Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gold Roger" data-source="post: 3087679" data-attributes="member: 33904">1) As Crothian and others have said, new base classes use lots of space and people that won't use them would propably prefer stuff instead that is easier to integrate.which leads to:2) I've found nothing to be as hard to incorporate into a game as base classes. I'm playing an everything goes game and have found I can pick and drop pretty much everything into it without complications, hurt to suspense of disbelieve or anything like that. Most PrC's, feats, spells, races etc I've in fact found to enhance my game. Not so new base classes. They need far more work, distract, often feel tacked on. Some will be used far more than others and at that point it becomes hard to justify why some of them are in fact base classes and not PrC's when there may be only one or two in the whole campaign.This doesn't mean everyone has that problem, of course, but it explains how some don't like to use new ones.3) There has recently been a flood of new base classes and I guess I'm not the only that feels enough is enough. For example we've got both the dragonfire adept and the dragon shaman within what? Three months? And both of these classes are:-Mechanically interesting, but hard to justify from a flavor standpoint.-Fill the same flavor niche-share some abilities (get draconic wings, natural armor, breath attack)-encroach on the mechanical niche of older base classes (dragonfire-warlock, dragon shaman-bard and marshal)4) There are many new base classes that are barely supported, in fact many of the base classes could use some. Why spit out so much new stuff, when the old one could use some depth?</blockquote>

Verification