Search results

My point is, once a spell is memorized, it's memorized/prepared. You can cast it as much as you like until you run out of power (spell slots). And if you need to switch things out, that's what your nightly rest/study time is for. This isn't and doesn't have to be rocket surgery.

Why can't we combine the Wizard and Sorcerer and have one primary arcane caster class? The Mage can prepare as many spells as s/he currently can; but once prepared, s/he can cast a spell as many times as s/he wishes until s/he runs out of spell slots. S/he can also use a higher spell slot to...

Personally, even back in the OD&D/ 1e days, I always tried to think up alternative magic systems. Back then, spells were "memorized" and then "forgotten". I could never understand this; wizards were supposed to be the sharpest knives in the drawer! When 3.x came out, I could get my head...

I did find a copy of Trailblazer.. What changes are you referring to? At first glimpse there seems to be a Lot in there, and I haven't had time to digest it as yet.

What are some of the bonuses that are given to fighters and rogues, for example? Do you think they could be worked into a 3.5 game to balance things out with the spellcasters? I personally don't think the mages and clerics needed any more power, and the new abilities given to paladins and...

Are there any directions for designing 2e-type specialty clerics?

This is a very sincere question that I hope everyone will take in the spirit intended. I have been involved with D&D (in all its many manifestations) since the LBB's. I suppose my greatest interest has been in BECM, for it's completeness and elegant simplicity, and 3.5 for its greatly...

I think generic classes would also require someone to enter the design process with something in mind. Developing an undead-turning psionic rogue is doable, but a player would have to have the concept in his/her head first. "Canned" classes are obviously best for people who don't have a clue...

In 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, one of the (many) options presented is "generic classes". Essentially you have three classes: Warrior (like a fighter with more flexibility in skills), Expert (the Rogue equivalent with, again, more flexibility), and Spellcaster, either arcane or divine. the True20...

I actually agree with you.. a sorcerer is what the wizard Should have been.. and spontaneous casting is how magic in general should work.. but Vancian seems to be the eternal D&D standard. When I described the sorcerer as an alt wizard, I was responding the the assertion that a sorcerer was a...

According to the BECM boxes (and the RC), race and class for elves, dwarves, and halflings are one and the same. In the Gazetteers, the two began to be separated. Dwarves can be Dwarf-Clerics and halflings can become "Masters" (a druidish class). Elves can be Treekeepers (kind of a mage/druid...

The last time I looked at the Myth&Magic starter, there was no Paladin (sub)class. Is there one now?

Just a couple thoughts.. 1. A sorcerer is Not a fighter/wizard.. s/he is just an alternative wizard. 2. A ranger has always been a fighter at core, not a rogue, even if s/he has (some) rogue-ish skills. 3. A warlock is more of a rogue/wizard, IMHO Each class/subclass has one of the 4 /5...

If we do this (allow sneak attack/backstab to everyone), we eliminate one more reason for the existence of a Rogue/Thief class; and we move closer to merging the Rogue and Fighter classes. Any fighter can backstab; and with the fighter's damage capacity, if will be some backstab indeed!

In OD&D (the LBB's), all characters used the same hit dice, D6. If you were a fighter, you got an extra +1 here and there; if a mage, you got a -1 here and there. I know it's unlikely, but is there any wisdom in going back to something similar? It would make constitution bonuses mean a lot...

This is why I'm lobbying to merge the thief/rogue and fighter classes. Is Batman more a rogue or a fighter? Is he more agile or strong? Against weaker opponents he's a tank; against stronger opponents he's a blur. And a lot of the monk's barehand abilities need to become skills/feats. Think...

By 3.x, the Ranger had to have either an archery or 2-weapon build. I guess Robin Hood is the model of the Archer build. Legolas was both an archer and 2-weapon fighter; Aragorn (the "definitive" ranger) was neither. In 1e and 2e, "basic" fighters were the ones who had access to weapon...

I think I preferred psionics in 1e. Sure, it totally broke the game and was completely outside the framework of other "power sources" (eww), but it was fun. And it might not even break the game if you use the OD&D model from Eldritch Wizardy. Classes only had access to certain psionic...

I guess this is what I'm wondering.. The ranger has always had some sort of spell capability, up until 4e. Both 4e and C&C have stripped the ranger of all spells, and I'm not sure what is left is sufficient to really justify its own class. The modern ranger seems just to be a lightly armed...

In BD&D, paladin and ranger ("druidic knight") are Still "prestige classes". You can't become one until you hit 9th level as a fighter.