

>Now you are being unnecessarily argumentative; I already stated that
>prestige classes are supposed to be more specialized, but not strictly better.

They are strictly better. Sorry, if that comes out sounding more
argumentative than saying that statement is profoundly untrue, but the
concept of prestige classes really is meant to create more powerful
characters, not ones that are just more specialized. It says as much in
the DMG and in a few other places that discuss the concept. Please note,
however, that I`m not saying that`s a good thing. I don`t think prestige
classes should necessarily power up the way they are often presented. In
fact, that powering up is one of the problems with how the prestige class
concept gets implemented.

>The quote you used from the DMG is also out of context, when read solely
>on its own.

If more of the context is necessary then here`s the paragraph in its entirety:

"Assassins and Loremasters are among the many types of prestige
classes. Characters who qualify can choose a prestige class as a
multi-class to pick up as they advance in level. Taking a prestige class
does not incur the experience point penalties normally associated with
multiclassing. Prestige classes allow DMs to create campaign-specific,
exclusive roles and positions as classes. These special roles offer
abilities and powers otherwise inaccessible to PCs and focus them in
specific, interesting directions. A character with a prestige class is
more specialized yet perhaps slightly better than one without one."

The next paragraph is about how the DM can choose to include prestige
classes or not.

That reads to me pretty much like what I said it meant. How is the last
sentence`s meaning altered by the context?

But let`s ignore that quote for a moment. Prestige classes still represent
a powering up process from the core classes. Even a casual analysis of
their class features will reveal that that`s the case, and the more
analysis you subject to the existing prestige class descriptions the more
obvious this powering up process is. It`s also obvious that prestige
classes aren`t written with much of a concept of balance in place. The
powers given to them and utility of their abilities vary pretty wildly
without much balancing involved.

You could certainly argue that prestige classes should not be more powerful
versions of the core classes and you wouldn`t get much debate from me. The
point I`m trying to convey here isn`t what prestige classes should be, but
what they are intended to be by the game designers and how some fundamental
decisions made during that design process led to what we have now.

>The DMG also goes in-depth about how to balance prestige classes with
>requirements, and advice in both the DMG, and given in Dragon and
>elsewhere by Monte Cook expounds upon this idea. If you do not consider
>the requirements involved, prestige classes can be considered to be
>"better." I do, however, tend to consider the requirements as an essential
>part of the concept, and thus, prestige classes aren`t really stronger
>than the regular classes - just more specialized.
>
>

The DMG says that
>prestige classes "set characters in the milieu and put them in the context
>of the world." That`s a far cry from saying prestige classes must all be
>anchored in the game world.

>
>I fail to see the difference here. "Put them in the context of the world"
>and "anchored in the game world" sounds pretty synonymous to me. To use an
>example, I don`t think that blade dancers, from OA, would be appropriate
>for Anuire, according to either statement.

The difference would be that putting them in the context of the game world
is a much more general statement. A "Cavalier" is in the context of his
game world, and can be reflected using a prestige class that is simply
called "Cavalier" and uses a general power progression. "Anchored in the
game world" would be campaign-specific. "Knight of the Great Kingdom" is
specific to the Greyhawk campaign setting where the Great Kingdom is located.

>

How are you picturing using feats in place of prestige classes?

>
>Okay.

I`m going to go ahead and address the specifics here and then the concept
of using domain level feats afterwards.

>Bismarck-wannabe [General]
>You are good at playing domains against each other.
>Benefit: You gain a +4 bonus on Diplomacy domain actions.

It`s probably not a good idea to have feats that are demonstrably more
powerful than similar feats. In this particular case, there are already
feats like Skill Focus (or Skill Emphasis) that grant a +2 (or +3) bonus to
a particular skill. There are also skills that grant +2 to two different
skills. If one wants to increase the power of those particular skills then
that`d be fine, but I don`t think having a single feat that grants a bonus
that`s as much as twice that of the standard for feats is the way to go.

>Orator of the Old School [General]
>You are good at rousing the public.
>Benefit: You gain a +4 bonus on Agitate domain actions.
>
>Scrooging [General]
>You are good at keeping wages low.
>Benefit: You reduce your domain maintenance costs by 25%.

I kind of like these two. Personally, I prefer to go with skills as
modifiers on the success for the DC of a domain action, and instead of
making the 2e Administration NWP a feat I`ve similarly made it a skill, but
these seem like appropriate things for a regent to have as an ability.

