Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 2090512" data-attributes="member: 2205">Not grasping?  That's a bit harsh, when your interpretation is not based on any comments (that I'm aware of) of any of the game designers.  Whether or not they do in fact function in that regard is also beside the point; more pertinent is the question of whether or not they serve a useful function in the game, and whether or not they are the best mechanic to serve that function.If Prestige classes are a carrot, they are an unnecessary one (Your Honor, may I present Exhibit A, which includes all past editions of the game and all other non-d20 RPGs.)  In fact, it's a frustrating one at that, which means it's a poor carrot, not a helpful one.  As bad as kits were in practice, at least they let you play a narrower concept right from the get-go.  You didn't have this nonsense of "I want to play an assassin, so I have to play 5 (or whatever it is) levels of rogue first and then --and only then-- I can actually have mechanics that support me in my character concept.It seems to me that there is a strange dichotomy of two competing strategies in the game design.  The first strategy is the "make everyone play generic classes, then graduate into specifics."  The problem with this strategy is that it sucks; (and I know I'm exaggerating here) you can't actually play anything interesting right off the bat.  Meanwhile, there are a few narrower classes in the core lineup after all, showing the strategy #2 of trying to make more interesting, themed classes, ala the Ranger, the Paladin, the Barbarian, etc.  The problem isn't that they exist in the same world as the more generic rogue, fighter, etc.; the problem is that there aren't enough of them, and the designers interpretation of the archetype is questionable given the player base's expectations (Exhibit B: the constant calls for revised Rangers because the 3e Ranger was so (relatively) unpopular as formulated.)In my opinion, the solution isn't to cling to solution #1 and get rid of the Ranger and Paladin (as someone suggested above) because then folks are stuck playing generic concepts that aren't nearly as interesting, and can only start really playing their concept --at least supported by mechanics, anyway-- until they qualify for the prestige class.  The solution is to expand the range of more narrowly focused themed core classes so folks can have a wider selection of concepts that they can play right away.And whether or not my little analysis of game design strategy here is right or not, that's exactly what WotC has been doing with the Complete books, and others.  We've had tons of new 20-level base classes, and the concept, it seems, (if not always the specific classes themselves) have been widely accepted.</blockquote>

Verification