Then you don't have an issue -- at least not with me.
If you don't think that limiting # of PrCs is reasonable blanket advice, then no, on this particular item I have no issues with you (but your breath still stinks 
).
As blanket advise? Never. As a matter of fact, I can't really imagine that I would even ever offer it as advice at all.
I was only trying to explain why
some groups feel it is right for
them; and how they justify it
for themselves.
(dammit, I knew I should have brushed my teeth)
Remember though, that what I was looking for was actual defense of that position. I said a long time ago that if it wasn't your goal to do so then the whole thing was pointless. 
Then why did you keep goading me? (at least that's what it felt like)
After vermithrx's post, I thought it was over. But then there was this:
EjoThims is demanding proof that the perspective you presented is rational
This. But apparently I won't be getting any (...)
My whole point in continuing was to try to explain that you "demands" were pointless, and ......... well, long story short, I have a thing for needing to get the last word. (an attitude that is not uncommon around here
)
I'd like to leave things at simply agreeing to disagree based on fundamental philosophical differences:
- the mechanics have their own inherent meaning, and are an end unto themselves
--vs---
- the fluff has meaning and describes intent, and the mechanics are simply a quantification of that fluff
Does that sound about right?
Now, I
might be open to discussing
that issue (but you'd
really have to drop the mis-characterization), but I think it probably deserves its own thread.
EDIT:
I'd still like to see your rebuttal for the following:
[spoiler]
It has been discussed by many a former WotC employee the disconnected, disjointed, and un-integrated nature of the WotC R&D department. What you had was an environment where nobody really communicated; everybody had their own little pet projects, and weren't allowed to share anything with anybody. So, in an attempt to avoid "cross-contamination" and "group-think", what you actually had, in practice, was a bunch of products being released that simply did not have the opportunity to be properly tested against the various other materials that were being put out. With the hundreds (maybe even thousands) of new options coming out every year, all of them being developed independent of each other, you invariably end up with a bunch of stuff that was never intended to be used in conjunction with each other -- many train-wrecks resulted.
- the "adaptation" line? this falls directly in to the "PrC" file. This actually brings me to another point:
If you take all those "adaptation" lines, together with the whole-sum of the introductory paragraphs to the PrC chapters of all the supplement books, and put that in juxtaposition with that now-infamous paragraph in the PrC section of the DMG, what you have is a picture that looks a little something like this:
short version: "DM support" (aka, the designers doing the DM's job for him -- which is not necessarily a bad thing).
long version: the designers, I'm sure, realized that many DMs simply lacked the appropriate resources to keep cranking-out new PrCs for each and every character concept that walked through their campaign; such resources probably include 1 or more of the following: time, energy, motivation, imagination, or fundamental understanding of game design/mechanics. With that realization (and justifying their continued employment in the process), they then decided to help out said DMs a little, by developing various PrCs that they imagined might be largely appropriate for various game applications (many of which I'm sure were simply transplanted directly from their own games), and started throwing on that "adaptation" line in an effort to say "hey, if this isn't appropriate for your game, then here are some ideas on how you might be able to make it fit".
Again, this is somewhat irrelevant to my original point, except that it is further demonstration of an attempt to understand the game (and it's various elements) within its full context.
After that, my players and I all sat down to have a full discussion of the issue. Many of the conclusions we came to were as followes (reprinted from previous post):
- as a systematic design concept, many see PrCs (especially 10-level ones) as something that is concept-defining (which, I believe, is actually something that is tangentially touched upon somewhere -- I want to say ELH). As such, if you need multiple dips in to multiple PrCs in order to adequately quantify your concept on a character sheet, then either something is wrong with the concept, or you need to find another PrC (which may sometimes involve some level of homebrewing/houseruling)
- when left to their own devices, there can be a tendency for many players to get too caught-up in the min-max aspect of character development, causing them to lose sight of other aspects
- I'm sure there is some kind of analogy to be made about abusing video game glitches and/or cheat codes, but efficient/effective articulation is escaping me at the moment.
- when this type of number-crunching mentality is present, it tends to infiltrate other areas of the game; which is often seen as a distraction, and is often accompanied by all-around immature behavior (simply noticing some level of correlation -- probably deserves further exploration).
- this perceived distraction is a RP immersion issue, and is experienced on 2 levels:
-- seriously, who really thinks of themselves in terms of things like skill ranks, feats and class features? (or even other characters/monsters, for that matter) While this can't be avoided entirely (such is the nature of the beast), this goal is often pursued to the greatest possible extent
-- like unto the above, if you're spending an inordinate amount of time number-crunching your perspective build, it can often be indicative of a meta-game mentality; i.e., the game is approached primarily from a meta-game perspective, which really does kill the mood for a lot of people
- remember the NHRA analogy? yeah, well, insert here. (and I could go on for pages discussing the various analogous relationships) -- I guess this is probably just another variation of the whole "balance" issue; but whatever -- it is what it is.
- ya know, there are plenty of us that sometimes enjoy simplicity for the sake of simplicity; as we genuinely see "simplicity" as having it's own set of inherent values. And, of course, this is yet another case of "YMMV".
[/spoiler]
I'm not interested in debate. Just some ingenuous, free-flow examination. (you did touch on some of that slightly, but you more cherry-picked than anything).
