Eladrin...PrE where is the rest of them???

[Erekose]

I may be mistaken, I was under the assumption that each class was going to get 3. If this is correct where is the rest of these PrE for us to preview.

I say this because peeps are investing resources into re-crafting weapons for the shroud based on becoming a FB Barbarian. If there are 3 PrE per class, then I would like to see all three prior to committing resources in any direction.

Thank you

Erek

[Spisey]

Sadly they said it will be over several mods. God knows they've taken their time with this mod. I say it takes them at least a year to get them all out. :(

Don't think I'm not with you just pessimistic. I think they should at least construct the enhancement feat lines and give us something to build toward even if they stay on the back burner.


I still want to know if I can make a wf juggernaut pale master battlewizzy! :(

[hydra_ex]

Sadly they said it will be over several mods. God knows they've taken their time with this mod. I say it takes them at least a year to get them all out. :(

Don't think I'm not with you just pessimistic. I think they should at least construct the enhancement feat lines and give us something to build toward even if they stay on the back burner.


I still want to know if I can make a wf juggernaut pale master battlewizzy! :(

Yep, Balzuru is right.

Also, Eladrin is not obliged to give us sneak-peaks, so, we should be thankful for what we have.

[Spisey]

Yep, Balzuru is right.

Also, Eladrin is not obliged to give us sneak-peaks, so, we should be thankful for what we have.


Don't get me wrong! I am happy to know that I am still excited 3 years later and still thirsty for more DDO! :D

[Erekose]

Yep, Balzuru is right.

Also, Eladrin is not obliged to give us sneak-peaks, so, we should be thankful for what we have.

I understand he isn't obliged. However why tell us 3 for each class and only give us 1. Suggestion may have been better to only release 1 and say only 1 is soon to be released.

<shrugs> its all about managing expectations.

[esoitl]

Sadly they said it will be over several mods. God knows they've taken their time with this mod. I say it takes them at least a year to get them all out. :(

Don't think I'm not with you just pessimistic. I think they should at least construct the enhancement feat lines and give us something to build toward even if they stay on the back burner.


I still want to know if I can make a wf juggernaut pale master battlewizzy! :(

By the looks of it, yes you will be able to. Just the same as you can make an Elven Warchanter/Arcane Archer. When you look at the history they have released a class per MOD for the PrEs. This time we actually get two classes in Fighter and Paladin and since they wanted to scrap the Critical Rage going forward they've added the Frenzied Berserker to replace it. I assume we'll see the other two Barbarian and maybe another class of PrEs coming in MOD 10.

It'd be kind of a lame preview to have them shown now and not appear for 3-4 months down the road. If they even have them developed for DDO that'd be surprising to me honestly.
In order to get a feel of what they are though, you can always check out a search for D&D prestige classes. Mostly they follow them close enough although with changes adapting them to the DDO environment. I know it won't give you the enhancement pre-reqs but you can loosely get a concept of the feats required and at the worst you can always get a few dragon shards and swap out how you need.

[Borror0]

<shrugs> its all about managing expectations.
It's all about giving us things to look up to.

By the looks of it, yes you will be able to. Just the same as you can make an Elven Warchanter/Arcane Archer.
I suspect they will have to revise this idea, as it leads to stupid design.

WF avoiding barbarian, dwarves avoiding being fighter, elves avoiding being ranger, etc. Not to mention it will create severe race imbalances...

[esoitl]

I suspect they will have to revise this idea, as it leads to stupid design.

WF avoiding barbarian, dwarves avoiding being fighter, elves avoiding being ranger, etc. Not to mention it will create severe race imbalances...
I'm not saying it's a good idea, but that seems like how they have been planning it. Although they may be rethinking as if you look at the Stalwart Defender PrE I believe there is some sort of Fighter enhancement pre-req in there(Fighter Armour Boost I think it was).

[Borror0]

I'm not saying it's a good idea, but that seems like how they have been planning it.
Well, they already expressed their hesitation with Defender and I would not be surprised if they revisit the system to be more balanced.

