Complete? ... The basic classes are still best.
- Thread starter Driddle
- Start date
Estlor
Explorer
For the large part, I've been extremely disappointed with prestige classes as a whole. They're just not what I'm looking for in my campaign.
What I'd like is for someone to sit down and make, say, ten achetype specific prestige classes that fill possible roles a base class can fill in a campaign. It's catered to that base class, but you can reach it a number of ways.
For example, you play a Fighter, right? Give me the prestige classes of Gladiator, Mymirdon, Peasant Hero, Archer, Dragoon, Swashbuckler, Cavalier, and Weapon Master
and we're talking. If I'm playing a Bard I want to see the Herald, Skald, Gypsy, Meistersinger, Diplomat, Arcanist, and so on. If I'm a Rogue, I'm all over the Thief, Thug, Rake, Acrobat, Merchant, etc. When I think Ranger I want an Amazon, Bounty Hunter, Sleuth and so on. How about making my Wizard a Metamagician, Wild Mage, Elementalist, Summoner, Artificer, and so forth.
Yeah, some of these have been done, but more prestige classes are based around the same, repetitive, overly specific things that make me totally not care in the least about it.
I don't really have a point, I'm just ranting about something different
What I'd like is for someone to sit down and make, say, ten achetype specific prestige classes that fill possible roles a base class can fill in a campaign. It's catered to that base class, but you can reach it a number of ways.
For example, you play a Fighter, right? Give me the prestige classes of Gladiator, Mymirdon, Peasant Hero, Archer, Dragoon, Swashbuckler, Cavalier, and Weapon Master
and we're talking. If I'm playing a Bard I want to see the Herald, Skald, Gypsy, Meistersinger, Diplomat, Arcanist, and so on. If I'm a Rogue, I'm all over the Thief, Thug, Rake, Acrobat, Merchant, etc. When I think Ranger I want an Amazon, Bounty Hunter, Sleuth and so on. How about making my Wizard a Metamagician, Wild Mage, Elementalist, Summoner, Artificer, and so forth.
Yeah, some of these have been done, but more prestige classes are based around the same, repetitive, overly specific things that make me totally not care in the least about it.
I don't really have a point, I'm just ranting about something different
Yeah. Core only is best.
The thing is, is this because (A) the core managed to get it right or is it because (B) the expansions aren't doing a good job.
Logically, I would expect it was (A). Many years of history & experience determined what went into core.
But, I'm not really happy with core. Maybe their aren't too many new, innovative niches to be explored; but I think there could be variations on the core classes that I liked better. Still, I haven't seen either an new class or a variation that I liked significantly more than core.
The thing is, is this because (A) the core managed to get it right or is it because (B) the expansions aren't doing a good job.
Logically, I would expect it was (A). Many years of history & experience determined what went into core.
But, I'm not really happy with core. Maybe their aren't too many new, innovative niches to be explored; but I think there could be variations on the core classes that I liked better. Still, I haven't seen either an new class or a variation that I liked significantly more than core.
Gez
First Post
Actually, just the Player's Handbook is enough. DM may patch up his own rules for disease and stuff, create his own monsters, if any, and his own magic items, if any.
And the core itself isn't perfect. I've struggled to give special abilities at least every two levels to every base classes, so that they would be interesting to keep. Classes like the monk or druid doesn't need change, but the fighter's bonus feat, while nice, become to be bland after a while (once the fighter's primary feat chain is finished, there's no reason to stick with fighter), clerics, wizards and sorcerers could use a bit of diversity, etc.
And the core itself isn't perfect. I've struggled to give special abilities at least every two levels to every base classes, so that they would be interesting to keep. Classes like the monk or druid doesn't need change, but the fighter's bonus feat, while nice, become to be bland after a while (once the fighter's primary feat chain is finished, there's no reason to stick with fighter), clerics, wizards and sorcerers could use a bit of diversity, etc.
Gez said:
As fighter has always been my favorite class, I have to point out that its "blandness"--I prefer to say "simplicity"--is a feature of the class, not a bug. When I want whizzy features, I'll pick another class. When I want straight forward, fighter is my choice. Fighter is the original, the archetype, the baseline.
Indeed, the 3e fighter is nigh too complex for my tastes as is. I'd rather have less customization through feats (maybe 2 to 4 sets of pre-choosen feats to follow) & give the fighter more class skills.
Remathilis
Legend
Bah.
I can't make a swashbuckler with the core rules, or a favored soul. I certainly can't make a soulknife or an artificer with a few "feats".
VIVA VARIETY!
