Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SullyGamer" data-source="post: 6405044" data-attributes="member: 6782242">[MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION] Interesting write-up. My only critique is that it doesn't address qualitative aspects except where they are potentially negative (e.g. Drow). &nbsp;[MENTION=88663]Gizella[/MENTION] Re: Cure Wounds. I think it depends. If, for example, the party had a cleric, paladin, and druid who all had Cure Wounds, do you really want a fourth class to have it? I'd concede that if there was one spell I'd want everyone to have, this would be it, but I think the nature of a small party system incentives the players and characters to avoid too many role back-ups. I'd also concede that of that list, the Paladin is the one I'd have give up Cure Wounds because of Lay on Hands. Though even with the Paladin not taking it and both the Druid and Cleric having it, I'd still skip the Bard having it. Now if the party only had one character with it I'd say have the Bard take it too.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SullyGamer, post: 6405044, member: 6782242"] [MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION] Interesting write-up. My only critique is that it doesn't address qualitative aspects except where they are potentially negative (e.g. Drow). [MENTION=88663]Gizella[/MENTION] Re: Cure Wounds. I think it depends. If, for example, the party had a cleric, paladin, and druid who all had Cure Wounds, do you really want a fourth class to have it? I'd concede that if there was one spell I'd want everyone to have, this would be it, but I think the nature of a small party system incentives the players and characters to avoid too many role back-ups. I'd also concede that of that list, the Paladin is the one I'd have give up Cure Wounds because of Lay on Hands. Though even with the Paladin not taking it and both the Druid and Cleric having it, I'd still skip the Bard having it. Now if the party only had one character with it I'd say have the Bard take it too. [/QUOTE]

Verification