NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blackbrrd" data-source="post: 6193515" data-attributes="member: 63962">I think [MENTION=1465]Li Shenron[/MENTION] makes some very good points. Why add these class groups, if the only thing we get out of it is restrictions? That's the only thing they have talked about so far.Having these class groups also looks to pidgin hole the classes:Is there any reason they shouldn't create a class that sits between the Fighter and the Rogue? Just because it doesn't fit into four arbitrarily defined groups, is not a good reason in my mind.Prerequisits for feats and magic items is something I really dislike. I think magic items and feats should be made in such a way that they are most useful in the hands of some classes, but still useable for other classes, although the usefulness of them might be questionable. Personally, I like having a well-rounded party with characters that are best at a certain aspect, but decent at several others. Prerequisits often make these kind of characters suboptimal OR you have to go through a bunch of hoops bending the system to get what you want. In 3.x I usually used a bunch of PrC's to create such a character, while in 4e I have used hybrids (that at least were 80% as good as a straight up character).I really hope the try to rely as little as possible on preqrequisits, and instead create feats and magic items that vary in usefulness according to the character picking them up. Take the Whirlwind feat from 3.x. Instead of having 4 prerequisit feats, they could have said that you only got a maximum number of attacks equal your dexterity modifier. Typically, the feat was useful for str-based characters in full plate, so putting 14 in dex is a sacrifice, but it's useful. For a character with 18 dex it's very powerful.</blockquote>

Verification