PrCs: How Was It For You?

[Rusty]

What I'm Wanting:

Feedback on how ALFA has handled PrCs during its NWN1 incarnation, with particular reference to:

(a) suitability of the PrC templates as a model;
(b) challenge of achieving a PrC for players;
(c) how DMs have implemented the templates; and
(d) how players and DMs have discussed PrC implementation.

And, of course, anything else that is pertinent.

What I'm Not Wanting:

Bitchfests about who should and should not have got which PrC or rants about the ludicrous number of shadowdancers hipsing around Faerun.

How...

Either post here or PM me.

Expect stupid posts here to be moderated.

Many thanks.

[fluffmonster]

I never had a PrC.

In my limited observations, there is certainly significant bias in the PrCs actually gained, with Shadowdancers and Assassins being a significant majority. I think this does deserve some consideration. Maybe this is just a reflection of the playstyles of our members, in which case its just the way it is and of no further concern. If, however, these PrCs are easier to gain or misbalanced relative to other PrCs, then a realignment might be warranted.

It seems to me that PrCs are relatively uncommon in general. It may very well be that its too hard to get one, and only SD and assassin are really worth the effort, in which case the requirements for a PrC could be less onerous. In fact, I am of the opinion that some PrCs may not really need to go through all the PrC hurdles at all (treating them like a paladin, which has no gate). If we really believe that PrCs are role-play centric, then we should also believe that the requirements to get one should be class-specific.

[Lazlo]

Never had a PrC myself but I only knew of 3-4 players that had them when I was still active.

Didn't hear too much drama about PrCs as a player, which is a good thing. I know there were patron deity questions raised in regards to an infamous brandobaris worshipping halfing SD.

Were players allowed to reroll for prereq feats to become eligible for a PrC? I think Weapons Master is fairly feat intensive and is the type of PrC that you have to plan for early in your character's development. Feat and skill reqs may have played a small factor in PrC selection.

Imo, PrCs are a great addition to the game as long as they continue to be approved with discretion and reserved for players who exhibit the highest-quality of RP standards.

[AcadiusLost]

I neither sought nor took part in awarding any PrCs (though I did participate in a few discussions on specific situations regarding their awarding as a DM).

My impression was there was a double-standard at work that was fundamentally dysfunctional. Namely, that from a DM perspective- only the best and most deserving roleplayers should get the personalized attention that a PrC quest entails - but also that players who request or try to drive things in such a direction are inherently undeserving, as the perspective was that it should be DM-initiated.

So, the "ideal candidates" roll on through their ALFA-lives without registering official interest in PrCs (or taking the prereq feats/skills), while assertive players drift from DM to DM until they find one willing to accomodate them.

I would recommend a clear standard procedure for NWN2-PrCs- for example make clear that players interested in pursuing a PrC down the road should address this (politely) in their character bios filed with the DMs of the server they are most active on, while also making it clear that stated interest in or taking the feats for a PrC is done with the understanding that failure is a very real and meaningful possibility. (and that DM shopping for a more favorable outcome will not be tolerated) - to me this would seem to encourage less assertive players to register interest without seeming to overstep themselves with the DM team. Requiring the feats and prerequisites to be taken in advance also avoids the generalized angst that comes out of customized rebuilds. Those who wish to be eligible for PrCs will have to pay for the feats, whether or not they actually end up getting to quest (and if they fail, as well).

Does this make sense?

[psycho_leo]

So, the "ideal candidates" roll on through their ALFA-lives without registering official interest in PrCs (or taking the prereq feats/skills), while assertive players drift from DM to DM until they find one willing to accomodate them.

This is the stuff that should be documented. If Joe the rogue wants to be SD and DM Jim says no, when Joe asks DM Bob, he can look into it and find out why it was denied and if the reasons still aplly.

