Anyways, stuff I disagree with
s it unreasonable to make the final level in a PrC one that is just chock-full of benefits, perhaps moreso than the current WotC formula?
Yes, in fact it is unreasonable to design prestige classes with levels which have the design intent that level 10 is far better than levels 1-9.
If this design intent is followed, it is going to result in grossly imbalanced characters. In order for a <Core Class> 5 / <Capstone PrC> 10 to be balanced against say a <Core Class> 15, each build has to offer roughly the same total value of abilities; and to make this work in the set-up you are describing, that means that <Capstone> PrC levels 1-9 need to offer a lower value of abilities than <Core Class> 6-14, which means that the first 9 levels of the PrC need to be intentionally underpowered. The only other option in this scheme is to keep <Capstone> 1-9 balanced against Core 6-14, but then <Capstone 10> definitionally is chock-full of benefits, which means that it will be overpowered.
Now, it is enitrely valid to point out that the current WotC formula does not do a passable job of balancing PrC builds against CoreClass builds, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to endore a change which is not any sort of improvement.
Classes rewarding you with organisation bonuses are just silly.
This too, I disagree with.
Granted, in many cases, the implementation of those organization bonuses is piss-poor (see MotAO 10), but the concept itself is enitrely workable. If you are a Knight of the Round Table, it is entirely valid to have the ability to call on other Knights for help, and it would be entirely valid to have mechanics for it, and it would be entirely valid for those mechanics to scale with your Knight of the Round Table class level - the more time and effort and levels you put into the organization, the more resources you get out of them.
****
Now then, getting to my core point:
I personally see PrCs as definitionally optional classes which the DM chooses to include in his game because they either
A. give characters game-mechanical benefits to players who choose to play character types who are especially appropriate to the game world.
or B. provide a minor rules-patch for some aspect of the game the DM is unsatisfied with.
Now working from this set of premises, a number of corrolarries emerge:
- Since PrCs are definitionally optional, DMs should only include them if they actually want players to take them.
- Since the DM only includes PrCs which he wants player characters to take, (either because they reinforce the game world or help fix rules the DM dislikes) all PrCs should be appealing to one or more players.
- Since PrCs have to be appealing to players, they should never ever be mechanically inferior to taking more levels in the core class(es) needed to qualify.
- Since the DM wants PrCs to be appealing, it is okay if they are mechanically superior to taking more levels in likely core classes. As per the general concept of game balance, they should not be massively more powerful than core class builds.
But the thing is, this all follows from my personal views about PrCs, which not everybody shares. Some people have been known to say stuff like "3rd edition is all about the PrCs" or "You gotta allow it, it's in the Core Rules" - and those people aren't objectively wrong. And when you use a different set of assumptions about what PrCs are, you get a different set of design principles for PrCs.