Quote from: Rincewind1;654797That is my only problem with Prestige Classes, indeed. It could be however, "easily" fixed, if GMs would take care to enforce the Roleplaying restrictions on those classes, as I feel they should have - those classes existed to denote people in special groups, that received some very specific training.

If only players chose prestige classes with roleplay as a goal.

If I was motivated enough; ie, running a 3X game, I would consider making prestige classes full classes from level one.

I don't dislike multiclassing at all, but I loathe cherrypicking levels for a 'build'

Quote from: RPGPundit;654642I'd say everything that's in 1e, 2e AND 3e. All the things that can be found in all three editions constitute the essential core of D&D.

RPGpundit

I'd say B/X, 1e, 2e and 3e.

Quote from: Rincewind1;654797That is my only problem with Prestige Classes, indeed. It could be however, "easily" fixed, if GMs would take care to enforce the Roleplaying restrictions on those classes, as I feel they should have - those classes existed to denote people in special groups, that received some very specific training.

Roleplaying restricts are no restriction.

If you are in a group that roleplays then every PC from the lowliest 9 Str fighter to the most divine Paladin comes with roleplay restrictions. Their character.
In this case if you want to play a Dwarven Hex-forger or some such the role play will be a reason you chose it because you like the idea of the class and the characters behind it.

If you are not in a group that roleplays then the restrictions are obviously meaningless.

So playing a paladin character with a normal fighter with no special powers, that is a challenge to be good and pure and honest and selfless without getting a magic pony, and healing fingers. there is a challenge. Now if you wanted to play that character all the extra powers you get are basically just extra power for no cost.

The same is true of every prestige class even the ones back from AD&D (Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Druid, Assasin).

Quote from: jibbajibba;654978Roleplaying restricts are no restriction.

Roleplaying restrictions depend on the referee's roleplying. If he incorporates them into his campaign they have meaning. If he doesn't then they are just extra powers for free.

Yes I omitted mention whether the player is roleplaying or not. Because it doesn't matter as far as in-game issues goes.*

The way to get consistent results out of roleplaying restrictions regardless of players willingness or ability is for the referee to make sure he roleplays the setting naturally. By naturally, you think of how it would actually work if you were standing there viewing the situation. Then base the actions of your NPCs on the results of your conclusions.

Also do this before the campaign as a series of what if. This has the virtue of weeding out unworkable or unreasonable roleplaying restrictions. For example think about what would really happen if a paladin started ignoring his restrictions.

Is the only option for his god to dramatically remove his powers all at once? What about the paladin's church and/or peers? How would they start reacting. The answer will not only help you deal with the lack of roleplaying by the players but flesh out the setting of your campaign.

For example Elves in my Swords & Wizardry campaign are enhanced over humans with virtually no physical disadvantages. A typical campaign involving a party of mostly human characters adventuring human lands the disadvantages are all social in nature i.e. roleplaying.

The way I handle it is that the elves are generally by human cultures with awe and respect as a highly magical alien culture. The legends of various human culture have numerous cautionary tales of what happens when you mess with them. Basically while individuals are vulnerable there homeland will take some very personal vengeance at some point. So by default elven characters are treated like a minor celeberites.

So as long as the character acts reasonably this is a pretty nice perk. However if they come into conflict with the locals then this reputation makes things much more difficult. As many human cultures have have legends about "dark" elves. It can very quickly devolve into pitchforks and flames.

None of this requires the players to be able to roleplay. They can literally just be playing the character as themselves in a elf "suit" and this will come into play.

It not the only thing I roleplay about elvish characters. I have for every race, and most classes a mental list of stuff I roleplay to immerse the PCs. If a players doesn't want to deal with this stuff then they can play a human fighter, human magic-user, or a human thief.

Quote from: estar;655052Roleplaying restrictions depend on the referee's roleplying. If he incorporates them into his campaign they have meaning. If he doesn't then they are just extra powers for free.

Yes I omitted mention whether the player is roleplaying or not. Because it doesn't matter as far as in-game issues goes.*

The way to get consistent results out of roleplaying restrictions regardless of players willingness or ability is for the referee to make sure he roleplays the setting naturally. By naturally, you think of how it would actually work if you were standing there viewing the situation. Then base the actions of your NPCs on the results of your conclusions.

Also do this before the campaign as a series of what if. This has the virtue of weeding out unworkable or unreasonable roleplaying restrictions. For example think about what would really happen if a paladin started ignoring his restrictions.

Is the only option for his god to dramatically remove his powers all at once? What about the paladin's church and/or peers? How would they start reacting. The answer will not only help you deal with the lack of roleplaying by the players but flesh out the setting of your campaign.

For example Elves in my Swords & Wizardry campaign are enhanced over humans with virtually no physical disadvantages. A typical campaign involving a party of mostly human characters adventuring human lands the disadvantages are all social in nature i.e. roleplaying.

