Search results

Even so, I think the 10 minute casting time is more than enough of a drawback to balance it against rogue lock picking. It's still easier to just break down the door and then cast mending to fix it. Mending is a cantrip, so it's a lot easier to obtain and learn than knock, a 2nd level spell...

I think the vast majority of feats should be open, but I'm okay with there being a small number of class-specific feats.

That % does not match my experiences, but to each his own. No, it isn't a moot point. People seem to assume that wizards magically just somehow know every conceivable spell. Any given wizard is far less likely to know the knock spell than a given rogue is likely to know how to pick locks (IME...

Rituals are "at-will" in that they have no daily usage limit, but they still require 10+ minutes to cast. A rogue, on the other hand, can pick locks as a standard action. That means he can try to pick a lock 100 times in the time it takes a wizard to cast knock as a ritual. There's no...

1. The sorcerer origins sound good, but please tell me this doesn't mean sorcerers will be the only ones that have metamagics. 2. While I am fine with the number of armor types they have in the game, I still hate armor scaling with gp cost. Instead of different armor types within the same...

3e tanked? That's news to me.

+1. Two priests that worship two very different deities should have very different spell lists, not 95% of the same spells plus a few domain spells. I never liked Vancian casting either. Not only was it clunky and counterintuitive, as you said, it was the primary cause of the imbalance...

How does having smaller feats instead of bigger ones result in more power creep?

I don't have a problem with people trading away their feats for ability score increases if that's what they want to do. I only have a problem with it if people feel like they have to or will have an inferior character. Considering the importance of ability scores in Next, not getting any ability...

Just to clarify, while I would prefer to get smaller feats more often, I'm not terribly against the bigger feats they're using now. At least, it's far from a deal-breaker for me. Getting a feats at levels 1, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 is good enough. The most important things for me are getting a feat...

I don't think you quite understand what I am proposing. Everyone would get an ability increase at certain levels. Those ability score increases are on top of feats. So even if you take every feat you can get, you're still getting some ability score improvements. The way it is now, if you take...

The person I was responding to was doing just that, speaking of "power creep" across editions. If 3rd and 4th edition characters really are more powerful than 2e ones (which is debatable), I don't think feats are to blame. In any case, power is relative. A 3.x character may seem superior to a 2e...

The ability to perform minor magic at-will (and yes, doing as much damage as a crossbow, a simple weapon, is minor) does not imply that a setting is high magic. The power to perform extremely simple spells over and over again is hardly going to turn a world upside down. It's what the upper...

Feats do not have to = "power creep." While I prefer 3e/4e type feats, I want them to be well designed and balanced. That's something that's new to this edition, and one of the few things about it I don't like. Feats are not what made characters overpowered at high level. A 2nd edition 20th...

I really dislike the way they're doing feats now. While I like the idea of being able to trade in feats for ability score increases in principle, I dislike the current implementation. Since taking a feat means you miss out on ability score increases, many, if not most players will opt to at...

Personally, I'm glad that certain things got "blow torched."

I disagree. Two characters with the same race and class are pretty much identical clones in Next. At least they feel that way to me. *shrug* Background adds some choice, but not a tremendous amount of customizability, and nothing approaching the level of choice that feats in 3.x gave. Your class...

I don't like feats being ranked at the bottom. Characters not only get very few of them, they also come at a very high price (not getting precious ability score increases). Since characters get so few feats and since they are at the bottom tier of impact they have on the game, this gives people...

I also find their rankings to be quite odd. Why should a feat be less powerful than a spell? Why is one's race more important than their background? Etc.

The thing is, spells are class features. It's unfair for them to punish spellcasters because they get their class features in the form of spells instead of passive abilities.