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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="incognito" data-source="post: 576086" data-attributes="member: 7008">Capellan: I'm sorry you cannot make a chracter that is not a close enough approxmiation of Robin Hood to suit your tastes without a PrC.  That does not mean a PrC is required for a reasonable approximation, it means you are frustrated by some of the granted abilities (by your own admission), and want to give them up - but to "maintain balance" you want to recieve other abilities.Well, as I have stated before, the classes are not balanced.  Bummer, but there it is.   What I am asserting is that adding PrCs does not typically maintain (and in my experience usually hurts) balance.  In my opinion, if you need your character to be robin hood that badly, then play a game specifically designed with the Robin Hood character in mind.  Other than that, I'm inclined to say "grin and bear it" becasue being Robin Hood is mre about the role-play.  Maybe Robin Hood did cast spells...  Yep, and still the PCs remain fairly special - and I'll ask again: are you saying you HAVE to have a PrC to be special?   Haven't I already stated that it's ok by me that players make a suggestion here or there?  I just do not want that expectation, or for players to PLAN on designing a PrC to fit thier new character "concept" if thier original "day 1" character dies and is not raised. Any number of you have quoted me on this - so I want to add an additional point of clarity.  Players seeking greater effectiveness is natural desire.  Is it not?  Who amongst us want to be ineffective (at the very least, ineffective in our area of "expertise?")  Yet, players may not realize how effective the abilities of a PrC can be, or may have an imprefect understanding of game balance as the DM sees it.  So while your players may not be actively be powergaming, they want something, in seeking a PrC.  They may be willing to give up "something else."  If NONE of the other core classes fit the mold of what they are looking for, why is it so shocking to question a player's motives?  There is an awful lot contained in those core classes, even when just Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric is considered.Also, and I'll repleat this in my next reply for barsoomcore, I have player 3E for ~2 years.  Not the longest time, but not the shortest either.  I have played in 4 groups, with no less that 12+(?) different players.  While I cannot judge ALL players, or ALL campaigns, I feel I can make qualitative statements, based on logical arguments, that hold true for the majority of players or campains - not just the "special" ones...  If this set of message board respondents wants to refute my assertations on the basis of "my campiagn does not run this way..."  we have a basic communication/discussion breakdown.  I cannot "prove a negative."  However, can we agree that it is possible for someone of experience (not me, mind you, just "someone") to make a argument, based on logic, that should apply to the majority, even though the majority is not able to voice thier opinion in this message board?If I hear enough "no!'s" then I can give up now, since we cannot communicate effectively.  If we can, I shall try harder to represent my arguments more logically or with more examples, or however the respondents might better like the argument/discussion presented.[Whew!] Why do you quote me out of context, Capellan?  That's not fair.  This comment was SPECIFICALLY in repsonse to a game (seaong's in this case) in which the very way characters level is fundamantally different from core 3E.  You just griped about another poster doing it to you, for the love of glub!  Let me end on a positive though: Here finally is somewhat of an agreement.  Hopefully our first of many.  Can someone chime in which just how many divine and arcane PrC have +1 caster level at every level through the course of the PrC? On to barsoomcore!</blockquote>

Verification