Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Orius" data-source="post: 9170115" data-attributes="member: 8863">I wouldn't want to ban PrCs entirely, as they were an attempt to improve upon some things AD&D experimented with.  There's the campaign specific PrC that represents organizations in the campaign world, one of the older inspirations for this was things like Dragonlance's Knights of Solamnia.  That was a concept that PrCs seemed like they were meant to emulate.  Another concept was 2e's kits which had balance all over the place and could be pretty front loaded, where PrCs required players to work towards them.  The early PrCs weren't too bad and tended to be archetypical and some of the concepts were things a DM could build upon and customize.  Later ones were much more specific and had a lot of fluff built into them, maybe not bad if a DM liked the concept and wanted to use it, but if not they were kind of a waste of space.  That's not too bad, since everyone has different tastes, and it's okay if a supplement has material I don't want to use if there's plenty of stuff I like.  This becomes a problem when charopers just look at the mechanical benefits ignore the fluff and then insist on being allowed to use something that doesn't fit in a DM's game.Casters are harde to disrupt in 3e, but I don't have a problem with the idea of the Concentration skill itself.  That's fine.  But a DM has to be aware of and use the elements of the combat system that are there to potentially disrupt a caster, attacks of opportunity and readied attacks.  A smart player will probably minimize the threat of AoOs and avoid doing things like casting in melee and this is fine too.  But DMs should use readied attacks to potentially disrupt a caster, especially with ranged attackers.  You don't want to do this all the time, but the DM should make use of tactics that threaten casters.  And another thing I'd avoid here is swift actions.  The action economy didn't need them, and many of them seem to involve using abilities to avoid AoOs that were a balancing factor.  So they are forbidden in my game.One of the things I want to do with martials is to bring back old school followers and transition away from dungeon adventuring where PCs used to hit name level.  You could also look at it as gaining followers around 5e's third tier of play, it doesn't matter too much.  The fighter's big thing was that they become leaders at level 9 and start commanding armies.  I want to bring in things like stronghold building and domain play around 10th level because I think the game needs the shift in focus.  So the martials here become leaders while casters like wizards and druids don't get armies but have other high level benefits instead.  The biggest issue here though are clerics who gained a significant number of followers in the old days but cleric is one of the classes that does NOT need a boost.  I think the thing to consider here is that while the fighter's followers are combatants, the cleric's followers should be mostly 1st level commoners, since they're a congregation rather than an army.  This whole element of play is something I'm going to have to examine after going over dungeon and wilderness exploration and how to make them feel more old school using 3e mechanics.My absolute ban list for 3e so far:Desert half-orcsWhisper gnomesArchivistDuskbladeFactotumArcane ThesisDivine MetamagicNatural SpellReserve featsSpontaneous divine casting All LA reductionsAll metamagic cost reductionsCelerityAll swift spells and powersNightsticksMagic of IncarnumTome of Battle: Book of Nine SwordsThis stuff is either broken to the degree where charopers see it as a must have, so therefore it's a must ban, or it's stuff that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  Or both.  Or in the case of Incarnum, it adds another big layer of complexity that I don't want to deal with.  Book of Nine Swords is pretty much all of the above.  There's probably a good number of material that needs to be added to this list as well, but I haven't examined it yet.</blockquote>

Verification