More than one prestige class?

[archangel.arcanis]

It isn't unreasonable to limit the PrC's but you definitely should be allowed to take more than one. A frequent house rule we use is that all PrC's face multi-classing restrictions similar to a monk, can't go back once you leave, or that you must finish them once started unless returning to your base class.

Personally i don't really care as long as the PrC has a place within the game as it just represents a more focused form of training. Some however come with baggage. If the PrC is all about being part of an organization then that brings them into the game and they may not like some other things that the character is doing and kick them out, force retraining to replace those levels or loose some abilities from the class that would be granted by the group. IE Mage of the arcane order would get cut off from spell pool or have to steal from spell pool if the group kicked him out for doing something they didn't like or allow the PC to replace those levels (and probably the feats/skills they took to get into the PrC)

[wotmaniac]

My point - which I believe I've proved adequately - is that the names of ability classes are far from limiting definitions.

I'm ... not ... sure ... what that even is supposed to mean    (i.e., I think we have a syntax error)

I JUST realized what you were saying here.     

... no, but they are intended to at least give the reader an idea of what the concept is supposed to be about -- they aren't just meaningless words meant to fill-up page space.

FWIW.


@ Prak:
:sigh:
Really?   

...and you're saying that a prc is too specialized to allow you to grab another one? Don't make me pull out real examples....

um, well, actually, no I'm not -- I think you're either misinterpreting what I was getting at and/or taking things a little out of context.  Read it again:

As such, while many of us may disagree with this particular DM's view, based on the text, such an approach is perfectly reasonable and valid.

THAT is what I'm saying (the thesis, if you will).  Nothing more.  My examples, analogies, and whatever other arguments I've proposed are simply meant to support that thesis.  I don't see anyone disputing my thesis -- nope, you only want to play games with my verbiage.  What we have here is a forest/trees scenario -- you might want to step back and take a look at the bigger picture.  Furthermore, look at my use of the word "us" (instead of "you") -- I'm including myself in the camp that personally disagrees with the OP's DM (at least for the most part).

As such, I also think that you, too, are abusing the analogy (or at least are misinterpreting it).  Allow me to explain:
First, the whole point that I was attempting to make was one of advanced training/education (and all that such may imply) above and beyond the ordinary.  The analogy was only meant to illustrate just that, and was completely off-the-cuff.  I'm sorry if it wasn't air-tight enough for you; but every analogy will break-down given enough scrutiny.

Second, you've made inferences that weren't there to be made.  The major point that I was making was that PrCs are supposed to be special; and as such, it is perfectly reasonable for a DM to restrict them as he feels is appropriate for his game.  I then attempted to describe that through an example.  As I previously discussed (at great length), I by no means intended to prescribe a specific way of playing -- I was simply expressing a particular perspective (I already covered this ad nauseum on the last page -- I don't really care to do so again).
-- side note: in my group, we run the gamut.  sometimes we restrict things to only 1 PrC at a time, to imposing xp penalty for having multiple unfinished PrCs, to no restrictions at all (and we have our specific reasons -- and while I don't really care to expound upon any of that at the moment, I guess I can if you really want me to) -- it all depends on the game.  (of course, now that I think about it - such a discussion just might have the potential for helping to provide some illumination on the OP ... or something like that)

Lastly, let me clarify and  elaborate on this analogy (as I conceptualized it in my head):
First, let me describe the scope and scale:
- an associates and/or bachelors would be a PrC that you could enter after 5+ levels (an associates typically having fewer prereqs and few levels)
- a masters would be something starting after 8-10 levels
- a doctorate would be epic.
I felt the need to do that simply because I found your AA/epic connection to be a bit over the top (to say the least).  "Master Chef" is hardly something for an AA -- as I understand things, a BA is needed just to be considered "competent", let alone a "master" (at least in certain circles).  Further, the single-course "baking certificate" is hardly analogous to another PrC -- it's more like a single class feature of a chef PrC, or maybe even just a single feat available to culinary professionals (or, hell, probably just represented by a certain # of ranks in craft (baking) -- which would indeed be a class skill for said chef). 
If you want to continue to badger the analogy issue, I guess I can (and am prepared to do so ad infinitum); but I don't really see any point to it.

Your turn.   

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Is there any reason why somebody can't be able to read minds and channel hellfire?

[EjoThims]

PrCs are supposed to be special

In certain aspects of flavor, perhaps, but mechanically there is nothing to support that ideal.

That is the point we are all making and that you have failed to acknowledge or combat.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Plus, there are PrCs specifically designed for dipping, like the ones from BoED that are there for getting exalted feats.