>Maybe a bigger bonus would be in order to make the feats more attractive,
>or making them a bit more generally applicable, but that`s the idea of it.

The examples of powers that I listed before for a holding regent prestige
classes listed things like increased RP production. That`s the kind of
thing I would make a prestige class rather than a feat. Many of the class
features of existing prestige classes could (and I think should) be feats,
but when it comes to very specific kinds of things (like that increased RP
collection) then I think a prestige class is actually a better option.

>What we need isn`t that they write the core books in a different way, but
>that we have a pool of standardized BR prestige classes to draw from.

If we write the core books in a different way we could have a method for
standardizing BR (or any campaign`s) prestige classes. You could *try* to
go out and create a pool of standardized BR prestige classes, but without a
few fundamental changes to the concept of prestige classes itself, however,
you`ll probably just wind up making the same mistakes in the BR prestige
classes that you`ve complained about in regards to prestige classes in general.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Elton Robb" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 3:42 PM


> Although it`s super cool to blast your enemies away with successive
> spells, and new spells which produces streams and spiraled effects,
> what makes the PrCs bad is [that] After taking a level of either of
> [Battle Mage or Eldritch Warrior], the character has changed the way
> he views magic forever.

PrC`s that forever change the way characters do things are a league apart
from most PrC`s. I would concur that this is a risky area. Balance and
flavor are key issues here, and a PrC like this would need to be playtested
before being incorportated into a BR campaign. If, on the other hand, we`re
talking about a PrC like Knight of the Chalice from DotF, fighting Shadow
world baddies (other than undead) in the name of Avani (Knight of the Solar
Chalice) that`s more of just a specialization rather than a fundamental
change, and is less likely to cause trouble in a campaign.

Presumably someone who wanted to join the Knights of the Solar Chalice has
reason to believe that some heavy gaming will take place in the Shadow
World, or else this specialization doesn`t make sense.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Mark_Aurel]

One could assign some sort of
holding or two to them, but more often than not a small BR domain is going
to represent a much more influential organization than the organizations
that inspire the average prestige class. It wouldn`t take much effort then
to conclude that every BR domain should have its own prestige classes,
maybe even two or three each. Most temple domains could have at least
three classes associated with it; a knightly one, a monk-brother one, a
patriarchal/matriarchal leader.

Not really true. The organizations in most other campaign worlds to which prestige classes are attached are not necessarily less influential because of the scope in which they are presented; if those other worlds had used a set of domain rules, those organizations would probably be the equal of fairly big domains in BR. Next, the primary reason for attaching prestige classes to those very same organizations is their nature - most tend to have some ideological or iconological point of reference; the vast majority of Birthright domains are simply political in nature.

They are strictly better. Sorry, if that comes out sounding more
argumentative than saying that statement is profoundly untrue, but the
concept of prestige classes really is meant to create more powerful
characters, not ones that are just more specialized. It says as much in
the DMG and in a few other places that discuss the concept.

No. In order to play your game a little, Quote Wars, let's examine the statement you're probably referring to - "A prestige class should be at least as beneficial and powerful as a normal character class, and - if the requirements are high - it might even be more powerful." Fine. That means that prestige classes are not supposed to be weaker than regular PC classes. Next, it means that they _can_ be more powerful, but under certain circumstances, not that they _are_ supposed to be. To put it in the context of what Monte Cook has said, you should balance prestige classes with the earliest entry class in mind; i.e. if a ranger can qualify for one at 5th level, the 1st level of the prestige class should be as good as a 6th level in ranger, which is necessarily better than a 1st level in any regular class. They are not, however, meant to be better in any capacity. Stating that as a fact about the way they are _supposed_ to be designed is ignorant of how Monte Cook has expounded upon good prestige class design in other arenas than the DMG. However, it does point to an actual problem with certain prestige classes - that they are being designed as strictly better, without sufficient requirements to go along. That is the problem at hand. The fact that people aren't designing prestige classes as intended, but rather going more and more generic, more and more power-upish. What you're suggesting for prestige classes sounds like a major mistake, and is precisely one of the things I know Monte once ranted about on his forums. This isn't about "fundemental decisions" by the game designers - it's about poor legwork by a lot of the designers of supplementary products, especially much of the d20 crowd.

The difference would be that putting them in the context of the game world
is a much more general statement. A "Cavalier" is in the context of his
game world, and can be reflected using a prestige class that is simply
called "Cavalier" and uses a general power progression. "Anchored in the
game world" would be campaign-specific. "Knight of the Great Kingdom" is
specific to the Greyhawk campaign setting where the Great Kingdom is located.

