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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 7652730" data-attributes="member: 17106">I think one of the subtle differences between PF and D&D is that PF designed classes with a boatload of customizable special abilities (bloodlines, ki powers, etc.). And then threw in archetypes. Of course, they had an easy time doing this because the "build your own class" concept had gradually developed throughout the lifespan of 3e. Their intention was in large part, I think, to get rid of prestige class proliferation, but they took a more general step in the direction of "build your own" classes.I've started to build much more open-ended classes as a consequence. For example, instead of listing "trap sense" and then having a bunch of "alternative class features" that change the bonus to something else, I wrote a rogue that simply has "rogue sense" which grants a +1 bonus to a small number of related saves or checks, and gives several examples (including all the 3e trap sense variants) and suggests that you make up your own if needed. I also did the PF thing where rogue special abilities go through the whole progression, rather than starting at level 10, and have tons of options. I do a lot of that these days. More skills, more bonus feats, more special abilities that can be whatever you want them to be. Fewer set-in-stone class abilities. Fewer dead levels.By writing more open-ended classes to begin with, I get less of players coming to me and wanting to trade this ability for that or wanting to make their own class. And yet, the clarity of the class structure is maintained; I'm not playing a classless game and multiclassing has become less common. Players can build their characters the way they want more easily. That's my answer to this.</blockquote>

Verification