[wotmaniac]

PrCs are supposed to be special

In certain aspects of flavor, perhaps, but mechanically there is nothing to support that ideal.

That is the point we are all making and that you have failed to acknowledge or combat.

perhaps?   
Well, actually there is mechanical support for such an idea (besides -- there you go again, tossing aside context like so much trash)
But you refuse to accept that you're perspective may not be the only viable perspective (never mind that I have repeatedly acknowledged the consensus) -- making it impossible to engage you in an honest and ingenuous discussion. 

Plus, there are PrCs specifically designed for dipping, like the ones from BoED that are there for getting exalted feats.

That may be the way you view them -- I, however, see things differently. 
To each their own.

Besides, (and I really hate to keep going back to context ... but speaking of which) neither of you have yet to address my original thesis -- but yet you insist on continuing an argument with me (which is supposedly what you disagree with).    
For a refresher -- I reiterated my thesis in my last post, just in case you missed it.  All this other crap is just peripheral distraction.  All you have done is support why you like things the way you do, which I've never had a problem with (your play preferences, that is). 
So, if you really want to keep discussing this, then address the central point that I was actually making, instead of some straw-man. (otherwise, I will have to assume that you are simply trying to pick a fight with me for your own miserable amusement -- which I will not continue to be a part of).


Thanks for coming out. 

[awaken DM golem]

[edit - I'm responding to some posts further back.]



Wait ... the names of the PrC's is the problem? Really?!

C'mon. I say Stormwind Fallacy to that.

Wizard = Batman
Mage Of The Arcane Order = Archivist's little buddy
Fighter = useless

Roleplay is easy regardless of the titles attached to any ability / class / prc / feat / spell / dm hinkeyness / etc.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

They say they're designed for dipping.

[wotmaniac]

They say they're designed for dipping.

Right, and the whole "... not intended as a lifelong career path, just a sidetrack ..." is demonstrated by being only 3 levels long.
Even if you complete an entire 3-level PrC, it's still (effectively) only a dip (depending, of course, how you define "dip"). 

As such, AFAIC, you really haven't really made a point with that.

Just found this -- seems to validate both positions (take it FWIW ; YMMV).

[EjoThims]

Well, actually there is mechanical support for such an idea.

Then provide it. Show me rules that limit how many prestige classes can be taken (other than only having 20 levels pre-epic).

But you refuse to accept that you're perspective may not be the only viable perspective

Entirely false. You just haven't yet presented anything that actually shows another view on the matter as viable.

neither of you have yet to address my original thesis

IIRC, your original thesis was "it is entirely reasonable, based on the text, for a DM to limit prestige classes."

We have been addressing exactly that, in that such a position is entirely wrong.

Hell, let's even look at your 'context' that you hold so dear (even though it's pointed out time and time again in the rules themselves that the fluff is merely a guide for use of the rules, not rules themselves).

I assert that prestige is not reasonable grounds for mutual exclusion. Many things are prestigious without being mutually exclusive. Degrees from Harvard and Yale are both quite prestigious, yet with the roper time, training, and investment (levels, skills, and feats), one can earn both with little more trouble than earning one. The Noble Peace Prize and the Pulitzer Prize are both quite prestigious indeed, yet, as long as you qualify to win both, that is entirely possible.

Now, in context, particular organizations may limit their membership based on what other organizations you are affiliated with, but that should apply across the board, whether you have levels in the organization affiliated PrC or not, and it would apply specifically to those organizations, not to PrCs in general.

In conclusion, you still have yet to actually back up any part of your claims with anything reasonable, either contextually or based in the actual rules.

Please do so before you push this even closer to a flame war. Remember, actually supporting the things you claim is the best way to stop people from insulting you based on the claims you are making.

[Shadowhunter]

I think this is relevant to the original topic:

Races of Stone, page 124

If I read this correctly, they're saying they made the PrC easier to get into because any character picking it wouldn't have to wait ages for a dwarf, goliath or gnome PrC they could qualify for after Stoneblessed.
Early entry into a PrC for the sake of early entry into another, different PrC does make it pretty clear whether or not you can take more than 1 PrC.

[Prak, the Mad]

@ Prak:
:sigh:
Really?   

...and you're saying that a prc is too specialized to allow you to grab another one? Don't make me pull out real examples....

um, well, actually, no I'm not -- I think you're either misinterpreting what I was getting at and/or taking things a little out of context.  Read it again:

-stuff-

ok, yeah, I probably misunderstood.

