All will be well with D&D in October...

I think swift and immediate actions constitute a small amount of rules bloat in D&D, but Wizards mitigates this somewhat by including the new rules bits in subsequent books instead of saying "if you want to use supplements W, X, Y and Z, you'll need to go buy supplement A for the handful of paragraphs that all these subsequent supplements assume you have on hand."

The worst offender of this IME was AEG's Spycraft 1.0, which would include new subsystems in supplements and then in subsequent supplements assume that you had that supplemental material on hand.  It was "collectible rules" at its worst and severely compromised the utility of the supplements for users who wanted to pick and choose supplements to taste instead of compulsively buying them on sight.  Worse, a lot of the interesting mechanics referenced in the generic (i.e. setting-neutral) supplements were featured in the setting-specific (very specific) Shadowforce Archer supplements.  Bleh!

FWIW, I think White Wolf has learned its lesson.  NWoD is very playable just with the corebook, as are nVampire and nMage with the corebook + coresplat.

KoOS

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThat's where dingleshit and I started having our fall-out -- it's not playing the game poorly if you don't embrace unnecessary rules addenda.

!i!

:rolleyes:


As to the argument in the thread itself, I am of the opinion that PrCs as a category or class are not optional in core D&D, but individual PrCs are optional instantiations of the category or class because of the modular nature of PrCs. You might not want to allow a PC to take Master of the Arcane Order because there are no arcane institutions in your game, but saying "No one can take a PrC at all," is using a wrecking ball to pound in a nail.

If two people like different amounts of salt in their food and have to eat a meal together, banning salt is not a good solution. Instead, each should add as much salt as they like to their individual portions. And so it is with things like PrCs (and new base classes, and feats, and other choices that affect only a single character). If you, whether as a DM or a PC, don't like PrCs, don't use them. But banning anyone else from using them simply because of your distaste is despotic.

I think the reason I differ so strongly from many of the other people is that I mostly play a PC these days, not as a DM, but I do so in a group where the DM's rules authority is not absolute.

"Bloat" is also somewhat of a pejorative word that seems to be obscuring the discussion of specific instances of rules additions. "Bloat" implies that the rules are bad in some way. Swift and Immediate actions, on the other hand, greatly simplify a number of rules exceptions into a general type with clear features, and seem to've been taken rather positively by the online D&D community. They aren't "bloat" because they actually make the game easier to play.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineAs to the argument in the thread itself, I am of the opinion that PrCs as a category or class are not optional in core D&D, but individual PrCs are optional instantiations of the category or class because of the modular nature of PrCs. You might not want to allow a PC to take Master of the Arcane Order because there are no arcane institutions in your game, but saying "No one can take a PrC at all," is using a wrecking ball to pound in a nail.

The DMG says different.

Quote from: Dungeon Master's Guide, p. 176Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign. The example prestige classes are certainly not all encompassing or definitive. They might not even be appropriate for your campaign. The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself.

Fair enough on the "optional" part. I do think it restricts regular play in a lot of ways not to use some of them, though. In particular, there are quite a few character tactics that simply aren't viable without a PrC of some sort. The build that initially got me and Ian arguing - a small fighter who threw weapons - is a good example. Other types include casters who want to multiclass, skillmonkey characters who want to multiclass, fighters, people who use two weapons who aren't rangers or rogues, and paladins and monks who want to multiclass. Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head, of course.

Basically, because the niches are so tightly built for each class, anyone who wants to break out of those niches has to go into a PrC. It's especially true if you apply the multi-class XP penalty rule (most people seem to ignore it), where going beyond two base classes starts fucking with how fast your character develops.