Duskblade and going straight into bladesinger....

[RigaMortus2]

I'm not certain how you can read the text that states (from DMG II - using latest publication as most authoritative - especially in that this is consistent with the DMG words.

"No prestige class should be attainable by a character lower than 5th level. "

Is PHB II considered part of the core rules now? If two rules contradict each other, one from the PHB and one from the PHB II, which one should we use?

or the one that states (DMG)

"When you design a new prestige class make sure that characters must be at least 5th level before they can meet the entry requirements."

You forgot to highlight the other important part of the quote:

"When you design a new prestige class make sure that characters must be at least 5th level before they can meet the entry requirements."

Doesn't say anything about WotC designers making PrCs that are only attainable after level 5...

 

[irdeggman]

Is PHB II considered part of the core rules now? If two rules contradict each other, one from the PHB and one from the PHB II, which one should we use?

Except it is DMG II not PHB II.

Since everything WotC publishes is considered "official" then it is in fact a real rule. As I pointed out though - it does not change the meaning from the DMG it only rephrases it some. So it is not changing any previously written "core" rule.

You forgot to highlight the other important part of the quote:

"When you design a new prestige class make sure that characters must be at least 5th level before they can meet the entry requirements."

Doesn't say anything about WotC designers making PrCs that are only attainable after level 5...

But didn't I also state?

My point was that it is a requirement and that the WotC authors at times fail to read the requirements as written (if they did then we pretty much would have a very sparse Rules board here now wouldn't we?)

and

Then they "broke" the rules. They are not guidelines (unlike 3.0). WotC "authors" tend to overlook rules a lot, especially in FR (IMO). I am somewhat surprised this one slipped by though.

The use of the word "you" can also be the generic "you" referring to "everyone" and not the specific "you" referring to a single person. Gotta love the English language