D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 revisions caused by prestige classes?

3rd party publishers being able to create new named bonuses is not a flaw inherent in naming all bonuses. It happens even with unamed bonuses around. And it isn't necessarily a bad thing, so long as the bonuses make sense. It certainly isn't a reason to not name all bonuses.

Naming all bonues also will not remove growth potential because a) you can always create new bonus types if you want, and b) you can always go epic and get higher than the standard bonuses.

I would love to see all bonues given a name, even if that name was justthe name of the item or spell that granted the bonus.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Apok said:
Gets very ridiculous very quickly, ne?

I was following this argument well, until someone from Georgia said '...ne?'.

What is this world coming to ? ! ? ! ? !

-Tatsu
 
Last edited:

This has been bothering me as well. It would seem to me that it would be far easier (and wiser) to fix the prestige classes than to change the core rules. The spell save DCs are a good example of this. In that case they went to the extreme of nerfing both the core rules and the prestige classes.
 

Falling Icicle said:
This has been bothering me as well. It would seem to me that it would be far easier (and wiser) to fix the prestige classes than to change the core rules. The spell save DCs are a good example of this. In that case they went to the extreme of nerfing both the core rules and the prestige classes.
1) You can't fix a prestige class you didn't make.

2) There are far, far more prestige classes than there are rules loopholes for them to exploit.
 

Tatsukun said:
Apok said:
Gets very ridiculous very quickly, ne?QUOTE]

I was following this argument well, until someone from Georgia said '...ne?'.

What is this world coming to ? ! ? ! ? !

-Tatsu

Would it help your sense of universal harmony if I told you I'm not originally from Georgia?
 
Last edited:






Remove ads

Top