Post/Author/DateTime	Post
cerberuspuppy 01-06-07, 01:10 PM	I am doing the writeups for a game I'll be running soon. I'm just about done with the section on classes. The setting has a standard Medieval Western European feel, with Fey and Devils figuring as major forces. I'm allowing every class from the PHB except Monk, as well as Duskblade, Favored Soul, Scout, and Warlock. I'm considering Beguiler and Knight. Can you guys think of any glaring ommissions, or make a case for anything else? I considered Hexblade. I do like the class, but it just didn't quite seem to fit. I'll probably put Beguiler in, but I'm iffy on the Knight. It does feel very "Warcraft", but it could be interesting and appropriate to the setting. I do not want to go through every PRC and decide what I'll allow ahead of time, but are there any I should single out as particularly appropriate? Should I try to write new ones that are totally campaign specific?
Renzor 01-06-07, 01:47 PM	My sugggestions are the following: Lose Knight: a well-played lawful aligned fighter pretty much does the exact same role. Lose Beguiler: This is different in flavor than a Rogue/Sorerer or Wizard how again? Lose Warlock: Too similar with the sorcerer in terms of flavor, i say give the sorcerer the eldritch blast ability to at least come close to the favored soul. Alter Favored Soul: Get rid of the free Weapon Focus/Specialization feats and otherwise i'd be okay in my book. Alter but Keep Monk: I think a philosophical warrior can work in any setting, you just have to rename some things to make them native with the desired culture. My suggestions are to get rid of the monk special weapons and instead give them proficency with all simple weapons (perhaps give them the ability to flurry with these weapons as well ethier as a class feature or with a feat). Also rename the Ki strike class feature to something more European. Regarding the PRCs' what books are you using?
Disciple_of_Juiblex 01-06-07, 02:13 PM	the knight feels like "warcraft"? My my experences the fighter and a knight are very, very diffrent, with a knight primarly dispositioned to be the parties tank. Warlock and sorcerer are apples and carrots in terms of being similar. the beguiler could be like a specilest wizard in illusions exept for actually being stealthy, deceptive, and far more versitile and a replacement for a rogue for trapfinding. I havent played a favored soul but they look fairly weak, even with the good saves their spells are going to be far more limited than a clerics and they dont get really anything flasy in the base class. and the lack of domains and turning well, makes them far behind a cleric in terms of power. I dont care much for monk personally, but id ask your group if anyone wanted to play a monk. if not feel free to toss. you could make monks in that setting perhaps trained for kings to be bodyguards or somesuch. As for PRC i dont know what books you have avalible. you could try to write your own but theres so many presteige classes out there already. id say allow your pcs to look through your avalible sources and allow or disallow by a case by case system. my :twocents:
Witch 01-06-07, 02:18 PM	Lose Knight: a well-played lawful aligned fighter pretty much does the exact same role. Yet its abilities are entirely different. Lose Beguiler: This is different in flavor than a Rogue/Sorerer or Wizard how again? Yet its abilities are entirely different. Lose Warlock: Too similar with the sorcerer in terms of flavor, i say give the sorcerer the eldritch blast ability to at least come close to the favored soul. Yet its abilities are entirely different. Alter Favored Soul: Get rid of the free Weapon Focus/Specialization feats and otherwise i'd be okay in my book. Why do they need to lose them? They're already worse than the cleric.
Board_Rider 01-06-07, 02:28 PM	Why not just wait and see what the players want to play?
Teh_username 01-06-07, 02:46 PM	Lose Warlock: Too similar with the sorcerer in terms of flavor, i say give the sorcerer the eldritch blast ability to at least come close to the favored soul. Just to chime in on something no one had mentioned yet, the bolded portion is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard on these forums.