Restricting the number of PrE rank to a "[character level]/3" sounds liek the best alternative I can find.

[Angelus_dead]

I suspect they will have to revise this idea, as it leads to stupid design.
Yes, although it's not a bad design as it currently exists in game, because it only applies to Arcane Archer. Ranged being a hopelessly weak combat style, Arcane Archer is thus a weak specialty, and nearly irrelevant (except as a red herring, which punishes players who don't understand the system).

The real reason Elf Arcane Archer had to count as a Ranger specialty was to prevent someone from taking AA and Deepwood Sniper at the same time, since they have nearly identical lists of prereqs. If it were allowed to be AA and Tempest at once, that wouldn't be a problem.

Likewise, if Stalwart Defender was allowed as a Dwarf specialty, the only thing they'd have to avoid is a paladin learning both SD and Defender of Syberis, because once-again the prereqs heavily overlap.

So what they can do is readjust the racial specialties to only conflict with a specific list of named specialties, instead of all the specialties granted by a certain class. That breaks parsimony, but gives a better result.

[Borror0]

The real reason Elf Arcane Archer had to count as a Ranger specialty was to prevent someone from taking AA and Deepwood Sniper at the same time, since they have nearly identical lists of prereqs. If it were allowed to be AA and Tempest at once, that wouldn't be a problem.
Wouldn't part of that problem be solved by giving them different prereqs so that taking both is more expensive?

So what they can do is readjust the racial specialties to only conflict with a specific list of named specialties, instead of all the specialties granted by a certain class.
That does not solve all problem. With that design, there is very little reason to play a non-dwarf AC spec'd paladin. The dwarf version gets access to both Stalwart Defender and KotC or HotD whereas other races will be offered something significantly weaker (with the possible exception of WF).

So what they can do is readjust the racial specialties to only conflict with a specific list of named specialties, instead of all the specialties granted by a certain class.
Perhaps I don't understand what you are saying but if AA conflicts with DS, then shouldn't elves still be more attracted to fighter (for both Kensai and AA)?

[Angelus_dead]

Wouldn't part of that problem be solved by giving them different prereqs so that taking both is more expensive?
That could solve it, except that there is no evident way to create different prereqs. There just aren't enough archery-oriented feats that could be split up in a plausible way.


That does not solve all problem. With that design, there is very little reason to play a non-dwarf AC spec'd paladin.
Thanks to Armor Master III, that's true anyway.


The dwarf version gets access to both Stalwart Defender and KotC or HotD
That's kinda the point.


Perhaps I don't understand what you are saying but if AA conflicts with DS, then shouldn't elves still be more attracted to fighter (for both Kensai and AA)?
Kensai + AA is inferior to Kensai + Ranger Capstone.

[Borror0]

Thanks to Armor Master III, that's true anyway.
True but that is somethnig can be solved. This will make the problem much harder to solve

Kensai + AA is inferior to Kensai + Ranger Capstone.
I assume you mean "Kensai + AA is inferior to AA + Ranger Capstone"?

If so, I'm hoping they don't let Master of Archery as it is... for reasons you know.

[moorewr]

Yes, although it's not a bad design as it currently exists in game, because it only applies to Arcane Archer. Ranged being a hopelessly weak combat style, Arcane Archer is thus a weak specialty, and nearly irrelevant (except as a red herring, which punishes players who don't understand the system).

The real reason Elf Arcane Archer had to count as a Ranger specialty was to prevent someone from taking AA and Deepwood Sniper at the same time, since they have nearly identical lists of prereqs. If it were allowed to be AA and Tempest at once, that wouldn't be a problem.

Likewise, if Stalwart Defender was allowed as a Dwarf specialty, the only thing they'd have to avoid is a paladin learning both SD and Defender of Syberis, because once-again the prereqs heavily overlap.

So what they can do is readjust the racial specialties to only conflict with a specific list of named specialties, instead of all the specialties granted by a certain class. That breaks parsimony, but gives a better result.

All of this really points out to me what a mistake it was to tie our version of Prestige classes to specific class levels. If they had simply made it so you could have only one prestige line, with pre-reqs similar to PnP's Prestige Classes, they'd have a much simpler grid of unintended consequences to worry about.

[Borror0]

All of this really points out to me what a mistake it was to tie our version of Prestige classes to specific class levels.
Since they intended PrE to act as balance between classes, I doubt it.

Don't get me wrong, I sort of like the idea of detaching PrE's from specific classes (as far as I know, Aesop and I were the first to discuss that) but I do understand the reasons for keeping it that way (although some PrE should be shared by multiple classes). Plus, I love the various builds it can create if they load the class better (Tempest I and Tempest III too powerful of tiers, Kensai I and FB I and II being horrible, etc.)

[moorewr]

Since they intended PrE to act as balance between classes, I doubt it.

Don't get me wrong, I sort of like the idea of detaching PrE's from specific classes (as far as I know, Aesop and I were the first to discuss that) but I do understand the reasons for keeping it that way (although some PrE should be shared by multiple classes). Plus, I love the various builds it can create if they load the class better (Tempest I and Tempest III too powerful of tiers, Kensai I and FB I and II being horrible, etc.)

The current system creates abominations. I haven't run the numbers to see if there are feats/AP for this, but even thinking about a character that is Tempest I/Kensai I/Siberys I/Dwarven Defender x shows how broken their design is.

Looking at PnP shows me that they thought about class balance their as well. Most prestige classes are decently set up to narrow the paths to them - arcane archers, for example, need to have ranged feats, able to cast arcane spells.. Tempest fighters/rangers/rogues etc have to invested in a bunch of feats, have a decent BAB...

[Borror0]

The current system creates abominations.
Can you elaborate more?

[moorewr]

Can you elaborate more?

I put one example in the post. I'll add more as I think of them. Suffice to say, we are all doodling with:

Tempest I/x II
Tempest II/x I
Warchanter/Tempest/etc.

Chinese menu prestige combos.

[vtecfiend99]

Chinese menu prestige combos.

All this seems like to me is a way to mess up a character pretty good.

Tempest I/Warchanter I/ Kensai I?


Doesn't really seem all that good to me, and I love multi classed characters.

[Borror0]

Suffice to say, we are all doodling with:
Can I ask where the problem is?

Tempest II/x I
That's an horrible build. Working the numbers on it right now (I should have the post up by tonight) and it's truly saddening.

The only exception is the Tempest II/Warchanter I builds but those are an exception.

[moorewr]

All this seems like to me is a way to mess up a character pretty good.

Tempest I/Warchanter I/ Kensai I?


Doesn't really seem all that good to me, and I love multi classed characters.

I did say "abomination" - do you know any attractive abominations? :)

The problem is that sooner or later somebody will stack something -- alacrity and zeal, yadda yadda, and we'll have our next crippling rage or evasion heavy rmor fighter on our hands.

And as to whether Warchanter/Tempest is OK? No! I say no, because that goes against the concept of Prestige classes in PnP. Note I say concept and not implementation...

[Borror0]

The problem is that sooner or later somebody will stack something -- alacrity and zeal, yadda yadda, and we'll have our next crippling rage or evasion heavy rmor fighter on our hands.
I fail to see how that's a bad thing.

No! I say no, because that goes against the concept of Prestige classes in PnP. Note I say concept and not implementation...
How is it different? What do you view as the concept of PrC and why is it a bad thing to not follow it?

[moorewr]

I fail to see how that's a bad thing.

How is it different? What do you view as the concept of PrC and why is it a bad thing to not follow it?

bad thing because in the end it will unbalance the game (like rapier-TWF-barbs now) and inevitably get nerfed, causing canceled subs.

Can we back up and clarify PnP rules about Prestige classes? Has anyone ever seen a campaign - or anything from Wizards indicating this was possible - where a character could take more than one?

[drac317]

bad thing because in the end it will unbalance the game (like rapier-TWF-barbs now) and inevitably get nerfed, causing canceled subs.

