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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mkletch" data-source="post: 480641" data-attributes="member: 3396">And I disagree with that.  It is obvious from postings and articles by Monte Cook that the original intent was that PrC = organization.  WotC destroyed this all on their own, so there is nobody to 'blame'.  What we have (in official books) is a combination of organizations and 'stand-alone' characters.I as a DM am leaning more toward organizations and away from stand-alones, to flesh out my world and put some meaning into the organizations that do exist.  Why bother with the strictures and structures of an organization if you can just go off and Tempest all by your little lonesome?  If the players want their characters to simply wander all over the world doing good deeds or whatever, then that is what core classes are for, and their are enough of these to make things happen.  That 'career path' does not really allow you to specialize or discover previously hidden knowledge.  My Fighter 6/ Diviner 1/ Arcane Archer 11/ Order of the Bow Initiate 4 does not make a lot of sense as the 'wandering guy' adventurer that he was/is, but could have made more sense if part of an organization that gave/taught him all of his wacky PrC abilities.All that said, I have considered adding a tome or two to my new campaign that would let a PC learn a 'long forgotten' PrC as levels were gained.  That would be a way around the organization bit, though not as 'loose' as some players would like.  But the whole idea is flavor not DM-control (though I as a DM do try to enforce the 'flavor' of a campaign via the rules).-Fletch!</blockquote>

Verification