Fallenangel359 01-06-07, 03:00 PM	warlock and sorceror aren't like eachother in flavor... warlocks get their power from fiends... sorcerors get their power from dragons... sorcerors are limited spells per day... warlocks aren't... warlocks have bigger hit die, and are a form of gish... Its entirely possible to play a chaotic good warlock that is fighting off the forces of hell I wouldn't ban warlock on flavor reasons... plus flavor can always be changed, if you don't like it.
Golem011 01-06-07, 03:05 PM	Oh, ouch la la. Sorcerors DO NOT NECESSARILY get their power from dragons. The idea was interesting, but wizards have just taken it too far now, methinks... But still, warlocks/sorcerors ARE different.
RadicalTaoist 01-06-07, 03:19 PM	Allow/disallow on what grounds? Balance? Fit to the kind of opponents you'll have? Appropriate to the setting (you'll have to clarify, norm D&D is very different from historical western Europe)?
itwasntme 01-06-07, 03:20 PM	this is a Medevil type of game? Allow the knight ... tho make them rare Knights useoly came near the end of t he Medevil Era or where few in numbers or keept to them selfs Monks would be more on the lines of Peacekeepers/Prists type of people HexBlade would be like a Evil Knight guy (to a point) which some excisted so allow them but keep them Rare or differcult to play as one (Rare like a Half Orc Paladin ... not a lot of them running around) Paladins are more on the Knight type of thing for that time ... Just more of a "Holy" Thing that followed the rules of the temple knights followed the rules of there lord Rangers Would act like Archurs/Scouts (besides the Scout class) more of a mix between the 2 keep em Fighters well ... theres allways Grunt and Warmasters so keep em Clerics? Prists keep em but ... make em worship a God/temple or something or Worship the lord of the land or something (like the paladin but not as warrior like there more commenly seen) Rouges? keep em there where thifes allways Assassins? Keep em Arcaine archur? ... Eh elite guard maybe? very rare ify on that BlackGuard? A Curropted Paladin VERY Rare (but there)... probly make it the BEEG or something like that Mystic Thurge? .... probly herboists like? maybe ify on that Wizards? ... well there is no Magic in that time but ... there where fantasy storys so Make them VERY rare and put some restrictions on them (Like follow some short of wizard code ... ether good or bad) Scorcers? More commen then Wizards but still ify on it Barbians? The Northlanders ... keep em but have negitive Diplomacy oh something inless in the north (Most people hated them and created evil storys about them but a few where Good barbian tribes) WarLock? More of a Evil Person will be hunted down ... basicly what they call a Witch or something like that Bard? Music and playing ppl .... keep em they where around then Druid? ... There where a few but they where Rare and where hunted down and killed sometimese but eather Good or Evil sides If someone is a druid have people target it more on bad things to do they where very unlucky back then and would have been killed if it wasnt for Knights/Fighters/Paladins/Clerics of the time by the Barbians/HexBlades/Blackguards and so on Should be a Low Magic Camp but have it still excisting or a normol Magic game if your more of the Fantasy way of Medevil Thinking a Very chaotic time so have a bunch of Chaotic things happin to the players like They get attacked by Bandits/Barbians/Monsters in places you normoly wouldnt find them (Like an assassin in a Temple or something like that ... sure the temple is a good place but the assassin isnt) something like that
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-06-07, 03:25 PM	Why not just wait and see what the players want to play? Because the Law of Outlier Gaming states that his players will invariably choose a class that he doesn't actually want in the campaign or that goes against the theme of the game. By stating which classes are allowed from the get-go, he prevents this and the awkward moments that follow.
Sleepwalker13666 01-06-07, 03:29 PM	I dont bar any of the classes in my campaign, whenever something comes out I look at it as a way to expand my world. It's fine to make the class rare but it should'nt be forbidden. Even in a non-oriental campiagn a samurai can emerge, he may not be called a samurai, but an honorable warrior could adopt a personal code simular to bushido and a fighting stlye like that of a samurai. Just something to think about.
