PrCs: How Was It For You?

[Mulu]

If you really want to reduce the number of shadowdancers, just move the HiPS feat to SD level 5.... Rangers don't get it until lvl 17, after all.

[psycho_leo]

If you really want to reduce the number of shadowdancers, just move the HiPS feat to SD level 5.... Rangers don't get it until lvl 17, after all.

Rangers also get a ton of bonus feats in NWN2. Shadowdancer has already been nerfed from the original bioware version. Seriously, if this topic is going to derange into a discussion about how ubber Shadowdancers are I suggest closing it or at least starting a new one.

[Nekulor]

For those of us who have wanted to RP a lich at some time or another (you all know you have. Lord Dyrr from WotSQ and the liches in the Sellswords series were some of the most awesome characters ever, IMO) will the option possibly be present to go for such if a player is willing to build towards that? Has anyone even considered what it would take to put a viable version of that together, and would it need to be a PrC or a "disease" style addition like Lycanthropy?

I know it would be rare and the quest for it would be something along the lines of an ungodly epic level line of quests, but exactly to what extent are we allowing PrCs, and will we be adding our own custom PrCs depending on the desires of this community as a whole?

[Mulu]

Seriously, if this topic is going to derange into a discussion about how ubber Shadowdancers are I suggest closing it or at least starting a new one.

It was really more about how common they are. You can increase the entry fee (Fluff, Idoru), or you can decrease their desireability. Either path would have the affect of reducing their numbers.

I'm not even going to comment on liches.

[psycho_leo]

Seriously, if this topic is going to derange into a discussion about how ubber Shadowdancers are I suggest closing it or at least starting a new one.

It was really more about how common they are. You can increase the entry fee (Fluff, Idoru), or you can decrease their desireability. Either path would have the affect of reducing their numbers.

ALFA favours stealthy PCs in the sense that this sort of PC has much more freedom to walk around alone and unmolested by static creatures and thus tend to survive more. The number of SD and assassins in comparison to other PrCs is merely a reflection of this. Take a look of our list of 10+ lvl PCs, get clerics out of the way and I'd say most of the rest is a ranger, rogue or some combo (especially if you disregard PCs created in the time of plenty).

And as stated by Rusty in the very first post, this was not to become a discussion on SD numbers.

[Rotku]

Psycho_leo is correct. The topic was made clear in the first post. Please stick to it.

[Rusty]

As fascinating as stream-of-consciousness monographs on Prestige Classes are - and they are fascinating indeed - it is much more helpful if respondents at least pretend to try and comment on the various issues I raised in my initial post. If you really must waffle on about the place of PrCs in your particular Weltanschauung, then, hey - new thread. That said, thanks to those ALFAns who have managed to provide valuable feedback so far; if I don't reply to your PMs (immediately or at all) it isn't because I'm ignoring you or your views; only that this is a consultation exercise rather than a mass-debate. Or at least, it is intended to be so.

Oh, and Mulu: I moderated your last two posts.

[Veilan]

(a) suitability of the PrC templates as a model

Does this refer to the questing templates, or the ability templates of PrCs?

Questing templates:
As I've been on the committee designing and implementing PrC quest templates into ALFA, I'm naturally biased. I think that we tried to keep the categories and requirements vague enough so that DMs can adopt them to the specific needs of themselves and their PCs, while at the same time offering a good outline of what we expect to see.
I did not come into contact with PrC quests while DMing on NW however.

PrC templates:
It was, and is, my opinion that very, very few PrCs actually are "templates" (only the divine champion comes to my mind, since it can be and mean a lot of different things per deity). Most of them are filtres, narrowing down versatility into one specialized build, therefore hurting variety and cutting down on viable routes of selection if you want to be able to "compete" in the middle to end game. They encourage a gaming approach of reducing the possibility of RP influencing skill, stat and feat choices, and they stifle the creativity of coming up with your own solutions to class challenges by offering a golden king's way out. Most of them are lacking in breadth, despite attempts to twist them (e.g. shadowdancers).
I see two possible solutions: Offer such a staggering amount of PrCs that there is actual variety, or cut them out and let players come up with their own approaches to reflect what they want to represent with their character.

(b) challenge of achieving a PrC for players

This is from a player's view.

The first and foremost challenge was OOC as in to ensure consistency in DM coverage and scheduling. This of course was exacerbated by the fact that I'm located in a european timezone.

