| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dargoth |
Posted - 08 Apr 2006 : 05:09:36
Ok this is a bit of a Rant
In the begining
Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer
Wizard
Then we got Prestiage Class which allowed you to specialise your character in Specfic group (There are currently 677 according to the PrC index at WOTC)
Then the Complete Books came out and the following classes where added
Ninja
Scout
Spell Thief
Warlock
Warmage
Wu Jen
Favoured Soul
shugenja
spirit shaman
hexblade
samurai
swashbuckler
Then the Psionics Hand book and Expanded Psionics Handbooks came out
Psion
Psychic Warrior
Soul Knife
Wilder
Then the Complete Psionic Handbook came out
Ardent
Divine Mind
The Lurk
Players Hand Book II
Beguiler
Dragon shaman
Duskblade
Knight
Tome of Horrors
Archivist
Dread Necromancer
There are 3 more classes in Tome of Magic and Richard Baker has confirmed there will be ANOTHER 3 New Classes in Tome of Battle
Then weve got substitue levels
Planar Sub Levels from the Planar Hand book
Racial Sub Levels from Races of Destiny, Races of Stone and Races of the Wild
Then weve got rule Varients in Unearthed Arcana
Now weve got Organisation Sub levels like those found in Champions of Valor
Now this is gettting silly if you ask me
Why do we need all these different classes?
Surely alot of them could be eliminated and used as PrCs?
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Jindael |
Posted - 13 Apr 2006 : 14:37:05
No, It wouldn’t solve the Feat Flood by any stretch, but hopefully it would reign in the flood if PrC’s that just fill up PrC space but serve no real actual purpose, doubly so in the Realms, which has such a rich culture.
Back when 3.0 was new, and me and the group I was with were struggling with the changes from 2ed, I was of the opinion that Feats were kind of a hold over from the previous system of receiving weapon and non-weapon proficiencies. They added some useful stuff to the game, but failed to really impress me overly.
I suppose that I would have preferred Feats to be more like Perks or Merits or something.
But I really think that it stems from having to maintain game system recognition. My prediction for 4th edition will be, rather than getting a set amount of skill points, feats, and class abilities at each level, you will get a pool of points, and feats, merits, skills, etc, will all be broken down into varying point costs. You will just purchase what you want.
This will, or course, lead to a glut of powers, feats, skills, etc, just like we have now.
It’s the nature of the beast; as long as WotC and 3rd parties want to make money selling their product, they will come up with stuff to put into the product, and after a great length of time, there will be a glut of material (And the dangerous Power Creep). It’s not avoidable at all.
Although I’m not the biggest fan of 3.x, I still prefer it over the useless skill system in 2ed. I really want something more organic next time though.
In my old group, we had people who cared little for feat selection, and people who did the “character creation is a science” thing. Personally, I feel that feats, overall, have created much more of a “Powergamer” feel to the game, where you select numerical advantages that fit your character, rather than RP style things. This isn’t totally a bad thing, but I agree that with 1000+ feats, the process becomes much more problematic. (I generally only find about 2-3 feats per book to be at all useful, but I have a tendency to play non-magic using classes, and the PHB is superior for most of these feats.)
And it’s pre-coffee….so I probably totally missed the point here again.
|
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 13 Apr 2006 : 10:10:34
Jindael, this would not necessarily hem in the Feat-flood. In regards to the Realms you always have a region attached to the PrC, I think, or at least that's how I handle it.
It would be interesting if there was a guide to *useful* and *flavor* feats. Goodman Games' powergamer's guides do the number crunching for fighter and wizard classes.
Of course, there should NOT be solely powergamer feats, but some feats hardly have any significant game impact. If you look at the original 'roster' of feats in the PHB, there were hardly any 'useless' feats. Regional feats are great, but the flood... choices are important, but over 1k feats, playing a character becomes a science this way.
