Li Shenron
Legend
I was reading a couple of threads in the Wizards' forum and they gave me this doubt.
The 3.0 series of "class books" was designed with the following idea in mind: each book was specifically thought to support 2-3 classes. Eventually the material could find its use for other classes, such as an odd wizard to qualify for a martial PrCl, or someone taking a wilderness-oriented feat even without being a druid, ranger or barbarian. In general however it could be supposed that material in a book was most often suboptimal for other classes.
That general idea IMO was followed pretty easily by S&F, T&B, DotF, S&S and MotW. Mistakes and overlooks happen (such as the Dragon Disciple being in T&B but working mostly as a class for martial characters with a sorcerer level) but very occasionally.
The 3.5 series of "complete books" is said to be designed with a different idea in mind: each book was though to support one theme of the game and nature/role of the characters (combat, the divine, the arcane, adventuring). Each book should help anyone to improve becoming effective within that area.
Isn't this the official idea of the complete books or did we make it up on the forums? Because there are already 3 complete books out, and AFAIK the large majority of their material only improves those areas in characters who are already masters in them.
For example, many of the PrCls have been quoted in this forum, and most of the arcane PrCls requires arcane spellcasting, most of the divine PrCls require divine spellcasting, most of the combat PrCls requires high BAB and combat feats, and you can bet that most of the PrCl in Complete Adventurer will require ranks in an array of skills...
Now, I don't want to argue whether this is or isn't the best choice for a book, or if the material had been done well or not. I just wonder if this approach isn't off from the original target. Wouldn't it be more in line with that target, that the CWar/CDiv/CArc/CAdv actually provided combat/divine/arcane/adventuring improvement for everyone? I mean, not just 10% of the book, but a good part of it?
The 3.0 series of "class books" was designed with the following idea in mind: each book was specifically thought to support 2-3 classes. Eventually the material could find its use for other classes, such as an odd wizard to qualify for a martial PrCl, or someone taking a wilderness-oriented feat even without being a druid, ranger or barbarian. In general however it could be supposed that material in a book was most often suboptimal for other classes.
That general idea IMO was followed pretty easily by S&F, T&B, DotF, S&S and MotW. Mistakes and overlooks happen (such as the Dragon Disciple being in T&B but working mostly as a class for martial characters with a sorcerer level) but very occasionally.
The 3.5 series of "complete books" is said to be designed with a different idea in mind: each book was though to support one theme of the game and nature/role of the characters (combat, the divine, the arcane, adventuring). Each book should help anyone to improve becoming effective within that area.
Isn't this the official idea of the complete books or did we make it up on the forums? Because there are already 3 complete books out, and AFAIK the large majority of their material only improves those areas in characters who are already masters in them.
For example, many of the PrCls have been quoted in this forum, and most of the arcane PrCls requires arcane spellcasting, most of the divine PrCls require divine spellcasting, most of the combat PrCls requires high BAB and combat feats, and you can bet that most of the PrCl in Complete Adventurer will require ranks in an array of skills...
Now, I don't want to argue whether this is or isn't the best choice for a book, or if the material had been done well or not. I just wonder if this approach isn't off from the original target. Wouldn't it be more in line with that target, that the CWar/CDiv/CArc/CAdv actually provided combat/divine/arcane/adventuring improvement for everyone? I mean, not just 10% of the book, but a good part of it?
Last edited:
