Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Deadguy" data-source="post: 1517350" data-attributes="member: 2480">Interesting. The view generally seems to be that 'No, they aren't necessary', but 'Yes, they are useful'. Appropriate enough for a tool listed in the DMG. I think that they need to be bedded into the campaign from early on to have the most value. Not merely because PCs need time to plan out advancement to meet prerequisites; but also because PrCs need to be seen to be part of the setting, and not merely 'an add-on for gearheads' (thanks Hong! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )! Otherwise they tend to feel 'forced' in the setting.I will add that I agree with milotha (and thus disagree with MacMathan) that PrCs have served as a handy, if incomplete, tool for getting multi-classing and magic to work together. We only have a problem with them because of the legacy way that spellcasting is constructed, and at least a PrC like Eldritch Knight offers a sort of work-around. I suspect that if a campaign offered no other PrCs, it would be as well to offer Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, Arcane Trickster and similar PrCs*.* unless, as MacMathan says, you specifically want to create a world where multi-classing and spellcasting is meant to be crap! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification