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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nyaricus" data-source="post: 3261637" data-attributes="member: 35678">I would hardly say that the gaming community has turned on PrCs; personally I am not only a big advocate for the base classes I put forward (and am infact working on various versions of for my games) but I'm also a huge fan of PrCs.However, allow me to adress the rest of your statement about base classes and PrCs before I get ahead of myself <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Herein lies the problem: while you can, absolutely, without a doubt make almost any character concept you wish with the rules as stands, Prestigue Classes are frankly abused nowadays with the mindset you put forth as a solution to the proliferation of base classes.Allow me to explain: PrCs, IMHO, should be special classes which fill a special niche in the game. They should be pretigous (sp?), highly focused and advanced verions of base classes, not simply vessels for a player to make the exact character he wants.On the other hand, with base classes, there should be enough of them to properly cover any basic character concept out there, and currently there are a few missing (of need work on) as you and we can see, in the opinion of the respondants to this thread (barring yourself, of course).My point is that there are several concepts which could use an evisioning in D&D that we have not yet seen (or, say, in the case of an Assassin/Cut-throat base class, have not seen for an edition and a half <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />). And while I do say that with the 70 or so base classes that we are at right now with only WotC products, we are more than well served, there are still a few ones which I, and other feel a need to see published - and likely WotC is listening to us, if on a small scale (my apollogy for throwing names around, but Cam Banks for example is a 3.5e DragonLance writer, who has posted in this very thread).Absolutely! There were plenty of great ideas in those books, and WotC really flexed their creative muscles with them and helped stretch the boundaries of 3.xe once again - which was great. This is a good thing, to be sure, and I think that we can expect that trend to continue in future products.... which are based upon steriotypes and archetypes hundreds if not thousands of years old. You are really streching a thin point using that arguement, in my opinion.cheers,--NP.S. Vyvyan Basterd, I'll take a peak at your class there. I used to be a regular in HR, and I have a pretty firm grasp fo the rules, so I'd be delighted to take a peek <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=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification