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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 6987495" data-attributes="member: 20564">In that case I like it - pushing design boundaries and seeing what it looks like is a good idea.  And I bet having to come up with iconic powers for the various races gave you a good idea of what races are well fleshed out in ways that can be represented mechanically, and which ones are light.Back in D&D 3.5, in the large line of splatbooks they added racial paragon classes.  (Or were they prestige classes?  No matter for this discussion)  Basically they were short (3 level?) classes you could multiclass into that would hone your racial focus at the opportunity cost of your class focus since you weren't taking levels in it.Earlier in 3.0 they had Savage Species, which was an attempt to work out monsters with HD and ECL (effective character levels - levels you skipped because the abilities you got mad up for it.  3.0 was very tightly tied to level=HD + advancement of attack and saves, so that's really what was being skipped.).   It took more powerful creatures and broke them down, so you could have a giant on balance with a 1st level party, coming into more and more of their giant abilities as you leveled up but staying on par with normal characters.  And then you could take class levels.These ideas always resonated with me, and 5e multiclassing would work well with a current implementation of them to allow someone to focus more on their class, or to play a traditionally more powerful race that stays in step with other characters of their level.</blockquote>

Verification