On the plus side my players finally have to get way more involved in the game |
| Jindael |
Posted - 12 Apr 2006 : 13:03:56
The best change, IMO, that you could make to the prestige class system, is to stop making generic PrC’s, and make more regional specific ones. For example, stop making “Requires Dodge, Skill Focus: Basket Weaving and Weapon Focus: Boomerang” requirements for a PrC, and start making more like “Must have the patronage and support of a previous existing member of the PrC, or the blessing to advance in the class from a high ranking priest in the order.” Or some such.
|
| Arivia |
Posted - 12 Apr 2006 : 03:35:56
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
I've lost track of the current policy, but the original rationale of prestige classes was that they represented a specific role with a somewhat defined social position: not a member of an organization necessarily, but often they would be. I like this better than the extremely vaguely defined classes, but obviously not every organization needs one: taking some obvious Realms examples, the Harper classes are very contrived, and the Red Wizard class, like most prestige classes, is nothing that can't be handled by multiclassing, class ability swapping, and a new feat or two. I'm not against new rules completely -- we just disagree on what proportion of this stuff is gratuitous, and if it works for you, that's great, but I think its overall effect on the game and its culture is extremely negative. Another reason to implement gnome fire magic as feats or a modular rules system, if it really works fundamentally differently from normal magic, is that making it a prestige class restricts it to fairly high-level characters -- any lore and play value a prestige class has application inherently limited by the mechanic.
Hm. Thanks.
I've got some thinking to do. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 12 Apr 2006 : 01:57:39
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Reefy
Although one of my players is trying to convince another one that he should play a half-dog cleric of Bane. No, I don't get it either.
A half-dog? 
Please tell me it's something like Barf in Spaceballs. Otherwise I shall be very, very frightened. I might even whimper in fear. I might do that even if it is like Barf, depending on how such a being came into existence... 
HAHAHA. :)
Hehe...
Add to this the fact that I once encountered 2e stats for a mog  .
|
| Kuje |
Posted - 11 Apr 2006 : 17:33:21
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Reefy
Although one of my players is trying to convince another one that he should play a half-dog cleric of Bane. No, I don't get it either.
A half-dog?
Please tell me it's something like Barf in Spaceballs. Otherwise I shall be very, very frightened. I might even whimper in fear. I might do that even if it is like Barf, depending on how such a being came into existence...
HAHAHA. :) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 11 Apr 2006 : 17:16:54
quote:
Originally posted by Reefy
Although one of my players is trying to convince another one that he should play a half-dog cleric of Bane. No, I don't get it either.
A half-dog?
Please tell me it's something like Barf in Spaceballs. Otherwise I shall be very, very frightened. I might even whimper in fear. I might do that even if it is like Barf, depending on how such a being came into existence... |
| Faraer |
Posted - 11 Apr 2006 : 15:36:50
I've lost track of the current policy, but the original rationale of prestige classes was that they represented a specific role with a somewhat defined social position: not a member of an organization necessarily, but often they would be. I like this better than the extremely vaguely defined classes, but obviously not every organization needs one: taking some obvious Realms examples, the Harper classes are very contrived, and the Red Wizard class, like most prestige classes, is nothing that can't be handled by multiclassing, class ability swapping, and a new feat or two. I'm not against new rules completely -- we just disagree on what proportion of this stuff is gratuitous, and if it works for you, that's great, but I think its overall effect on the game and its culture is extremely negative. Another reason to implement gnome fire magic as feats or a modular rules system, if it really works fundamentally differently from normal magic, is that making it a prestige class restricts it to fairly high-level characters -- any lore and play value a prestige class has application inherently limited by the mechanic. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 : 21:14:06
I strongly feel this pain. When 3.0 came out and the alternate prestige classes started, I let my players use whatever resources they saw that would still fit in FR (which most of it could be made to). Now, however, its about 4 years later or so, and there's so many prestige classes that I'm to the point that I'm limiting what would be allowed in FR. For instance, one player really liked one from complete divine for a sun god who was known for healing from GH. His view was that this would work as a follower of Lathander. Truly, it would have, except its powers gave him the ability to empower and maximize every healing spell he cast. Luckily, I was able to say "no Lathander has a morninglord prestige class". Then there's the new tome of magic. I bought it and it was pretty much a waste. Only the pact magic section was interesting to me, and that could have used a lot more editing.
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
| Mr. Wilson |
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 : 04:51:50
Personally, I'm happier when the material focuses more on the fluff than the crunch, but friends of mine are consintantly showing me "this" new feat or "that" new prestige class that seems to plese them. It can be slightly maddening some times to explain why that doesn't exactly fit with FR or whatnot. Of course, YMMV. |
| Reefy |
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 : 02:06:23
All I can say is I'm glad most of my players like to keep things simple most of the time in character variants.
