quote:

---

Originally posted by Dargoth

Ok this is a bit of a Rant {snip)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Wilson

Aye, while I agree that core classes are getting out of hand, I'd also like to toss in feats. There's a crap load of feats (with some unwieldy numbers being added in the PHB2.) I own almost all 3.x books, and I can't even keep track of where certain feats come from when I look over character sheets.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dargoth

One class I wouldnt mind seeing is a D&D version of the Noble Class from Star Wars D20

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dargoth
Why do we need all these different classes?

Surely alot of them could be eliminated and used as PrCs?

---

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...

---

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 ).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand

As for feats, well it is a *sarcasm on* collectible roleplaying game *sarcasm off*.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dargoth
Now this is gettting silly if you ask me

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snotlord

Smartass reply alert: We don't have to buy and use everything.

---

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.

---

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...)

---

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]

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?

---

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.

---