I would recommend a clear standard procedure for NWN2-PrCs- for example make clear that players interested in pursuing a PrC down the road should address this (politely) in their character bios filed with the DMs of the server they are most active on,

This is somewhat interesting but it's only valid if you are one willing to plan builds from level 1. Many players are not, me included. I simply don't waste time planning level ahead for a PC that might be dead the next time I decide to play. Heck I don't even write bios for lvl 1s. That said I think players should tell their DMs what they wish in terms of PrCs and multiclassing in general as soon as they know themselves, which might not happen by the time you submit your first bio.


There's a world of difference between stating a desire and actually getting it of course, so failing the quest or simply being denied should be a possibility always.

On the subject of rebuilds for PrC reasons, I don't see any compelling reason, aside from eventual new PrC additions at a later moment, that would even warrant a discussion.

If you find out that you'll have to wait till lvl 15 to take your WM level, because you didn't plan it right or was too late when you decided it, that's your problem. Likewise if you end up with a "gimped" PC due to failing a PrC quest. It's part of the game and it doesn't warrant a "fix".

[Nyarlathotep]

I remembering seeing this attitude towards PRCs as well, that a player needs to approach it coyly and not plan for it, the problem is thats a silly requirement and not the rule anyhow. DMs control the availibilty of trainers and of course whether or not quests will be available but they do not control whether or not a PC wishes to seek out a trainer or follow a certain path. Most PRCs are things a PC must plan for beforehand IC...one does not become an assassin or weaponmaster by chance or by outside intervention; one becomes such because it is a goal he/she has been working towards for most of their life. They may never find someone to train them but they can spend their whole lives seeking such a master out. A strong argument can be made that if the PC isn't seeking out such opportunies IC that they opportunity should almost never arise on its own.

I never have played a PRC (or in fact ever even got close to qualifying for one) but they do not seem to have been unblancing to ALFA, mainly because the high attrition rate at low levels means that longevity still trumps any class abilities in what determines the power of a ALFA PC.

As for the number of assassins my gues is that its mainly because its such an iconic class. SDs i'm no so sure about, my guess its the usefulness of HIPS.

[peterdin]

I would recommend a clear standard procedure for NWN2-PrCs- for example make clear that players interested in pursuing a PrC down the road should address this (politely) in their character bios filed with the DMs of the server they are most active on, while also making it clear that stated interest in or taking the feats for a PrC is done with the understanding that failure is a very real and meaningful possibility. (and that DM shopping for a more favorable outcome will not be tolerated) - to me this would seem to encourage less assertive players to register interest without seeming to overstep themselves with the DM team. Requiring the feats and prerequisites to be taken in advance also avoids the generalized angst that comes out of customized rebuilds. Those who wish to be eligible for PrCs will have to pay for the feats, whether or not they actually end up getting to quest (and if they fail, as well).

Does this make sense?

It does make sense.
I do not support rebuilding a char just for the sake of a missed feat.
That is something you need to plan upfront. Also RP should be such that it makes sense to take such a feat.
And yes, if you fail a PrC quest, bad luck.
If player and DM play this right, it can be very awarding/fun for both of them.
We had a little halfling on Sembia that started for pale master and it really makes a lot of fun as quests and RP can be based around this goal.

Last remark: for me it is not the goal (PrC) that counts, but the steps you take to reach it.

[Mayhem]

On the subject of rebuilds for PrC reasons, I don't see any compelling reason, aside from eventual new PrC additions at a later moment, that would even warrant a discussion.

If you find out that you'll have to wait till lvl 15 to take your WM level, because you didn't plan it right or was too late when you decided it, that's your problem. Likewise if you end up with a "gimped" PC due to failing a PrC quest. It's part of the game and it doesn't warrant a "fix".

On teh other hand, that rather encourages PRCs to be taken for mechanical reasons rather than roleplaying ones.

"You have proven yourself worthy many times over, Sir Greene. The deeds you have done to seve our temple are sung by bards throughout the land. Are you ready to serve as a Champion of Tempus?"

"Err, no. I forgot to take the right feats."

***

Any player, who, caught up in the roleplaying, takes the classes feats and skills that actually reflect the circumstances of his adventuring life is exteremly unlikely to qualify for a PRC.

