Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Moorcrys" data-source="post: 1700860" data-attributes="member: 7814">In many cases I would agree that the core classes can faithfully represent a number of different character types, but I also feel that there comes a point where an instituted mechanic that differs from the core class mechanic is required to create some character types.For instance, it seems to me as though the hexblade and favored soul were specifically put in the Complete books to allow for a more complete set of rule options -- one being a spontaneous divine caster and the other being an arcane-influenced (as opposed to divinely influenced) fighting class along the lines of the ranger and paladin.  The hexblade as an idea is pretty specific, but the mechanic of a familiar summoning, 4 spell-level progressing arcane-based fighting character is not in the core rules and not covered by a core-class... no amount of feat taking or skills are going to create it.  Same with the favored soul.You can't make either of those without changing a core class -- and if you actually need to change core rules, spell-lists, and abilities rather than adding feats or choosing cross-class skills then you're essentially doing the same thing as adding a new class.  The core classes simply don't cover it.To deny that game mechanics serve to flesh out a Third Edition character doesn't seem to hold a lot of weight in my opinion... from choosing a race to class to skill to feat, every step along the way uses at the very least bonus/penalty game mechanics.  You can certainly say you're playing a dwarf but not use any of the racial modifiers or darkvision or bonuses/penalties that go along with it and that would certainly be viable and playable, but the mechanic is there for you to use which has (hopefully) been balanced or insituted to help you define the race.  The idea is that it brings diversity and options to the game, as well as mechanically defines strengths and weakness of the race and deals in a concrete way with things such as being smaller than a human (i.e. reducing a dwarf's movement to 20').  The same goes with classes -- sure you can play a fighter any way you want, but why is it such a horrible thing for a player to take the swashbuckler from the Complete Warrior to add a mechanical flavor to a lightly armored fighting character?  If it's balanced to the core classes what's the problem?  What's the difference between the 3,000 feats out there that add flavor mechanics to a character class versus a separate class that packages a number of flavor-specific mechanics over a 20-level spread?  A fighter could take stunning fist and become an unarmed monk-styled warrior OR he could play a monk, a more specifically-themed and flavored core class where that mechanic is already built in.  Take your pick, but I find nothing sacred or flawless about a core class over a well-built and well-balanced non-core class that adds a unique flavor and/or fills a gap in the 3.5 ruleset.  I thought that customization and options were two of the most beloved things in 3.x D&D, why not take advantage of them?Moorcrys</blockquote>

Verification