The way I handle it is that the elves are generally by human cultures with awe and respect as a highly magical alien culture. The legends of various human culture have numerous cautionary tales of what happens when you mess with them. Basically while individuals are vulnerable there homeland will take some very personal vengeance at some point. So by default elven characters are treated like a minor celeberites.

So as long as the character acts reasonably this is a pretty nice perk. However if they come into conflict with the locals then this reputation makes things much more difficult. As many human cultures have have legends about "dark" elves. It can very quickly devolve into pitchforks and flames.

None of this requires the players to be able to roleplay. They can literally just be playing the character as themselves in a elf "suit" and this will come into play.

It not the only thing I roleplay about elvish characters. I have for every race, and most classes a mental list of stuff I roleplay to immerse the PCs. If a players doesn't want to deal with this stuff then they can play a human fighter, human magic-user, or a human thief.

You missed the key point and focused on what happens if the player isn't so interested in roleplaying. In that case I suspect the group have much the same view GM included.

The point is that in a group of roleplayers any roleplay restriction is pointless because every character they play will have roleplay restrictions many of which will be much more rigourous than those of a paladin for example who is pretty much focused on advenuring to kill evil stuff, which fits very neatly with most campaigns.
I played a Priest of the God of Peace once, that was a challenge, as was playing a cowardly thief, for a couple of sessions I played an intelligent sword sworn to slay all magic users, I played 1/2 an ettin in one game. All of these came with pretty restrictive roleplay restrictions none of which matters becuase once i had decided to play them the roleplay restrictions were the character.

So I will agree that how the DM plays the world is critical and how the world reacts to a 'prestige' class is important but the player knows how that is going to work before he puts on the character. so ...

Harbringers of the God of Death are hated and feared across Maleth. However everyone accepts they have a key role in Enforcement of the Law in their role as executioners. .... etc, etc list of cool death type powers, etc

Now anyone playing these guys knows what to expect. You know that the common folks aren't gooing to take kindly to you, you aren't going to be supprised that the local whorehouse shuns your business or that you are duty bound to act as executions etc
Therefore if you choose to play one of these guys you have already bought into their roleplay restrictions and they do not server as a balance to any powers the class may get.

Quote from: jibbajibba;654978Roleplaying restricts are no restriction.

If you are in a group that roleplays then every PC from the lowliest 9 Str fighter to the most divine Paladin comes with roleplay restrictions. Their character.
In this case if you want to play a Dwarven Hex-forger or some such the role play will be a reason you chose it because you like the idea of the class and the characters behind it.

If you are not in a group that roleplays then the restrictions are obviously meaningless.

So playing a paladin character with a normal fighter with no special powers, that is a challenge to be good and pure and honest and selfless without getting a magic pony, and healing fingers. there is a challenge. Now if you wanted to play that character all the extra powers you get are basically just extra power for no cost.

The same is true of every prestige class even the ones back from AD&D (Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Druid, Assasin).

You missed the point.

From what I understand, and from practice* I had, prestige classes were meant to be earned in game, not a part of the "build", even if you started on a higher level.

It's that vital flaw that lead to PrC getting their bad names. You weren't supposed to just cherry - pick shadowdancer when you were building the character. You were supposed to earn that class.

*Mostly from my NWN days, as I played little D&D in P&P. When prestige classes become an actual prestige accomplishments for something a character has done in game, it changes the perception entirely. It's hardly WotC's fault that people took the concept as in "Well, if I start at level 5, I can take 4 levels of Rogue and one of Arcane Trickster" or whatever. Those classes weren't balanced, because they were meant as a reward, not an option.

Of course, then again, why requirements...but I have seen a lot of people throw the requirements out, even in NWN.

Quote from: Rincewind1;655265You missed the point.

From what I understand, and from practice I had, prestige classes were meant to be earned in game, not a part of the "build", even if you started on a higher level.

It's that vital flaw that lead to PrC getting their bad names. You weren't supposed to just cherry - pick shadowdancer when you were building the character. You were supposed to earn that class.

No I get that I was expanding from Prestige class all the way to the AD&D 'prestige' classes and all those special classes with super powers that are balanced through roleplay (barbarians, cavaliers etc etc )

Whilst there are lots of prestige classes there are also a lot of super powered base classes that really ought to be treated just like Prestige classes and earned through play.

Quote from: jibbajibba;655275No I get that I was expanding from Prestige class all the way to the AD&D 'prestige' classes and all those special classes with super powers that are balanced through roleplay (barbarians, cavaliers etc etc )

Whilst there are lots of prestige classes there are also a lot of super powered base classes that really ought to be treated just like Prestige classes and earned through play.

Oh, alright. That I probably agree with - I really only played the "barebones" 3e, with stuff from Forgotten Realms and Ravenloft tops.

Quote from: Premier;654673"Umpteen"? 782, actually!

Wait...is that only in WotC published material?! Good grief! No wonder the meta-environment slowly went off the rails.

