Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 9093508" data-attributes="member: 87792">I don't know how it polled. But the following can be all true:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Having subclasses start at third level is something I fully support because (a) it makes the experience less overwhelming for newbies and (b) it further incentivises DMs to start games at third level for experienced players and to treat levels 1 and 2 as prologue if you play through them.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I don't think that all subclasses coming at the same rate provides any meaningful benefit to the game as it is now and it does cause backwards compatibility issues while also doing awkward things for which levels you get them at, while weakening the game by homogenising it</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You can make a choice in character creation while only actually having it take effect at level 3 if you want.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I don't believe that clerics should get their domain at first level. Any nuanced god is going to have more than one domain and time between choosing your god and making the second decision of which aspect of that god is a fruitful time.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I don't have any problem at all with warlocks only finding out who their patron is at level 3 - or getting generic starter packs for the first two levels.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The trope of "someone gets magical powers but doesn't understand them" is an old one - and if you want to focus your sorcerer on their domain by picking appropriate spells before getting a bonus to those spells you can. The sorcerer isn't a problem either.</li> </ul>Oh, the warlock changes excited people - just not positively <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Being serious the feat changes were massive and more positively received even than weapon mastery. The rogue changes are great. People love the barbarian rage being fixed so they can sustain it.  The thing is that the changes that get remembered are the controversial ones - either because they were bad or because they were mixed or had optimisers delving into details. General acclaim doesn't lead to much discussion.That one confuses me too. I know I'd consistently been commenting in feedback that [thing] was an example of why three generic spell lists homogenised the game in a bad way.</blockquote>

Verification