It’s funny, the article points to the breadth of classes and races and spells as a bad thing, which for me was a strength. No, you wouldn’t use a hundred races in a game. But having the flexibility to build any kind of campaign setting you’d like.
I am definitely tired of 3.X and don’t want to go back, but I had a good time gaming with it for over a decade. It brought me back to D&D after completely skipping 2e.
@deinol@Pteryx@diyrpg.org@copacetic I’d consider the prestige class focus to be more of a mistake, and the base class focus a better idea. Prestige classes as the primary means of large-scale customization warped 3.x play; meanwhile, more base classes and freer multiclassing (the latter of which the author also criticized) meant it was easier to realize different concepts without having to bend over backwards.
Most of the prestige classes might have one or two interesting features at most and I couldn’t see the point of building toward them. Though it rarely mattered, since games I played in didn’t often get high enough level to take prestige.
I think Pathfinder 2e comes closest to a multiclassing equivalent to prestige classes. And while I conceptually like it and it’s OK in limited level short bursts, it’s complex and *exhausting* even over 3e/PF1.
It feels *to me* like just making the hard choice between plain base classes and add-on specialist classes is best. There’s no good cake and eat it too with that model.
@Pteryx @copacetic
It’s funny, the article points to the breadth of classes and races and spells as a bad thing, which for me was a strength. No, you wouldn’t use a hundred races in a game. But having the flexibility to build any kind of campaign setting you’d like.
I am definitely tired of 3.X and don’t want to go back, but I had a good time gaming with it for over a decade. It brought me back to D&D after completely skipping 2e.
#TTRPG #DnD #OGL
@deinol @Pteryx@diyrpg.org @copacetic I’d consider the prestige class focus to be more of a mistake, and the base class focus a better idea. Prestige classes as the primary means of large-scale customization warped 3.x play; meanwhile, more base classes and freer multiclassing (the latter of which the author also criticized) meant it was easier to realize different concepts without having to bend over backwards.
@pteryx @deinol @Pteryx@diyrpg.org @copacetic
I was a big fan of multiclassing in 3.x to get the type of character I envisioned.
Most of the prestige classes might have one or two interesting features at most and I couldn’t see the point of building toward them. Though it rarely mattered, since games I played in didn’t often get high enough level to take prestige.
@pteryx @deinol @Pteryx@diyrpg.org @copacetic
I think Pathfinder 2e comes closest to a multiclassing equivalent to prestige classes. And while I conceptually like it and it’s OK in limited level short bursts, it’s complex and *exhausting* even over 3e/PF1.
It feels *to me* like just making the hard choice between plain base classes and add-on specialist classes is best. There’s no good cake and eat it too with that model.