Board_Rider 01-06-07, 03:33 PM	Because the Law of Outlier Gaming states that his players will invariably choose a class that he doesn't actually want in the campaign or that goes against the theme of the game. By stating which classes are allowed from the get-go, he prevents this and the awkward moments that follow. I think it awkward to immediately dissallow something before I even put in a request for it. Especially in a game where ideas are meant to be used as an expression of self. To each their own.
malisteen 01-06-07, 03:35 PM	Give hexblades another look. They aren't really a strong class, but they're pretty cool, and curses seem to fit especially well in a fiend/fayrie kind of game. Look especially at the PHBII variant. They may be overshadowed by duskblades, though, so maybe not. Warlock is an obvious and good choice for your game, don't listen to any detractors. Favored Soul is great for this, and the class is both more balanced and more interesting then cleric. If your game will not heavily feature undead, then I would consider replacing cleric with favored soul entirely. Spirit Shaman may be appropriate for your game, but, then again, with druid available it may be superfluous. Druid is great in any fay focused game, but I'd reccomend imposing the PHBII variant, to keep things simple and a touch less broken. The Incarnum rules and classes could easily fit this campaign well, as both faeries and fiends are often obsessed with souls in literature, but it adds a whole complicated mechanic to the game, so you might not want to bother Truenamers & Binders, from Tome of Magic, likewise could fit this campaign well, as both faeries and fiends are often affected by the power of names in literature, but it adds a whole complicated mechanic to the game, so you might not want to bother. Shadowcasters could also be a thematic fit, but the class is pretty weak.... The Tome of Battle classes and mechics are very cool and a lot of fun, but they would add a whole complicated mechanic to the game, so you might not want to bother. Beguilers are a great fit, definitally include them. Monteblank and Jester, both from Dragon Compendium, would be great fits for this campaign, at least thematically. But you would have to find the book, and even then they aren't exactly the most powerful classes, and might need a bit of a boost, mechanically. Knight is alright, but not all that great. I don't think your campaign would really be missing anything by not taking it. As for PrCs, Shadowdancer is an obvious inclusion, and the daggerspell PrCs from Complete Adventurer and Kensai from Complete Warrior would probably also fit pretty well. Mostly, though, just figure out what your characters want and see if those PrCs can fit into your world. Failing that, try to include one or two PrCs per player character that their characters might be interested in. As for races (I know you didn't ask. still.), both Changeling and Shifter, from races of Eberron, may be good fits for your game. Hellbred from Fiendish Codex II might also be a good call (although you'll have to fill in some of the gaps in the racial traits section).
Renzor 01-06-07, 03:46 PM	To Witch: The abilities may be different but the flavor is the exact same. A knight is is just a warrior who fights to uphold the authority of whatever authority he serves. A beguiler is a sneaky spellcaster who focuses on subtle spell effects to help them where their skills can't, no different than arcane trickster or any mage/rogue combo we can come up with. Warlock is a magcally inclined individual whose gift/curse stems from the heritage of a higher power. Why do you need a whole new base class for these? Also How's the favored soul worse than a cleric? Cause they can't turn undead? to Teh_username: Why's that? the favored soul has better base attack, hit dice, saving throws, more spells known, and actual class features in comparison to the sorcerer. In comparison, the sorcerer gets what, a familiar?
