Results 1 to 20 of 27

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Founder Gol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,502

    Default Where PrEs "drop the ball" compared to PrCs

    I started this in another thread, but thought it deserved it's own post in the Dev discussion.

    I believe PrEs drop the ball in 2 general areas. Qualifications for Entry and Class versus Role.

    1. Qualifications for Entry
    D&D Prestige Classes rarely (if ever) require X levels of Y base class. This could only have been a very intentional design. Instead, they required BAB, skills, feats, and/or generic "spellcasting" of a type. As such, it didn't matter how you got into the prestige classes because there were no class requirements.

    So, for most melee/tank-oriented PrCs, you need a certain BAB score and certain feats. Barbarians, Rangers, Fighters, and Paladins were all viable options to get to most melee type prestige classes. Once you were in the Prestige Class, things looked relatively equal. You ceased to level in your specific base class but became more like the eventual result of the Prestige Class. The point being that it didn't matter what base class you started off in. You could even start as a Cleric, Rogue, or Wizard and eventually qualify.

    This leads into problem number 2. Class versus Role.

    2. Class versus Role
    D&D prestige classes were all about the Role and function, not the class itself. There are many PrCs that don't translate to PrEs very well because you simply can't tie them to a class - they're tied to a ROLE. Take Eldritch Knight for example. What's the role? An arcane spell slinging melee type. Spell Slinging? Does that mean Wizard, Sorcerer, or Bard? Does melee mean Fighter, Ranger, Barbarian, or Paladin? The answer is yes - it can mean all of those. Another is the Sacred Fist. Divine spellcasting on a fist-fighting melee. Monk by definition? Absolutely not. A monk/cleric would qualify, as would a pure class Druid, Ranger or Paladin that took the right feats. It's completely impossible to peg many PrCs to a specific Class even though the Role is very well defined.

    DDO has, in effect, pegged Roles TO Classes with the Prestige Enhancement System. Specifically, viable fighting types. If you want to fight, you're a Ranger/Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin, and even the Paladin in that group is highly suspect. D&D made no such requirements or pegs. Anybody was a viable melee combatant if built properly (feats, PrCs, equipment, etc).

    The biggest losers here are hyrbrid builds. And by that, I mean anything that typically does X, but is capable of doing Y very very well. Because Turbine has chosen to only implement PrEs that offer a 1 (or sometimes 2) dimentional aspect of a base class, anything not conforming to Turbine's preconieved notions of what that class is meant to do is essentially non-viable in endgame scenarios.

    Earlier (up to level 9 or 10) in the leveling cycle, these non-standard builds work fairly well as the gap between different classes isn't nearly as noticable. Same is true for PnP. However, in PnP you can actually pick up the Prestige Class made for your Role. In DDO, you're stuck to a base class or two, with little chance of ever being able to fullfill that desired Roll.


    So, what to do to fix it...

    1) Prestige Enhancements need to be less tied to the base classes. Make the requirements for taking them steeper if need be, but there's no reason a Fighter shouldn't be allowed to go Tempest, and no reason a Ranger shouldn't be allowed to go Kensai. In a lot of ways, this was already partially done for Arcane Archer (all Elves can take it) and the Defender (all dwarves can take it) prestige Enhancements, but my point is that if you take the right feats or invest in the right skills and stats, all Prestige Enhancements should be open to all characters if the have the appropriate feats and abilities. This was how it was done in PnP and how it should be done in DDO.

    2) Since all PrEs would then fall under the same category, limit us to 2 or 3 of them per character (heck, 2 for non-humans and 3 for humans would work too). Right now, you can only take 1 class specialty for each base class you have trained. Obviously, if PrEs aren't tied to the classes there needs to be some other way to restrict how many you take. Fix it at 2 or 3. Or 1 for that matter, as long as all PrEs are available to all characters. Heck, if some combos are game breaking, have those specific PrEs be exclusive to one another. So, if you were a melee, for example, anybody with TWF could take Tempest. After all, that's what the original prestige class was all about, right? Tempest was all about TWF and has little or nothing to do with being a Ranger.

    3) The problem so far is that there's little incentive to stay pure class. That's also a problem in P&P - there's rarely ever an incentive to stay pure class. So, make pure-class-only enhancements. For example, make an enhancement only available to pure class clerics that gives a stacking +2% healing per level that stacks with the traditional Cleric Life Magic. A pure Fighter enhancement for "+1 attack". A pure Wizard enhancement of "+10 SP/level". You get the picture. It's just extra incentive to stay pure class, making it cost them more than the "1 level" they lose from their primary class.