Cavaliers are clearly a cultural distinction-based prestige class, though perhaps at the borderline of how exacting a prestige class should be. You can very clearly "anchor" a cavalier prestige class in a French chivalry setting, but you can't "anchor" it in a Mongol world. Clear yet? You could, perhaps, change its name and some of the abilities, and do so, though, but that'd be a lot of work.

It`s probably not a good idea to have feats that are demonstrably more
powerful than similar feats. In this particular case, there are already
feats like Skill Focus (or Skill Emphasis) that grant a +2 (or +3) bonus to
a particular skill. There are also skills that grant +2 to two different
skills. If one wants to increase the power of those particular skills then
that`d be fine, but I don`t think having a single feat that grants a bonus
that`s as much as twice that of the standard for feats is the way to go.

Yes it is. Read the article on good feat design by Jonathan Tweet and Sean K Reynolds in Dragon #275. Or just look at the PHB. Feats with a more limited applicability are generally more powerful in their area than broader, or more commonly used feats. Gaining a +4 bonus to a single type of domain action isn't such a biggy compared to getting a +2 bonus on a single skill; most characters will tend to make many more skill checks than domain action checks. Further, you must also put the modifier in the context of the domain action itself. In this case, the domain action is generally rolled at a fairly high modifier already, due to the RPs being spent, thus making +2 be of less impact, but a +4 modifier would be more significant. Examples of this from the PHB would be the Combat Casting feat (like Skill Focus [Concentration], but more limited) or Endurance.

If we write the core books in a different way we could have a method for
standardizing BR (or any campaign`s) prestige classes. You could *try* to
go out and create a pool of standardized BR prestige classes, but without a
few fundamental changes to the concept of prestige classes itself, however,
you`ll probably just wind up making the same mistakes in the BR prestige
classes that you`ve complained about in regards to prestige classes in general.

That they are poorly written "power-ups?" I think I have the balance aspect pretty firmly in hand.

[Eosin the Red]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: Presitige Classes for Regents [2#1017]