Witch 01-06-07, 03:55 PM	To Witch: The abilities may be different but the flavor is the exact same. A knight is is just a warrior who fights to uphold the authority of whatever authority he serves. A beguiler is a sneaky spellcaster who focuses on subtle spell effects to help them where their skills can't, no different than arcane trickster or any mage/rogue combo we can come up with. Warlock is a magcally inclined individual whose gift/curse stems from the heritage of a higher power. Why do you need a whole new base class for these? Also How's the favored soul worse than a cleric? Cause they can't turn undead? Let's see. A Knight has entirely different abilities than a Fighter - as such, the majority of the flavor is the same - but the identical ones aren't. A beguiler is a sneaky spellcaster but not one that backstabs or similar. In effect, these classes make certain concepts playable, that would otherwise be badly reflected by the mechanics. Sure, you could play an arcane trickster - but it would be completely different from a Beguiler, which is based around manipulating people. An Arcane Trickster is based on sneak attacking and stealing. A Warlock is completely different: it's power is everlasting, he is a creature to which the power is far more innate, though less powerful. And the Favored Soul is less good than a Cleric, because he lacks domain spells, has a limited list of spells known (in contrast with the cleric, who knows every single cleric spell ever printed), can't turn undead, has the same base attack bonus as a cleric, and has a dual spellcasting ability (charisma and wisdom), where one determines bonus spells and the other spell DCs.
Arcane Guyver 01-06-07, 04:14 PM	If you're not going to allow the monk (which is understandable), I would recommend making players aware that a feat from ToB improves unarmed strike damage - just in case somebody wants to make a pugilist. If allowing both the warlock and sorcerer in the game, it might be good to emphasise that warlocks wield raw power (due to genetics or some magical influence), while sorcerers just have a knack for casting spells (mimicing wizards or rumored to have draconic blood). You can use Spellcraft to identify sorcerer magic, but not warlock magic...
Jell_Moo 01-06-07, 09:55 PM	My sugggestions are the following: Lose Knight: a well-played lawful aligned fighter pretty much does the exact same role. I'll agree with this on the basis that the Knight is very poor mechanically. The fact that you can make a Fighter (using PHB2 and CW feats) that vastly outperforms the Knight when it comes to "tanking" is testament to this. Lose Beguiler: This is different in flavor than a Rogue/Sorerer or Wizard how again? Completely disagree. The mechanics of a Sorcerer/Rogue are just attrocious. It's a very classic archetype that cannot be adequately made without the Beguiler. The awkward progression of alternating between the two classes kills the archetype. Level 1, which are you? A skilled character with no grasp of magic, or a magic oriented character with few skill points and a horrid skill list? Lose Warlock: Too similar with the sorcerer in terms of flavor, i say give the sorcerer the eldritch blast ability to at least come close to the favored soul. The flavor of the Warlock is as similar or as different to the Sorcerer as the player makes it. They really aren't all that similar when it comes to party role. Come close to the Favored Soul? Guh? Alter Favored Soul: Get rid of the free Weapon Focus/Specialization feats and otherwise i'd be okay in my book. You actually want to weaken an already weakish class?
Kadasbrass 01-06-07, 11:29 PM	Sorcerers are normally born with their power. A Warlock could get theirs by a contract with a fiend of some sort, fey, or CG celestial. The knight flavor wise fits Medieval Europe but the fluff also in many respects clashes with that of the Paladin since both are similar background wise. So I would just with one or the other (the paladin could be made into a prc similar to the black guard). Hexblade could represent the darker side of Medieval Europe, think of Inquisition. But would either go with the UA variant paladins or the Hexblade but not both. The Hexblade could also function as the "paladin" of the more evil deities.
cerberuspuppy 01-06-07, 11:38 PM	Because the Law of Outlier Gaming states that his players will invariably choose a class that he doesn't actually want in the campaign or that goes against the theme of the game. By stating which classes are allowed from the get-go, he prevents this and the awkward moments that follow. Exactly. I want the characters to actually make sense in the setting, which is fairly standard fantasy. I've already gone hog wild on the races, I don't want to make things even more complicated.
