Quote from: LibraryLass;654944I'd say B/X, 1e, 2e and 3e.

Is there something that is in all three other editions but NOT in B/X? Otherwise you don't really have an argument for inclusion there.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;656011Is there something that is in all three other editions but NOT in B/X? Otherwise you don't really have an argument for inclusion there.

RPGPundit

Gnomes, Half-elves, half-orcs, bards, rangers, illusionists, druids, a number of spells...

Quote from: LibraryLass;656047Gnomes, Half-elves, half-orcs, bards, rangers, illusionists, druids, a number of spells...

It also expands the range of how one deals with modifiers to ability scores; in particular scores below 3 or above 18 don't show up in B/X.

Ok, those are both very good points.

Quote from: Bobloblah;655417Wait...is that only in WotC published material?! Good grief! No wonder the meta-environment slowly went off the rails.


You and me both. I banned prestige classes from my table, as well as multi-classing unless there had been prior, in-game roleplaying leading up to the switch. This was no different than I'd handled it in earlier editions, but it was so much more important with 3.x due to the flood of never playtested garbage.

The first time I realized 'builds' were a potential issue for me as a gm, was when a player joined my 3.5 game with a 'Chaos Monk' that was built to get many more attacks than a character would normally get, and be able to use  them when charging. There was no actual character personality...just a collection of uber capabilities.

Mmmmm..Chaos Monk!   ya...right...

Roleplaying your way into a prestige class does not really solve the 'problem' of 'builds'

The players that want a powergamed build are certainly capable of roleplaying it out.

So, if the gm does not allow the oppertunity, the gm is essentially saying "You can't have any class I don't want you to have"

As a gm, I really loathe having to 'police' the game system, or to 'babysit' players.

Admittedly, its not a super common thing I have to deal with, but it does pop up.

Quote from: Bill;656359Roleplaying your way into a prestige class does not really solve the 'problem' of 'builds'

The players that want a powergamed build are certainly capable of roleplaying it out.

So, if the gm does not allow the oppertunity, the gm is essentially saying "You can't have any class I don't want you to have"

As a gm, I really loathe having to 'police' the game system, or to 'babysit' players.

Admittedly, its not a super common thing I have to deal with, but it does pop up.

I think you have to police the system. The only prestige classes that should be in your game shoudl be ones that fit your setting.

If you don't have monks there are no monks if you don't have a special group of monks that sit on a mountain and practice the Way of Chaos then there are no Chaos monks.

My problem with prestige classes is that they are just rules bloat. I love the idea of prestige classes as a roleplay thing. But when Dave the Tall joins the Order of Bob he doesn't need to get a whole load of mechical bloat he just needs to defend the weak, help the poor and stop washing his feet.
You don't need to give PCs mechanical rewards for roleplay choices.

Quote from: jibbajibba;656369I think you have to police the system. The only prestige classes that should be in your game shoudl be ones that fit your setting.

If you don't have monks there are no monks if you don't have a special group of monks that sit on a mountain and practice the Way of Chaos then there are no Chaos monks.

.

Yes, prestige classes require policing I think to keep them in line with the setting. As a player nothing frustrated me more than someone bringing in a prestige class character that didn't mesh at all with the established setting. That said, one thing I noticed in my area was people were divided over how much policing the GM should do. Some players disliked the GM prohibiting certain prestige classes and felt they had a say in contributing to the setting, others felt the opposite. So there were times it was challenging for me to do policing in a mixed group. But I just found it too disruptive to allow every and any prestige class with no say from the GM.

QuoteMy problem with prestige classes is that they are just rules bloat. I love the idea of prestige classes as a roleplay thing. But when Dave the Tall joins the Order of Bob he doesn't need to get a whole load of mechical bloat he just needs to defend the weak, help the poor and stop washing his feet.
You don't need to give PCs mechanical rewards for roleplay choices

This is an excellent point. You don't need  a mechanic for every roleplaying concept. I think prestige classes would have worked better if they had designed a finite number very carefully from the beginning and really vetted them. Some of the prestige classes fit really well and added to the game, others were broken, and lots of them were duds.

I agree about rules bloat, but if classes don't have mechanical differences, why have classes at all?

