Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gold Roger" data-source="post: 2819466" data-attributes="member: 33904">For some time now I've been extremely adversial to PrC's. They just never resonated with the rest of 3rd edition to me.I really feel with the PHB2 is moving away from prestige classes.There's no mention of them whatsover, the new base classes are non-synergetic with them. The dragon shaman fills a place many people claim should be PrC and the duskblade actively replaces spellblades and eldritch knights.Affiliations fill the space of moddeling organizations you can join, gain powers from and advance in.Many concepts other books would have tried to approach with a PrC have been put into feats.It promotes alternate class features and often PrC's end up just changing a few class features when it comes down to it.Some feats actively encourage core class PC's (especially fighters), to stay true to their one class.Personally I hope I'm right and feel that would be a good thing.PrC's have stolen the limelight of feats. Currently there are concepts you can only realise with PrC's, but that wouldn't be true if more effort had been put into creating appropiate feats.Instead feats have been the neglected stepchild of D&D for a long time. Every book at a few loveles and useless ones and everyone took the same core ones, even though feats where supposed to be the #1 tool of customisation.Many groups don't even have any chars with base class level after level six anymore.Originally PrC's where a true choice that defined the PC, but not anymore. A paladin that takes a PrC is usually still a paladin, just more specialised (again, shouldn't that be the job of feats?). He will still gain improved smite evil in many cases.Many PrC's give extra stuff for free. The Radiant Servant of Pelor is a prominent example, as are most arcane full caster progression classes, which have sorcerers only sacrifice some familiar progression (or not even that-see alienist).Another of my gripes with PrC's is that they demand you to be at least mid level to fill a certain role, even if that role should be quite common for members of that class. Level 7 plus charakters aren't really that plentyful by standart D&D demographics and far rarer by many homebrew demographics.Want to be a normal guildmage? Come back at level 6. Yeah, we got 30 members in this city, why do you ask?Want to be a traditional shaman of your people? Those are all level 7 or more, even old Horsefoot over there, who never left his peacefull cave, and for some reason they where all normal generic clerics before. There's aren't even all of my problems, but I don't want to drop even more into ranting than I already am.One could claim that PrC's are balanced by their prequisites, but those play into the specialty of the PrC anyway and are often out of line with the PrC's power level.One could claim PrC's promote in-game bound advancement by being bound to special training and organisation. But how many DMs really play that out to any noticable amount? How many of the DMs and players that do play it out wouldn't be ready to do the same for feats?One could claim that PrC's can offer abilities that would be overpowered as feats, thanks to level-based progression.But feats can have prequisites as balancing features as well.The PHB2 has proven to me that feats can provide huge advantages and still be balanced (weapon supremacy. I don't think it will break any game, but imagine it was the level ten ability of a PrC).Further, many of these abilities could be broken down into into multiple feats.PrC's are there to offer greater option? Well so are feats. In fact I feel that many PrC's will reduce my options. I want to be a good archer, but stay a ranger, so it's true to my PC's style of a rugged wilderness lover?Won't happen.You have to take the uberarcher PrC and sacrifice your wilderness abilities. Oh, and you will have to follow a certain flavor for that, and you'll also have to take PrC feature b and d, even though they don't fit your character concept and you only really want feature a and d.But feat slots are precious few and the choice is already so hard people will say.I don't think the choice would be so hard if you had more clear choices. I want to do a strong firemage PC you will take the strong firemage PrC and then agonize over the same feats standart mages agonize.But if I told you there's no PrC for firemages, but a bunch of strong feats for firemages? Not so much of a contest then, eh?That would especially help newer players and not so rules happy players.If one of those comes to his DM and wants to play a weather mage, the DM first has to explain PrC's. Then he has to explain why he has to take a ordinary mage for five levels before he can have the char he wants. Then he's given that big list of feats he has no grasp of and will end up making suboptimal choices that propably don't even fit his concept.With a bunch of appropiate feats the DM could just say, yeah, take a druid and those feats and you're all set to be the disciple of a old school of weather invokers.Feats are few, that's true. But the character should make choices. Only a character known for his qickness of actions really should take improved initiative and only a weaponmaster fighter should have all the wepon focus and specialisation feats.I'm not angry that PrC's have defected from their original intend. Most things will go from their original intend. But while they will sometimes take things into a new and exiting direction, they will sometimes just devolve.I think PC's are slowly running themself dead and it's time to step in and change the games direction.So, am I all alone on this position? Are there any points of PrC grandness I didn't see? Is my argumentation flawed? Am I just rambling and hoping on a change that won't happen? Or am I on to something?I'll be happy to discuss this.</blockquote>

Verification