Zander said:
PrCs put new players off. They see these classes but they can't take them until they've got several levels in another class, one they're not interested in.
In many cases, it doesn't make sense that a core version doesn't exist. Why, for example, can't a PC be an assassin from the beginning?
I wish that 3.x had not attempted to emulate WFRP's career progression. It works OK in WFRP but not in D&D.
I'll turn this around. Why does a character that wants to be an assassin have to actualy take levels of assasin? I usually look beyond the class and to the character for a good definitian. He's not a rogue/ranger, but a gypsy, for example.
That said, I like the PrCs in general, as they give the ability to customize your character much more than some of the base classes (Dualist, Loremaster), and, in particular, make multi-classing easier by offering aspects of both classes (Elderich Knight, Mystic Theurge). But I don't like the thought that you need a PrC to be anything special, which is why I do like a good selection in the base classes.
So, basicly, I'd prefer more flexibility in the base classes, not more base classes, though that ends up being a similar request.
As far as making D&D more new player friendly, I think making a set of "Simpler" rules, either in the core book, or a seperate book, that would make things a bit more straight forward like combat or character advancement.
Simple mods:
- Remove AoO, and several of the more advanced combat options. Generaly, players attack, move and attack, or do something else that requires some ammount of time. So, remove sundering, disarm, AoO, Trip, and some of the more complex actions, simplify graple, extend the time of some actions that currently requrie an AoO (Quafing a potion, some item activation, most of the maneuvers have been removed already).
- Simplify skills. Player selects some number of skills, which are always at max rank, and remove synergies. Skills are simply Level + Atribute Bonus + 3 (you could get rid of the +3 for this simplification) if you're proficient, and Atribute Bonus if you're not.
- Remove some feats (Like craft item feats, any feats involving special maneuvers, perhaps even metamagic feats). You could potentialy eliminate feats all togeather, and then tweek the fighter.
- Remove the Druid (Quite complex, particularly the wild-shape), and any other classes you feel are a bit too complex (Monk perhaps, Ranger Perhaps, Paladin perhaps, Bard Perhaps, Barb perhaps.) Definately keep the core 4/5 of Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wiz/Sorc
- Remove PrCs - Added complexity level.
All these mods will restrict things a bit, but it will make the initial game a bit simpler to pick up without destroying some of the basic mechanics of the game system. As they learn more, you can indroduce more combat maneuvers, other classes, and expand the feats. Once they have a firm grasp, you can let them go nuts.
) So why not increase complexity? That's fine. Diversity is the issue. Too much material means you lose your grip of mastery. I don't think more core classes is a bad thing. Eventually that trough will fill with sludge like the PrC one. Too many feats? That may not be a problem except that there's too much out there to pick and choose from. I'd like to see better feat trees in D&D 3.5. I think that concept wasn't out there when it started, but it's quite viable now.