Lastly, let me clarify and  elaborate on this analogy (as I conceptualized it in my head):
First, let me describe the scope and scale:
- an associates and/or bachelors would be a PrC that you could enter after 5+ levels (an associates typically having fewer prereqs and few levels)
- a masters would be something starting after 8-10 levels
- a doctorate would be epic.
I felt the need to do that simply because I found your AA/epic connection to be a bit over the top (to say the least).  "Master Chef" is hardly something for an AA -- as I understand things, a BA is needed just to be considered "competent", let alone a "master" (at least in certain circles).  Further, the single-course "baking certificate" is hardly analogous to another PrC -- it's more like a single class feature of a chef PrC, or maybe even just a single feat available to culinary professionals (or, hell, probably just represented by a certain # of ranks in craft (baking) -- which would indeed be a class skill for said chef). 
If you want to continue to badger the analogy issue, I guess I can (and am prepared to do so ad infinitum); but I don't really see any point to it.

Your turn.   

alright,  first, does it really matter if an AA is epic? I was just assigning it that because it's the highest culinary degree my school offers.
Second: the baking certificate is not a single class. A single class is the only thing that puts it above and beyond what you need for a Culinary Certificate. The Culinary Cert. requires all the standard culinary classes, including Baking A and B, but it considers Baking C an elective, while the Baking Certificate requires the very very basic culinary course, and all three Baking courses. you misunderstood me.

and as far as I know, there's no such thing as a doctorate of culinary arts.  there may be one at some high-falutin' "give us all your money, and use the wages of your first ten years in a restaurant to pay off loans" school like CIA, or Cordon Bleu, but I don't think even there. I think at best there's a masters if you go to those. And my community college is fucking renowned 

but it doesn't matter

[wotmaniac]

@ Prak:
:sigh:
Really?   

...and you're saying that a prc is too specialized to allow you to grab another one? Don't make me pull out real examples....

um, well, actually, no I'm not -- I think you're either misinterpreting what I was getting at and/or taking things a little out of context.  Read it again:

-stuff-

ok, yeah, I probably misunderstood.

Lastly, let me clarify and  elaborate on this analogy (as I conceptualized it in my head):
First, let me describe the scope and scale:
- an associates and/or bachelors would be a PrC that you could enter after 5+ levels (an associates typically having fewer prereqs and few levels)
- a masters would be something starting after 8-10 levels
- a doctorate would be epic.
I felt the need to do that simply because I found your AA/epic connection to be a bit over the top (to say the least).  "Master Chef" is hardly something for an AA -- as I understand things, a BA is needed just to be considered "competent", let alone a "master" (at least in certain circles).  Further, the single-course "baking certificate" is hardly analogous to another PrC -- it's more like a single class feature of a chef PrC, or maybe even just a single feat available to culinary professionals (or, hell, probably just represented by a certain # of ranks in craft (baking) -- which would indeed be a class skill for said chef). 
If you want to continue to badger the analogy issue, I guess I can (and am prepared to do so ad infinitum); but I don't really see any point to it.

Your turn.   

alright,  first, does it really matter if an AA is epic? I was just assigning it that because it's the highest culinary degree my school offers.
Second: the baking certificate is not a single class. A single class is the only thing that puts it above and beyond what you need for a Culinary Certificate. The Culinary Cert. requires all the standard culinary classes, including Baking A and B, but it considers Baking C an elective, while the Baking Certificate requires the very very basic culinary course, and all three Baking courses. you misunderstood me.

and as far as I know, there's no such thing as a doctorate of culinary arts.  there may be one at some high-falutin' "give us all your money, and use the wages of your first ten years in a restaurant to pay off loans" school like CIA, or Cordon Bleu, but I don't think even there. I think at best there's a masters if you go to those. And my community college is fucking renowned 

but it doesn't matter

no harm, no foul.   

[wotmaniac]

Oh no, not the dreaded "flame war" (again?).  What would I ever do if someone on the internet became childish and unreasonable?

Well, actually there is mechanical support for such an idea.

Then provide it. Show me rules that limit how many prestige classes can be taken (other than only having 20 levels pre-epic).

Now you're changing the question.  That particular statement was in response to whether or not PrCs are supposed to be special, not to whether or not the rules dictate how many PrCs are allowed to be taken (I've concurred with the fact that the rules allow for multiple PrCs 3 times) -- get it together, guy.  There you go again ...  

But you refuse to accept that you're perspective may not be the only viable perspective

Entirely false. You just haven't yet presented anything that actually shows another view on the matter as viable.

Are we even reading the same thread?!  I think you may have missed reading a few posts.

IIRC, your original thesis was "it is entirely reasonable, based on the text, for a DM to limit prestige classes."

We have been addressing exactly that, in that such a position is entirely wrong.

