NO character concept what so ever, ahhh the freedom.

[jmucchiello]

I like these a lot. Though you could take it a step father. Place prereqs on every 4th level of the PrC and you either have to meet the prereques or be minimum level that forces 1 level in another class to take another level in the PrC.

Well that is sort of what I was talking about with the 5/5 split. I suppose I could just make two 5 level PrCs with different requirements, the high level one requiring some specific in the low level one.

I see one problem with this. What about classes and PrCs that don't allow you to take levels in any other class i.e. Monk, Warpriest, etc.

Those limitations are flavor limitations, not balance limitations. I find them bogus and cumbersome. Are you saying that a monk whose deity is the god of magic cannot multiclass freely with wizard? Shouldn't all monks be able to freely MC with cleric or druid? Why can't a warpriest take a level in fighter or cleric? Can't you prepare for war as a fighter? But then, the whole warpriest PrC makes no sense. They should have just dedicated the warpriest to a war deity and saved us from the idea of "constant war".

 

[Kai Lord]

This is why I see ''character path'' as an abuse of the system.

As Dumbledore said, "It isn't our abilities that make us who we are, but our choices."

Almost EVERYBODY, in real life and fiction, has some goal for who they want to be, and it isn't "oh just whatever I am after years of random events being thrown at me".

Character paths are natural, make sense, and allow for Players to choose which character concept they want to play, as opposed to just having a veteran of Module X,Y, and Z.

When an event occurs that changes the direction of the character, just modify the path and go from there.

 

[Shallown]

I find running Prc's to be different for each GM. I have played in games where the roll playing was minimal as far as getting a Prc which is quite different than how I do it.

I seperate the mechanics and the roleplaying. I had a Character that took a level of blade singer before he ever joined the organization. His character had worked toward being one for several years. He had seen one in a huge battle/war and was impressed with his skill/dedication and atitude. He had strove to be one since level 0 (he started out as a 1st bard/fighter a bendingof the rules but I allowed it to fit the concept). Mechanics wise he was a 1st level bladesinger having met all the mechanical requirements including Still spell a feat he never used but one he roleplayed learning). Now role play wise if he ever called himself a bladesinger before he had officially been accepted by them they would have torn him a new one regardless of his abilities.

It all flowed together. I find requiring a one level warning to switch classes to be useful. The players can advance in classes they have without me worrying about it. If they want something new I have to know ahead to work in the roleplaying aspect. I have a rogue/fighter 6/2 mechanics wise in the group but he is nothing more roleplaying wise than a rogue. His increased fighting ability and feats are not that big a deal compared to what he does.

I think this is a problem/contention that is solved by divesting mechanics and roleplaying from each other in almost all areas that can be done realisticly but especially in classes and Prc's.

later

 

[aurin777]

I like your PC and your lack of powergaming ethic. It seems that the people I end up playing with always seem to know what feat they are going to be taking at 15th level, and you can't even decide what you're taking for your third feat. I tried this similarly, as well, recently. I came up with a character concept and how I wanted the character to be, and all of the statistics came secondary. He's now a shaman 1/psion 1, and he's so close to third level I think I'm going to take a level of druid. I don't need to focus on one thing, and I like not having to think "Okay, I'll take combat expertise so in 4 more levels I can be a holy liberator" or whatever.
~~Brandon