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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ruleslawyer" data-source="post: 1849104" data-attributes="member: 1757">Coupla things:First off, I completely agree with Psion on this issue. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Second,Except, of course, that this is already how PrCs like the loremaster and archmage, and in fact almost all the caster PrCs, work. You give up a burn feat or two, some bonus metamagic feats, and familiar progression for the class benefits. I don't see the difference between this and the PrC concept as is.I sorta disagree with this, though I entirely agree with this sentiment:The entire point is that things like skill ranks, feats, and alignment DO have an in-game character of sorts. Toughness represents the fact that your character is, well, tougher. 5 ranks in a skill represents time invested in learning the skill. Alignment? Race? Those are pretty important for a class like Dwarven Defender, unless you change the flavor of the PrC entirely. The thing that I have a problem with is that the requirements-based nature of PrCs means that players have to plan their PCs along a particular path from Day One, which I think is pretty ridiculous. Do you focus on Hide and Jump in order to join the ranks of the Shadowdancers, a bunch of folk you may never have heard of? Do you pick up Endurance because you're a dwarf and you know abou this neat technique called "defensive stance"? It seems a bit weird to me, and I wonder if there's an alternative means of dealing with it beyond fudging the requirements on a case-by-case basis.</blockquote>

Verification