Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Silam" data-source="post: 9889022" data-attributes="member: 7055898">In some ways 3e was easier than 5e, but in most ways it was equivalent or harder in complexity. Regardless, I definitely wouldn’t say 3e succeeded at attaining the "easy to learn, hard to master" motto (at least not the first half <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😅" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f605.png" title="Grinning face with sweat    :sweat_smile:" data-shortname=":sweat_smile:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /> …). So saying that motto is not a good guiding pricinple is like saying neither communism nor capitalism work because both the Soviets and the Gringos are corrupt. They are, sure, but that is not a definitive indictment of either system, just flawed implementation.I feel like this is devolving into minutiae and not really convincing… but just to acknowledge the argument in earnest and go along with it, I would say that 3e had very few, if any, PrC with such low requirements that you could get them before 5th level anyway, so a PrC would not be replacing your 5th level features from a core class (unless you wanted to, by excessively diluting your early levels via lots of multiclassing…). So I’m not sure where the argument is coming from…?</blockquote>