Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7802339" data-attributes="member: 996">PrCs were used too often in 3.x as kludges.  Bundles of mechanics meant to elevate a dismal class or class combination to viability - or, layer system-mastery rewards upon already OP options.  Not that 5e couldn't use a kludge here or there, but the real potential of PrCs is as a way of connecting the player & setting through the character.Certain sub-classes - the Cormyr-specific PDK stands out this way, IMHO - are pretty poor as sub-classes, but would make ideal PrCs.It'd be nice if WotC could investigate the desirability of PrCs as the latter, separate from any stigma they acquired for being the former in the 3e RAW-uber-alles system-mastery era.The key to seeing that potential develop would be not just in making them optional (MCing is already optional, so it's a given), but it keeping them a DM opt-in, setting-based tool.  A PrC should tie into local color - to history, organizations, unique setting considerations of whatever kind.  DMs should get PrC design tools in a more generic supplement, as well as a selection of setting-specific PrC in world books & APs.Edit:  To put it another way:  a PrC could be something like a background you acquire in play.  It needn't give you unique mechanical benefits, though it might give you a unique combination of such, it probably /should/ give you social/interaction and plot benefits, in ways that tie in to it's place in the setting and acquisition - from membership in a group, reputation, secret knowledge, etc...</blockquote>

Verification