Tell Wizards your opinions of the new Prestige Class format!

[JoeGKushner]

I'm of two minds.

On one hand, it takes up a lot of space. The Scar enforcers from Races of Destiny for example, takes up like what, seven pages?

On the other, it's great for all those demanding more 'fluff' and background details.

The only problem I have with it, is I've seen too many people complain that it's not the 'fluff' they want and that they just don't want new mechanics, PrCs, feats, etc... in the first place.

 

[satori01]

I like the Knowledge check section re information for the PrC. Even if I change the information presented, it is a good way to remind DMs that organizations exsit, and a well placed rumor about the perpatrator of a theft, or the strange lore of a group, is a good way to provide a player with the motivation to research a PrC.

 

[Driddle]

Gee... If they REALLY wanted comments on it, they might have posted a copy... I haven't seen the new format, so I can't really opine upon it...

I guess they just don't care about your opinion.

Life sucks.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

As a player, I'm torn about the new format - I prefer PrCs to be convenient packages of abilities rather than specific organizations, but as a mere suggestion, the new format provides very interesting tidbits.
30% favorable

As a GM, I'm torn about the new format - I prefer organizations to be completely independent of a metagame concept like classes, but I find the sample organizations a source of many great ideas. I also like the adaptation section.
60% favorable

As a writer, I'm bloody thrilled about the new format - I prefer high word counts of fun-to-write fluffy goodness to pad my pocketbook!
200% favorable!

I'm in favor on two out of three counts, and the last is the most important.

 

[d20Dwarf]

From a designer's perspective, I prefer writing PrCs in this new format. It's more work, but it really helps sharpen the concept and makes each more playable and interesting.

 

[Mouseferatu]

From a designer's perspective, I prefer writing PrCs in this new format. It's more work, but it really helps sharpen the concept and makes each more playable and interesting.

What he said.

(Though if you ask me again in the middle of actually writing one, I may claim to prefer the old format out of sheer frustration. )

 

[Henry]

I LIKE IT!

Gives plenty of ways in which a PrC can be added into a campaign, which is one stumbling block for me. When I see a PrC, I don't think, "how can I add this?" unless I really like the mechanics. Instead, they sell the PrC to you, which is what they should be doing, instead of just dropping it in your lap like a carton of used eggshells and saying, "here."

From a designer's standpoint, it also has the feature of higher word count, which has its practical applications in terms of keeping Ari and Will gainfully employed in the business instead of out doing non-gaming material.

 

[Staffan]

I like the new format, but I wish they'd stop wasting space on NPCs and encounters. Organizations, lore, how to use it in a campaign - great, but don't give me NPC statblocks and that crap. If you feel the need to show the DM how to use the PrC, put that kind of stuff in a web enhancement or something like that, or at least somewhere where the player looking through the book for nifty PrC abilities won't see it.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Here's what I posted on WotC's boards...

What I like is that the new PrCs aren't just crunch. There's good info in there on using them within people's campaigns. This is great in that it gives ideas for gamers, and it may show how a so-so PrC could potentially be more useful.

Keep up the good work. It's good to see this trend.

 

[TroyXavier]

It's pretty good but they could keep it down to four pages I think without hurting it too much. Also I agree with anyone who says that things like Sneak Attack and Lay on Hands don't need to be redefined. Also if an ability comes in the book, it should just reference to the previous page.