periscope 01-06-07, 11:46 PM	Keep Knight just fix it.We changed the code in our game to make it much simpler. Got rid of the no flanking rule seemed stupid since they could give a flanking bonus. Changed the flatfooted rule to you couldnt strike an opponent from concealment unless you suffered from it to (like both trying to fight in the dark without Dvision) or sneak up on an opponent (no backstabbing but if you feinted or won initiative you could hit him no problem). Changed the helpless foe to you may not kill an opponent who willingly surrenders. You must extract an oath of surrender (lawful evil tends to be more I crush you under my foot and make you my $#@!% than I just start lopping off heads, though it has its fair share) from them. If they break the oath of surrender (lets assume your smart and put a clause in that states dont backstab me) then you are free to do what you want with them even if they surrender again. Also, took mounted combat off 2nd level and just placed a bonus feat there and added mounted combat to bonus feat pool. Changed the Fighting Challenge to an unnamed bonus which was equal to your charisma modifier but no higher than your knight level (I believe the latest DM in our group put a +10 cap on that though). Beguiler is cool, flavorful, and should fit in anywhere. Incarnum classes are good, though most people agree that the incarnate should have a clerics BAB. Psionics I would include (in our games they are often easier to handle than magic). Warlocks I would allow. They are hardly gamebreaking and if your players dont want it, use it as an enemy who can last all day. TOB classes are a must if you have the book, they make melee something to be noticed at the higher levels. Also, may I recommend that you use this variant for the paladin: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=729837 Its just awesome.
cerberuspuppy 01-07-07, 12:03 AM	Warlock stays, that much I'm sure of. With Devils and Fey playing bigger roles, the Warlock just fits too well to pass up. Scout is one of the least objectionable; it fits well (most of the land is still pretty wild) and doesn't ask much in terms of fluff. I like the Duskblade class, and it fit well enough as an old fighting order of Elves- one of the few Elven organizations that still deals with non-Elves. I like Favored Soul alot. That will probably be the next divine caster I play. Some things about the class do annoy me, though, like not getting the wings until 17th level. So I bumped that up to 9th- late enough to discourage prestiging out, but early enough to actually factor in. That's a good point about the domains. How about they choose one of their deity's domains, and automatically learn those spells as they can cast them, as extra spells known? I'm leaning toward Beguiler and against Knight. I can see how Beguiler has something to offer, but something about Knight doesn't quite sit right. I'll have to take a closer look at both.
cerberuspuppy 01-07-07, 12:09 AM	No Psionics, no alternate magic systems. I'm already decided on that. In general, I'm trying to keep the broader mechanics simpler. By the same token, I'm reluctant to add Tome of Battle; it seems like a whole new system that doesn't really mesh with anything else. I don't have TOB, and I'll have to take a closer look at it sometime.
cerberuspuppy 01-07-07, 12:14 AM	Books I own (at least books with classes in them) are PHB, DMG, PHB 2, all the Completes thus far, Races of the Dragon, and Races of the Wild.
danielinthewolvesden 01-07-07, 01:44 AM	Pretty much all, except Psionics and Oriental (Ninja, Samurai, Wu-Jen, Shugenda). You could have a Monk that uses a quarterstaff instead of bare hands and oriental weapons. But it would take work, and why? Sorcerers would likely either be Fey or Infernal- but dragons are a part of medieval myth. FS doesn't need any boost, it's fine as it is (it's just not as powerful as Druid or Cleric). Perhaps you could add Ks-Religion.
periscope 01-07-07, 02:29 AM	I still recommend TOB if you get it before your campaign starts. The maneuvers are just special techniques and ways of infusing ki in a way that allows you to do any number of things. I havent heard anybody complain about TOB. The Knight is the foil to the Barbarian. Whereas the barbarian relies on rage and instinct (DR and uncanny dodge, light armor, two handed weapon) the Knight is cool, calm, able to concentrate and nail them (fighting challenge, fighting challenge, heavy shield). I initially liked the Knight just because I had an image of a charging Barbarian getting shield bashed in the face and knocked on his but by the knight.
