Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mhacdebhandia" data-source="post: 1708561" data-attributes="member: 18832">So? The core rules don't contain tactical feats, do they? Yet the idea of a &quot;feat&quot; is wider than the game originally provided for. Why should the idea of a &quot;prestige class&quot; be any different?My whole point is that people who think prestige classes should be one small kind of thing with no variation are, well, narrow-minded. They're useful for multiple applications, including &quot;advanced classes&quot; if that's what a group wants to use them for.This, along with your nonsensical example of a badly-designed weapon, reveal what I consider the flaw in your thinking:These prestige classes which you so adamantly criticise are not actually as powerful as you seem to think - and when they are, it's usually an accident of bad design, at least as far as I can tell.It's extremely foolish for people to assume that Wizards are actually catering to power-gamers - if you don't believe me, go and look at the &quot;Character Optimisation&quot; forum in the Wizards of the Coast message boards. I guarantee that you will be educated as to the contempt in which most of these people - dedicated min-maxing number-crunchers, exactly the kind of person that comes to mind when most people think of a power-gamer - hold most of the prestige classes that come out in Wizards products.Hell, if Wizards treat prestige classes like powered-up &quot;advanced classes&quot;, why the Hell do they publish prestige classes for spellcasters without full spellcasting progression? I guarantee that 90% of such classes will be met with scorn by power-gamers - and that there aren't more than a handful left which you could even get half the power-gamers around to agree are worth giving up spellcasting for.It's absolutely fair for you to hold a narrow opinion of what prestige classes should be, or to wish that Wizards and other game companies published less mechanics and more flavour. But try to hew closer to reality when you do so, man.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mhacdebhandia, post: 1708561, member: 18832"] So? The core rules don't contain tactical feats, do they? Yet the idea of a "feat" is wider than the game originally provided for. Why should the idea of a "prestige class" be any different? My whole point is that people who think prestige classes [b]should[/b] be one small kind of thing with no variation are, well, narrow-minded. They're useful for multiple applications, including "advanced classes" if that's what a group wants to use them for. This, along with your nonsensical example of a badly-designed weapon, reveal what I consider the flaw in your thinking: These prestige classes which you so adamantly criticise are [b]not actually as powerful as you seem to think[/b] - and when they [b]are[/b], it's usually an accident of bad design, at least as far as I can tell. It's extremely foolish for people to assume that Wizards are actually catering to power-gamers - if you don't believe me, go and look at the "Character Optimisation" forum in the Wizards of the Coast message boards. I guarantee that you will be educated as to the contempt in which most of these people - dedicated min-maxing number-crunchers, exactly the kind of person that comes to mind when most people think of a power-gamer - hold most of the prestige classes that come out in Wizards products. Hell, if Wizards treat prestige classes like powered-up "advanced classes", why the Hell do they publish prestige classes for spellcasters without full spellcasting progression? I guarantee that 90% of such classes will be met with scorn by power-gamers - and that there aren't more than a handful left which you could even get half the power-gamers around to agree are worth giving up spellcasting for. It's absolutely fair for you to hold a narrow opinion of what prestige classes should be, or to wish that Wizards and other game companies published less mechanics and more flavour. But try to hew closer to reality when you do so, man. [/QUOTE]

Verification