Can we back up and clarify PnP rules about Prestige classes? Has anyone ever seen a campaign - or anything from Wizards indicating this was possible - where a character could take more than one?

its in the multiclass section i think. dont remember for sure,but i had an elven ftr with levels of 3 differnt PrC(deepwood,order of the bow,and peerless archer)that had similar prereqs

[Borror0]

bad thing because in the end it will unbalance the game (like rapier-TWF-barbs now) and inevitably get nerfed, causing canceled subs.
Well, the obvious solution to that class respec.

Other than that, I would argue character customization lead to more subs than possible nerfs may lead to.

Has anyone ever seen a campaign - or anything from Wizards indicating this was possible - where a character could take more than one?
Of course. Does this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060120a) suffice?

[honkuimushi]

PrEs really aren't that similar to PrCs. In DDO, they're more like kits that are taken at later levels rather than first.

[DragoonPenguin]

pretty ****in happy personally, as a monk owner, that monks are getting ****ed up the ass right here. ****in nice move not showing any intentions to enrich the monk class (no pre preview, and there is no way that new burst ring **** will even be worth having)

,,/,,

[moorewr]

Of course. Does this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060120a) suffice?

Yikes. News to me, but there it is. That's a very different read on prestige classes than I get from the DMG.. but I guess a weak GM could be talked into most anything by players.. who will happily ruin their own campaign with their power-gaming...

Sounds like Turbine could spend more time reading that column.


PrEs really aren't that similar to PrCs. In DDO, they're more like kits that are taken at later levels rather than first.

Take another look at the rules for PrCs - you need to have BAB, and/or skills, and/or casting levels before you can take a PrC level.

[Borror0]

I guess a weak GM could be talked into most anything by players.. who will happily ruin their own campaign with their power-gaming...
I don't think you read the article correctly.

The author said:

"It's possible to read entirely too much into the term "prestige class." If these classes were just called secondary classes, this kind of concern might not come up at all. But calling them prestige classes causes some DMs to wonder if they ought to impose some restrictions -- and that's not truly necessary. In a sense, a prestige class is a character's core identity. His base classes then become a sort of prep school for what the character really wants to do -- and that's fine.

However, if you don't care for that model, you can certainly put more emphasis on the base classes for your campaign."

Sounds like Turbine could spend more time reading that column.
Too late. Look at #2. Approximatively, that's what Turbine did.

[moorewr]

I don't think you read the article correctly.

Well, I think my reading comprehension was OK. To me the money quote was this:

What's a DM to do when the players give their PCs levels in one or more prestige classes as a matter of course?

That's a DM that is not in control of their own campaign.

I'll agree that Turbine has gone the "compress the benefits" route, but they've done major damage to the spirit of the PrC in the process. Making Tempest Ranger only, for example, or making it so the best DDO Arcane Archer must stay pure Ranger - an AA build that is impossible in PnP.

addendum: the point being that these reduce choices, and also create imbalances. Look at the Kensai v. Tempest flap.

[Borror0]

Well, I think my reading comprehension was OK. To me the money quote was this:

What's a DM to do when the players give their PCs levels in one or more prestige classes as a matter of course?

That's a DM that is not in control of their own campaign.
You do realize that this quote is followed by:

"Shouldn't some limit exist on the prestige class levels a character can have, to keep those classes "special"?"
He answers this question, as said previously, by saying:

"It's possible to read entirely too much into the term "prestige class." If these classes were just called secondary classes, this kind of concern might not come up at all. But calling them prestige classes causes some DMs to wonder if they ought to impose some restrictions -- and that's not truly necessary."
In other words, there is nothing wrong with multiple PrCs. PrCs are not "special classes" but simply further specialization.

I'll also add my personal comment to this. D&D suffers from being a class-based system. A class-based, in comparison to a point-based system, has some advantages and some disadvantages. One of them is that multiclassing is sometimes required to achieve the character one wants and that this multiclassing may lead to odd characters in the long run. Ignoring idiotic restrictions like "Wizards are bad at climbing" or "Fighters are bad at searching", there are many situations where a player will want to shape his character but will need to pick up classes who's name conflict together in logic.