Although one of my players is trying to convince another one that he should play a half-dog cleric of Bane. No, I don't get it either. |
| Arivia |
Posted - 10 Apr 2006 : 01:01:33
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
The new D&D's game design philosophy tends towards turning nuances of action into fiddly rules bits like combat manoevres and feats, rather than leaving them to DM and player description and improvisation. That isn't my style, to start with, but once you have 1000 feats, you've long since stopped (most of the time) plugging legitimate gaps in the rules (even then, legitimate only if you think a ruleset should attempt to account programatically for all eventualities, which I think is suffocating and daft) and are well into making stuff up to justify the latest feat quota ('15 new feats!' etc.)
We managed just fine without the stream of new feats and prestige classes. They aren't necessary to play in the Realms, they don't in my view add many actual character choices that couldn't have been made without them, and while they do present some character and story ideas incidentally, they're an inefficient way of doing that.
See, I agree with you that creating new feats and prestige classes for the purposes of creating new feats and prestige classes is damaging the game. However, I do think that new feats and prestige classes have a spot in supplements just so we can have a rules-consistent system for describing campaign concepts in game rules is a valid reason to include them. Does every supplement need to contain 4 prestige classes? No. However, if you're doing a supplement on the "gnomes of Thrakan Graath and their extraordinary fire magic", then I would prefer seeing the gnomes' magic actually detailed in rules terms, including feats or prestige classes if appropriate. Feats and prestige classes fit the existing framework well, a lot better than a jumble of unnamed benefits that don't really fit the way characters are developed in 3e. I additionally think part of the problem arises from the fact that there's been a lot of confusion over the years as to what exactly the role of a prestige class or a feat is in a supplement--- the most disconcerting of which was the few years in which a prestige class basically needed to exist one per organization, at least. And this was partially because there wasn't much a developed framework otherwise --- these days, we have the affiliation system[Five Nations], and the Favored In Guild system[Dungeon Master's Guide II], which will hopefully stop the flow of prestige classes as organizations. I don't think using them, however, is a plague on the game.
EDIT: I'm going to try to restrain myself from posting in this thread again; I'm worried I'll get a bit virulent again. [As in, my infamous frothing at the mouth bit.] |
| Faraer |
Posted - 09 Apr 2006 : 23:39:12
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
So what can replace the usage of prestige classes, core classes, feats, and such in supplements? They're tools for describing characters' abilities in game rules terms, and isn't it better to have them using an existing framework rather than being thrown out without any rhyme or reason in applicability to characters' statistics?
The new D&D's game design philosophy tends towards turning nuances of action into fiddly rules bits like combat manoevres and feats, rather than leaving them to DM and player description and improvisation. That isn't my style, to start with, but once you have 1000 feats, you've long since stopped (most of the time) plugging legitimate gaps in the rules (even then, legitimate only if you think a ruleset should attempt to account programatically for all eventualities, which I think is suffocating and daft) and are well into making stuff up to justify the latest feat quota ('15 new feats!' etc.)
We managed just fine without the stream of new feats and prestige classes. They aren't necessary to play in the Realms, they don't in my view add many actual character choices that couldn't have been made without them, and while they do present some character and story ideas incidentally, they're an inefficient way of doing that. |
| Purple Dragon Knight |
Posted - 09 Apr 2006 : 05:56:35
I play a nobleborn wizard in my friend's campaign, and thought for a LONG time about taking one level of Aristocrat for that very reason: survivability and armour/weapon use (i.e. I wand the gentleman wizard to become a great Cormyrean leader, and I could not simply imagine him as 'another War Wizard'... I wanted the typical Purple Dragon grunt to admire the guy... so armor/weapon use was absolutely crucial, along with other leadership variations).
However, the real-world needs of the group was that they needed a wizard... really badly. So instead of the aristocrat level, I gave the character the Militia feat (not usually available in Cormyr but available anywhere if you take some of the character creation options offered in Champions of Valor) and a chainmail. Yes, the ASF percentage and Armor Check Penalty really bite (especially because it translates into a -5 penalty to attack rolls!), but I took the disadvantage to upkeep the character's image.
