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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Terath Ninir" data-source="post: 3242097" data-attributes="member: 47">TANSTAAFL comes from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein.  I could be a Heinlein scholar if I had any desire to be such.  <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=":)" />The problem with statements of what prestige classes *should* be is that all of them, if you use the right evidence, are *true*.  Game design at WotC has been run by numerous different people during 3e and even at a single time, different designers have had different ideas of what a PrC should be.Some designers clearly follow the specialist ideal -- you give up something to get something else.  The mystic theurge would fit in that category; you get a hella lot of spells, but the hp, BAB, and turn undead hit for your cleric abilities is no small sacrifice.Others clearly follow the organization model, especially in Forgotten Realms supplements.  If you want to use the Harper classes in another setting, you're going to have to put in the Harper organization or something like it.And, though it's a smaller section in 3.5 than it was in 3.0, there's the set of designers that clearly see PrC as I do -- as wahoo power ups.  The Radiant Munchkin of Pelor is solidly in that category -- you get everything a cleric does, at the sacrifice of (on average) 1 hp per level.So you can find evidence to support any view of PrC, and they're all right, since so many people are involved in designing them, even in just the WotC materials.</blockquote>

Verification