Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Knight Otu" data-source="post: 2834999" data-attributes="member: 192">I recently posted my thoughts on new base classes elsewhere, and I came to a conclusion that was quite surprising to me (especially considering that, back in the day, I thought from the names alone, that many AU classes should be PrCs) - there aren't too many base classes. Of course, they have to add something to the game. In my opinion, a new base class should do one of the following:    * Provide an ability set that was not seen yet.    * Provide a mix of abilities that is hard or impossible by multiclassing between base classes.That's a given. If I can't figure out how to give a low-level character access to other planes in a balanced way, I shouldn't create a planeswalker base class. Waiting until about 3rd level should be the maximum to get a defining class ability, and that's stretching it very much.Those two I somewhat disagree with. In a Player's Handbook type book, sure, it should be the case, but, for example, in a setting, you could have quite interesting choices (say, Red Wizards of Thay). I feel you'd restrict yourself unnecessarily using these rules.And even if a class is named "culturally," that does not mean it always has to be used that way - a setting-neutral Red Wizard may be an Arch-Specialist.(And yes, I'm aware that Red Wizard isn't an ideal example, but I feel it illustrates my points well enough).That I can agree with to an extend, but a broadness in the sense of "every race can advance in it" can fall into the same trap as the previous two. Used in a sense that it can be used to create different types/flavors of characters, then yes, that's more like it. But even then, if a setting might call for an "Elven Leafgatherer" base class, I wouldn't mind its existence. Base classes should be as broad as possible, but shouldn't be too afraid from some narrowness.A big yes. Non-customizable base classes breed clones, which runs counter to the idea that base classes should be broad. If the customization is not built-in, provide some other means of customization (such as special feats).</blockquote>

Verification