During an intense/dangerous missions, when he realized that ditching the armor would ensure the correct castings of his spells, he tore it off his chest in a fit of rage, truly accepting his calling/gift in wizardry, and blasted the villain as it was about to finish off one of his fellow Blade.
He now travels with his noble outfit, not yet deemed worthy of the War Wizards' acceptance. He takes the insult well, and vows to stay as close to the troops as he can, silently promising to himself never to wear the robe, even when the War Wizards deem that he is useful enough to join their ranks. When he will be asked, he will surprise them all by showing at his swearing-in ceremony wearing the perfect wizard armor!!!
Behold!!! the "no drawback for wearing it armor", the start of a wizardly revolution!! 'tis give true meaning to the term WAR WIZARD OF CORMYR!!
Thisledown-padded Mithral Breastplate +1 of Nimbleness and Twilight, with Armor Lubricant
Mithral: [DMG] +2 max dex; -3 armor check penalty; -10% arcane spell failure.
Twilight: [BoED] cost +1; -10% arcane spell failure.
Nimbleness: [MoF] cost +1; +2 max dex; -1 armor check penalty.
Thisledown padding: [RotW] a few gp; +1 armor check penalty; -5% arcane spell failure.
and finally, to get rid of the +1 armor check penalty we get with Thisledown padding...
Armor Lubricant: [RoF] a few gp (40gp I think); lasts 1d4 hours per application; -1 armor check penalty!!!
For a grand total of...
AC +6; Max Dex +7; Armor Check Penalty -0; Arcane Spell Failure 0% |
| Trace_Coburn |
Posted - 09 Apr 2006 : 02:55:07
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
The Aristocrat NPC class is absolutely useless for PCs, it doesn't even have any special abilities.
To go on with, no. But for starting characters who intend to go on as arcane spellcasters, it offers some (limited) benefits at low levels which contribute greatly to longevity:
- proficiency with all armour and shields
- simple and martial weapon proficiency
(granted, few 'casters are likely to wear protection which will give them a grevious ASF chance, but the option exists... and wearing even leather armour (ASF a mere 10%) and carrying a shortsword and shortbow makes you look like a bard or rogue rather than a spellcaster, making it harder for the bad guys to ping you as an arcanist and "geek the mage first!". Not to mention the nasty sucker-punches you can pull when they succumb to this ploy.  )
- d8 hit points (crucial for survival at low levels)
- a decent array of skills (mainly social) and 4+Int skill-points
(arcanists are often meant to be the brains of the operation, but their starting skills/points don't really reflect this. Even taking one's first level as an Aristocrat and abandoning it immediately thereafter nets you useful options).
I'll concede that you often have better choices available through which to acquire these benefits - fighter for hit points and weapons/armour goodies, rogue or bard for the skills/points - but in certain, limited instances, the NPC classes can make nice 'one-stop shops'. Not to mention they can make nice character hooks for both PCs and recurring NPCs, if used properly. (Disgraced/exiled noble turned mage-adventurer; the gentleman thief who shmoozes his fellows by day and rips them off by night; the stuck-up dandy who's the very terror of the honour field (having some Duelist PrC levels); I'm sure you can imagine others....)
YMMV, of course. [shrug] |
| Arivia |
Posted - 08 Apr 2006 : 19:50:25
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Most of this stuff, whether 'core classes', prestige classes or feats, is gratuitous, in that little of it implements anything that the rules couldn't already handle already: it's rules for rules' sake, and the more Wizards plays to the segment of players who like that, the more D&D ghettoizes itself into a narrowing, insular gameist character-'building' sub-subculture that turns off all the normal people who aren't part of that analytic + power-fantasy demographic.
When there are 2527 feats in the official sourcebooks, the marginal utility of new ones approaches zero. The 4E reset is coming. (Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow...)
So what can replace the usage of prestige classes, core classes, feats, and such in supplements? They're tools for describing characters' abilities in game rules terms, and isn't it better to have them using an existing framework rather than being thrown out without any rhyme or reason in applicability to characters' statistics? |
| Faraer |
Posted - 08 Apr 2006 : 19:45:47
Most of this stuff, whether 'core classes', prestige classes or feats, is gratuitous, in that little of it implements anything that the rules couldn't already handle already: it's rules for rules' sake, and the more Wizards plays to the segment of players who like that, the more D&D ghettoizes itself into a narrowing, insular gameist character-'building' sub-subculture that turns off all the normal people who aren't part of that analytic + power-fantasy demographic.
