Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6945925" data-attributes="member: 996">Sounds pretty reasonable. Just the opposite side of the coin we see with the EK & AT.  We've already seen a spell-less ranger, a non-magical Paladin, devoted to a temporal cause like a king or nation or even philosophy could be an example.  A Wizard Tradition that doesn't actually use magic would clearly be going too far, outside of an April Fool Stunt (Today, on UA, the Charlatan Tradition...)Yes. That's what I thought when the idea was floated during the playtest.   3rd is the new 1st, so you can have your classic fighter/cleric/magic-user at the start, you just 'start' at 3rd.  Thing is, I've seen no real acceptance of the idea, and apprentice tier being 1-4 doesn't really point strongly to it, either.  3e had a variation that allowed you to be multiclassed even at 1st level, it wouldn't be too hard to come up with something to enhance the already-optional 5e MC rules to allow something of the kind.  Yep.    Choose one domain sub-class vs choose 2 domains is less customization, IMHO, but not really the crux of the matter, which was a level of DM-driven customization possible in 2e.  The DM could design priesthoods in considerable detail.  This could be along the lines of a Sorcerer Origin that can be customized or the existing advice on creating custom backgrounds, a fill-in-the-blanks sub-class the DM uses as a Template for custom priesthoods.  It was a very cool bit that 2e provided that we have only seen vestiges of since.For the most part, 5e doesn't pin down classes into any sort of strict combat function like that.  For the most part.  But it does put fighters, barbarians & rogues squarely in the DPR box.  I'm not sure what alternative would fill in for such a substantial chunk of sorcerer differentiation and capability.Imbalance is a non-issue in 5e, if you want balance in your campaign, you're going to have to use the available DM tools to impose it, whether you opt into an existing optional rule like feats, or a hypothetical one like PrCs.  The advantage of PrCs is that they can be setting-specific and tight concept, so it's easy for the DM to pick & choose and only bring in those that support the campaign.I, too, would be wary of PrCs that exist only to fill in mechanical gaps, like flaws in MCing, as happened in 3e. Of course.  There are also some existing sub-classes, like the PDK, that would have made /more/ sense as PrCs.  It'd be hard to break the fighter in any way other than pouring gasoline on it's DPR fire, at this point, sure.  But, that's one notorious little thing the Warlord could do, you could also build a Warlord that never granted actions. 'Complex fighter' is a bad shorthand, since the point isn't complexity, but the customization and flexibility that can be bought with even slightly increased  complexity.  The BM is an example of a 'more complex' fighter - more complex than the Champion, less complex than almost any other sub-class.  A big book of downtime activities would be kinda awesome, really.  <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    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> 5e calls back 1e magic items, a little, in the way that magic items make a character  'just better,' but it doesn't go so far in how common or arbitrarily powerful they could be - and it doesn't build in a need for them, like 'magic weapons to hit.'  I was thinking a 'module' to go there, for DMs who wanted to.I suppose, since Eberron came out in the 3e era, but I mean the whole 3e take of expected wealth/level and making/buying magic items freely.  It's kinda the opposite direction of the 1e version of high magic, in one way, in that items are not meant to be arbitrarily unique/powerful and entirely DM-bestowed, but primarily a player resource.Fair 'nuff.  Those are NPCs.  NPC classes were a 3e thang that a DM could use to build somewhat less crazy complicated, and/or less adventure-oriented NPCs, or that players could use to give a PC some less-adventuring-oriented abilities.  Backgrounds really kinda obviate the second use.That would be nice.</blockquote>

Verification