    So what's the benefit? Well, the biggest benefit, really, is MORE CHOICES. More ways to build a TWF monster if that's your thing. More ways to actually specialize that wizard than the base wizard/sorc enhancements. More ways to build that defensive behomoth you've always wanted to. More things to do with that old gimp character of yours that doesn't qualify for the current PrEs because of class level splits or something.

    The other benefit that comes to mind is that it allows for easier addition of PrEs down the road. You don't have to tie them to base classes and say "hey look, this PrE is for Rogues, so we need to balance that with another for Paladins", etc. If that 15/1 fighter/wizard wants to take a PrE that lets him cast spells better, fine, so be it. There's nothing stopping him from doing it in PnP, and nothing stopping them from making whatever build they want to.

  2. #2
    Community Member Samadhi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    827

    Default

    Well put
    sravana, kirtana, smarana, dasya, atma-nivedana
    ...NAMASTE...

  3. #3
    Community Member Aerendil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,187

    Default

    Yep, I raised this question a little while back (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=160714), and it came up again in the Ranger forum yesterday.

    No reason why we can't see Monk/Kensai, or Fighter/Tempests, or Ranger/Assassins, for example.
    Tieing PrEs to specific classes makes sense in some aspects, but you also tend to segregate the classes by doing so.

    Especially with the tiered system, which requires up to *18* levels of a class to see the full benefits, it pretty much negates multiclassing.
    I think the most levels in a PrC was 10, was it not? And most were in the 3-5 level range.
    Tempest, for example, was only 3 levels. So you could easily have a level 17 Fighter / 3 Tempest, or even a 12 Ranger / 5 Fighter / 3 Tempest. Both were perfectly viable.
    In DDO, however, if you want Tempest III, you *HAVE* to be an 18 Ranger, which leaves you a mere 2 levels of something else to play with.

    Not a lot of customization choices there, really, despite classes in DDO having a lot more flavor via enhancements than the PnP counterparts.

    Not sure if this can be overcome at all, but it's something that has been on my wish list since PrEs started, and something that continues to remain there.

    *fingers crossed*

  4. #4
    Community Member Stealthbr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    227

    Default

    I definetly agree with you. This change would allow for huge amounts of player customization.

  5. #5
    Community Member Turial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbr View Post
    I definetly agree with you. This change would allow for huge amounts of player customization.
    In that most people would grab tempest.

    Lets face it most people would because it is one of the better, if not best PrE's for melee types as the game currently stands. I personally don't see the mod 9 stuff changing things to much but will hold off till I see Kensai and FB at work.

    I agree with Gol's point that the PrE's should be available to all but its going to require a big change to the enhancement system again, which I think is needed, which Turbine might not be willing to do for a while.
    970 sp and counting
    Help Fix Ranged Combat for Everyone. Come help complete the DDO Wiki

  6. #6
    Founder Gol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,502

    Default

    I also wanted to demonstrate a proposed "Eldritch Knight" prestige enhancement.

    Eldritch Knight I
    Available to: Wizard 4, Sorc 4, Bard 4
    Requirements: 16 APs spent, All Martial Weapon proficiencies, and 1 of <pick a list of melee-type-feats here>
    Cost: 2 AP
    Benefit: +1 BAB, -20 SP

    Eldritch Knight II
    Available to: Wizard 7, Sorc 7, Bard 8
    Requirements: Eldritch Knight I, 24 APs spent
    Cost: 2 AP
    Benefit: +1 BAB, -20 SP

    Eldritch Knight III
    Available to: Wizard 10, Sorc 10, Bard 12
    Requirements: Eldritch Knight II, 32 APs spent
    Cost: 2 AP
    Benefit: +1 BAB, -20 SP

    Eldritch Knight IV
    Available to: Wizard 13, Sorc 13, Bard 16
    Requirements: Eldritch Knight III, 40 APs spent
    Cost: 2 AP
    Benefit: +1 BAB, -20 SP

    Eldritch Knight V
    Available to: Wizard 16, Sorc 16
    Requirements: Eldritch Knight IV, 48 APs spent
    Cost: 2 AP
    Benefit: +1 BAB, -20 SP

    All benefits cumulative, of course.

  7. #7

    Default

    Very well written.
    Brenna, Tzanna, and Tzinna Wavekin
    The Dancing Rogues of Argonnessen
    Ascent

  8. #8
    Community Member Mindspat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gol View Post
    The biggest losers here are hyrbrid builds.
    DDO is not PnP and as the core system tells you it's the DM's duty to adjust the game to ensure it plays well. The underlying factor here is gameplay.

    Seems right to me that every fotm build for mid to lower levels isn't going to be as good or provide the same functionality later in their careers.
    "Nuke 'm or Die!"

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gol View Post
    2) Since all PrEs would then fall under the same category, limit us to 2 or 3 of them per character (heck, 2 for non-humans and 3 for humans would work too).
    Personally, what I had in mind was to sort of stay in the same system for that part.
    • A level 18 character could take up to tier III in one PrE.
    • A level 12/6 character could take up to tier II in one PrE and up to tier I in another one.
    • A level 6/6/6 character could take up to tier I in three different PrE.

    PrE would, however, not class specific. This means that a 12 fighter/6 rogue could be a Frenzied Berserker II/Tempest I if he desires so.

    This encourages going pure a little more. It is a less drastic change compared to what you suggested, which means PrE's will require less modification to be balanced. Probably lower tiers might require some buffage or higher tier some nerfing, but it's still less of a mess to balance. Finally, it creates options as much as what you suggested, if not more.
    Last edited by Borror0; 12-10-2008 at 03:05 PM.
    DDOwiki.com, #1 source for DDO information.

  10. #10
    Founder Gol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Borror0 View Post
    Personally, what I had in mind was to sort of stay in the same system for that part.
    • A level 18 character could take up to tier III in one PrE.
    • A level 12/6 character could take up to tier II in one PrE and up to tier I in another one.
    • A level 6/6/6 character could take up to tier I in three different PrE.

    PrE would, however, not class specific. This means that a 12 fighter/6 rogue could be a Frenzied Berserker II/Tempest I if he desires so.

    This encourages going pure a little more. It is a less drastic change compared to what you suggested, which means PrE's will require less modification to be balanced. Probably lower tiers might require some buffage or higher tier some nerfing, but it's still less of a mess to balance. Finally, it creates options as much as what you suggested, if not more.
    The problem that strikes me most immediately is that would peg all PrEs into exactly 3 tier 6/12/18 systems. That aside, I still don't see any reason to tie it to class levels. D&D has never been about "what class are you" but more "what do you do".
    Last edited by Gol; 12-10-2008 at 03:14 PM.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gol View Post
    D&D has never been about "what class are you" but more "what do you do".
    Nor is my suggestion. It's about "How did you multiclass yourself".

    It creates reasons to multiclass actually.
    DDOwiki.com, #1 source for DDO information.

  12. #12
    Community Member Aerendil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,187

    Default

    And either suggestion (Gol or Borror's) could work.

    Borr's is a little more DDO dev-friendly, while Gol's seems more true to PnP.
    But either way allows for more versatility.

    Truth be told, though, how difficult would it be to alter the prereqs for these?
    PnP Assassin, for example, only required skill levels in Disguise, Hide, and Move Silently. Oh, and an Evil alignment - but that's easily ignored in DDO
    Tempest requires the TWF chain of feats, plus Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack - so that one is quite exclusive already!

  13. #13
    Founder Gol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,502

    Default

    The only problem with requiring skills for PrEs is the respec issue. Skills in DDO are all sorts of out of whack and useless, and I think that requiring skills for PrEs is a slippery slope if nothing is done to address our ability to re-spec skill points.

  14. #14
    Community Member Zenix_Leviticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,023

    Default

    Well written, nicely said, and I agree.
    Faithful Uprising - Guild Leader
    Argonnessen - Panguu/Narlges/Rylven/Zenixx/Arrgus/Bazili/Nellas-1/Mandingo-1/Uzzi-1/Pylus/Limubai/Kabooom/Mandingo

  15. #15
    Community Member Tin_Dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    541

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tin Dragon View Post
    Agreed, and I dont like it, the old system of enhancments was fine, and we as a whole would have been better served with real PrCs.

    I dont like that I am FORCED to play a ranger, or dip 6 levels to be a "tempest" one of my favorite PnP was a half orc Fighter gone to Tempest PrC.

    Half orcs dont make the best Rangers for thier stat sets, yet with the ftr feats and the PrC prereqs, it can be done well. Just one example.

    Also, at this time, there is No Mystic Theurge, which would be GREAT, I dont see how they could ever accomplish this with the currect Enhance set up. And this PrC is a Core in the DMG. But hey, why should we bring up D&D rules?
    from another thread...

    and on a side note, imagine a DDO 2 rogue, MT build mmmmmmmmmm
    DO AWAY WITH DUNGEON ALERT< BRING BACK INDIVIDUAL DEATH PENALTIES!
    It makes better players of all of us.
    Darpa: Xoriat
    http://kevinpape.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload