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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6842089" data-attributes="member: 37579">Starting with the PHB numbers is flawed. Because not everyone with a PHB would play using a Prestige Class (since there were no PrC in the PHB). You have to use the number of copies of the splatbook being sold, which could be as low as 50k. From there, not every player wants to take a Prestige Class. Some are happy with their class features or multiclassing. But we'll say that's a minority. 25%. But that reduces the number of people who might use a PrC from that splatbook to 18,750makes it to high level (10+) where they'll be able to really take a level of a PrC. We'll say 75% do, knocking the number down to 14,062 potential people. Of those of the right level, the vast majority will be playing characters unsuited for a given PrC. We'll keep in simple and say the four major archetypes (priest, warrior, rogue, mage). So the pool is now 3,516 people. Rounding up. That's still a fair number of potential players. Of course, they also have all the other prestige classes competing for attention. And even if the PrC is from a new, shiny book, an existing character may not meet the pre-reqs or already have been planning on taking a different class from an earlier book.With 600 PrC out there (reduced by 1/4 because of role) the characters of those 3.516 people are each drawing from 150 classes. Assuming even distribution, that's 23 people per class. But if one of the classes has odd pre-reqs or is underpowered (or another comparable class is better, overpowered, or has lighter pre-reqs) then that changes things. That could easily push people away from a prestige class. Add in organized play, like Living Greyhawk, where certain options were Closed (or NONC) and that takes a chunk of those potential plays off the table. It's very believable that a few Prestige Classes, feats, and spells were never really used. Especially ones that came out late in the edition. Isn't that just a big ol' variant of the Oberoni or Rule 0 Fallacy? The rules of a game aren't flawed because they can be ignored, or one or more "house rules" can be made as exceptions. Or, as you're arguing, content doesn't need to be balanced because the DM can control the balance. I think it's safe for game designers to assume that DMs don't want to put out fires at their game table and work around problematic options. That DMs don't want to have to nerf options and make hard one-sided rulings to keep PCs in check.</blockquote>

Verification