Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kaffis" data-source="post: 820910" data-attributes="member: 10305">I agree, in that new characters may see some new avenues and possibilities open to them with 3.5e. I disagree, however, that 3.5e will radically change current characters (straight rangers or bards and spell selection among sorcerors aside).To point out my meaning with your examples:1. Yes, I think that many character concepts that currently flock to rogue as their solution may find they would rather do ranger or bard as their central point. But many won't. You have the option of being a scouting ranger or a diplomatic bard or the corresponding rogue. You trade the spells (and BAB/combat paths of the ranger) for sneak attack and a few exclusive skills, in addition to being able to add 2 full-level skills MORE than the base concept in the corresponding non-rogue. You could be a scout ranger, or you could trade your ranger spells and a bit of BAB for sneak attack and, say, disarm traps and bluff, for example.As for current characters 'changing' their rogue levels to ranger or bard, I just don't see it as a prevalent desire. Here you've got a character that's been played for a while, and has developed into the party's solution for situations x, y, and z. He can do this because of his 8 skill points. Sure, he could change to be a ranger or bard, and still handle the party's x and y situations, but he'd be swapping z for some other situation/ability w. And while the player might want to play an x, y, and w character someday, that isn't what this character is.2. Multiclass spellcasters have always been something that just didn't work well in 3e. Or have they, on a limited basis? Could one argue that the paladin, ranger, and bard are (or could be considered), on some level, multiclass cleric/fighters, druid/fighters, and wizard/rogues? The Mystic Theurge isn't, in my opinion, some harbinger of doom, it's just a stab at trying to make multiclassing spellcasters with another spellcaster feasible.While I can't say that I think it doesn't look a bit, well, strong, I haven't seen it in action, and in any case I think it provides a good template from which you could model a customized PrC to fit your campaign and the multiclass your player wants. If you think it's fine as is, but want to multiclass two divine classes, just change the requirement from arcane/divine to divine/divine, modify the skill set, and see how it looks, maybe clarify how spontaneous healing works, and go with it. If you think it's too strong, up the ante on prereqs, thus lowering the eventual maximum caster levels.As for whether people will want to change their 10th level mage to a MT, I think MT will merely just be tacked on to a player's "to play in the future" list, since the MT really looks like it needs to be the focus from the get-go of the character to be worthwhile.3. Sorcerors and changes to spells are one area where I do think there will be some retroactive character adjustment going on. But I can't think of a way to prevent it, and it's not like it's a major change to the way the character will be modeled.As always, YMMV, and I do expect some exceptions to my predictions about widespread character alterations.</blockquote>

Verification