Alright -- you are clearly living in some sort of alternate reality.  That is an issue of purely subjective preference -- which, by definition, can't be wrong.
Wait a minute -- am I on one of those "hidden camera" TV shows?  Where's the camera? *:looks around:*  Alright, the gag's over -- you got me.  

Hell, let's even look at your 'context' that you hold so dear (even though it's pointed out time and time again in the rules themselves that the fluff is merely a guide for use of the rules, not rules themselves).

Is not a block of text describing the intent of a rule or how to use it, in itself, a rule? (at least on some level?)
(FYI: that one is strictly rhetorical -- you don't really have to answer it.)

*(a bunch of irrelevant crap based on invented and illusory "context")*

You don't get to make up your own context just because you can't argue within the existing, relevant, and real context.  It seems as though you are inventing something about which to argue, and then insist on bating me in to your delusional little world. (and apparently, for no other reason than to just argue for the sake of arguing).  Get off of it, already.

Look, I'm gonna go through all of this just one more time with you.  Make sure that you read the following very slowly, so that you don't miss anything.
[spoiler]First, my thesis:

... while many of us may disagree with this particular DM's view, based on the text, such an approach is perfectly reasonable and valid.

and the supporting text:

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

AFAIC, that's the end of the discussion.
But, for your benefit, I'll continue.

I also submitted that PrCs are indeed supposed to be special. (while this may not be directly related to the OP, it is a related element to the above thesis)

I believe that to be demonstrated in the mechanics (i.e., mechanical representation) by the presence of prerequisites (i.e., requirements such as skill ranks, feats, etc.), and the relationship between a given PrC and its prerequisite requirements.
And since I know it's coming   :
"fluff" prereqs are a mixed bag.  Some of them are directly tied to a mechanic; while some of them are simply related to how such a PrC actually fits in to the game world, and are easily reflavored to reflect such (which is the explicit intent of such).  However, this has absolutely no relevance to the point I'm attempting to make (but felt compelled to cover it before it gets presented in yet another fallacious rebuttal).
_____________________________________ [/spoiler]

That is all I was saying.  It was intended to be simple, straightforward, and innocuous (and thought it would be fairly self-evident).  I really don't see the problem.
To attribute anything else to my words or intent is simply flat-out wrong.  And the bulk of your arguments have been based on mis-attributed inferences and non-existent implications -- plain and simple.

Besides, why aren't you excoriating this guy? (I'm not saying that you should; I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency with which you direct your attacks, in regards to the "who" and "what").



In other, semi-related miscellany:

And they call prestige classes "advanced classes" in d20 modern using the same mechanics.  

Actually, you're wrong.  Besides, you're comparing apples and oranges.

Are advanced classes the same as prestige classes, or will we see prestige classes for the d20 Modern game in future products?

Advanced classes aren't the same as prestige classes, and you will see some of the latter in future products.

Additionally:

Conceptually, what's the difference between advanced classes and prestige classes? Does a character have to take levels in an advanced class before taking a prestige class?

A prestige class represents a stronger focus on a specific idea or concept than an advanced class does. Most advanced classes represent greater focus than the base classes do, but each still covers a wide range of character concepts.

And because of your apples/oranges comparison, your analogy falls flat.  I'm just sayin'.  

[EjoThims]

Well, actually there is mechanical support for such an idea.

Then provide it. Show me rules that limit how many prestige classes can be taken (other than only having 20 levels pre-epic).

That particular statement was in response to whether or not PrCs are supposed to be special, not to whether or not the rules dictate how many PrCs are allowed to be taken

So then provide rules that show this 'mechanical support' for the idea that PrCs are special.

But you refuse to accept that you're perspective may not be the only viable perspective

Entirely false. You just haven't yet presented anything that actually shows another view on the matter as viable.

Are we even reading the same thread?!  I think you may have missed reading a few posts.

Indeed we are. You still have not provided support for your claims that there is actual grounds showing reasonable support for limiting PrCs or that they are mechanically held to be 'special' in any way other than the need to meet their prerequisites.

IIRC, your original thesis was "it is entirely reasonable, based on the text, for a DM to limit prestige classes."

We have been addressing exactly that, in that such a position is entirely wrong.

Alright -- you are clearly living in some sort of alternate reality.  That is an issue of purely subjective preference -- which, by definition, can't be wrong.

So you're claiming that reasonableness is entirely subjective? Or just in this one case? Please provide actual support for any of these positions. Remember, "house rules" is not support, nor is it reasonable unless there is actual reasonable justification for those house rules.

Is not a block of text describing the intent of a rule or how to use it, in itself, a rule?

No. Especially when the rules themselves call out the difference.

First, my thesis:

... while many of us may disagree with this particular DM's view, based on the text, such an approach is perfectly reasonable and valid.

