Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 1456509" data-attributes="member: 172">I don't think so. I saw some that did that in the first year or so of D&D 3e, with authors (mostly third party) fresh from the kit mentality that said things like "since my class has a disadvantage (like some attitude problem) I can make it REALLY powerful." But tacking on disads presuming it will net you advantages is NOT part of the basic design criteria of PrC's. It is for kits.I don't see feat requirements as the same thing. That's still tapping from your resource pool, not "deficit spending" by tacking on attitude problems to "pay the price." If you spend your resource on a suboptimal choice, then you are depleting your resource pool, thus earning compensation. Yes, there have been prerequisites which were not supoptimal (3.0 archmage, for example), but again, that's a problem with the design of that specific PrC, not the PrC concept in general.So, in short, I disagree with the common perception that they are the same as kits. To someone who doesn't really consider what is going on, that may seem to be the case, but once you really consider what is going on, they are different animals. Yes, you can build bad PrCs. (I used to rail about all the spellcaster classes that lost you nothing all the time.) But at least in the case of PrCs, this brokeness isn't built into the concept.</blockquote>