"My god...my best friend killed because I was too undisciplined, to caught up in the heat of battle. I must train harder, discipline myself, learn how to fight as a warrior, and how to properly protect my comrades. This will never happen again, I swear!

Oh, and I'll be levelling up as a rogue so I can get my Hide and Move Silently to the right level for Assasin, OK?"



Wheras the player that totally ignores the effects that his characters life history would have on his feats and skill selections will be able to qualify for the PRC at the minimum entry level.

***

Personally, I'd ditch the lot of them anyway. Don't like them in PNP, don't like them in ALFA. Id rather see a lot more emphasis on these sorts of organisations offering non-mechanical benefits.

[Mulu]

We're not going to require pre-approval for ECL races. I see no reason to require pre-approval for PRC's. If a PrC is seen as unbalancing, like SD or WM, then simply ban (or edit) those PrC's that are unbalancing. One thing I do with WM's in my own games is to limit them to finesse weapons, thus eliminating the scythe/dwarven waraxe issue.

I strongly suspect that it is not the best rpers who get PrC's, but rather those who play often and form a good relationship with a DM, thus it becomes an issue of favoritism. Opening them up eliminates the favoritism issue, whether real or imagined.

[Brokenbone]

Mulu has a point, though I'd be focussed more on the idea that there are seldom challenges to multiclassing decisions a player makes, with the exception that PRCs have, at present, RP entry requirements in addition to numerical ones.

A tough DM might challenge certain multiclassing combinations with too little RP to support them. Illiterate barbarian 1 deciding to take wizard at 2nd, the DMs might want to make sure he's been mentored, and now knows his A, B, Cs. Illiterate barbarian 1 deciding to take sorceror at 2nd, DMs may have a much easier time with (he ... found his inherent potential, which has zero to do with studying books, which he still considers bludgeoning weapons). Similarly nonreligious PCs all of a sudden waking up clerics without some kind of epiphany, or temple / mentor tutelage, some DMs might have a hard time swallowing that. No problem however if someone starts cleric (presumably with a bio reason), and decides to try a class whose special training is picked up on the job, like being a fighter or rogue who doesn't need to do anything new except learn to fight better, or dirtier.

Anyhow, back to Rusty's 4 questions. Background though, anything I know about PRC successes, failures, lessons learned, is hearsay but for the one SD PRC I helped award this year... it was probably 3-5 months off and on, handful of important NPCs (supportive and opposed), and the "themes" would sometimes pop up in non-solo adventuring, though the grand finale was just one PC vs. a dungeon-ish kind of end.

(a) suitability of the PrC templates as a model;

I like the options we have well enough. I have not noticed exceptional unbalance. I am aware some projects make loads of PrCs available (think Player's Resource Consortium), but I just don't like it. Core PrCs I have some affection for, ones from the dark depths of any old sourcebook, I find they get silly... but every sourcebook seems to need 3-4 in order to get onto store shelves, goodness knows why.

I assume if someone made a compelling case for new additions and could fairly represent "balanced" enough skills for NWN or NWN2, they'd be heard out.

(b) challenge of achieving a PrC for players;

I am pretty sure I challenged my one participant... sneaking around things that are good at swatting PCs is fairly nervewracking.

Hearsay on others: I've heard good things as far as "near death, completely broke, but made it", more than once. I've only in one case, in Sembia, heard of someone getting killed going for a PrC. Well, or killed irrevocably, which seems an ALFA rarity sometimes. It would possibly be interesting to know "what % of PCs who start PrC training, achieve the PrC?"

My bet would be 90%+, ALFA PCs of a certain level are resilient, or failing that, rich and networked enough to return from the dead to try again.

(c) how DMs have implemented the templates; and

For my own part, faithfully. The wiki's clear on the bare minimums required. I think I did more than the minimums. As Peterdin mentions somewhere above, enjoy the ride, as opposed to saying "knocked off 4 tasks, let's award."

I assume DMs have no problem with hitting the simple, clearly laid out quest ideas in the wiki for their own planning purposes. Again, doing more than the minimum helps conceal "what's required when", you do not want to spoil surprises by having an NPC mentor say "task 3, please go get me a shrubbery", that's artless and boring.

