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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zelda Themelin" data-source="post: 165099" data-attributes="member: 167">What I'd like to see more, would be interesting, original and powerful prestige classes.I don't appreciate game balance in certain level of creative thinking, since it seems to make people re-create same thing after same thing keeping normal character classes balance in mind.This is good, but it also sucks big-time. There are almost always weak preq-feats, that seem to be there only for reason 'go away power-gamer' (toughness and the like). And in many case, they don't seem to exist for any in-game reason, though I can logic in any crap I like, of course.Some so called prestige classes would also work better as variations of base-class.I hate feat-chains, especially when some publisher, "ah so creativily", creates a new one, that doesn't at worst case use anything from base rules as starting basis. 'So, how unlimited number of feats we did have again' is something I always think when seeing this.Also, there are few 'what they were thinking' classes like 'Hospitaler', that have interesting rule-loops for every min-maxer who cares for such.I don't like class power coming from loop-holes.Also, if some prestige class allows character to enter at 10th level earliest, I think that organization/group/whatever should give character something worth wanting. If that balances as win some-loose some with original class, I might consider it good, if it had something original (and not just something, that can be gained through feats or 'normal' multiclassing).Class like 'Dragon Disicpline', which through interesting idea, is complitely pointless (why not just make half-dragon in the first place, if dm allows).And my personal bias are classes created for both sorcerers and wizards, without keeping in mind sorcerer only gets knowledge (arcane) as class skill, and no bonus-metamagic feats either, and new spells levels later to boot.I didn't put my point out very well. My 'I want more powerful Prc:s'- bias comes from fact that Prc:s appear to be something you can only access at higher levels. Such characters are not naive kiddies anymore, so why would they ever want to become something they gain very little for at that point.Specialization should be made at character creation, or during first 3 levels. There was valid point in that in 2nd edition kits.I also have suspension of disbelief-problem with, let's say, 'secret order of assassins' who supposingly train theri members from young age (or so one would think), but actually, their lowest ranking members are 11th level characters.Weaponmaster is pointless-feat-chain-hell type character.I agree with somebody who said core D&D was made with levels 1-12 in mind. I guess that's why D&D vision of high level play is so uncertain and often mishandled.I don't hold my breath for epic rules either, though never know.</blockquote>

Verification