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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rounser" data-source="post: 375051" data-attributes="member: 1106">Interesting thread.  Some comments on other's comments:Yep.  Same with kits, but that didn't stop people ragging on kits as the if the concept was broke rather than the execution, and inventing "something better" that doesn't even allow you to follow a character concept from first level.  This is because one of the philosophies behind PrCs are that they're supposed to be a carrot that players work towards, and reward them for sticking with the game rather than starting a new character, as opposed to nasssssty kits which "rewarded" restarting.  I think we have enough carrots with magic items, levels and XP....at least let players go with a rules-backed concept from 1st level, rather than when they meet the pre-reqs and the rules "decide" it's time...Yup.  I suspect that PrCs' other main purpose is simply to give WotC and d20 publishers something more to sell to gamers.I hope for some kit/PrC hybrid come 4th ed, which goes back to advantages/disadvantages rather than pre-reqs so that they can be taken at any time in the campaign which is appropriate (as opposed to planning ahead for levels on end) and extensive guidelines given for balancing the suckers (including simple stuff like "don't balance stuff with roleplaying disadvantages") with something perhaps equivalent to the CR systems' quantification of the power of abilities so that DMs and publishers alike can hit the mark a little more often...Inevitably, the more of these things which get produced, the weaker the system that integrates them gets because the scope of underpowered/overpowered PrCs or kits strays further from the median through the odd bad design decision.  Given that the core rules were playtested more than any other RPG before, there's definitely a limit to the idea of all-the-prestige-classes-you-can-eat.You're not alone.  I like adventures and setting material described at encounter level - that's where the real game is, and it saves me time.Indeed - a lot of fluff gets ruined by being tied to crunch, and a lot of crunch gets ruined by being tied to fluff.I'd like to see them kept seperate more often - for instance, I think that monster books are far better off being totally generic rather than being tied to a particular world.  I think "slot into your world" cities are better without names nor macro level assumptions about how your world works...and the same goes for PrCs.  In fact......someone beat me to that point. <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=":)" />I have to err on the side of keeping spells special boons granted by a class being all about magic rather than being granted to any old class as "bonuses", and the ranger and assassin do nothing to help this.It's annoying to see "War Wizard of Cormyr" when you look up the abilities, and can challenge suspension of disbelief by forcing you to try to not associate your character with Cormyr.  I think that a superior approach would have been called it just plain "War Wizard", genericise the abilities and added a paragraph on the end that customises it to FR as they do in Monsters of Faerun.  That way, you get to have your fluff cake and eat your crunch.Apparently, the authors of that PrC agreed.  No evocation or necromancy can be used with the spelldancing ability.  Can you imagine summoning, enchanting, or alteration related to dancing magic?  I know I can...Maybe if you're only looking for kewl powerz (TM), but the concepts (Mage Killer, Spelldancer, and that gnomitech one in particular) provide powerful campaign flavour.  They're very strong concept-wise, IMO, which is sort of half the point...</blockquote>

Verification