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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Archade" data-source="post: 3049731" data-attributes="member: 7654">I appreciate the input, folks.  It's helping me articulate my reluctance to include new classes.Thurbane said it best -- adding a new class can possibly add complication to a campaign.  I think I can understand my internal logic for my campaign world now.  Please keep in mind versimilitude matters to me as a DM.  Maybe I am worrying about my campaign world imploding in my mind, Thanee.A feat is easily added to a game, and we don't need to worry were it came from.  It could be self-taught, or learned from another.A spell or a magic item is easily added to a game, becuase they are created by inventive spellcasters.  Only one person needs to create a new spell or item.A prestige class is easily added to a game, and it comes from a small handful of npcs or social group within the campaign.  Some small justification and/or social role on where the prestige class comes from should exist.A base class would belong to hundreds or thousands of other npcs in the campaign world, and a player character must learn their classes from somewhere -- one is not simply born a hexblade or knight (although one might be born a warlock or sorcerer, but let's not go there).My reluctance to add a base class is because I need to understand where all those base classes were before.  Warlocks a born, not trained, so I am comfortable with them.  Archivists can be justified by existing in small numbers, hiding in libraries and monastaries across the campaign world, and their insertion doesn't cause a huge impact on the game.Do any other DMs worry about this sort of thing?</blockquote>

Verification