Quote from: Bill;654800If only players chose prestige classes with roleplay as a goal.

I don't dislike multiclassing at all, but I loathe cherrypicking levels for a 'build'

You and me both. I banned prestige classes from my table, as well as multi-classing unless there had been prior, in-game roleplaying leading up to the switch. This was no different than I'd handled it in earlier editions, but it was so much more important with 3.x due to the flood of never playtested garbage.

Quote from: jibbajibba;655263Now anyone playing these guys knows what to expect. You know that the common folks aren't gooing to take kindly to you, you aren't going to be supprised that the local whorehouse shuns your business or that you are duty bound to act as executions etc
Therefore if you choose to play one of these guys you have already bought into their roleplay restrictions and they do not server as a balance to any powers the class may get.

Such things have worked well in my D&D campaigns for 35+ years. The fact that one knows about and accepts a restriction beforehand does not make the restriction any less restrictive.  For a real life example, if I take a job where I'm told up front that I will be on call 24/7 and expected to report to work within 30 minutes when called (unless I am on leave), the fact that I agree to this and get paid more for it does not change that fact that this requirement is still very restrictive on my life. I can't go more than 30 minutes travel time from work if I'm not on leave, meetings with friends, dates, etc. no matter how important to others may be interrupted without notice, etc. Similar restrictions on D&D paladins, barbarians, etc. have successfully served as a balancing method in my campaigns.

Quote from: RandallS;655428Such things have worked well in my D&D campaigns for 35+ years. The fact that one knows about and accepts a restriction beforehand does not make the restriction any less restrictive.  For a real life example, if I take a job where I'm told up front that I will be on call 24/7 and expected to report to work within 30 minutes when called (unless I am on leave), the fact that I agree to this and get paid more for it does not change that fact that this requirement is still very restrictive on my life. I can't go more than 30 minutes travel time from work if I'm not on leave, meetings with friends, dates, etc. no matter how important to others may be interrupted without notice, etc. Similar restrictions on D&D paladins, barbarians, etc. have successfully served as a balancing method in my campaigns.

Ah but if you didn't have all those additional classes with their mechanical bloat and super powers roleplayers would still choose to play paladins and barbarians they would just call them fighters therefore the superpowers are superfluous.

Switching to a immersive perspective for a moment why has a barbarian got more hit points than a duelist that spars all day everyday and doesn't spend time hiding in the woods or other barbarian activities. The same can be true of a myriad other powers classes get given.
Some are justified by divine blessing (with paladins) or well they live in the forest (with druid spells for rangers though where and how rangers find time to study arcane magical texts and learn MU spells is another issue).

So my point remains all PCs have roleplay restrictions it's what roleplay is. D'Artangne won't back down from a fight, Robin Hood gives all his gold away to the poor, Hannibal Lecter eats people.
By all means give roleplay restrictions for prestige classes (including the AD&D ones) but don't use it as a crutch for not bothering to try and balance them with other classes (I know another bugbear why do I care about balance balance is just for 4vengers , blah blah)

Quote from: jibbajibba;655435Ah but if you didn't have all those additional classes with their mechanical bloat and super powers roleplayers would still choose to play paladins and barbarians they would just call them fighters therefore the superpowers are superfluous.

Switching to a immersive perspective for a moment why has a barbarian got more hit points than a duelist that spars all day everyday and doesn't spend time hiding in the woods or other barbarian activities. The same can be true of a myriad other powers classes get given.
Some are justified by divine blessing (with paladins) or well they live in the forest (with druid spells for rangers though where and how rangers find time to study arcane magical texts and learn MU spells is another issue).

So my point remains all PCs have roleplay restrictions it's what roleplay is. D'Artangne won't back down from a fight, Robin Hood gives all his gold away to the poor, Hannibal Lecter eats people.
By all means give roleplay restrictions for prestige classes (including the AD&D ones) but don't use it as a crutch for not bothering to try and balance them with other classes (I know another bugbear why do I care about balance balance is just for 4vengers , blah blah)

Balance is worth its own thread.

Quote from: jibbajibba;654646Psionics? Upteen prestigue classes? Daft treeman rangers with 3 arms? The Sha'ir? Wild Magic?

No, only things that appear in ALL three editions; I might go so far as to say only things that appear in the basic books of all three editions.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jibbajibba;654651Okay that makes sense.

Leaves a bit stuck on ascending vs Descending AC (do we have no AC? ), ditto for Saves, Thaco, skills, proficiencies but its a reasonable answer.

It means that AC itself is essential; what type is not. Ditto with Saving throws, and with to-hit bonuses.
And no, neither skills nor proficiencies are essential. You can remove them and still play D&D.

RPGPundit

Pundit's "all three editions" criterion -- albeit perhaps requiring a specification of which three of the half-dozen plus between 1974 and 2008 -- seems pretty decent.