Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 7043919" data-attributes="member: 1465">I don't feel a strong need for PrCls, but I would have no problems with them.Their main usefulness would be to represent progressions of special abilities that are supposed to be available to all classes.Subclasses can represent progressions, but only for a single class.Feats are available to all, but they don't represent progressions.Feat chains can represent progressions and be available to all, but will be largely spaced in terms of level.So overall PrCls can be useful in 5e to open up new mechanical and concept opportunities (but the Runecaster in UA was a bad example, because it could be much more easily be implemented as 1-2 feats).I think the fear of PrCls is irrational (in fact, if they published PrCls in 5e with a different name such as &quot;kits&quot; or &quot;themes&quot;, many PrCls-haters will probably go like &quot;woot! kits are back!&quot; or &quot;these new themes-thing are great&quot;). It was not the mechanic of PrCls that damaged 3e, it was the publishers decision to fill the market with thousands of them to milk the cows (how many of those who cry today against PrCls, were the same people that kept asking for more PrCls in the 3e era?). That just cannot happen in 5e with the ultra-slim publishing scheme.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 7043919, member: 1465"] I don't feel a strong need for PrCls, but I would have no problems with them. Their main usefulness would be to represent [I]progressions[/I] of special abilities that are supposed to be available to all classes. Subclasses can represent progressions, but only for a single class. Feats are available to all, but they don't represent progressions. Feat chains can represent progressions and be available to all, but will be largely spaced in terms of level. So overall PrCls can be useful in 5e to open up new mechanical and concept opportunities (but the Runecaster in UA was a bad example, because it could be much more easily be implemented as 1-2 feats). I think the fear of PrCls is irrational (in fact, if they published PrCls in 5e with a different name such as "kits" or "themes", many PrCls-haters will probably go like "woot! kits are back!" or "these new themes-thing are great"). It was not the mechanic of PrCls that damaged 3e, it was the publishers decision to fill the market with thousands of them to milk the cows (how many of those who cry today against PrCls, were the same people that kept asking for more PrCls in the 3e era?). That just cannot happen in 5e with the ultra-slim publishing scheme. [/QUOTE]

Verification