...and both access to prestige classes and magic items are expected to be the DM's purview. Unlike, say, the ability to use PC classes.
And yes. It doesn't force it because you can always houserule the game. But again, I don't think that houserules are relevant here.
-O
An NPC taking a PC class level is not a houserule, nor is the reverse. You're right about houserules being irrelevant at least.
No, and that's not my argument.
The rules are silent about why character 1 is a fighter and character 2 is a warrior. Thus, deciding who can take those classes cannot be a houserule because there is no rule to change.
Who's forcing anything? The classes are right there in the book. It says you can use them for players. Using them isn't forcing anything.
If you consider "Ignore the entire PHB full of classes and only use the ones in the DMG" to be equivalent to, "A magic doodad doesn't exist in my game" then I think you're the one using the term incorrectly.
And - like I said - this means that the PCs are a cut above the NPCs. I'm not disagreeing that Fighters are better-trained than Warriors in the setting; I'm taking it as a given. (The Heroic vs. Standard array, should you use them, likewise confirms the separation, much like 4d6 rolling and class levels in AD&D.) This is not a bizarre twisting of how 3.x is played or some sort of edge-case. The entire system assumes PCs are predominantly using PC classes.
No. It doesn't. It means that members of adventuring classes are a cut above nonadventuring classes, and you've used the misleading and inaccurate terminology of "NPC classes" (which in fact can be taken by anyone) to distort the concept into something that it isn't.
Assumes, yes. Dictates, no. Seriously, I think you've made an ass out of u and me.
They're called NPC classes in the DMG and SRD. Why do you think they are called that? And why would the DMG say, "None of them, with the possible exceptions of the expert and aristocrat, stands up as a playable class for PCs?" You can call them "Bad Classes" if it would help, but the point stands. The DMG even notes that PCs are "elite" as opposed to average; it's actual game terminology which gives you better than 3d6 ability scores and automatic max HP at 1st level.
If you consider "Ignore the entire PHB full of classes and only use the ones in the DMG" to be equivalent to, "A magic doodad doesn't exist in my game" then I think you're the one using the term incorrectly.
And - like I said - this means that the PCs are a cut above the NPCs. I'm not disagreeing that Fighters are better-trained than Warriors in the setting; I'm taking it as a given. (The Heroic vs. Standard array, should you use them, likewise confirms the separation, much like 4d6 rolling and class levels in AD&D.) This is not a bizarre twisting of how 3.x is played or some sort of edge-case. The entire system assumes PCs are predominantly using PC classes.
-O