That does not make the character's progression illogical, however.

the point being that these reduce choices, and also create imbalances. Look at the Kensai v. Tempest flap.
The first is untrue, if you are realist, and the second is simply false. PrE were used to give more choice by (attempting to) fixing class imbalance.

[moorewr]

The first is untrue, if you are realist, and the second is simply false. PrE were used to give more choice by (attempting to) fixing class imbalance.

What I am saying is that in PnP you can arrive at a given Prestige Class by a wide variety of routes, whereas in DDO only one route is available (current in level in the single class it is offered to). I gave the examples of Tempest and Arcane Archer, and can only point to them again.

I will stipulate your point about Wizards' ruling on prestige classes. Disappointing - what is in the DMG is so much better than the advice they are giving in that article. I should write them a dunning note.

[Borror0]

What I am saying is that in PnP you can arrive at a given Prestige Class by a wide variety of routes
Same in DDO, but in a different way.

Disappointing - what is in the DMG is so much better than the advice they are giving in that article.
Can you tell me what page is that?

[FluffyCalico]

have they released any of the details on the sorc salvent lines?

[moorewr]

Same in DDO, but in a different way.

Clearly this is wrong - just to name one example, how can the One True Tempest ranger be equivalent to taking Tempest based on some or all of rogue, ranger, or fighter?


Can you tell me what page is that?

In my edition it is page 176. To quote directly...

"Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign."

Why is all this nonsense in the article needed? because the DM blew it and let people do absurd tings, like take two PrC. Would you let a Paladin MC into Paladin so he could follow two different creeds at once?

[honkuimushi]

Take another look at the rules for PrCs - you need to have BAB, and/or skills, and/or casting levels before you can take a PrC level.

Right. But the with prestige classes you stop advancing in your previous classes and use the HP, BAB, Skill Points and Caster levels of your prestige class. But with 2nd Edition kits, you still advance in whatever class the kit is based on and generally get the same base abilities. But there are a few tweaks on the clas abilities. You usually have to give up a couple of abilities in exchange for greater abilities in a couple of areas. The difference here is that you have to wait until at least 6th level and meet some feet requirements where with kits you had to take them at your first class level. But I find the advancement more kit like than PrC like.

Generally, the kits ended up making the character more powerful, too the point where almost all later 2nd Edition characters took kits. Ironically, PrCs were the reaction to people feeling that kits had gotten out of hand. But I think PrCs have gone much further than kits have.

[Spisey]

In pnp i was never allowed to take prc's :( My choice of rolling the dice for a page out of the Humanoids Handbook for my next character kept my DM's uneasy enough....

[Erekose]

AT least in PnP you can plan your character out from Lvl1 owing to everything you need being published and in print.

Being drip fed this info will cost resources. I'm already a bit tired of grinding the shroud. Can I have some cheese please?

Just saying it would be really nice to have an idea if I need to start hoarding large devil scales for 5 melee toons before they turn the DDO world upside down with new PrE. I think it is counter intuitive to go from one PrE to the next like flavors of the month as they are drip fed into the game.

I think I will do nothing long term with my toons for the next 6-12 months until they publish enough info to make an informed and resource effective decision.

[FluffyCalico]

I think I will do nothing long term with my toons for the next 6-12 months until they publish enough info to make an informed and resource effective decision.

Leveling them is pretty long term since we have no way to unlevel them.

[Spisey]

Seems to be the only option without wasting time rerolling anyway or bringing them up to a safe enough level and set them aside. Either way seems fleeting considering it sounds from the dev responses that nothing is past the "we should add this prestige class" stage and are no where close to the "we have entered the testing stage to sort out playable issues" stage.

Notes written in a meeting usually translate to major and minor edits to the initial suggestion which only leads to further anger from the masses....

I wouldn't hold ours breathes on the final outcome of the ones we do know about but are not planned for mod 9. :(

[Borror0]

Clearly this is wrong - just to name one example, how can the One True Tempest ranger be equivalent to taking Tempest based on some or all of rogue, ranger, or fighter?
Of course, it's not identical but it's comparable.

