Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 2123363" data-attributes="member: 172">Definitely. I don't think that you should be making core or prestige classes if you can acheive the concept with existing classes.One of my first 3e characters was a "scout" -- a ranger/rogue, that is. I find mechanical tweaks that would be non-sensible in the mileu aren't necessary to make a "scout" -- or a number of other concepts, for that matter. Needless to say, I dislike the scout core class (and ninja core class, etc.)Where I do find class variations or new classes acceptable is when they make something more general of existing class concepts that are too specific to fairly act as "building blocks." A good example is in your post. Should a ninja really have to be a LE monk/rogue/assassin? Perhaps a very specific and well ordered sect. But really, I like Goodman Games' Martial Artist class for this purpose -- it acheives a martial artist archetype without being as burdened with as many concept assumptions, which makes it a better building block. The ninja is a much more flexible character concept when you construct it with the martial artist.This is one of the primary reasons I reject so many of the new core class concepts... many of them are way to specific to make good building blocks. Unfortunately, some PHB classes like Monk and Bard share this malady.</blockquote>