Manyfist 01-07-07, 04:22 AM	Psionics is not that bad. It could be a noble-only practice, to keep the local peasants from revolting, several well placed Psionic Charms would do the trick. Psychic Warriors could well be Royal guards of the Pope/Kings, and Wilders would most likely be Barbarian Cheiftians. Imo, I would get rid of the Sorcerer. Magic is suppost to be studied and that old hermit living in his tower practicing magic would be your typical Necromancer (Wizard). Sorcerers would definatley break this. Since Wizardry would be banned by the Church (assuming their is a major church like the Catholic Church), while Psionics would be mostly for the nobles. After all Psionics is a hidden art of the nobles, and noble blood. It would definatly make it easy to see who's a Noble for they would at least have some Psionic powers (Hidden Talent).
Asadeseth 01-07-07, 04:53 AM	The irony is that Psionics is one of the easyest forms of "magic" to handle, and fits the concepts of meny forms of midevil magic beter than arcane magic dose in some areas (the ideas behind psionic powers fit more witht the native magics of north central europle, the ideas behind "arcane" magic come more from the middle east). If you want to rename some of the stuff for psionics go ahead, heck you could call it headge magic if you wanted. The names used for psionics are largely Greek, this is part of the reason why people get them so conected to science fiction. actualy the term Psionics was phrase used buy early scientest to try to explane magic phonomina.
chromeraven 01-07-07, 05:01 AM	I second the recommendation for Tome of Battle. It adds extra mechanics yes, but they're no more complicated than spells, and make melee a lot more fun. the latest campaign my group started has at least one of each of the ToB classes last I checked and everyone is really happy with how they're working out.
Roland the Crownbreaker 01-07-07, 05:05 AM	If anyone in your group has a copy of the Complete Mage, I suggest looking at it, if only for the heritage feats (for fiends and fey) and a fey-allied prestige class. Not to mention some new warlock stuff. You might not want to let in stuff from the rest of the book though. If you take the knight, change the bonus granted by Knight's Challenge to unnamed. I played in a game with a knight, and the player felt himself getting smaller and smaller every time my bard started singing. (as the bonus from bardic music overlapped the knight's bonus, but stacked with the barbarian's) No other suggested change goes further to balancing out the class than this. None. The only other suggestion I reccomend for the knight is to place the shield feats from PHBII on the knight's bonus feat list. For a class based on shield use, not putting shield feats on the list was a major oversight on the part of the designers. The beguiler is a perfect fit for what you are describing. Personally, I like the full base class versions like the beguiler and duskblade, as they let a player start on his concept from level one. Despite the fact that there are prestige classes that do these things (perhaps even better from a powergaming standpoint) people always tend to forget two things. One: You don't appear, fully fleshed out, with your first prestige class level, into the game. Two: Not every game goes all the way up to level 20. In a game where you are likely to retire at level 12 or so, a base class is always preferable to a prestige class, based solely on the fact that the player will get to enjoy his concept all the way through the game, rather than only half (or even less) of it. With the emphasis on fey and fiends, the Hexblade is a good flavor fit for the campaign. Since you mention that you only want one form of magic to track in the game, I won't do anything lengthy about psionics or incarnum. I assume you want advice for what you are still trying to decide, not on what you have already figured out. For Favored Soul, just give your players the option out of PHBII. That way they can decide which version they want.
Cold Napalm 01-07-07, 05:12 AM	1) ignore renzor...I'm sorry he thinks the favored soul is powerful and needs a nerf?!? I mean most of that post was pure jibberish but you don't need more proof then this comment...although the idea of giving sorcerer eldritch blast comes pretty close too... 2) I kinda like the knight. Balance wise, it's not gonna break your game (they are kinda on the weakside, but not unplayable weak) and flavor wise...come on, medevial europe and you don't think the knight class is gonna fit into that?!? 3) I highly recommend ToB. It makes fighter types not suck. 4) consider the warmage, spelltheif and swashbuckler. I know rapiers might be too late age for your setting, but a swashbuckler does not HAVE to use a rapier and god knows those types have been around before rapiers.
