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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dungeondweller" data-source="post: 3381213" data-attributes="member: 14532">Not really intending to join in the fracas here, but I thought I'd throw my two pennies in the pot and see how they tinkle...No Prestige Classes. Perfect. Prestige Classes are a good concept, but in my opinion were rendered badly. IMO, classes like Paladin and Barbarian should be Prestige Classes of the base Fighter architecture. I like the "core four" approach to base classes where everyone starts out as a "Fighter", "Mage", "Priest", or "Rogue" and builds from there. Thus, I'd like the PrC mechanic to work more like the "kit" concept from 2e.You lost me, however, when talking about going BACK to the horrific 2e rules for multiclassing. Like someone else said, D&D was originally built with a "one character, one class" concept and their multiclassing rules, pre-3e, were just sorta tacked on to the end like a tail on a paper donkey.I could see limiting the total number of classes one takes to 2 or 3, or even making it based off their Intelligence modifier... But you take a great deal of flexibility away from players by chopping off multiclassing entirely and/or making it more painful to do.Here's the base truth... I understand the desire to tweak the rules to preference. But you MUST realize that your players have to live with your decisions and they may not be as enamored with your ideas as you are... In twenty-two years as a DM now, the one thing I've learned through the most painful process possible is that players want options and that my ideas don't necessarily inspire them... at all.PrC's are a rules option, not core. Chop them off if you want to. But don't mess with the core rules on multiclassing.IMO.</blockquote>

Verification