Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CRGreathouse" data-source="post: 697927" data-attributes="member: 474">I agree with what you've said here -- both the PrC design issues ("Gee, there are some archery things that no class can do.  I want archers in my game.  Should I create an archer class?") and the determination that feats would generally be better than PrCs for this particular end.I think you misunderstand Ranger REG.  The theoretical archer PrC should be a better archer than the fighter, or no one will take it.  It doesn't have to be better at fighting in general, though!That may well have been the idea, but it fell flat on its face.  Have you ever, for example, seen the Blade kit (Complete Bard's Handbook)?  It loses one minor ability, in return for a slew of benefits.  In fact, it was generally better in combat than the fighter, not counting the spells and faster advancement!This is absolutely not true.  Prestige classes were originally designed to allow characters to specialize -- they would become better in one area at the expense of others.  The shadowdancer, for example, can hide in plain sight and shadow jump, but loses skill points and sneak attack (as well as the flexibility of rogue abilities).Now that PrCs have branched out, some are designed unabashedly to give characters more power.  These are for class combinations / archetypes which are not notmally viable under standard D&D.  For example: bladesinger, geomancer, and arcane trickster.  Normally, these multiclasses are extremely weak, discouraging players with these ideas to give them up for a class they didn't really want to play but which is more powerful.  These bring back the option, which is a good thing.  (How well these classes succeeded is another issue, but the core idea is a good one.)This is baseless.  A fighter who wants to take 10 levels of dwarven defender must take three suboptimal feats (Toughness, Endurance, and Dodge) and lose 5 bonus feats.  In exchange, he gets DR, defensive awareness, and a weakened version of rage.  How is this "no significant disadvantage"?A sorcerer who wants to become a loremaster (10th level) must use a significant number of precious spell slots on divinations and burn 30 skill points into Knowledge, as well as Skill Focus that he wouldn't likely take on his own.  (The class also requires 3 metamagic/itenm creation feats, and doesn't grant familiar advancement.)  In exchange, he gets 20 skill points (which almost make up for the 30), several secrets, the bardic knowledge of a bard about 7 levels lower, and a few miscellaneous abilities (4 free ranks in a skill, etc.).  How is this "no significant disadvantage"?The arcane archer requires a weak multiclass and drops 5 bonus feats, in exchange for a permanant self-only GMW and some cool magic tricks with the bow (phase arrow 1/day, et. al.).  How is this "no significant disadvantage"?Are there poorly-designed prestige classes?  Yes, certainly.  Are all or "90%" poorly done as Celibrim thinks?  No, that's absurd.  How about this: I'll make a list of WotC prestige classes, and you mark which ones you think are 'broken', and then we can talk.</blockquote>

Verification