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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Furn_Darkside" data-source="post: 244271" data-attributes="member: 210">Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PrCsSalutations,ahh, yeah, I forgot about that. That would be pretty cheap. If I was to allow the PrC, then that feat would definitly be gone. I don't see much use for that feat other then to get into this PrC. I would agree with part of your premise- the requirements should match the power level in the PrC. However, beyond the requirements.. I don't agree there should be a trade off system of class aspects.  It all depends on the PrC.. err.. I went over this already.. I won't bore everyone with a repeat. Hmm. I would agree with that. The best part about the more open PrC's is that they allow for interesting combinations- like a cleric taking OotBI. And of course, some just beg to be more specific. The holy griffen riders of Oldib- a specialized paladin order.. should only be open to paladins. Even under the best of situations- and all the WOTC PrC's were perfect in design, the DM judgement call would still be needed.I could not imagine allowing all the WOTC PrC's (or feats), and even more so when adding whatever Forgotten Realms has to offer.Why?  Things become chaotic when you have so many sources of power/prestige- and any sense of any "realistic" game is going to go out the window.I don't understand why you compare allowing a PrC to gambling.  I think one can look over most PrC's and get a feel for what is to come.What if you are wrong? Well, I always have the ability to discuss with my group when I make a mistake and come to an agreement with them to fix the situation.PrC's are a pretty open tool- and I am glad they are. As a dm, i would rather do a little work and have a say.. then have no say and do a lot of work.FD</blockquote>

Verification