If you need any proof of that, think about how many viable builds there will be in M9 (and how many there could be if the PrE were correctly balanced and not too front/back loaded). Then, think about how many there would be without PrE.

You'll find that there are much less. PrE add multiclassing options and balance the class better than they were before.

"Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign."
The text following is:

"The example prestige classes are certainly not all encompassing or definitive. They might not even be appropriate for your campaign. The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself."
What is meant is not that a PrC should be something rare but that allowing a PrC such as the Red Wizard in a campaign that does not happen in Forgotten Realms or Ninja Spy when the setting does not support can be a bad thing as it makes little sense.

If a PrC does not fit in your campaign, it's best to disallow it. That's the advice given here.

Why is all this nonsense in the article needed?
How is that nonsense and how does it apply to DDO?

Why should a character be limited to a PrC? On what do you base that restriction?

[Borror0]

I think I will do nothing long term with my toons for the next 6-12 months until they publish enough info to make an informed and resource effective decision.
This line begs it but please avoid to turn this thread into a respec thread. We've got plenty of those around.

[Spisey]

This line begs it but please avoid to turn this thread into a respec thread. We've got plenty of those around.


og og!

**Spisey jumps thread*

I truly hate those threads more than any others... Take a week, reroll. If you can't take it that serious then why roll something that may not be what you wanted endgame, mod 11 or 12....

[Borror0]

why roll something that may not be what you wanted endgame, mod 11 or 12....
Well, everyone has to do that if they ever want to play. The game changes, that's the nature of an MMO...

[Spisey]

Well, everyone has to do that when they want to play. The game changes, that's the nature of an MMO...


But taking leaps at hints and basing proposed builds off of proposed enhancements lines and their requirements is slightly different than suffering the changes the game takes as it evolves to something better. I really have never minded to changes after the fact and none of them have broken a toon that is well planned. But I guess that actually is the same thing except the leaps are just more outrageous when you start talking cap and tradeoffs in build design.

**shrugs** I stopped worrying about the future in this game. It usually leads to loathing, disappointment and idle threats to leave. Me personally that is, not generalizing there :)

A fairly standardized list and requirements doesn't sound too difficult. As they update wiki they could update the decisions made. Seems reasonable in a few months time. We all know that mod 10 will be awhile since we still have no true hints that mod 9 is coming soon.

[BigBadBarry]

To the OP...

A few months ago Eladrin posted the full list of PrE's coming in Mod 9.

What has been announced is it at the moment with the others, such as the Sorcerer/Wizard/Cleric ones coming in subsequent mods (they are getting new spells was thought to be enough new stuff for casters in Mod 9).


Edit : found the post where he mentions NOT EVERY class gets a PrE in Mod 9 : http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=1972565&postcount=4

[moorewr]

Of course, it's not identical but it's comparable.

We're just going to have to disagree here. We've presented our arguments in various threads before. My final word on the subject: if you built PrE properly, by making their requirements a combination of BAB, skills, enhancements, and casting levels, you'd have far more options/


Why should a character be limited to a PrC? On what do you base that restriction?

I thought it was self-evident, but as I agreed above, Wizards has a different view. I'd say they've abandoned the intent of the Prestige Class when they published it.Here's this character's focus, uh, make that foci. Our chief weapon is surprise! And Fanatical devotion to the pope!

Beyond the obvious play balance issues, say you took Mystic Theurge, and then you took red wizard, and then you took Mystic Theurge again - what class do you advance in as a caster? for MT you take Red Wizard and then that takes the base class? Your level up process shouldn't have to invoke object oriented programming concepts.

[Borror0]

if you built PrE properly, by making their requirements a combination of BAB, skills, enhancements, and casting levels, you'd have far more options
Of course but that is also far more work. It might have been a good idea when the first few PrE were released but now that they have been used to balance the classes, it's too late. Beside, Turbine have aimed for a very efficient model by making them balancing tools at the same time.

In the end, by choosing this model, they probably have created more options than they would have had otherwise.

Of course, that does not mean that PrE's should not bleed across classes.

