Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 6061789">I hated, in fact you could say I loathed the Prestige Class system in 3.X.&nbsp; It was horrid.&nbsp; There was one, or two prestige classes that gave you incredible power in a very short frame, and then there were a million more that were creative, evocative and interesting...that did nothing more than gimp your character.&nbsp; What was worse is that base classes petered out around level 8-10, making taking on a new class or a PrC mandatory.&nbsp; Not to mention, entrance requirements meant you had to plan out gaining the PrC for several levels, if not from the very first moment of character creation, which often made it feel less like you were playing your character or your class, and instead were playing a &quot;I'm not the class I really want to be yet&quot; class.I LOVED the way Paragon Paths fixed all those issues in 4e.&nbsp; All were fairly well balanced, all were fairly flavorful and tied in to the core elements of the base classes you could start out in.&nbsp; Entrance requirements were low, being simply your race, your class, or your diety and rarely requiring more than one of those, any of which were easy to meet, both for the optimizer and the role-player.I am also fond of Pathfinder's solution, by enhancing the later levels of classes to make them desirable, and to making paragon paths both creative AND useful, or at least keeping the ones that were mostly flavorful but less useful short.&nbsp; I read through the survey and found that I didn't like a single one of the PrC's they had listed.&nbsp; All of them were either horribly overpowered and the only real choice if you actually wanted to feel like you gained anything the rest of the game, or very flavorful but absolutely useless.Lets learn from our mistakes and our successes.&nbsp; Balance PrCs, keep their entrance requirements low, make them ALL flavorful, and if they hold significantly more fluff than crunch, represent that by keeping the number of levels they take up small.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 6061789"] I [I]hated[/I], in fact you could say I[B] loathed[/B] the Prestige Class system in 3.X. It was horrid. There was one, or two prestige classes that gave you incredible power in a very short frame, and then there were a million more that were creative, evocative and interesting...that did nothing more than gimp your character. What was worse is that base classes petered out around level 8-10, making taking on a new class or a PrC mandatory. Not to mention, entrance requirements meant you had to plan out gaining the PrC for several levels, if not from the very first moment of character creation, which often made it feel less like you were playing your character or your class, and instead were playing a "I'm not the class I really want to be yet" class. I [I]LOVED[/I] the way Paragon Paths fixed all those issues in 4e. All were fairly well balanced, all were fairly flavorful and tied in to the core elements of the base classes you could start out in. Entrance requirements were low, being simply your race, your class, or your diety and [I]rarely[/I] requiring more than one of those, any of which were easy to meet, both for the optimizer and the role-player. I am also fond of Pathfinder's solution, by enhancing the later levels of classes to make them desirable, and to making paragon paths both creative AND useful, or at least keeping the ones that were mostly flavorful but less useful short. I read through the survey and found that I didn't like a single one of the PrC's they had listed. All of them were either horribly overpowered and the [I]only[/I] real choice if you actually wanted to feel like you gained anything the rest of the game, or very flavorful but absolutely useless. Lets learn from our mistakes and our successes. Balance PrCs, keep their entrance requirements low, make them ALL flavorful, and if they hold significantly more fluff than crunch, represent that by keeping the number of levels they take up small. [/QUOTE]

Verification