NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6759420" data-attributes="member: 996">I think that's a pretty weak argument (sub-classes are only available to the one class, while PrCs might be available to many), but, OK, for the sake of an example...Was there an anti-3e edition war?  Sorta:  there was some unwarranted criticism from grognards but it never rose to that level of vitriol.Are you're recycling anti-PrC rhetoric from that sub-edition-war-level grognardism?  Not any that I recall off hand.  Would that be opposing something that others want and that you'd be under no obligation to use, yourself, that happened to be in only one prior edition?  Yep.  So even though there were never Hat3rs or a full-on anti-3e edition war, you would be missing the point of 5e inclusiveness in doing that.  Hypothetically. 'Not need' and 'oppose' are two different things.  I could see psionics working as a couple of sub-classes, you needed a full class.  I didn't campaign against what you wanted.  But, yes, execution does matter.  The more different things people want/need/fear from a concept, the more flexible it has to be in execution, so that it can cover what people want from it - and allow people who don't want specific things to choose alternatives to those things.Edit:  Seriously, PrCs are an awesome 3e-era concept that could work very well in 5e (when MCing is already in use), and it's hard to imagine anything being more opt-in optional than a setting-tied, RP-prerequisite, MC option.  </blockquote>

Verification