Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6006573" data-attributes="member: 1465">I see a lot of good thoughts in your list, but also a lot of opinions that seem to be only because of what you've seen already in the game. YMMV of course.Totally agree. I sincerely hope that no class forces a companion. There is no reason why every single Paladin must have a holy mount or every single Druid a pet. The Familiar is already going the optional route.Well, I wouldn't be against for Druidic magic to be classified as Arcane. For me "divine" for everything that comes from gods and similar vs "arcane" for everything else would be a sufficient distinction, but it's ok if they want an array of "sources" defined. Anyway, the classes you mention are in fact definitely suited to be "arcane", even the Warlock: at least the way I see it, the Warlock makes a pact with powerful non-divine beings, so this is ok for me.This is totally unfounded. By the concept, a Warlock does not have the same understanding of magic as the Wizard, is not the source of his own magic powers as the Sorcerer, is not receiving spells from an all-powerful god as the Cleric... He practically borrows spells from another being who is not all-powerful himself. Sounds to me like it would be the least likely candidate for "at-will" spells which represents better familiarity.Totally agree, would be cool if this became the Paladin's defining unique mechanic.I would swap my current preference (but I've changed my mind before) to having a Barbarian class with rage unique mechanic, and only as a second choice make it a theme/specialty. Otherwise agree.I really think this mechanic is non-essential to the game, spells or invocations cover this already. But I don't see a reason why Warlocks and Paladins but not Clerics.PS "Boons" sounds like a very lame name to me...Another non-essential mechanics. The best reason for these mechanics IMHO is to create a common ground for all followers of the same deity or pact. I think this is very useful for Clerics, but much less for others.Totally agree.This is quite an extreme reduction, but I like the idea a lot.See boons.I would love them to be Rangers-only, and I think they should be the new defining unique mechanic for that class. This probably requires them to be non-optional, but at least they could be made so that you can tend more towards one of them if you want.I like the concept of a Ranger as the "warrior of experience" (which suits with the idea that favored terrains/enemies are central), while the Fighter is the "warrior of competence" and the Barbarian the "warrior of instinct".I'm going to say Fighters and Monks only, and no to everyone else. The others can still have "styles" just by choosing equipment (e.g. a shield or not, a two handed reach weapon etc) and picking feats/specialties. Nobody else should get additional mechanics because they don't have the time to dedicate to mastering a style as much as fighters and monks have, they have other stuff to do and learn.Disagree. I like these to be class-indipendent. There are already many classes (in fact your own list is long) which may want these, at which point it's best just to make these available to everyone.Ok for Bards and Wizards, but I'm tempted to make this one also available to everyone (at least would fit some Clerics): it already is with skills, and I'm not sure the game really really needs a separate mechanic.Disagree. Making this available to others just messes up the class design. It's fine as is.Agree. Could overlap with psion tho...Totally agree.Disagree. It's personal taste, but I dislike this to be easy accessible to everyone, so at least I'd like the entry cost be very high (e.g. one feat = one known ritual). I don't want a mechanic that allows anyone to make rituals without spending any character advancement cost.I'm not even sure I'll find the current "rituals at-will" rules acceptable on the long run, but at least they are limited to characters who already cast those spells (except the Warlock, but at least he gets only a few of them).Totally agree. Bards and Rangers could have them too, but then Rogues would need double as much to somewhat keep their schtik.I'd stick with Rogues and Assassins if Rangers already had their favored enemy/terrains bonuses. I would severely limit is for everyone who is not a Sorcerer. 3ed FR had something that costed one feat and allowed one spell to be cast spontaneously but permanently burned a slot many levels higher (6 or 7). I would accept something like that.I think currently the game has so many healing sources that we don't need this at all.Disagree. I see no reason why anyone couldn't learn this. But if you mean "superior" tracking, then yes the Ranger could have that from favored enemy/terrain mechanics.Yes, and Rogues too.</blockquote>

Verification