Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 873891" data-attributes="member: 537">Well, that depends on what sort of campaign you're after, no?I don't think that just because one wuxia class exists doesn't mean you can't try to make another one. Certainly there are already tons of wizard, weapon master, swordsman or archer PrCs, but that never seems to stop people churning them out. Some archetypes are enduring.Where multiple PrCs can serve a useful purpose is if you want to create a campaign with a particular focus, since they help to differentiate between characters. For example, suppose you want to run a campaign with relatively more wizards and less "mundanes" like fighters or rogues. To some extent, you can rely on spell and feat selection to differentiate between players (as well as good old-fashioned roleplaying), but eventually you're probably going to want to be able to use PrCs to differentiate between wizards who belong to different colleges of magic, or follow different philosophies, or specialise in different niches, etc. The same goes for wuxia PrCs, if you're running a game with that sort of flavour.As for the existing wuxia PrC, namely the blade dancer, it has problems. These are caused essentially by how high-level D&D tends to be very much like wuxia anyway, in that everyone flies and teleports. This makes the blade dancer's own flying abilities somewhat moot, so the only way for it to stand out is via its sword fighting abilities. Unfortunately, these are also nothing to write home about. Hence even if you didn't want lots of wuxia PrCs in your game, there's still room for a better one than the blade dancer.I should mention that Improved Arrow Deflection imposes a -5 penalty on successive saves (or whatever mechanic 3.5E uses to represent this). It's basically the feat on my D&D site.I also wouldn't call Balance, Climb and Jump "very useful". Jump becomes almost irrelevant at high levels, as far as I can tell, as does Climb. Who needs to scale walls when you could just fly up?When all else fails, a disintegrate will usually do the trick. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />As for damaging them, recall the situation with the monk: strong on defense, but relatively weak on offense. Yes, monks are very survivable, but they also tend not to dish out a lot of damage compared to other classes. In practice, one of the biggest complaints about monks is that they're useless in combat. The class is clearly based on kung fu movies where martial artists kick butt in six million different ways, so this is a major disappointment for monk players who think their character should be able to do the same. The fact that they can survive all sorts of pain doesn't really compensate for the inability to grab the spotlight.This cloud warrior is designed to be stronger on offense than the monk, but also weaker in defense. Hence the better BAB and slightly worse saves, and lack of SR and other defensive specials. Improved evasion is very nice, but it won't help against the aforementioned disintegrate, or a melee brute with 10' reach and improved grab. Perhaps dropping the HD to d8 would be in order, though.Which is really no better or worse than being peppered with arrows from a twink archer. In fact, it may be worse since the cloud warrior is unlikely to be maxed out with all the archery feats: PBS, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot etc, and furthermore can only do this within 30 feet, unlike a specialist archer. If I REALLY wanted this to be broken, I'd let it be usable at will.Not allowing ranged feats to be used would probably be a good idea, if that's a worry.</blockquote>

Verification