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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 2834456" data-attributes="member: 172">Incidentally, yes there was a very recent thread closely related to this. That said, this gives me a chance to compose and assemble a few of my spots, and someone has already said about 80% of my stance:Except point #3 (see below), this pretty well sums it up for me. Aside from that I think the solution of using faux prestige classes (they're really sort of "advanced" classes) to help acheive multi-class concepts (or other fringe concepts) is a perfectly acceptable and elegant solution, in that it <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">allows the GM finer control over the flavor of the game (by virtue of easily deciding whether to include or exclude the concept by allowing or disallowing the PrC.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">prevents you from further complicating the rules base by poluting it with extra rules meant to address special cases like multi-class-caster or what have you.</li> </ol>I think base classes should be broad. I don't necessarily think the paladin (citing a commonly debated example) should be a PrC since I do see such a thing as an "apprentice paladin." That said I do think that it could definitely afford to be more broad, something like a one-class solution to all your holy warrior needs like Green Ronin's (desperate in need of a 3.5 update) holy warrior. Simply choose the strictures and abilities appropriate to your alignment and order.I think the deluge of new core classes is not a good thing. One thing that people fail to realize when designing classes (or accepting them into their game) is that there are some core niches and competancies assumed by the default D&D adventuring models. Characters that start with one of the core classes and then take a different spin with a PrC tend to have these competancies. New core classes all too often do not. Someone on these boards in a thread that has probably been wiped out was making this case about the swashbuckler. IMC, I similarly found the spellfilch wanting when it came to living up to the rigors of adventuring life. So unless you are conscious and explicitly compensate for these shifts, new base classes tend to perform poorly compared to their core class / prc cousins.I do occasionally allow new core classes. But I tend to be instantly dubious to the point of outright banning when the new core class could simply be represented by a feat chain. (And I know I have said this before but it bears repeating...) CW Samurai, I am looking at you. On a more campaign management (and potentially personal) note, as I run things, every base class means that there are apprentice versions of this class lurking about somewhere. Elsewise, the existance of a PC of that base class seems incosistant and buggers with my SOD. For me, keeping the stable of base classes manageable and conducive to a consistent world background means limiting them to those that are broad and can realize a variety, instead of a few, character concepts.</blockquote>

Verification