Kaithan Kanathar's page

I'm creating a Dragonlance campaign where an evil race called the Nzunta will play a major part. They are very attuned to magic and in my campaign their preferred class is Sorcerer. I've read a lot of comments on these boards about how prestige classes aren't really as good as the base classes in a lot of ways, and I came up with an idea to allow NPCs of the Nzunta race to be able to use some of the arcane PrCs as base classes instead of prestige classes. For instance an NPC could start as an Arcane Archer at first level instead of having to meet the prereqs of the class first. Since the Nzunta are natural sorcerers in my campaign I was thinking of giving them the spell progression of a sorcerer as well. I also like the idea purely from a fluff viewpoint, as I want the Nzunta to be "different" from the norm. Do you think this would make my NPCs too powerful, or not powerful enough?

I am playing in a campaign being run by three of my old AD&D pals, but are now using the 3.x rules. Before I started playing the other three decided that they would ignore the AoO rules as they felt it dragged the combats out too long. At least that is what they *say* the reason is. I strongly suspect that the *REAL* reason is because one of the players is something of a control freak who likes to play magic users, and he found that the AoO rules made it more difficult to showboat his character.
The other three players all take turns DMing a Forgotten Realms campaign while I will be DMing a Dragonlance game with different characters. In their campaign they don't use any PF material, but in mine I will be using the PFCRB for classes and feats.
My main concern is that not using AoO will effectively nerf several feats/skills in both the 3.x material as well as in the PFCRB material. There will be no convincing them to use AoO rules. It'd be pointless to even try. My solution so far has been to just ignore any prereqs for feats/skills that give you AoO bonuses. I just pretend those feats/skills don't exist as a prereq when it comes time to build my character. I just worry that there is going to be some kind of serious imbalance further down the line as the characters gain levels. What are the thoughts of others?

I have a half-orc character that I'd like to build with ranger/barbarian/rogue levels. His original class would be barbarian for story reasons and his main class would be ranger with only a few (maybe only one) level of rogue. I like the whole animal companion aspect of the ranger class, and would choose a bear. What I was wondering is how effective of a build would this be, and maybe some advice on how many levels of each I should take. I am not overly concerned with being an uber powerful character, I just want to be able to keep up at higher levels. Thanks.

Hello all! First time posting on these boards so bear with me if I am being repetitive here...
I am going to be running my PCs through the Dragonlance Age of Mortals campaign, or at least the first module of that campaign called the Key of Destiny. I bought the Pathfinder Core Rule Book several years ago, and I think I'd have what you guys would call the "3.75" version.
Anyway, my idea is to allow the core classes and feats from the PF book to be used in lieu of the core classes and feats out of the PHB. If a player wants, they can still use the classes in the PHB, but the PF classes are there if they want to use them. Right now only one of my three players is likely to take advantage of the PF book, along with my main NPC. I've looked through the book and I don't see anything likely to imbalance my campaign much, aside from the fact that the PF classes are just cooler and more useful, but I was wondering if anyone else might see a problem with me doing this?