Again, your thesis is flawed.

and the supporting text:

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

And this does not support it. Contextually this makes the most sense to apply to which prestige classes are allowed to be taken (which, by the way, is totally reasonable, especially when some are tied to organizations or campaigns), and the 'optional per DM' part is true for everything in the game; it is no more reasonable to limit PrC usage without an actual in context reason than it is feat usage.

I also submitted that PrCs are indeed supposed to be special. (while this may not be directly related to the OP, it is a related element to the above thesis)

And other than the obvious mechanical ways in which they are different (which have no impact on limiting their use), you have not supported this claim at all. And no, mindless and irrelevant out of context definitions are in no way supporting your ideas.

It was intended to be simple, straightforward, and innocuous (and thought it would be fairly self-evident).  I really don't see the problem.

The problem, mainly, is that you did not meet your own intentions.

Besides, why aren't you excoriating this guy?

Because he is actually being reasonable (it is perfectly fine to limit PrCs based on actual in-game reasoning in your game) and makes note to point out that the advice he is offering is a specific houserule (and directly points out that multiples, the topic at hand, should be allowed even if adjusted), so that there is no confusion between that and the standard game.

[wotmaniac]

Dear EjoThims,

Upon reviewing your last post, it occurred to me that everything you had to say was complete and utter drivel, entirely devoid of a single rational thought.  Your ability to totally ignore existing facts and spontaneously invent your own is nothing short of astounding.  Based on your response, I can only conclude that your mental faculties have thoroughly collapsed, thus causing the total break with reality which you seem to exhibit -- professional psychiatric help is strongly advised.  In the potential absence of a major intervention by your closest friends and loved-ones, I highly recommend that you take a look at this -- it just may be your only hope.

Alas, I do have one admission to make: it seems that I have made a major blunder, and need to apologize and set things right.
The mistake that I have made is actually entering in to a discussion with you; believing, with great naiveté, that you were actually capable of conducting yourself in a reasonable and rational manner.  I was wrong; and apologize for wasting so much thread space by allowing myself to be bated in to this completely pointless and farcical exhibition.  By allowing myself to fall in to such a trap, I inadvertently validated and further encouraged your apparent psychosis -- I'll not let it happen again.

Sincerely,
Wotmaniac

[EjoThims]

Dear EjoThims,

Flaming

Sincerely,
Wotmaniac

As I predicted.

A simple admission that you couldn't actually provide convincing support for any part of your stance would have sufficed.

[wotmaniac]

EDIT: some ill-conceived jibber-jabber.  gonna try this again.

[wotmaniac]

Ejo:
I know that I said that I wasn't gonna do this; but I've been rethinking the situation, and have decided to make one more good-faith effort to resolve this (though I very well may end-up regretting it -- I hope I'm wrong about that).

I think that perhaps you may be simply and honestly missing my point.  I'm gonna step back and go through this on a more fundamental level:
- I was putting forth an opinion-based perspective -- which means that there isn't necessarily anything to "prove".  It is an opinion that is shared by many, and for much the same reasons which I have presented.  The only "claim" that I have made is that such a perspective exists (and by simply expressing such a perspective, have thus "proven" that claim). 
- I have presented reasons on which such a perspective would be based.  I have also stated that I find some part of that support to be "self-evident" (which is irrespective of whether you accept or deny it) -- how am I to prove something which I find to prove itself?  From my perspective, it feels as though you are asking me to prove that water is wet -- it just is (i.e., it's a self-defining thing).
- Just because you have not been convinced, does not mean that those reasons don't exist, or that somebody else might not find them compelling (which is kinda what you seem to imply with your persistent demands of "prove it").  I happen to find such support to be reasonable, rational, and compelling (yet another opinion) -- and since it is I who holds that opinion, then that is all that matters to me (see above ; also, further discussion next)
- I have not said that you must share my opinion, or that mine is the only way to do things.  Nor have I, in anyway whatsoever, denounced or denigrated any competing opinion on this topic.  I never set out to do such -- I only wanted to provide the OP with a perspective which he might not have taken in to consideration; with the goal of assisting him with his player-DM relations.  THAT IS ALL.
- Furthermore, on at least 3 occasions, I did acknowledge the fact of RAW -- and made no quibble with it.

Given all of that, I am completely dumbfounded over the fact that this argument has persisted for so long (or even that it existed in the first place).  I really am at a loss when it comes to figuring out why there even is an argument (well, I do have my suspicions ... but I digress).

Does that do anything for you?

[BruceLeeroy]

Just wanted you two to know that you provided me with some laughs. What a ridiculous argument.