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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 481821" data-attributes="member: 4937">But my point is that we don't need PrC's for either.  Basic classes already may choose to become task specialists and in point of fact, many usually do.  Rogues have too many class skills to be equally good at all, so most players opt to specialize in 'sneakiness', or 'social skills', or 'dungeneering'.  Why do we need a new sneakier sneaky class, or a more social social class, or a more capable dungeneering class?  Fighters may already opt to be close combat specialists, two handed fighting specialists, two weapon fighting specialists, archery speicalists, and all sorts of other sorts of specialists.  Why should a fighter specialized in a combat task be inferior to some other guy specialized in a combat task?  Aren't fighters combat specialists?  Why shouldn't a fighter who devotes himself to killing humanoids one on one be as good as a Duelist, and more to the point, a Duelist _is not_ merely just better at killing humanoids one on one.  Quite the contrary, the Duelist PrC seems designed to let lightly armored fighters with fineese weapons be just as good at killing dragons as any other fighter.  Do we need a PrC in order to have task specialization?And as far as flavor goes, if I create 'The Secret Order of Saban Thugees' and detail the organization and its NPC's, is it any less flavorable that they are all derived from basic classes like Thief and Fighter instead of a 'Saban Thugee' prestige class?  Isn't that the least of what determines good flavor?Should we encourage the idea that somehow a fighter or wizard without a prestige class isn't somehow 'sweet enough' and needs new 'l33t skills' in order to be suitably 'sweet'?  The whole phrase 'prestige' just screams the sort of player that roams around the Cons going 'my character is cooler than your character'.</blockquote>

Verification