You don't need Paladins because a Fighter can be super lawful good?

Quote from: Bill;656359Roleplaying your way into a prestige class does not really solve the 'problem' of 'builds'

The players that want a powergamed build are certainly capable of roleplaying it out.

So, if the gm does not allow the oppertunity, the gm is essentially saying "You can't have any class I don't want you to have"

As a gm, I really loathe having to 'police' the game system, or to 'babysit' players.

Admittedly, its not a super common thing I have to deal with, but it does pop up.

If a player has the devotion to earn the PrC in game, and it's downright challenging without being abusive, it's more than likely that he's no powergamer.

And I do mean -earn-. I mean, for Blackguard for example, you'd need, in my campaign, to either amass and army and start a campaign of darkness, or advance the cause of your demonical lord in a vast political matter, such as assassinating and taking over a position of at least a Mayor of a city...etc, etc. Something that'd require devotion from the player.

mmm

Must have:

• class/level system
• roll d20, add number to hit AC which is a compound skill/armour/dex number
• hit points that escalate by level
• vancian magic
• maybe saving throws of some kind
• alignments, i just think D&D thrives on them
• dungeons, sorry but i think people just expect them

Interestingly, I could write an rpg using these rules I'd play, and if you've read my previous posts you'll see how weird that is.

Quote from: Bill;656373I agree about rules bloat, but if classes don't have mechanical differences, why have classes at all?

You don't need Paladins because a Fighter can be super lawful good?

As I pointed out in another thread, you could easily lump all the fighter and thief-types into one generic Adventurer class that could be fine-tuned by the player into something very similar to the rulebook thief, fighter, assassin, ranger, monk, barbarian or paladin -only without creating whole new experience, saving throw or combat tables.

Quote from: Bill;656359Roleplaying your way into a prestige class does not really solve the 'problem' of 'builds'

It certainly does if done right. We're not talking about using a funny voice for a few sessions, we're talking about interaction with the game world over a period of time in a way that plausibly leads to the possibility of multi-classing in a specific way.

Quote from: Bill;656359The players that want a powergamed build are certainly capable of roleplaying it out.

My experience of several powergamers who are only interested in builds is that they cry like little children when they can't choose whatever toy they want, whenever they want. The process I'm talking about weeds out these sorts of players.

Quote from: Bill;656359So, if the gm does not allow the oppertunity, the gm is essentially saying "You can't have any class I don't want you to have"

Yes, and I can and do say that on lots of occasions. Any class has to make sense within the milieu; you don't get to use it just because you bothered to show up at a session.

Quote from: Bill;656359As a gm, I really loathe having to 'police' the game system, or to 'babysit' players.

Unfortunately, I don't feel that 3.x does very well without being policed. There's just too much un-associated, never-playtested material out there.

Quote from: jibbajibba;656369I think you have to police the system. The only prestige classes that should be in your game shoudl be ones that fit your setting.

Exactly! You either control what gets in to your game, or things go pear-shaped.

Quote from: Rincewind1;656387If a player has the devotion to earn the PrC in game, and it's downright challenging without being abusive, it's more than likely that he's no powergamer.

As I mentioned above, this is pretty much my experience, too. And I dig your example of earning the right to become a Blackguard.

Quote from: jibbajibba;656369My problem with prestige classes is that they are just rules bloat.

I have a lot of sympathy for the idea of Prestige Classes. They allow players to construct characters that are truly different within the game. Unfortunately, that difference comes with a lot of baggage, and I don't think the 3.x designers ever really decided what they wanted Prestige Classes to be. It was also clear to my from even the core books that they were nowhere near as well playtested as the core classes.

Quote from: Bill;656373I agree about rules bloat, but if classes don't have mechanical differences, why have classes at all?

You don't need Paladins because a Fighter can be super lawful good?

No you don't need paladins.

I divided the game into skills, combat , magic. A class to specialise in each then a way of constructing class elemtns from a small number of core 'rules'.

No rules bloat, infitinite variation.

I think D&D would do fine with 3 classes:

Fighter
Mage
Specialist

Multi-classing (warrior-wizard, fighter-specialist, etc) would simply entail taking levels in another class.