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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6728321" data-attributes="member: 1465">I would prefer they use PrCls only for character concepts that are supposed to be applicable to more or less all base classes. The Runecaster first PrCl example follows this idea, as it is meant to work for everybody, spellcaster or not.Because of this, I think specialty priests PrCls would be good only if they don't require you to be a Cleric. If everybody can become a Sworddancer or Dweomerkeeper, then they can be great PrCls. If they are supposed to be Cleric-only, then I think substitution levels will be much better.I played an Incantatrix for almost 2 years in a City of the Spider Queen campaign, and it was one of my favourite characters. But honestly it felt more like a fix/boost for the Sorcerer, which was the only class to be nerfed by 3.5 while everybody else was beefed up. And I think it will be a bad idea to let non-Sorcerers gain access to metamagic in 5e. To the contrary, I would want more metamagic options for the Sorcerer to be designed.Loremasters as in the original 3e DMG are a bad idea as a PrCl, unless you can really design something unique about them. But the original PrCl had almost nothing of its own. Bonus feats and skill proficiencies are opposite of 'prestigious'. Really, you can't design a PrCl in 5e that just gives you 'more' of something you can get anyway from the basic rules. It will be a huge waste of design effort, and can only be exploited or ignored. And if you don't find more than 2-3 unique abilities to represent a concept, then you should totally avoid the PrCl mechanic and just do it with feats.</blockquote>

Verification