UnknownMourner 01-07-07, 05:15 AM	You're getting a lot of really bad advice on this thread from the "cut 'em" camp. The classes you mentioned are fine. Some of the people, particularly that first replier, are giving you "is it powerful according to the Character Optimization boards" type of replies. Check out Binder in Tome of Magic. It's a classic entity worshipping witch type. You just have to only allow detail-oriented players to use them. Casual do more/plan less players will slow your game down with them. Also, if you didn't get it yet Fiendish Codex II has some sweet rules for pacts with devils and how to tempt players. I've already snared one player for 4 corruption points.
Tim4488 01-07-07, 05:22 AM	To be fair, I'm a huge fan of ToB myself. However... Western medieval Europe + Swordsage = not quite. Crusader fits nicely, though I also respect what he's saying about trying to keep it broad. I'm sure your game will be fine without the book, on the other hand, if you get it, the Crusader should fit well. Warblade is probably fine too. Swordsage just feels too... not western medieval Europe to me. In several ways. I'm a fan of psionics as well, but I understand your reasoning against it and respect that. Let it be. Same with incarnum, and variant magic in general. Sorry Napalm, but I'm gonna vote against the Spellthief. Doesn't seem to fit the setting to me. Warmage? Okay, but I'd say you add some flavor that they work for the King, the King, and only the King (or Queen). One goes rogue, he gets killed. Those things are too powerful (in comparison to a medieval army of 1st and 2nd level warriors, not in comparison to other PC classes) for monarchs to let them run loose. PHBII helps almost every class that people worry about underbalance issues, IMHO: new Fighter feats, a Hexblade replacement far superior to a Hexblade's familiar, a neat Favored Soul option. I'd say keep the Hexblade, if we've got Devils in the Material's Plane's business, a curse expert is dandy. It'd be fun to see some CN Hexblades working for the fey fight LE fey working for devils, actually... Scout is happy. Scout is always happy. Pretty much so long as the world you're in isn't to the urbanization level of the 1920's or later (and I've never seen a D+D world that was,) Scout always fits, never has issues, is flavorfully easy to fit in, has a well-defined role that makes sense, and has lovely balance. One of my favorite supplemental classes. Consider restricting the alternate class features from Complete Mage. I don't see a more medieval Europe world having as much magic/everything else crossover. Maybe the elves have figured out how to work magic into their mundane hobbies, but a human rogue with spell reflection or a barbarian with spell sense, in the world you seem to be talking about, feels off to me. Just my :twocents:
cerberuspuppy 01-07-07, 12:54 PM	Spellthief is silly, wonky and underpowered. Warmage is boring and does not fit into the setting. I can't make an honest judgement about TOB yet. I'll have to take a closer look at it, and see if anybody really wants to play any of those classes. I do have Complete Mage. It really is a must for this game. I'm giving Sorcerers the Wizard's bonus feats, but instead of Metamagic and Item Creation they get Metamagic and Heritage feats, so I won't be surprised to see a Fey, Dragon, Celestial, or Fiendish Heritage Sorcerer as one of the PCs. I've never said that Psionics is broken. It's just that it fits this setting even less than most, and I'm already making things complicated enough. Same goes for half the stuff I'm not allowing. I'm almost up to 20 base classes and almost 20 races available. There's plenty to choose from. It's great if a player can play something in this game that he couldn't play in any other game. I just want the party to make sense, that's all. Let me put it this way: In a game (Pirate theme) we're playing now, another DM banned all classes that required a Lawful alignment as well as Wizard. He didn't want to have a Paladin running around with a bunch of pirates, which was perfectly reasonable, and we all worked around this restriction just fine. Another reason I do these writeups is that some players need a bit of a jumpstart to come up with a character concept. I also don't want to hear "Duskblade? What's that? Oh neat, that's what I would have played!" in the 5th session. It helps for the players to know a little about the setting beforehand.