Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DonTadow" data-source="post: 2209940" data-attributes="member: 22622">I have to disagree with you.&nbsp; Again, if you take the words out of the book and try to put them into your campaign, obviously you are going ot have problems integrating the other base classes into your campaign.&nbsp; What the combined core classes allow is a character to finally play that thief or sorceror that they have been wanting to play&nbsp; while still not delving too far out of the other element they are used to.&nbsp; I'll take the scout who ran briefly in my campaign.&nbsp; He wanted to run a ranger, and loved the 3.5 improvements to the class, but was use to playing a roguish type class and didn't want to abandon that niche to the party.&nbsp; Yes, he could have prestiged or multiclasses but that usually takes levels away and/or messes with xp.&nbsp; Luckily the complete adventurer came out the next week and the scout addressed those concerns.&nbsp;&nbsp; It allowsa character to play a combined class&nbsp; at first or second level without being too overpowered, as opposed to working through one class or even worse, splitting classes all the way up to the level you can prestige at, then coming up with a good story why you are entering into this prestige.&nbsp; It also forces DMs to add far too many prestiges to their worlds.&nbsp; There has been an aching question in the back of my mind through all of this thread... how does player input influence the dms decision as to waht does and what doesn't belong in the game.&nbsp; I seem to have come down (and was trained) by&nbsp; a different path of DMs whom all included the players in the world building process (or at least considered their wants and desires?) and in some cases went the extra creative step to include an &quot;out of there &quot;character concept&quot; into their world. &nbsp;I've heard several comments that ---to summise--- suggest, i dont care what the player wants its not going into my world.&nbsp; My thinking has always been that the world is not mine, it is my players.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DonTadow, post: 2209940, member: 22622"] I have to disagree with you. Again, if you take the words out of the book and try to put them into your campaign, obviously you are going ot have problems integrating the other base classes into your campaign. What the combined core classes allow is a character to finally play that thief or sorceror that they have been wanting to play while still not delving too far out of the other element they are used to. I'll take the scout who ran briefly in my campaign. He wanted to run a ranger, and loved the 3.5 improvements to the class, but was use to playing a roguish type class and didn't want to abandon that niche to the party. Yes, he could have prestiged or multiclasses but that usually takes levels away and/or messes with xp. Luckily the complete adventurer came out the next week and the scout addressed those concerns. It allowsa character to play a combined class at first or second level without being too overpowered, as opposed to working through one class or even worse, splitting classes all the way up to the level you can prestige at, then coming up with a good story why you are entering into this prestige. It also forces DMs to add far too many prestiges to their worlds. There has been an aching question in the back of my mind through all of this thread... how does player input influence the dms decision as to waht does and what doesn't belong in the game. I seem to have come down (and was trained) by a different path of DMs whom all included the players in the world building process (or at least considered their wants and desires?) and in some cases went the extra creative step to include an "out of there "character concept" into their world. I've heard several comments that ---to summise--- suggest, i dont care what the player wants its not going into my world. My thinking has always been that the world is not mine, it is my players. [/QUOTE]

Verification