(d) how players and DMs have discussed PrC implementation.

DMs discuss intra-DM, all kinds of themes / plot ideas, build requirements, NPC requirements, etc. My experience at least. Discussion was just within own server team, though we'd briefly explored going cross server (getting an ok from a friendly DM who we didn't end up needing), despite that no longer being a PrC requirement.

I did not reveal any plans to the player involved, except as things slowly unfolded IG, it was up to the player (and PC) to interpret what made the NPCs tick... since the NPC mentor was not like, a hireling who handed out a textbook of expectations. There was no reasonable way to tell, then "am I 50% done? 80% done? Might it be done today?" The only feedback / discussion was, to the best I recall, AFTER the whole thing was done. Feedback was positive.

I cannot say how others' experiences vary... DM to DM communication I assume is essential (i.e., DM A should tell DM B that his Pale Master candidate is rolling around in grave earth for a reason, and not hunting the graveyard for loots). How much DMs talk with the players will be a matter of personal taste / discretion, but most people like surprises, or preserving surprises, as opposed to saying "I think I'll have you search for a book in a Netherese ruin to become DC of Deneir..."

...

Hope this is helpful.

[psycho_leo]

On teh other hand, that rather encourages PRCs to be taken for mechanical reasons rather than roleplaying ones.

PrCs must be taken for RP reasons. The level of RP that is put into it is or at least should be the main factor when a DM decides if a player should be granted the PrC. That doesn't excuse the player from keeping an eye on the mechanics of it. If you want to qualify you better be sure you do. I for one would never grant a rebuild because you forgot to take combat expertise when you had the chance. Otherwise PCs would spend 10 skill points in disarm trap and then rebuild to get the 5 ranks in perform for SD.

[MorbidKate]

I have no issues with PrCs so long as they are in the hands of strong RPers. Yes I see too many Shadow Dancers but not many Assassins since the gains from taking that PrC is minimal. It comes down to balance with an eye towards potential CvC and the current hoops that need to be jumped through are fine by me so I don't see the need for any significant changes.

Too many of one Class, PrC or not gets boring I think so I'm glad that ALFA has moved any from most people running around with Ranger/Rogue combos.

I in no way agree with rebuilds to custom tweak to survive low level and then cherry-pick the ranks all over again when a PrC is granted. Build towards the goal of a PrC fromt he getgo and hope for the best.

Kate

[Mayhem]

Or, get rid of the mechanical constraints for PRCs and base them entirely on roleplaying.

So that roleplayers are more likely to qualify than charcter-optimisers.

[Misty]

I disagree. The mechanical restraints are as valid as the RP necessary to get to a PrC. It does necessitate some degree of forethought, but I fail to see how that's a bad idea. Personally, I'd like to see more of the Shadowdancers actually dance

So long as players realise that 'I want this PrC' does not translate to 'I deserve this, gimme' there ought not be an issue. As HDM, I helped award one and approved others, not all of whom succeeded. But the players themselves were all wonderful to work with for the DMs attending them.

I had thought the rebuild clause was in place only for those PCs who began their path before PrCs were implemented in ALFA, a certain pyromaniac wizard comes to mind. For PCs created after the PrC standards were set, there is no reason for rebuilding.








and Brokenbone: still very happy

[danielmn]

Never been a PrC...probably didn't qualify for any. Beyond my PC's background, I plan very little about my own characters..I usually take the skills and feats that make the most sense..ie..what my PC has learned between levels through their interactions/environments. It is a style of play that is very hard to plan for...more of a reactionist stance than a proactionist stance. I suppose I would like to see more choices in the PrC's...but I would not likely partake of one unless my PC is directed to it by outside forces.

As for my feelings of PrC's, I see no problems inherent in them. If someone chooses to plan from level 1 to become a PrC...if someone chooses to take skills and feats upon leveling they never even rp practicing...I don't have a problem with it. It isn't how I choose to play, but I know there is no right or wrong way to play it, rp wise.