EzekielRaiden
Legend
Sure, but a PrC is generally not representative of backstory, it is rather representative of new growth. Yet, because of the way 3e handled PrC requirements, often you actually do kind of need to prepare, a lot, to qualify. E.g., if you don't take the specific feats you need soon enough, or "waste" (note the quotes) your skill points on non-critical skills, it may literally be possible (indeed, it is often possible) to price yourself out of ever qualifying for that PrC.It’s natural that more complicated backstories and classes would have more prerequisites.
While that's sorta-kinda fair (I say "sorta-kinda" because I don't think you need to be that level, it's just unlikely if you aren't...and that's what makes it notable!), it's a bit tangential to the topic. Instead, this is more like "because I didn't spend a total of 8 skill points on Use Rope until level 11, I now cannot ever complete my Eagle Scout PrC, because it's a 10-level PrC and I'm already level 11."I remember that someone pointed out that Amiri, Pathfinder’s iconic Barbarian, should’ve been Level 6+ based on her backstory of killing a Frost Giant.
3e, and as a consequence PF, heavily punishes a failure to plan one's build. Failing to pick up effective feats, skills, etc. early on actually can lock you out of important growth later.
Why shouldn't they want that? Lots of folks like to highlight how rare true long-running campaigns are. Shouldn't people want to get to the "good stuff" soon, so they actually get a chance to see it in play?I think my main issue is that people want these classes and archetypes at as low a level as possible even when it doesn’t really make sense to.
...is anyone actually asking for that?A level 1 character is weak and not very savvy about anything. Why would they ten pages of abilities and stories about how awesome they are?