ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
rounser said:
It's just an annoyance, I'm not "really hung up" on them. Can't ask for a damn improvement in the system without the "it's good enough as it is, it doesn't need to be improved" brigade for whom 3E can do no wrong trying to make you seem unreasonable...or even point out that 2E did this better in one way at least, because you could take it from first level if it was your character concept from the start, oh no...stuff and nonsense indeed - you can stuff your own nonsense - that it wouldn't be better if you could give a character a prestige/kit/class when it's more campaign and character appropriate and less arbitrarily system appropriate for archetypes which don't imply high level prereqs - "mate"!![]()
I've gone through a lot of kits from 2e, to see how they translate to 3e, and many of them can be handled with judicious use of skills, feats, and multiclassing. Now, before it seems like I'm simply dismissing what you're saying (I'm not), let me say that I'd love to see "official" treatment of the concept of characters being called swashbucklers or the like from the beginning of their careers. I think that presenting starting packages of feats, skills, and equipment, and mapping out how a character could progress if it was to continue following the path the player chose (swashbuckler, etc.), would not only bridge the gap between 2e kits and 3e flexibility, but also help illustrate how prestige classes can further refine such character concepts. Some will say: "I can do that myself! I don't need an official way to do it!", but I say: "It couldn't hurt to do it."