Ahnehnois
First Post
PF does just fine with minimal prestige classes; that problem was more about the base classes having dead levels and not being viable until 20th.Except I'm not talking about 4e, because it has its own set of problems. I'm strictly talking about 3e and its multiclassing problems here. I don't see the value of classes in a 3e-style approach to classes and mutliclassing. It would be far easier to just go generic with classes or abilities (e.g. True20, M&M) so you can just assemble your character concept - providing toolkit builds to show you how to construct certain archetypes - than having the 3e-style multiclassing monstrosity that was a mathematical, class-meaningless, and PrC-bloat nightmare.
In principle, I think more generic systems are fine, but D&D is built around classes. Given that trope, I think the 3e approach was by far the best take in the D&D world.
I disagree that classes were meaningless in D&D. Even a blatant dip can be entirely meaningful and relevant in the game world. Having a character who takes two levels of fighter for the feats just means he trained in combat but won't make a career out of it. I don't see this as being a problem.
That character's saving throws, on the other hand, are a problem.