Gary wrote in response to a proposed domain feat:

~~~~~It`s probably not a good idea to have feats that are demonstrably more
powerful than similar feats. In this particular case, there are already
feats like Skill Focus (or Skill Emphasis) that grant a +2 (or +3) bonus to
a particular skill. There are also skills that grant +2 to two different
skills. If one wants to increase the power of those particular skills then
that`d be fine, but I don`t think having a single feat that grants a bonus
that`s as much as twice that of the standard for feats is the way to go.~~~~


We see exactly this kind of feat in the PHB - Concentration. Limited utility
means bigger bonus. +4 is the standard. Seems spot on to me?

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 08:26 PM 10/8/2002 -0500, Eosin the Red wrote:

>We see exactly this kind of feat in the PHB - Concentration. Limited
>utility means bigger bonus. +4 is the standard. Seems spot on to me?

I misread the original version of the feat being presented. What I was
objecting to was a +4 on Diplomacy skill checks, but what you meant was +4
on Diplomacy domain actions. I withdraw the objection.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 6:16 PM

> >Bismarck-wannabe [General]
> >You are good at playing domains against each other.
> >Benefit: You gain a +4 bonus on Diplomacy domain actions.
>
> It`s probably not a good idea to have feats that are demonstrably more
> powerful than similar feats. In this particular case, there are already
> feats like Skill Focus (or Skill Emphasis) that grant a +2 (or +3) bonus
to
> a particular skill. There are also skills that grant +2 to two different
> skills.

But this skill effects domain actions, and you can bid GB and RP to
influence, all of which dilutes the effect of such a feat. The action`s
description refers to modifiers of +2 to +8, so its reasonable to assume
that the margin for normal modifiers is higher here. YMMV.

One might also assume this feat grants a fixed +4 bonus, rather that using a
skill check to determine a modifier. In that regard its more like those
abilities which allow you to take 10.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 6:16 PM

> It wouldn`t take much effort then to conclude that every BR domain
> should have its own prestige classes, maybe even two or three each.
> Most temple domains could have at least three classes associated
> with it; a knightly one, a monk-brother one, a patriarchal/matriarchal

While that is one way to go, its just as easy to just think in terms of
ideal types. Knights might strive to collect a list of feats and skills
identified as valued by knights of the specific temple. So, just selecting
feats and skills, and multiclassing where appropriate, works just as well as
using a PrC, and probably better. What the PrC can do that others can`t is
gain access to non-standard abilities. If everyone could take them, they`re
standard.

> The concept of prestige classes really is meant to create more powerful
> characters, not ones that are just more specialized. It says as much in
> the DMG and in a few other places that discuss the concept.

I really don`t buy this. As a specialized character, they`re often more
powerful when in the element they intended. If you pick a niche to exploit,
your specialization does make you more powerful within that niche, but less
powerful outside it. Gaining special powers to combat powerful Shadow World
creatures doesn`t mean you are as poweful as a standard character doing
things unrelated to the SW. You`re often less powerful, because of the
investment in SW prowess.
The Consecrated Harrier is great for hunting a church assigned target, but
for every encounter that doesn`t take place with a church assigned target,
you`re left with abilities that mirror 1st level spells, the emotion
spell-like ability, and a fighter`s BAB progression. On the other hand,
against a church-assigned target, its a powerful class with abilities at
every level. That`s specialization.

Of course, some PrC`s are poorly designed. Many tend to be too well
rounded. PrC`s should have design focus.

> Prestige classes [...] represent a powering up process from the
> core classes. Even a casual analysis of their class features will
> reveal that that`s the case, and the more analysis you subject to
> the existing prestige class descriptions the more obvious this
> powering up process is.

I`m not sure that is true either. When making comparisons of character
level, characters who didn`t take a PrC begin to get access to poweful upper
level feats, spells, or special abilities. So, powerful characters are
being compared.

> It`s also obvious that prestige classes aren`t written with much of a
> concept of balance in place. The powers given to them and utility
> of their abilities vary pretty wildly without much balancing involved.

One must really know how much the campaign caters to the skills of the PrC
before assessing the relative values of the characters. The assassin who
spends all of his time assassinating his ruler`s enemies is more powerful
than the assassin who is an adventuring party`s rogue and also happens
assassinates people every once in a while.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Grimwell]

Orginally posted by geeman
If we write the core books in a different way we could have a method for standardizing BR (or any campaign`s) prestige classes. You could *try* to go out and create a pool of standardized BR prestige classes, but without a few fundamental changes to the concept of prestige classes itself, however, you`ll probably just wind up making the same mistakes in the BR prestige classes that you`ve complained about in regards to prestige classes in general.

I object to your basic notion, which as been summised within this paragraph. Distill it further down to:

"If we write the core books in a different way..."
and
"...without a few fundamental changes to the concept of prestige classes itself,"

This paragraph, and those two lines, were my moment of clarity. They render the debate to this point null and void. You are not debating how to make PrC's from within the established rules and concepts, rather you are purposing that those very rules be modified to allow for a different approach to PrC's in their entirety. Correct me if I read you wrong.

You have dissatisfaction with the established system and mechanics for design and propose that we design a new one for BR 3E? Assuming that is correct, I object.

