Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7465078" data-attributes="member: 996">PrCs were a great idea that was notoriously abused, though maybe to a degree that didn't deserve so much notoriety.&nbsp; Really, you could get just as OP a character as you liked prettymuch out of the PH.&nbsp; Three out of the 4 Tier 1 classes were right there.&nbsp; If your PrC juggling costs you even one caster level in whichever of those classes you're building off of, you've blown it.&nbsp; The concept of PrCs, if they'd been able to stick to it, instead of using it to kludge multi-classing (or just pad out supplements), was actually pretty good. Create a way for a character's 'build' to directly draw him into the setting and events of the campaign.&nbsp; Becoming a Purple Dragon Knight means being involved in the affairs or Cormyr, being or becoming part of it's aristocracy &amp; military.&nbsp; There's a tremendous potential to use a mechanic like that for characterization, story hooks, player buy-in to the campaign, verisimilitude, and so forth.&nbsp; &nbsp;Agreed.&nbsp; You can powergame a character to the nth degree and find it boring, or RP a fantastic concept with inadequate mechanical support and still have some fun in spite of the failure of the system to support it.&nbsp;So MCing is not OK unless used to call back old-school race-based class combinations?&nbsp;I don't want to sound pedantic (but I am, so I'm going to in spite of not wanting it), but no DM needs to ban multiclassing in 5e.&nbsp; It's an optional sub-system not 'turned on' by default.&nbsp; A DM must opt-in to multiclassing if his players are to use it.&nbsp; If you don't want Battlemasters or Assasssins or GOO Warlocks in your game, you'd have to ban them.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you don't want EK's in your game, you'd have to ban them - but you don't have to ban GWM or multiclassed fighter/magic-users, because they're opt-in optinal.OK, I feel better having split that hair.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7465078, member: 996"] PrCs were a great idea that was notoriously abused, though maybe to a degree that didn't deserve so much notoriety. Really, you could get just as OP a character as you liked prettymuch out of the PH. Three out of the 4 Tier 1 classes were right there. If your PrC juggling costs you even one caster level in whichever of those classes you're building off of, you've blown it. The concept of PrCs, if they'd been able to stick to it, instead of using it to kludge multi-classing (or just pad out supplements), was actually pretty good. Create a way for a character's 'build' to directly draw him into the setting and events of the campaign. Becoming a Purple Dragon Knight means being involved in the affairs or Cormyr, being or becoming part of it's aristocracy & military. There's a tremendous potential to use a mechanic like that for characterization, story hooks, player buy-in to the campaign, verisimilitude, and so forth. Agreed. You can powergame a character to the nth degree and find it boring, or RP a fantastic concept with inadequate mechanical support and still have some fun in spite of the failure of the system to support it. So MCing is not OK unless used to call back old-school race-based class combinations? I don't want to sound pedantic (but I am, so I'm going to in spite of not wanting it), but no DM needs to ban multiclassing in 5e. It's an optional sub-system not 'turned on' by default. A DM must opt-in to multiclassing if his players are to use it. If you don't want Battlemasters or Assasssins or GOO Warlocks in your game, you'd have to ban them. If you don't want EK's in your game, you'd have to ban them - but you don't have to ban GWM or multiclassed fighter/magic-users, because they're opt-in optinal. OK, I feel better having split that hair. [/QUOTE]

Verification