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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 257664" data-attributes="member: 2205">It's not contradictory, because I specifically said that monks would make good pseudo-prestige classes, merely that I probably wouldn't do so because I want more than one "order" of monks in my setting.  And the monk, while featuring a number of supernatural abilities, is no spell-caster.Not being familiar with the intimate details of the campaign setting I'm working on, I have not idea how you think you can make that claim.What's medieval times have to do with D&D?  My setting (and D&D in general) has no pretention of being any kind of replica of historical medieval life.  True, bard is probably one that makes sense to include here as well.  Since I don't actually know anyone that ever plays a bard, I guess it slipped through the cracks as an unimportant detail at this point.That really kind of depends on the setting is a class is weird or not.  I mentioned specifically that the barbarian, monk and (with your reminder) the bard would fit this definition quite well as well, but I am leaving them as 'core' classes for campaign specific reasons.  Or, more accurately, I haven't really fleshed this idea out yet and I don't know what I'll do with some of them.  I want the barbarian to be a core class because with a little tweaking and the removal of the implicit roleplaying assumptions here, they can be more generic than they are actually presented in the PHB.Might be some minor tweaks, but as you point out, it's mostly for built-in role-playing.  Most of those classes come with 'pre-requisites' of some kind already.  (alignment, must have certain score in certain ability in order to use certain abilities, etc.)I make absolutely no such assumption.  I'm changing the background of certain classes to build in that assumption.  That's called 'setting development.'  Unlike you, apparently, I don't just play everything exactly the way that's written, I like to tinker with it and customize it for my campaign.  My idea here is that many prestige classes represent membership in some kind of organization.  Some of the core classes also work this way, while others are so generic that they can represent anything.  For certain selected classes, that seem to work very well as 'member's only' classes, because they have restrictions of some kind, and offer certain special abilities that may or may not make sense in some campaign settings, I strengthened the idea, built up more fleshed out singular organizations (no more generic paladins, for example, you must belong to a certain order of paladins, because that's the only order of paladins, and nobody but members of that order have that training or those abilities) and maybe done some tweaks of chargen 'pre-reqs' so you can take that class at all.  However, it's mostly roleplaying hooks built into certain character classes.  Mechanically there's very little difference.  From the assumptions implicit in the character, however, you have to change your mindset some.I think he's demonstrated nothing.  He hyperbolized my scenario and showed that it didn't make much sense, and then assumed that because his hyperbolized scenario didn't make sense that mine didn't either.  Some classes, like the fighter, the rogue, etc. are so generic that it's silly to say that there are implicit organizations behind each class.  Are you trying to tell me that there's only one organization in the entire campaign setting that knows how to fight, and everyone who learns to fight must go through them?  How does that work?  How do you get such varied fighters from such an organization that have such different skills and feats?</blockquote>

Verification