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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fanboy2000" data-source="post: 1650227" data-attributes="member: 19998">Yummm, food for thought <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=";)" />If I'm going to subscribe to that philosophy, then I'm going to want to take it futher than just PrCs. I'll explain.The reason most PrC class abilities aren't feats is because class abilities, more often than not, are more powerful than feats. Consider, many class abilities are supernatural abilities, (the Church Inquisitor's Learn the Truth ability springs to mind) and feats are generaly extradordanary abilities. Also, Versatile Telekinesis (from Master of the Unseen Hand, CW pg 60) is an example of a class ability that I would not want as a feat, under the current class system.If I'm going to make class abilities feats, then it makes sence to make all class abilities feats. At that point, the generic classes from Unearthed Arcana are the best starting point. Uther wise, you end up with PCs that only take the most powerful feats, (the ones that were previously class abilities) at ever oportunity. And that just makes the problem worse, not better. I do agree that feats should be more common at higher levels, particulary when class features are scarce for the class. If the PrC is specializing a rogue ability, then it shouldn't have full BaB, a good fort save, etc . . .I'm sure there are PrCs that do that, but they shouldn't. If, however the rogue wants to specialize in a figher ability that is not available to the figher class, then it makes sence to multiclass into the PrC advance in BaB quicker and gain a fort save.The trick is to design PrCs for your home game (or chose them from published material) that justify any changes to BaB, HD, and saves thay may have. I don't like this idea. Unfortunitly I don't like it for any reason I can articulate, it's just a matter of taste.I'm confidant that I'm right when I say you'd have that problem under 3e regardless of how PrCs were handled.That is nuts. D&D handles roleplaying just fine. Ok, I'm going to digress here because I think we've hit on a big part of why PrCs are still a contiversial game mechanic. D&D is a game about overcomeing challanges. In order to write rules about overcoming chalanges, chalanges have to be quanified. In D&D, something is a challenge if it uses 20% of a party's resources. Challenges are broken up into smaller taskes that are over come by the d20 roll, roll 1d20+Modifiers and compair it to a targen number, the dificulty class. D&D only needs 3 knids of rules: rules for modifiers, rules for assigning dificulty classes, and rules for designing chalanges. Advice should also be given for tieing chalenges together to make a choherant game.Diffrent people roleplay diffrently. Diffrent groups roleplay diffrently. There are a lot of groups that, even though thay use the same rules I do, I wouln't want to play with them because of roleplaying diffrences. If D&D included roleplaying rules, then fewer people would buy it because it would have rules for roleplaying in ways they don't want to roleplay. When someone says D&D dosen't support roleplaying, what they mean is that is dosen't penelize people for roleplaying in ways they don't like. What people don't like about PrCs is that they don't support the kind of roleplaying they like. The Assasin PrC is a good example, by it's very name, it sugest rules for playing an assasin. As though assasin is a game mechanic rather than a roleplaying desision. Of course, some base classes are like that. How many people have argued that the Bard, Paladin, Ranger, or Druid classes should be PrCs or made from feats chosesn for one of the base classes? I like PrCs, when used right they can add a lot of flavor to a world. PrCs can also help players that better fit the concept they have in mind.</blockquote>

Verification