NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kerleth" data-source="post: 6039829" data-attributes="member: 84383">I agree with the majority of what you said. (But not all, I've got to be contrary<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />).My example class would be the magi. It would be split by having a character focus on casting spells with either intelligence, wisdom, charisma, or constitution. So....Methodology (names could all use some work)Knowledge is Power: This would use intelligence and would have the widest range of spells and the most control over them. They really had to work to understand magic, but now that they do they can do things noone else can.Mysticism: This would use wisdom and would be more freeform and spontaneous. The character would have a natural sense for the energies flowing around them and could shape them to their liking. It would overall have less spells and tricks known than intelligence but would have more control and ease of use with those that they do have.Force of Will: This would use charisma and would have a small spell list with little or no ability to tweak each individual spell. They would probably have more raw power and/or more ease of casting than the previous two.Channeling: This would use constitution. They would have a limited spell list like charisma and would run the risk of weakening themselves by using their magic too much. However, they would also be able to siphon off their own life force/channel to much energy too increase the power of their spells past their normal limits. You might have been asking for more classical dnd classes, but this is what came to my mind.</blockquote>

Verification