When there are 2527 feats in the official sourcebooks, the marginal utility of new ones approaches zero. The 4E reset is coming. (Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow...) |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 08 Apr 2006 : 18:07:24
quote:
Originally posted by Snotlord
Smartass reply alert: We don't have to buy and use everything.
Precisely. Although I can understand what prompted Dargoth's post.
quote:
I stick to the core books and FR books, and introduce only what I need or the players request, which is very little. This way I save some money and my preference for fluff over crunch makes a tiny impact on the wotc bottom line.
I'm very selective of what I buy these days. Thus, my WOTC gaming purchases have sharply declined. Moreover, even my novel purchases have diminished compared to past years. Simple fact is, although more than ever I have funds for purchases, I refuse to waste my money when I'm not finding products that satisfy me. |
| Snotlord |
Posted - 08 Apr 2006 : 17:59:36
Smartass reply alert: We don't have to buy and use everything.
I stick to the core books and FR books, and introduce only what I need or the players request, which is very little. This way I save some money and my preference for fluff over crunch makes a tiny impact on the wotc bottom line. |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 08 Apr 2006 : 17:35:34
Sirius, I truly don't hope so... then again we are talking corporates and not creativity |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 08 Apr 2006 : 17:27:41
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
Now this is gettting silly if you ask me
Which means it's about time for 4.0 so the whole process can start over again. |
| silverwizard |
Posted - 08 Apr 2006 : 17:16:11
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
As for feats, well it is a *sarcasm on* collectible roleplaying game *sarcasm off*.
GOTTA CATCH THEM ALL!!! (sounds familiar?) |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 08 Apr 2006 : 16:52:51
I'll only use the classes of the books I own, nothing more. As for feats, well it is a *sarcasm on* collectible roleplaying game *sarcasm off*.
Plus there is so much stuff out there that I doubt anyone has read it all. Hell, many of the RPG books I have I only read partially. |
| Dargoth |
Posted - 08 Apr 2006 : 15:53:53
I dont have a problem with PrCs so much so long as theres a reason for them. I loath the PrCs that are just "There" a PrC should exist for a reason
The Aristocrat NPC class is absolutely useless for PCs, it doesnt even have any special abilities |
| Trace_Coburn |
Posted - 08 Apr 2006 : 15:06:13
quote:
Originally posted by silverwizard
<rant>
It really makes you wonder, however, that with so many prestige classes there are many people who try to combine features from other classes (they don't even belong to the same game!) to come up with ONE (yes, ONE) class that would encompass the diplomat/aristocrat/noble. That is, in my opinion, quite UNACCEPTABLE. I remember WotC designers stating (prior to the release of 3E) that the situation "would not get out of hand", like it did with all those 2E optional handbooks containing kits and non-weapon proficiencies (as you see I am not even mentioning Skills & Powers and the like). Well, 677 prestige classes IS what I'd call an out-of-hand situation.
Indeed. On the one hand, PrCs offer great RP hooks and fluff-based opportunities... but on the other, their proliferation is a little, well, much.
FWIW, on the 'Aristocrat' issue: why don't those people simply use the NPC Aristocrat class from the DMG? Why go to all the trouble of creating an all-new noble/diplomat class if you can fake it by using an Aristocrat with a few levels under their belt who put most of his skill-points into social skills? (If they need extra persuasive ooomph, give them some minor magic items with suggestion-like abilities.) Putting a little thought into the use of pre-existing tools can be a lot less time-intensive (and sometimes more fun!) than trying to reinvent said tools completely....
For example, I've got a semi-NPC Calishite expatriate merchant-princeling character on the slate. I don't know if it's technically legal, but I gave him the Aristocrat NPC class to start off with, reflecting his relatively well-educated and privileged life (including hunting/weapons/armour skills and survival training, being that he and his friends tangled with some desert beasties just before he was 'encouraged' to go out and seek his fortune), before he multi'd into his 'base' class of Sorcerer and kept adventuring (as he does to this time, albeit with a couple of sideline levels as a rogue - to facilitate stealthy operations).