I can't make a swashbuckler with the core rules, or a favored soul. I certainly can't make a soulknife or an artificer with a few "feats".
VIVA VARIETY!
Kanegrundar
Explorer
While I can, and have, played with only the classes and PrC's in the Core Rules I don't like to. IMC, I've got a huge class list from various sourcebooks. There are simply too many good ideas from all sorts of other books not to use them (especially in the realm of PrC's). IMC, I've got a 3.0 samurai, an IK gunmage, a jedi knight, a fighter, and an XPH psion. Most of the characters (all except the fighter, I believe) have taken levels in several other classes ranging from AU's Unfettered to the CR Rogue. I love the variety and it makes me feel like the world is a lot different from just regular D&D fantasy (not that default D&D is a bad thing by any means).
Kane
Kane
MoogleEmpMog
First Post
If you like "Dungeons & Dragons" with capital "D"s, then the core is probably fine, though I've yet to see what allowing other sources in hurts.
If, however, you like d20 mechanics and a fantasy setting... no. The core is insufficient. The wonky D&Disms that appear nowhere else in fantasy, still less sword and sorcery, are insufficient. The inability to create effective versions of certain character archetypes is insufficient. The absence of options for non-spellcasters is insufficient. The limited number of monsters everyone's seen before are insufficient.
Nor does anything make "Ranger" (a D&D created "archetype" that, though based in part on history and fantasy, doesn't conform to either's real archetypes) "best" when stacked up against Swashbuckler (a legitimate archetype), Samurai (the OA version; a legitimate archetype that also covers a post dark ages Knight), or Warlock (less an archetype than a mechanically superior treatment of magic).
The core is not "best." The core is core. It's the default assumption. That doesn't mean it's better in any meaningful way; just that it's default.
If, however, you like d20 mechanics and a fantasy setting... no. The core is insufficient. The wonky D&Disms that appear nowhere else in fantasy, still less sword and sorcery, are insufficient. The inability to create effective versions of certain character archetypes is insufficient. The absence of options for non-spellcasters is insufficient. The limited number of monsters everyone's seen before are insufficient.
Nor does anything make "Ranger" (a D&D created "archetype" that, though based in part on history and fantasy, doesn't conform to either's real archetypes) "best" when stacked up against Swashbuckler (a legitimate archetype), Samurai (the OA version; a legitimate archetype that also covers a post dark ages Knight), or Warlock (less an archetype than a mechanically superior treatment of magic).
The core is not "best." The core is core. It's the default assumption. That doesn't mean it's better in any meaningful way; just that it's default.
Jolly Giant
First Post
Here's how I see it: Core is core. It's the basics. It's the essentials. It's the must-have's. Everything else is spice.
In other words you can get along fine with just core, but it get's even better when you spice it up a bit!
My group consist of 6 uncureable bookaholics; we generally try to get our hand on every book we can. We love playing around with PrC's, feats and spells from all our books, imaginaning how they can best be used. What we mostly end up using though, are the core books. The current group consist of a shadowdancer/assassin, a dragon disciple, a blackguard, an arch-mage and a hierophant! Yeah, we love our spice, but core is core...
To those calling the ranger a D&D-ism: I always felt it was a Tolkien-ism. The 3.0 version was a straight Aragorn copy. In 3.5 you have the choice of either an Aragorn copy or a Legolas copy.
As to the DMG PrC's: I'll agree with previous posters that they're not the most innovative PrC's around, but I don't think they should be either. They represent traditional archtypes. (Rightfully core material, in other words. Except the Red Wizard, which has no business being in the DMG; it belongs in a FR book!). Let the spice-books take care of the more creative PrC's.
In other words you can get along fine with just core, but it get's even better when you spice it up a bit!
My group consist of 6 uncureable bookaholics; we generally try to get our hand on every book we can. We love playing around with PrC's, feats and spells from all our books, imaginaning how they can best be used. What we mostly end up using though, are the core books. The current group consist of a shadowdancer/assassin, a dragon disciple, a blackguard, an arch-mage and a hierophant! Yeah, we love our spice, but core is core...
To those calling the ranger a D&D-ism: I always felt it was a Tolkien-ism. The 3.0 version was a straight Aragorn copy. In 3.5 you have the choice of either an Aragorn copy or a Legolas copy.
As to the DMG PrC's: I'll agree with previous posters that they're not the most innovative PrC's around, but I don't think they should be either. They represent traditional archtypes. (Rightfully core material, in other words.
Except the Red Wizard, which has no business being in the DMG; it belongs in a FR book!). Let the spice-books take care of the more creative PrC's.Similar Threads