The difficulty of the quests itself varied a lot, but that seemed natural - displaying you know your deity's lore is quite difficult from a show of faith.

The challenges reached from trivial to epic, deaths in the party were involved, and the consequences for my character were profound. Naturally, any details are treated as [MISINFORMATION].

(c) how DMs have implemented the templates

Hialmar, Grand Fromage and Spider Jones were mainly responsible for my PrC. Other DMs had been involved at times or contacted.

The display of deity lore was basically a free pass, judged so by SJ on my various interaction with temples and other faithful, gratitude prayers after challenges etcetera.

The display of familiarity with the weapon was taken into a surprisingly challenging quest, involving encounters of challenging and higher CRs, putting a significant dent in ressources (healing especially...), definetely a lot more than a "controlled combat environment". It was all the more enjoyable, though, especially with a little tricky twisted test SJ added.

The DMs used the condition that quest 3 and 4 may be swapped for the cross server implementation.

Therefore, the creating of a shrine took place cross server with GF. It wasn't per se challenging, but very well done by him, with many role-playing sessions of making contacts and learning how to stonecarve leading up to finding a good spot and and sanctifying it. This consumed quite a bit of time, but was a very immersive experience.

The show of faith was done partly on my own initiative as well as SJs approval of the path - basically, after knowing there was a call, my character decided to trust the guidance of her goddess to lead her to find what she was supposed to, and went around for three days blindfolded. Actually blinded in the engine, not just pretending, with all the penalties involved, still having to beat regular encounter challenges. This was almost the most dangerous part, with 1 PC death (he did come back though... as a troll) if not for the follow-up quest.

Then, not a requirement for the PrC anymore but an expected follow up quest, there was a massive epic quest involving pocket dimensions, hordes of challenging creatures and months of questing, with highlights including guaranteed death chasm jumps, a half-godly giant scorpion, lovely gelugon ice devils chasing us through labyrinths, baatezu wizards and about eighty Vrocks. In short, SJ was unleashed...

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

Discussion has been at been mostly on oog issues, about scheduling issues, timetables and so forth. The content of the quests, apart from the show of faith, were not discussed but DM chosen. Some ideas were exchanged, but there was never anything too touchy too discuss, as all DMs I interacted with were convinced the PrC was fit for the PC and PC fit for it.




What else is pertinent...

First, that this was a very integral part of character development, and it felt natural, not artificially tagged-on, which is testament to the skill and planning of the DMs involved.

I also can't stress enough how great it was that most parts had party involvement. Considering this was a divine champion for a good deity quest, that is easily done, but I would feel that no DM should invest as much time on something that is only affecting a single PC, and am therefore very glad this gave enjoyment and entertainment to a group of people (maybe not mr. troll).

That said, I do not feel that the gameplay aspects of obtaining a PrC were required or necessary at all to get this involvement and enjoyment, the availability of the PrC, which only became so quite late, was more a lucky natural fit. What I'm saying is, you don't need to read "divine champion" on paper to be able to roleplay a divine champion, and I'd have found my own ways to reflect it, not to mention what the very creative DMs I was blessed with would have thought of.

I guess that's all, hope it was on-topic enough.

Cheers,

[Swift]

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

This is the only one i can answer, as i do not feel qualified to answer the rest.

As someone responsible for one of the templates (and, for a time, collecting the rest and giving people a nudge to get them finished), it was never the intention for them to be the be all and end all "If you want a PrC, you follow this template". They were always intended to be a guide that DMs could follow. If they thought up a better/different way of testing the character that fell into line with what the PrC was all about, they were under no obligation to follow the template. The only rule we had (whether it still exists or not i do not know) was that it was to be 3 quests, plus a 'finisher'.

From all i know, the people responsible for the templates tried to make them close to whatever source material was available to them (I certainly tried to with the Divine Champion template). I see no issue with using templates as a basis people can work from for PrCs, assuming we can get people to create them.

[witch]

From all i know, the people responsible for the templates tried to make them close to whatever source material was available to them (I certainly tried to with the PrC template). I see no issue with using templates as a basis people can work from for PrCs, assuming we can get people to create them.

