Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 1070260" data-attributes="member: 10201">I dunno--you tell me.  Why isn't there a psionic performer-type in D&D?  Why change an entire class when you can just follow some guidelines and duplicate it with existing classes? (i'm thinking particularly of the ranger in 2e/3E/3.5E, which is basically what the ranger/druid was in 1e--which is fine, but you can't really make a 1e ranger with the existing 3E core classes (*maybe* with fighter/thief--if you try.  But not really). Why create a new thing and forbid the old when you can just include the old with proper flavor? (As in, why make the rogue a dirty fighter, instead of a deceiver, when the dirty fighter can be created by adding to a deceiver, but there is no provision for subtracting from classes in D&D3E?)No, it's saying "brutish thugs striving for justice in this world look very different, and can't be usefully represented by the particular set of abilities of the paladin in the D&D3E PH".Um--IMHO, Athas *doesn't* have spellcasting inventors.  And while one of the basic premises of the setting is PCs that are striving for justice, that's not the same as divinely-gifted champions of law and justice.OK, this was the part that got me to respond to this post.  Take away *what* concepts?  Only if you consider D&D3E a perfect and pure representation of all archetypes of any value, does this make any sense.  D&D3E forbids, or makes very difficult, all sorts of archetypes common to fantasy literature (and literature in general).  D&D3E bizarrely favors certain more-fringe archetypes, while ignoring other relatively-core archetypes.  D&D3E takes classes that are clearly intended to be representative of an archetype, and then twists them in strange ways so that you can't use them [efficiently] for the archetype they purport to be based upon.  I don't see any advice in the D&D3E core rules for playing noble savages, con artists, self-sufficient martial artists, huntsmen, commandos, shamans, witch doctors, totemic warriors, wise non-combatant non-wizardy priests, or any of a number of common [high] fantasy archetypes--you want me to list a few more?  Most of these can be done, with varying degrees of satisfaction, with the existing classes/skills/feats--but not all.  So what's so special about the set of archetypes that D&D3E supports that *they* are the ones that *must* be supported in any D&D-compatible setting, no matter how different, while others are unimportant?The same could be said of D&D3E.  It'd be a lot better game if a few more sacred cows had been sent to the butcher.Sure--i got no problem with sorcerers that need a spellbook to prepare their spells.  *That's* the part that makes it "easy" for sorcerers--nothing "flavor" about it.</blockquote>

Verification