Here's this character's focus, uh, make that foci.
From what I can read here, you believe that PrC should be limited to one per character because it's that character's focus.

How does this conflict with DDO?

That phenomenon is exactly what's happening in DDO at the moment. As a fighter, you may advance as Purple Dragon Knight, a Kensai or a Stalwart Defender but only one of those paths. Paladins can be an Hunter of the Dead, a Knight of the Chalice or a Defender of Syberis, but only one of those three.

Here's this character's focus, uh, make that foci.
I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of prestige classes.

There never was any restriction on the number of of PrC a character could multiclass into. If they really intended PrC to be a focus, they would have had limited you to one. However, PrC are exactly what the SRD presents them as (http://is.gd/r0dN). A new form of multiclassing.

Shortly put, a character's PrC act the same as a new class would. It's a new form of teaching.

If you don't object multiclassing, then why do you think players should be limited to only one PrC? "Why are they different?", is the question you have to ask yourself. If a fighter can find interest in magic and start gaining wizard levels, then why can't an assassin be interested in learning the tricks of a shadowdancer?

[moorewr]

From what I can read here, you believe that PrC should be limited to one per character because it's that character's focus.

How does this conflict with DDO?

That phenomenon is exactly what's happening in DDO at the moment. As a fighter, you may advance as Purple Dragon Knight, a Kensai or a Stalwart Defender but only one of those paths. Paladins can be an Hunter of the Dead, a Knight of the Chalice or a Defender of Syberis, but only one of those three.

Turbine chose to cut down the paths into Prestige classes to one base class. That's all I'm saying - PnP's paths into tempest, for example make for far more options (and change the play balance equation). Why can't my fighter take Tempest?



If you don't object multiclassing, then why do you think players should be limited to only one PrC? "Why are they different?", is the question you have to ask yourself. If a fighter can find interest in magic and start gaining wizard levels, then why can't an assassin be interested in learning the tricks of a shadowdancer?

To quote the article again "maybe if they hadn't called them prestige classes." Clearly they were intended to be treated differently - otherwise they would have been in the PHB, and without the admonishment to the DM restrict them.

That's all I have left to say on the subject, but you are welcome to get the final word in. :cool:

[Borror0]

Turbine chose to cut down the paths into Prestige classes to one base class. That's all I'm saying
That was not the argument I was replying to.

I was replying to "There should be only one PrC per character since it's a focus."

PnP's paths into tempest, for example make for far more options
That is highly arguable.

One thing that is backward in 3.5 D&D is the skill system. Why can't a wizard learn to climb properly? Why can't a fighter learn to search properly? Honestly, there is very little logic in the restriction posed unless you agree with a very close-minded pigeonholing logic. However, the argument can be raised that they create options.

If we look at it, skills are the same as PrE. Both can be opened to everyone, regardless of class, and both would create more options. If skills were opened to everyone regardless of class, I finally could create my wizard who's good at climbing and my fighter good at searching. However, that would mean that multiclassing for skills would be a thing of the path.

Likewise, if we open PrE to everyone, we have to say goodbye to multiclassing for a PrE and to a nice balancing tool.

(and change the play balance equation).
Since classes are imbalanced, that's a good thing. PrE's can act as a balancing tool rather than an unbalancing tool.

Clearly they were intended to be treated differently - otherwise they would have been in the PHB
It is common wisdom that WotC stands for "Wizard of the Cost". Most likely, they put PrC's in the DMG to increase sales.

[...] and without the admonishment to the DM restrict them.
There is a line explaining you can refuse any feat or class that you want in either the DMG or the PHB.

Wizards simply want to make it clear everything is left to the DM.

[Erekose]

To the OP...

A few months ago Eladrin posted the full list of PrE's coming in Mod 9.

What has been announced is it at the moment with the others, such as the Sorcerer/Wizard/Cleric ones coming in subsequent mods (they are getting new spells was thought to be enough new stuff for casters in Mod 9).


Edit : found the post where he mentions NOT EVERY class gets a PrE in Mod 9 : http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=1972565&postcount=4

Thanks a bunch BBB. :)

I missed this post.