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="Celebrim" data-source="post: 696319" data-attributes="member: 4937">I don't see 2nd edition kits and 3rd edition prestige classes as closely analagous.The closest thing 3rd edition has to the notion of a 'kit' is the feat.  The 'kit' by and large was a small variance in traits designed to overcome the fact that the 1st and 2nd edition skill system was kludged on, that 2nd edition had no concept of the 'advantage' (or feat), and multiclassing was more difficult.  Granted, there were a small number of 'kits' that gave advantages with no particular disadvantage, but the effect of kits was pretty small and unobtrusive.  But kits have pretty much been obseleted by the more flexible system of taking feats and skills appropriate to the particular variant of character you wish to play.The PrC is most analagous to the 2nd edition concept of the Specialist Priest, and has all the same problems.  Some are poorly designed.  Some are far too powerful.  Most obselete a core class.  They are far too numerous for proper play testing.  They are far too numerous for a DM or game designer to keep track of thier various abilities.  They result in a large number of rules that are very specific to the class and not shared with other classes, which reduces the elegance of the overall design.  The result in the creation of cookie cutter characters which are basically identical to every other character with the same class.  So on and so forth.  At least 2nd edition had the excuse that they were trying to provide flavor for the cleric, as it would stand to reason that clerics should be as diverse as the deities they serve.  To that extent, specialist priests were a rousing success.  But 3rd edition has no such good excuse for PrC's.  All the tools necessary to elimenate them are there.  There is no satisfactory excuse for adding the PrC's to the design given the downside.Finally, I again point out that the system was not designed such that you start out with a level in 'warrior', then take a few levels in 'lancer', then take a few levels in 'knight', and then take a few levels in 'Peer of the Realm'.  The game was designed not for Warrior 1/Lancer 3/Knight 5/Peer of the Realm 2.   If it was, I would expect no class to have more than 5 levels of advancement, and a core list of dozens if not hundreds of classes covering every field of interest - each with its own short list of bonus feats and skills.   The game was designed so that a fighter 11 could by taking feats by either a cavelier or an archer depending on the choices that were made, and there is no particular reason why we need a Fighter 5/Cavalier 6 or a Fighter 5/Archer 6.  Couldn't we do the same thing by simply providing mounted combat and archery feats?   And if we examine the fighter 5/cavalier 6 or fighter 5/archer 6, the first thing we usually note is that they have about 9 'bonus feats' (usually disguised as class abilities) and the fighter has only 6.  Given that the fighter was probably going to specialize in something, how is 'forcing' them to take more of something that they were already going to take a penalty?   How is this balance?PrC's feel so tacked on to the system.  I'm a 1st edition player, and I love 1st edition 'feel', but I never want to go back to 1st edition rules - least of all the need to have a new class with its own rules for each profession (mariner, archer, scout, alchemist, merchant, blacksmith, etc.)</blockquote>

Verification