Slight digression: how many players/GMs use the NPC classes for PCs in this fashion?
(Granted, I doubt many people would take Commoner or Warrior levels when the PC classes are so markedly superior, but Aristocrats, Experts and Adepts might actually have their place in gameplay, with the right application of RP....  And let's face it, sometimes you want some of the features of a 'base' class - like decent skills and point-tallies - without the others (like, say bardic abilities or ranger skills ). |
| Kajehase |
Posted - 08 Apr 2006 : 14:41:43
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
Why do we need all these different classes?
Surely alot of them could be eliminated and used as PrCs?
Quite the contrast, actually; each time we see new classes I find myself going "What? A new class focusing on *that*?!" and being pleasantly surprised. WotC's doing a good job keeping the classes separate and meaningful; the only one I can think of that I'd like a PrC version of better was the ninja, which I'm still using the ninja spy prestige class from OA in place of.
Oh, and you forgot quite a few classes --- the OA ones, the ones from Magic of Incarnum, the ones from Eberron...
The variant stuff in Malhavoc Press's Iron Heroes - which I'm actually tempted to take a closer look at since my extra-FR brainstorms tend to result in low-magic settings. |
| Mkhaiwati |
Posted - 08 Apr 2006 : 13:56:26
No one mentioned this part: when players (and GMs) but all of the other D20 stuff and then min/max characters using everything from Mongoose, Malhavoc Press, AEG, Green Ronin, etc. As if WOTC doesn't have enough feats, PRCs, spells and the like.
My last gaming group had a power explosion after some role-players left and the GM was also a power gamer. Why they had it set in FR I don't know, since none of the background material was ever used.
Mkhaiwati |
| silverwizard |
Posted - 08 Apr 2006 : 11:29:13
<rant>
It really makes you wonder, however, that with so many prestige classes there are many people who try to combine features from other classes (they don't even belong to the same game!) to come up with ONE (yes, ONE) class that would encompass the diplomat/aristocrat/noble. That is, in my opinion, quite UNACCEPTABLE. I remember WotC designers stating (prior to the release of 3E) that the situation "would not get out of hand", like it did with all those 2E optional handbooks containing kits and non-weapon proficiencies (as you see I am not even mentioning Skills & Powers and the like). Well, 677 prestige classes IS what I'd call an out-of-hand situation.
And then there are the feats. NOOOOOOooooooooOOOOOOOOOoooooo!!!
I am unable to run a game at present due to the preparation time required (which I lack), but there's NO WAY I'm gonna have players coming to my gaming table with obscure prestige classes found in this or that "variant" "complete" [insert name here]. Besides, if I wanted to run a game tomorrow, I'd go with 2E because I've got enough books ready to be used, and I prefer to expend my creativity designing a lively and convincing campaign world, not converting numbers.
This is personal preference only, mind you. I certainly DON'T want this thread to devolve to (yet another) edition-bashing flame war (i.e. Mods do not ban me please ). |
| Arivia |
Posted - 08 Apr 2006 : 11:12:10
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
Why do we need all these different classes?
Surely alot of them could be eliminated and used as PrCs?
Quite the contrast, actually; each time we see new classes I find myself going "What? A new class focusing on *that*?!" and being pleasantly surprised. WotC's doing a good job keeping the classes separate and meaningful; the only one I can think of that I'd like a PrC version of better was the ninja, which I'm still using the ninja spy prestige class from OA in place of.
Oh, and you forgot quite a few classes --- the OA ones, the ones from Magic of Incarnum, the ones from Eberron... |
| Dargoth |
Posted - 08 Apr 2006 : 07:43:05
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
One class I wouldnt mind seeing is a D&D version of the Noble Class from Star Wars D20
Agreed.
The only D&D alternative I've seen that even comes close to the Noble class for SWd20 is the Noble class detailed in the DLCS 3e. If it were generic enough I'd try my hand at a conversion for FR, but as it is... the class features themselves are directly tied to Krynn.
Others more proficient with the 3e rules however may have better luck.
its funny that you should say that, yesterday I started trying to merge elements of the SW Noble and Aristocrat NPC class together to see if I could get a workable class |
|
|
