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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="nameless" data-source="post: 1439386" data-attributes="member: 1543">As GM, I let my players take any PrC they qualify for, presuming I don't veto or alter it on game balance (which I have only done with 3.0 material, especially when porting it to 3.5). I have to run the risk of them making characters that are inappropriate to the game, but the PrC doesn't make that character inappropriate, the concept does.It's a good point, what I meant was that it's conceivable to design a class that represents the same thing an Archmage or Heirophant does, as something that could be taken at level 9 or 10. It would be less powerful at the beginning, but conceptually fits the same niche. I apologize, I wasn't trying to be belligerent or twist your words... I made an assumption. It would make sense to me (and in the games I've played where DMs control PrCs tightly, it has been the case) that not every character gets a PrC as soon as he could qualify for it, and some don't get them at all, or get one that they wouldn't necessarily find the best fit. If the PCs get every prestige class as soon as they want it, then we have no argument - the DM wouldn't be restricting anything at all. Fair enough. In my opinion as a DM, 1 and 2 are the same, since what happens behind the screen doesn't necessarily need structure the same way things in front of it do. I'm not gonna try to tell you that you should allow anyone to take any prestige class if that's not how your game runs. But I completely fail to see how players can "abuse" prestige classes for the purpose of creating the character they want. The only abuse that can exist in this type of game is one in which a character can gain power disproportionate to his level - if the class is abusive, it is always abusive and should be modified or disallowed completely.That's not necessary either. But I'll use an example of a character I just made. A bounty hunter who will become a Justicar from Complete Warrior. I would have taken all the skills required, I'd naturally gain the necessary BAB, and Track just makes sense for the character. But I might never take Skill Focus - Gather Information despite the fact that I am serious about Gather Information as a skill. If I wasn't told that I needed to take that feat, I'd almost certainly take a more useful feat than Skill Focus, possibly the Investigator feat if I wanted to be better at Gather Info than my skill ranks allowed. Unless I was trying to complete the requirements for a PrC, I'd probably never take that skill focus because I don't have a lot of feats to spend on raising my skill level, considering that I am a fighter-type who doesn't have great skills in the first place. So enforcing the requirement of Skill Focus feat for that prestige class (were you to allow it) is definitely a punishment. The character might see other Justicars and wish to become one, but wouldn't be able to figure out that a Skill Focus feat is holding him back. If you as a DM said "sure, Investigator works, congratulations," then you are being reasonable, but not enforcing the requirements. That is what I meant by unfair. Requiring an out of character mechanic to be learned about in character. =D OOC, I know a lot of things about my character and the world that no character will know. In character, there is no way to tell if I have 3 more hit points because I rolled well or because I took toughness.  I don't see it as lame. The character doesn't know if he gains any ability from a feat, from a skill, or from a class. But either way, I am allowed to pick from any class, feat, or skill available to him. My level 18 wizard could take improved critical - greatclub if I really wanted to with no previous explanation. I simply don't see prestige classes as being so special that their OOC properties are unknown to players, especially when they get written on the players sheets. That works for tropes where prestige classes or feats represent an organization, but not when such things happen on their own. Many times the player wants to determine his role on his own, not to do whatever is presented to him. He might like the Knights of Silver Hill, but really dream of taming a pegasus and riding that instead. OOC he wants to take some PrC of that nature, but there's no guarantee that you as DM will give him that chance. Ideally you will, but as long as there is a good faith effort to work together, I don't see why it would be an issue to let the player have all the options on the table instead of 90% in front of him and the 10% behind your screen.</blockquote>

Verification