Knightfall
World of Kulan DM
Nightfall said:
But wouldn't t be scary if they did do something like that. Yikes!
[Merged]3.5e Official DMG PrC List and Psion's "next trick" thread
But wouldn't t be scary if they did do something like that. Yikes!
Gez
First Post
Nightfall said:
The class is unbalanced (underpowered) at the first levels, then it becomes unbalanced (overpowered) at the last ones. Increasing the requirements wouldn't fix that. Giving it no BAB would break the rules (that was what bugged me in the SaSp Survivor class as well). My fix is to remove their "+1 there and +1 there" at levels 4 & 8, so that they stay behind their single-classed peers.
The list looks quite interesting.
Two things annoy me, one semi-serious, one not at all serious:
Red Wizard. If this is in there to give an example of a campaign specific prestige class, it should have been a Greyhawk class (such as the ones mentioned already). Isn't that sort of the whole point of having a default setting?
Archmage. I remember back when you had to be able to cast a 9th level spell before you were called an archmage. These young whipper snapper apprentices of today just have no idea about what it means to be an archmage! Seventh level spells indeed!
Two things annoy me, one semi-serious, one not at all serious:
Red Wizard. If this is in there to give an example of a campaign specific prestige class, it should have been a Greyhawk class (such as the ones mentioned already). Isn't that sort of the whole point of having a default setting?
Archmage. I remember back when you had to be able to cast a 9th level spell before you were called an archmage. These young whipper snapper apprentices of today just have no idea about what it means to be an archmage! Seventh level spells indeed!
Ranger REG
Explorer
Darn. I was sure the Cavalier prestige class would be there.
Someone mentioned the reason for having the Red Wizards (strongly associated with Forgotten Realms) is to exhibit campaign-specific prestige class, but I have to ask, why not just include prestige classes specific to Greyhawk? Is Wizards going to abandon/retire Greyhawk as the default setting for the core rules and replace it with Forgotten Realms? If it's going to be give FR some spotlight, should it also include Dragonlance campaign-specific prestige class also (Campaign Setting Book due out in August of 2003)?
Someone mentioned the reason for having the Red Wizards (strongly associated with Forgotten Realms) is to exhibit campaign-specific prestige class, but I have to ask, why not just include prestige classes specific to Greyhawk? Is Wizards going to abandon/retire Greyhawk as the default setting for the core rules and replace it with Forgotten Realms? If it's going to be give FR some spotlight, should it also include Dragonlance campaign-specific prestige class also (Campaign Setting Book due out in August of 2003)?
Marshall:
Yes and no. While there have been some very interesting prcs for the druid (see MotW) and barbarian (MotW) there has been very little for the bard (virtuoso in S&S) and nearly none that really fits a paladin.
All of those classes mentioned are core classes within the rules, and there is no good reason there hasnt been more prcs devoted to them. If you were going to say because they have a defined set of abilities that without gaining they dont seem so intrinsicaly archetypical, I will mention that monks have had many many more prcs and are essentially in the same boat (see S&F, OA).
I think the frenzied beserker or the forsaker would have made good barbarian prcs for the new DMG, as would shifter and animal lord for druid. But WotC consistently evades making bard and paladin prcs. Go figure.
Technik
PS- I know that in older editions of the game the bard was essentially the first prc and that the paladin has a very specific role as it is, but there is still no reason we couldnt see some prcs in the DMG for them.
Yes and no. While there have been some very interesting prcs for the druid (see MotW) and barbarian (MotW) there has been very little for the bard (virtuoso in S&S) and nearly none that really fits a paladin.
All of those classes mentioned are core classes within the rules, and there is no good reason there hasnt been more prcs devoted to them. If you were going to say because they have a defined set of abilities that without gaining they dont seem so intrinsicaly archetypical, I will mention that monks have had many many more prcs and are essentially in the same boat (see S&F, OA).
I think the frenzied beserker or the forsaker would have made good barbarian prcs for the new DMG, as would shifter and animal lord for druid. But WotC consistently evades making bard and paladin prcs. Go figure.
Technik
PS- I know that in older editions of the game the bard was essentially the first prc and that the paladin has a very specific role as it is, but there is still no reason we couldnt see some prcs in the DMG for them.
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
I think the RW is there to show a balanced Spell Power.
Frenzied Berserker? Overpowered. Forsaker, Shifter? Broken (as in poor design, not necessarily overpowered.)
Destil
Explorer
While I won't mention balance of the Mystic Thurge, I will mention that one of the game designers mentioned that you should be looking at it as a compairson to the "(revised) arcane trickster". Most likely every one of these classes was modified at least a little for more uniform balance...
Last edited:
