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: 793422" data-attributes="member: 4937">Well, I expect this thread to get moved in a bit, then you will probably have more answers than you can handle, BUT, I'll get a word or three in edge wise before that happens.1) PrC's break the 'rules' of classes in several ways, throw of CR calculations, tend to promote sterotyping, are hard or impossible to play test and balance, and probably should have never been added to the game system.  (Won't be fixed.  To many people like them.)2) Rangers, Paladins, and Barbarians retain too much specific flavor to be accounted core classes and need a large revision.  (Potentially fixed in 3.5 but I doubt it)3) The CR/EL/ECL system assumes a degree of linearity which just isn't present.  At high levels, one level of difference does not equate to the same as one level of difference at low levels.  Nor is a a 8 CR creature merely 4 times as dangerous as a 2 CR creature.   Rules dealing with the concept in greater depth need to be devised.  CR is relative to level and you can't avoid that, no matter how absolute you want to pretend it is.  (Won't be fixed.  Solution is too complex, and it may be years before a sufficiently elegant one suggests itself to someone.)4) The specialist wizard system in which the various schools where balanced against each other presumes core rules only.  That was very short sighted, as it should have been obvious from the beginning that a huge number of spells would rapidly become available for every school and eventually lead to parity.  (Hopefully will be fixed, but I doubt it.)  5) The rules on taking 10 and taking 20 were not clear enough (supposedly fixed in 3.5).6) Profession skills were overlooked and should have been further detailed, as were certain craft/knowledge/profession overlaps and synergies with each other and other skills.7) Various minor balance issues were overlooked initially (Most appear to be addressed by 3.5).8) Double weapons are mostly kinda silly.  Of the realistic ones, quarter staff got the shaft, and spiked chain doesn't have realistic enough drawbacks (though I suppose it is fine for the cinematic style)9) Backgrounds, advantages, disadvantages, and so forth would go a long ways toward finally fleshing D&D character creation out fully.  Unfortunately, even though this is a natural high priority more focus has been put into PrC's and new Feats and new spells than anything else and most of the rules on this subject are house rules or else are in fairly obscure tomes - and most of those are badly thought out.  Sooner or later someone is going to collect the best ideas from various house rules, clean them up and streamline them and produce the uber D20 character creation guide.10) Range increments for missile weapons are usually unrealisticly long.</blockquote>

Verification