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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MonkeyBoy" data-source="post: 480599" data-attributes="member: 1229">IMO a PrC should encapsulate a character concept (stereotype, if you like).The requirements for entry should all be related to that stereotype. As such they should be things that any sensible person aiming at becoming that stereotype would at least have contemplated taking anyway. Therefore I personally view any PrC which has "punitive" requirements as being badly written from the beginning.In short; a PrC with a good concept, executed well, should NOT be using pre-reqs as a cost to entry. They should form part of the logical flow of creating the character to grow into the concept the PrC defines.It flows from that underlying philosophy that while I believe that the power of a PrC should be different to that of a core class, it should not be simply stronger than any core class. Ergo; any PrC which can be summed up as "like an X, but with Y as well" is overpowered. Good PrCs IMO, can be summed up either as "like an X, but with Y instead of Z" or "Like a mix of X and Y, dropping P from X and Q from Z". Most of the well-written fighter type PrCs are like this; they come accross as fighters that have pushed all their bonus feats into a certain path, including (in some cases) abilities that aren't on the normal feat list...I agree with Wulf, I think; PrCs should NOT have setting details in them. They are rules, and I want to be able to use them in MY setting as easily as possible, without needing to shove a specific organisation into it.I also dislike race-specific PrCs - what is so "elven" about imbuing arrows with magic?</blockquote>

Verification