Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="monboesen" data-source="post: 3603700" data-attributes="member: 4647">Personally I kind of liked the concept of the Dragon Bound (but not the mechanics) but this one seems flawed to me.I have the following issues.1. Depending on the actual campaign (or even the specific game day) the Battle Mage could easily be a total bore to play (in a campaign focusing on  politics/investigation/exploration etc.) or be overpowered compared to the rest of the PC's (in a campaign consisting mainly of battles). In my experience neither situation is fun for the player(s).2. I don't understand the actual reason for the Battle Mages inability to cast spells out of combat. It seems arbitrary and unfounded.3. I don't think that any class should have acces to both strong blasting spells (fireball etc.) and healing spells. That has to do with the usual division of arcane and divine magic in D&D. Your Battle Mage seems to fit the arcane spell caster role and therefore should not have acces to healing spells. No other arcane caster have that (to my knowledge).4. I don't find your class different enough from the Warmage, Battlesorcerer or Ragemage to warrant a new class.If I was to pursue a concept that had the overall idea of being a better caster in combat I would go for something like a caster level benefit or some free metamagic at a fixed number of times per day. Sort of like a Barbarians rage, but with bonuses to spellcasting. But as far as I know that is the way Warmages and Ragemages work.You haven't commented on the reservations about 9th level spells at 13 level and acces to all spells. I can refine my statement to this point: In my opinion your class can never be balanced if it grants acces to a spell level at lower level than a wizard, can cast more spells per day than a sorcerer or have a more diverse spell list than a druid.</blockquote>

Verification