Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dremen" data-source="post: 392270" data-attributes="member: 6773">The whole idea is to not have to make extra house rules.I feel these restrictions are not needed and arbitrary. There are ways to get around the monk / paladin m.c. problem. PrC's pick up the levels you want in aother class before or after takingthe restricted class etc. But there is no such loophole for Druids in the core rules. Sure I can rule zero it but some people refuse to make what they feel as extra house rules and then there is the official problem. Most of the time it does nto come up. But sometimes I like to play instead of DM and the only choices I have may at the time be an offical game or with a Dm who doesn't rule zero these out. If the restrictions made sense that would be one thing but they don't. To further the whole thing nearly every PrC mentions than monks / paladins who take it (thoose PrC's that are aimed at these classes) can multiclass with it freely. OA even removed the monk m.c. restriction. So it seems to me that many of the designers didn't even want thoose restrictions in there but some play testers wined enough and they pu them in as official core rules. All I want them to say is &quot;Well we made a mistake, these are olny ideas you might want to impliment for flavor in your campagin.&quot;Because the idea is to not have to make house rules. Other than this little thorn I have very little bad to say about 3e. I think the rule you can be tripped if you fail your trip attack is silly. But I is a great system.-D</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dremen, post: 392270, member: 6773"] The whole idea is to not have to make extra house rules. I feel these restrictions are not needed and arbitrary. There are ways to get around the monk / paladin m.c. problem. PrC's pick up the levels you want in aother class before or after takingthe restricted class etc. But there is no such loophole for Druids in the core rules. Sure I can rule zero it but some people refuse to make what they feel as extra house rules and then there is the official problem. Most of the time it does nto come up. But sometimes I like to play instead of DM and the only choices I have may at the time be an offical game or with a Dm who doesn't rule zero these out. If the restrictions made sense that would be one thing but they don't. To further the whole thing nearly every PrC mentions than monks / paladins who take it (thoose PrC's that are aimed at these classes) can multiclass with it freely. OA even removed the monk m.c. restriction. So it seems to me that many of the designers didn't even want thoose restrictions in there but some play testers wined enough and they pu them in as official core rules. All I want them to say is "Well we made a mistake, these are olny ideas you might want to impliment for flavor in your campagin." Because the idea is to not have to make house rules. Other than this little thorn I have very little bad to say about 3e. I think the rule you can be tripped if you fail your trip attack is silly. But I is a great system. -D [/QUOTE]

Verification