The BR 3E conversion process being held here is well under way at this point. It's nearer to completion than it is to inception from the indication the team has given. As such it is likely to be a bit late in the day to introduce the notion of a new system to the game. Further, while this is a conversion of the campaign world to the core 3E rules, it is not the introduction of something so radical that it should be far removed from the core of D&D.

This is not Star Wars, Cuthulu, or even Wheel of Time. Birthright has already been proven that it can fit within the basic frameworks of D&D, as it was designed with that intent from it's inception as a campaign setting.

Changing a fundamental rule: How and why PrC's are made, would be a strong step toward making BR a seriously non-standard setting.

Quite personally I would like to see the setting have greater appeal and a return to general retail production. It is my hope that the design team of this conversion has kept this in mind (that we'd like to see the setting have a fan renissance) in their design and have not radically changed the core of the game itself; and have instead focused on folding BR into that core and only creating systems where they are desperately needed and not covered by the core books (bloodlines and domains).

After their work is released for our general consumption, I might object to entire sections of their decision and work. At which point I will home rule it and perhaps share that home rule on the web. Until I see their work I am not going to poke in the dark with my own home rules and hope that I hit it.

Don't be offended though. Now that I know what you are getting at I'm fine with saying "I disagree" and leaving it at that. You are not wrong for wanting that change, in fact I agree with your basic principle: I would have preferred that the rules for PrC creation were more clear and useful, but I don't think BR is the place to fix that...

Now I'm going to go find me a ([_]

[geeman]

At 04:20 PM 10/9/2002 +0200, Grimwell wrote:

>

Orginally posted by geeman
>If we write the core books in a different way we could have a method for
>standardizing BR (or any campaign`s) prestige classes. You could *try* to
>go out and create a pool of standardized BR prestige classes, but without
>a few fundamental changes to the concept of prestige classes itself,
>however, you`ll probably just wind up making the same mistakes in the BR
>prestige classes that you`ve complained about in regards to prestige
>classes in general.
>

>
>I object to your basic notion, which as been summised within this
>paragraph. Distill it further down to:
>
>"If we write the core books in a different way..."
>and
>"...without a few fundamental changes to the concept of prestige classes
>itself,"
>
>This paragraph, and those two lines, were my moment of clarity. They
>render the debate to this point null and void. You are not debating how to
>make PrC`s from within the established rules and concepts, rather
>you are purposing that those very rules be modified to allow for a
>different approach to PrC`s in their entirety. Correct me if I read you wrong.

All I`m really suggesting is that we shouldn`t devise prestige classes with
the highly subjective (and, indeed, essentially endless) idea that they
should be organization-based as part of any larger work. A set of more
general prestige classes that could be used by anyone who wanted to pick up
the game would be more useful, and they could still customize them for
particular organizations if they wanted. It would actually address what I
think is really at the core of your objection to such a concept. That is,
a less loose set of assumptions when designing prestige classes will make
them more useful to the D&D community as a whole. BR prestige classes
designed with the same concept in mind will be similarly useful to a
greater percentage of people who want to play using the setting.

There`s a very large group of people (including a few writers for WotC) who
read the color text in the DMG describing what prestige classes were meant
to be used for, saw the "organization-based" loophole and went nuts,
designing weird, highly specialized prestige classes of very little use to
anyone. Now, we get two, three or a dozen in any issue of Dragon. They
aren`t necessarily a bad read, and a few examples of that kind of thing can
be useful to a DM so that he can come up with his own highly subjective,
campaign based prestige classes if he wants to, but the glut of prestige
classes that have come out--and I think the ones people find the least
useful--are mostly the result of the organization-based section of the
concept behind the prestige class.

>You have dissatisfaction with the established system and mechanics for
>design and propose that we design a new one for BR 3E? Assuming that is
>correct, I object.

I haven`t raised the issue of the mechanics of prestige classes
actually. The "organization-based" condition in the prestige class concept
doesn`t really rise to the level of "a mechanic" IMO. It`s just the color
commentary that created the free-for-all of prestige classes that somehow
get presented as part of the core materials.

But since you mentioned it I actually do object to the mechanics for design
of prestige classes. If for no other reason than because I haven`t really
located any. Oh, there have been essays written on how to design a
prestige class, but essentially even those articles propose that they be
designed in what is still an ad hoc manner. There are no real mechanics
for designing a prestige class. What I mean is a system of rating class
features and balancing them against one another. That is, the BAB
progression of a fighter (+1 per level) might be rating 5, while that of a
cleric was rated at 3 and that of a wizard rated 1. Similar values could
be assigned to saving throw progressions, hit dice, etc. Special
abilities, of course, are hard to assign a value to, but I`ve been fiddling
around with this stuff lately and I`ve got a few ideas on how to do
it. (It`s rather a lot to get into in a post, however, so when I`ve got it
scribbled up into a document maybe I can put it up on the net
someplace.) With such a system prestige classes (and the core classes, for
that matter) could be designed with some internal consistency.

The closest thing we`ve got is the suggestion that we look at the core
classes for guidelines and make prestige classes slightly powered up
versions of the special abilities of core classes and add some prereqs to
