Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 6399967" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya.&nbsp; Well, [MENTION=40166]prosfilaes[/MENTION] and [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION], I don't think the DM handled it correctly then. The player should give the DM a rough outline of his characters current goals. If/when they change, the player needs to inform the DM. It is the DM's job to keep notes on this kind of thing (nobody said DM'ing is easy...contrary to popular 3.x/PF/4e belief, the DM needs to do a LOT of behind the scenes prep to keep a well run and interesting campaign...just flinging dice for monsters is simply not going to cut it).&nbsp; As for &quot;teachers and training&quot;, that seems to be a DM fault. In the example GMforPowergamers gave, everyone at the table agreed to something (teacher/special training), and then added what I can only see as being convoluted or extensive rules for 'time spent in training'. Obviously they didn't work for that game (or the next)...but the old saying &quot;dont' throw the baby out with the bathwater&quot; comes to mind. Maybe a reduction in the mechanical rules would have sufficed. Maybe letting this &quot;training&quot; happen in the background would have done it. There are a lot of different ways it could have been changed that may have kept with the players and DM's idea of what it should take (story/campaign wise) to join a PrC.&nbsp; But no matter what direction WotC decides to go in this I just hope to all the gods that they don't attempt to use &quot;Three NEW Prestige Classes!&quot; as a primary selling point for every firk dang book they put out! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f621.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt="&gt;:(" title="Mad&nbsp; &nbsp; &gt;:("&nbsp; data-smilie="4"data-shortname="&gt;:(" />PS: Just an aside for my preferred way of handling PrC's....any optional rules in the core books should not play a part in any PrC requierments (yes, Feats, I'm looking at you!).^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pming, post: 6399967, member: 45197"] Hiya. Well, [MENTION=40166]prosfilaes[/MENTION] and [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION], I don't think the DM handled it correctly then. The player should give the DM a rough outline of his characters current goals. If/when they change, the player needs to inform the DM. It is the DM's job to keep notes on this kind of thing (nobody said DM'ing is easy...contrary to popular 3.x/PF/4e belief, the DM needs to do a LOT of behind the scenes prep to keep a well run and interesting campaign...just flinging dice for monsters is simply not going to cut it). As for "teachers and training", that seems to be a DM fault. In the example GMforPowergamers gave, everyone at the table agreed to something (teacher/special training), and then added what I can only see as being convoluted or extensive rules for 'time spent in training'. Obviously they didn't work for that game (or the next)...but the old saying "dont' throw the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind. Maybe a reduction in the mechanical rules would have sufficed. Maybe letting this "training" happen in the background would have done it. There are a lot of different ways it could have been changed that may have kept with the players and DM's idea of what it should take (story/campaign wise) to join a PrC. But no matter what direction WotC decides to go in this I just hope to all the gods that they don't attempt to use "[I]Three [B]NEW [/B]Prestige Classes![/I]" as a primary selling point for every firk dang book they put out! >:( PS: Just an aside for my preferred way of handling PrC's....any optional rules in the core books should not play a part in any PrC requierments (yes, [I]Feats[/I], I'm looking at you!). ^_^ Paul L. Ming [/QUOTE]

Verification