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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4196216" data-attributes="member: 710">On the "nefarious WotC plans to create a large amount of new core classes" - is that so different from 3E? Okay, there were not so many core classes, but there were tons of prestige class. If you add 3 prestige classes together, you also get 30 levels of class. Interestingly, most of the new base classes seem to come in the Player Handbooks. That basically means we won't see as many base classes as we saw PrCs, and that might mean they could be generally useful. Most PrCs in most splatbooks I own will never see play, since they fit none of my character concepts. Heck, most where so hard to qualify for that I never got in a reasonable level range to do it, especially not with a "organically" growing character. Yet I still bought these books. And I am sure I am not alone. Because there were sometimes interesting things - a few nice feats, maybe one of of 8 PrCs, a interesting core class, a good spell. But I suspect you will always be able to make a character concept for Druid, a Bard, a Illusionist, a Swashbuckler or a Swordmage. If anything, this means we might get more bang for our buck with this approach.Yes, it is a bad thing. Most fiction doesn't have ensemble cast, actually. But the little that have (like maybe the Fantastic Four) are very distinct in what they can do. Invisiblity and Force Fields lead to very different combat uses then great strength and resistance. If every character _has_ to pick up Dodge and Firearms (as a typical example), something is wrong. Any character concept that doesn't contain these skills is automatically less used, since it's suboptimal.Every character should be competent, but not every character should be good at the same things. Heck, every character should be special, but they shouldn't be special in the same ways!</blockquote>

Verification