balance that out. The problem with that, unfortunately, is that the core
classes weren`t designed with anything like a mechanic. There were changes
to the mechanics of 3e, of course, but character classes weren`t it. They
are translations of the pre-3e character classes with not a lot of real
effort at balancing class abilities. Class abilities aren`t quantified in
any way that I`ve ever seen, and the same lack of an objective standard is
continued into the prestige class concept.

Monte Cook`s article on creating prestige classes presents some good ideas,
but it`s far from a game mechanic. His suggestion, for instance, that
prestige class requirements be sensible is certainly a good one... but it`s
also not really a "mechanic" in the sense that it gives us anything to work
with more than a suggestion to make things explicable and to understand the
actual mechanics behind those prereqs.

>The BR 3E conversion process being held here is well under way at this
>point. It`s nearer to completion than it is to inception from the
>indication the team has given. As such it is likely to be a bit late in
>the day to introduce the notion of a new system to the game. Further,
>while this is a conversion of the campaign world to the core 3E rules, it
>is not the introduction of something so radical that it should be far
>removed from the core of D&D.

I certainly appreciate the efforts of the BR 3e design team, but if the
game hadn`t been changed they wouldn`t be doing the work they are doing,
and the game will continue to change during and after they complete their
work. When 4e comes out then they`ll no doubt have to make revisions
again. But the point in the whole D20 concept is that additional material
coming in from various sources can influence the main product.

Also, what I`ve been suggesting is not all that radical a separation from
the core D&D rules. Creating prestige classes that are more generally
useful to as many folks as possible is just a good way of designing them is
all. It doesn`t change anything about how prestige classes are created.

>This is not Star Wars, Cuthulu, or even Wheel of Time. Birthright has
>already been proven that it can fit within the basic frameworks of D&D, as
>it was designed with that intent from it`s inception as a campaign setting.
>
>Changing a fundamental rule: How and why PrC`s are made, would be a strong
>step toward making BR a seriously non-standard setting.
>
>Quite personally I would like to see the setting have greater appeal and a
>return to general retail production. It is my hope that the design team of
>this conversion has kept this in mind (that we`d like to see the setting
>have a fan renissance) in their design and have not radically changed the
>core of the game itself; and have instead focused on folding BR into that
>core and only creating systems where they are desperately needed and not
>covered by the core books (bloodlines and domains).

This is a pretty much one version of the standard objections raised by
people who want to maintain some sort of BR status quo with 3e. The fear
apparently is that if updated BR material comes out that is different from
the core books then people either won`t be able to handle it or will find
any changes so upsetting that they`ll cast it aside and go play in Cormyr.

If I might frame the argument thus, the question is really whether a BR
update should be BR 3e or BR D20. I`d suggest that there really is no such
thing as D&D 3e per se. The majority of my objections to 3e can be
summarized by describing it as what it _really_ is... "Forgotten Realms
D20." D20 is what 3e should have been in the first place, but instead they
went with a marketing concept in which they promoted a "core" campaign
setting and mixed it right on into the core rules. Because 3e has so much
FR (and some Greyhawk) influence many of the core rules are, in fact,
campaign specific. The examples are too many to really list, but if you
excise the Forgotten Realms influenced stuff from the core books there`s an
awful lot that gets altered. This goes right down into the core classes,
many aspects of which have a distinct FR flavor, and it`s certainly the
case when it comes to prestige classes. An awful lot of prestige classes
are campaign specific.

Personally, I think we should go for Birthright D20 not Birthright 3e. If
it looks as radically different from D&D 3e as the Wheel of Time, Cthulhu
or Star Wars texts I think that`s as much a positive as a negative. I
don`t personally think those non-standard D20 settings are so drastic a
departure from the core rules as to cause a problem. I don`t have a lot of
marketing data on how many people play those D20 settings, but even if a BR
D20 system does come out the differences will not be so great as to make
the setting somehow less commercial.

When it comes to this particular change, however, it`s really pretty
innocuous. "Let`s not design prestige classes that are
organization-based." It`s not something that`s going to make BR a
non-standard setting. It could still be BR 3e rather than BR D20.

>After their work is released for our general consumption, I might object
>to entire sections of their decision and work. At which point I will home
>rule it and perhaps share that home rule on the web. Until I see their
>work I am not going to poke in the dark with my own home rules and hope
>that I hit it.
>
>Don`t be offended though. Now that I know what you are getting at I`m fine
>with saying "I disagree" and leaving it at that. You are not wrong for
>wanting that change, in fact I agree with your basic principle: I would
>have preferred that the rules for PrC creation were more clear and useful,
>but I don`t think BR is the place to fix that...

Where better? Essentially, the only change I`m suggesting should be
adopted in creating BR prestige classes is that we should not make them
organization-based. That`s it. It`s not a terribly radical change. It
just means we won`t wind up with a "Patriarch of the Orthodox Imperial
Temple" prestige class along with a "Patriarch of the Northern Imperial
Temple" prestige class and a "Patriarch of the Western Imperial Temple"
prestige class. Using the assumptions presented in the DMG it isn`t very
difficult to justify that.

Would I like to see a more articulated and mechanic way of creating
prestige classes? Absolutely. I haven`t presented any of that material,
however, and would anticipate many people objecting to that. This
particular issue is pretty benign, though.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.