Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Axiomatic Unicorn" data-source="post: 166281" data-attributes="member: 1974">Then you are missing the words &quot;such as&quot;.&nbsp; A given PClass may have a group to join, but it may not.&nbsp; Therefore your statement that there &quot;has to be a group&quot; for the generic Chibby Chubs is overcomplicating things.&nbsp; The rule you have quoted says nothing more than that you must meet ALL prerequisites for a given class.&nbsp; There is no statement to the effect that all PClasses must have these rerquirements, only that they must be met if they exist.Also, your &quot;spontaneously appear&quot; comment makes me think you did not read my post very well.&nbsp; The group error is addressed above.If you considered a PrC unbalanced, don't use it.&nbsp; I don't use PClasses I considered unbalanced.&nbsp; I also don't use feats I consider unbalanced.&nbsp; Same for spells.&nbsp; The presence of unbalanced feats and spells has never led me to considere banning feats and spells completely.Who says you can't?But isn't tweaking the fighter class going to take time away from your making of adventures?ok.&nbsp;I have not observed this problem.&nbsp;&nbsp; And I find a whip fighting fighter who becomes a Lasher to be much less of a mush character than a whip fighting fighter who starts taking sword feats when he runs out of decent whip applicable feats.&nbsp; (Unless you want to take time away from adventure design developing new whip feats)And I don't think you have correctly described the &quot;mush&quot; idea as presented by Hong.&nbsp; Perhaps I am mistaken, but if the PClass fits the same concept, it is not mush.&nbsp; Only when a player starts splashing in classes just to gain an ability, without any tie to the character concept, do you get mush.&nbsp; Fighter10/Lasher10 is not mush.&nbsp; Fighter17/Sorc1/Ranger1/Barbarian1&nbsp; is mush.OK.&nbsp; I don't see where this addresses anything I said.&nbsp; I'm not sure I agree about the balance.&nbsp; But I don't see that it matters.&nbsp; I remain confused how simply allowing a player to take a PClass is more time consuming than building whole new rules.I find the quantity of feats that non-fighter receive to be much more limiting in character concept development than the quality anyway.You have made two basic points.&nbsp; One is a reading of something into the DMG that is not there.Second, you indicate concern regarding player abuse and munchkin-style power gaming.&nbsp; This is a player problem.&nbsp; Not a PClass problem.I like PClasses because they resolve what I perceive to be the biggest flaw in the level system style.&nbsp; They allow great flexibility in character design and concept.&nbsp; A fighter with 11 bonus feats may be able to emulate a wide variety of styles.&nbsp; A Elven ranger who wants to be especially good at forest survival does not have remotely the same luxury.&nbsp; The King of the Forest class in MotW allows this option to be achieved much more completely than feats can.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Axiomatic Unicorn, post: 166281, member: 1974"] Then you are missing the words "such as". A given PClass may have a group to join, but it may not. Therefore your statement that there "has to be a group" for the generic Chibby Chubs is overcomplicating things. The rule you have quoted says nothing more than that you must meet ALL prerequisites for a given class. There is no statement to the effect that all PClasses must have these rerquirements, only that they must be met if they exist. Also, your "spontaneously appear" comment makes me think you did not read my post very well. The group error is addressed above. If you considered a PrC unbalanced, don't use it. I don't use PClasses I considered unbalanced. I also don't use feats I consider unbalanced. Same for spells. The presence of unbalanced feats and spells has never led me to considere banning feats and spells completely. Who says you can't? But isn't tweaking the fighter class going to take time away from your making of adventures? ok. I have not observed this problem. And I find a whip fighting fighter who becomes a Lasher to be much less of a mush character than a whip fighting fighter who starts taking sword feats when he runs out of decent whip applicable feats. (Unless you want to take time away from adventure design developing new whip feats) And I don't think you have correctly described the "mush" idea as presented by Hong. Perhaps I am mistaken, but if the PClass fits the same concept, it is not mush. Only when a player starts splashing in classes just to gain an ability, without any tie to the character concept, do you get mush. Fighter10/Lasher10 is not mush. Fighter17/Sorc1/Ranger1/Barbarian1 is mush. OK. I don't see where this addresses anything I said. I'm not sure I agree about the balance. But I don't see that it matters. I remain confused how simply allowing a player to take a PClass is more time consuming than building whole new rules. I find the quantity of feats that non-fighter receive to be much more limiting in character concept development than the quality anyway. You have made two basic points. One is a reading of something into the DMG that is not there. Second, you indicate concern regarding player abuse and munchkin-style power gaming. This is a player problem. Not a PClass problem. I like PClasses because they resolve what I perceive to be the biggest flaw in the level system style. They allow great flexibility in character design and concept. A fighter with 11 bonus feats may be able to emulate a wide variety of styles. A Elven ranger who wants to be especially good at forest survival does not have remotely the same luxury. The King of the Forest class in MotW allows this option to be achieved much more completely than feats can. [/QUOTE]

Verification