Perhaps im having too much faith in dm's but if ya believe your dm's are mature enough to create some sort of quest and review the rp of the player i think that covers all you need. for it to be working

templates/guidelines are fine but i still get the feeling we try to pour everything into one. I honestly dont believe its needed. A rough guideline is fine but i wouldnt go further then that. DM's are creative enough to pick it up from there,

[Swift]

Well like i said, they were never intended to be the be all and end all of how PrCs were run. If that is what has happened, then that is a shame, but not being a DM, i wouldn't know. There is no harm providing templates for DMs who either do not have the time (many of our DMs only have limited time and want to make the best use of the time they can contribute) or enough canon knowledge to do completely their own thing.

[Thangorn]

(c) how DMs have implemented the templates;

I can only speak from personal experience on this..

I started DMing two PrC quests and finished one of them. I found the whole quest framework to be restrictive to me as a DM and almost always involved solo DMing someone which I am not a fan of.

My contraversial opinion is -:
PCs that want to PrC, start priming up the DMs on their home server early. Send logs to the DMs of RP involved in meeting in PrC requirements, feats and whatnot. I think there does need to be a PrC "test" adventure run by a DM of one session's duration only. I then think the PrC hopefuls historical logs and PrC testing adventure then be reviewed by the most senior DMs on the server team (and/or involve the PA at this step to make it official).
Teh senior council of DMs could then offer the following options based on the character meeting the RP requirements -:
1. Refusal with further prerequisite RP required
2. Refusal with further "testing" required
3. Acceptance

It is a real pain in the @55 as a DM and a player to have this stuff drag on, it takes away from things you'd rather be doing.

As much as possible I believe that PrC questing should involve other PCs beyond the central figure to the story as I think it makes the PrC even more legit with PC witnesses instead of something that happens behind closed doors..

[Mikayla]

Personally, I believe PrCs are simply a part of the game and we should not create an entire bureacracy to authenticate people's aquisition of said PrCs. Simple DM approval, at the DM's discretion, should suffice in my mind. I think the four-step program we currently have is needlessly restrictive and bureacratic. PrCs are supposed to add fun and flavor to the game - submerging them in rules, regulation and bureacratic paper-work drowns that fun and flavor.

[Vendrin]

Personally, I believe PrCs are simply a part of the game and we should not create an entire bureacracy to authenticate people's aquisition of said PrCs. Simple DM approval, at the DM's discretion, should suffice in my mind. I think the four-step program we currently have is needlessly restrictive and bureacratic. PrCs are supposed to add fun and flavor to the game - submerging them in rules, regulation and bureacratic paper-work drowns that fun and flavor.

Bingo.

[Swift]

As much as possible I believe that PrC questing should involve other PCs beyond the central figure to the story as I think it makes the PrC even more legit with PC witnesses instead of something that happens behind closed doors..

Unless Admin mandated alot of 1 on 1 DMing for PrCs after the template team had finished their work (at which point i lost any access to all that was decided), there is absolutely nothing that says PCs in the process of doing their PrC quests had to do it alone. If a DM could work the quests into other stories that were running on a server, well, more power to them.

Nobody said PrCs had to be gained in a vacuum.

Personally, I believe PrCs are simply a part of the game and we should not create an entire bureacracy to authenticate people's aquisition of said PrCs. Simple DM approval, at the DM's discretion, should suffice in my mind. I think the four-step program we currently have is needlessly restrictive and bureacratic. PrCs are supposed to add fun and flavor to the game - submerging them in rules, regulation and bureacratic paper-work drowns that fun and flavor.

Do you want to sensationalize it any more?

We have a 10 page rulebook that every ALFAn is required to have read to even play here that reads more like a legal document. There are rules governing just about everything we can do in ALFA. Complaints in ALFA are treated like a legal process. Whenever a new idea comes up, all we ever try and do is lock it down tight with rules and regulations to prevent exploitation. We have gone through 10 drafts for priceing guidelines and spent countless hours creating tools for DMs to track wealth and ensure people aren't falling over arbitary guidelines, yet 1 rule on PrCs (3 + 1 quests witnessed at least in part by a second DM) is "submerging them in rules, regulation and bureacratic paper-work"?

What a load of rubbish.

I admit we did not quite get them right and the process is more restrictive than would be good, but you are blowing them up to be some kind of red tape nightmare. If that truly is what they have become, the blame lies squarely on the bureaucrats that run this community, as they are the ones who ultimately decide how they work.