Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Geron Raveneye" data-source="post: 139478" data-attributes="member: 2268">Hmmm...you know, Randolpho......the point of the 1E Rules was to reflect the Dragonlance setting, not the other way around...otherwise, there wouldn´t have been so many new character classes in the sourcebook back then. The Knights, the WoHS, the Tinkerer and the Handler all were non-standard core classes back then, and such needed their own entries. The whole setting wasn´t so close to the 1E rules. The Test at 3rd level definitely was a setting flavour...it didn´t have it´s roots in the 1E rule set, it was used to give the WoHS a flavour of their own, and to make it a challenge for wizard players to play a powerful wizard. And even if they weren´t of a certain colour until after the Test, they were taught by a Conclave wizard, who made sure they didn´t break the Conclave´s rules...you were part of the Orders from Day 1.Same for the Knights...you could start out as 1st level Knight of the Crown...I guess that should be considered a core class.There´s a few other &quot;setting flavours&quot; that might be warranted as a core class. The &quot;Mariner&quot; of the Sea Barbarians is one of them, for example.Of course, the PHB core classes are generic...usable for every fantasy setting. That doesn´t mean that they cover all possible classes...only that they are a base upon which you can build more, if needed. I guess that´s why they suggest modifying the core classes into &quot;variant classes&quot; in the DM´s Guide, a tad before the &quot;prestige classes&quot; come into play.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; After all, other worlds may have different core classes, a nice example is Rokugan...a few new core classes there, neh?&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Geron Raveneye, post: 139478, member: 2268"] [b]Hmmm...you know, Randolpho...[/b] ...the point of the 1E Rules was to reflect the Dragonlance setting, not the other way around...otherwise, there wouldn´t have been so many new character classes in the sourcebook back then. The Knights, the WoHS, the Tinkerer and the Handler all were non-standard core classes back then, and such needed their own entries. The whole setting wasn´t so close to the 1E rules. The Test at 3rd level definitely was a setting flavour...it didn´t have it´s roots in the 1E rule set, it was used to give the WoHS a flavour of their own, and to make it a challenge for wizard players to play a powerful wizard. And even if they weren´t of a certain colour until after the Test, they were taught by a Conclave wizard, who made sure they didn´t break the Conclave´s rules...you were part of the Orders from Day 1. Same for the Knights...you could start out as 1st level Knight of the Crown...I guess that should be considered a core class. There´s a few other "setting flavours" that might be warranted as a core class. The "Mariner" of the Sea Barbarians is one of them, for example. Of course, the PHB core classes are generic...usable for every fantasy setting. That doesn´t mean that they cover [b]all[/b] possible classes...only that they are a base upon which you can build more, if needed. I guess that´s why they suggest modifying the core classes into "variant classes" in the DM´s Guide, a tad before the "prestige classes" come into play. :) After all, other worlds may have different core classes, a nice example is Rokugan...a few new core classes there, neh? ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification