Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 2594713" data-attributes="member: 5890"> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Sneaky guy who has joined an organisation of killers and learned their secrets. He's not just a sneaky guy that kills people - the PrC prerequisite makes that fairly clear. They can. Combat reflexes + stand between the enemy and your charge does a half-decent job. But it's far from perfect. Of course, if a player finds he's doing just fine with rogue, then he won't take this class. Unless he wants spells. Then he might look at dungeon delver. Forsakers suck. You're totally right. Mostly because it almost seems like they're designed to be disruptive in the average party or campaign. Enchanter, nets, the ability to run fast, the ability to hide well etc etc. The main problem with this class is that it doesn't advise the DM "Warning, this PrC may well totally ruin your game. Before one party member takes it, he should clear it the rest of the party". Ok, heirophant (and to a lesser degree archmage) I can agree are slightly silly. Basically they're classes that are explicitly designed to grant some feat-like abilities. I think they may have been better implemented as a group of feat chains. A cabal-oriented wizard is a staple of fantasy. Along with that are the concepts that group-cast spells are more powerful etc etc. Unfortunately the mechanics are such that said wizard can be powered up at the beginning of a day and then run-riot. If the power boost was restricted in duration to a round (or two), then I'm sure there would be no problem with the class in play, as the assistant casters would actually need to be present. There's certainly no problem with the basic concept. PrC's that I actually loathe? Anything that is race specific. I don't particulary see why dwarves should be the only ones capable of learning a defensive style, or why only elves can be bladesingers, or why only gnomes can be tricksters etc. PrCs that have a great concept, but are so mechanically underpowered that they're basically not worth the paper they're printed on. That evil druid one is a prime example - it can be far better implemented by just saying "just use all the druid stuff, but make it look skeletal and rotten". Cleric PrCs. Clerics don't gain anything that they can give up except spellcasting. So a cleric PrC has to either reduce spellcasting, OR take away existing features (ie - restrict armour use, remove domains, remove access to individual spells and the like). Most of them right now are just granting features - once you pay the entry price you're way better off with a PrC than without. PrCs that fill niches badly. For instance - so far there are a few PrCs that blend druid and wizard, but all of them add some sort of 'twist' to the mix. None of them have the end result that you'd expect of a blend of druid and wizard, mostly because they all give away significant abilities of the druid. And chances are that because there are a group of PrCs already filling the gap, no more will be made for it.</li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification