Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Souljourner" data-source="post: 470804" data-attributes="member: 1622">Thanks for the compliment kreynolds.&nbsp; Interesting Crothian, that definitely makes multiclassing much less powerful.&nbsp; It means multiclass characters don't get NEARLY as many epic feats as single class.&nbsp; That actually really really sucks.a 20/20 fighter/ranger is now WAY less powerful than a 40th level ranger, just because the ranger's going to get a ton of extra epic feats...&nbsp; That really sucks.&nbsp; It does make prestige classes with obvious progressions much more desireable then, since you only need 10 levels of one class instead of 20.&nbsp; Still.... *shudder*&nbsp; I don't think I like that rule at all.As for the automatic quicken, I think it makes sense.&nbsp; I think everything that refers to the level of a spell refers to the level of the slot it takes up, except where specifically mentioned otherwise (like metamagicked spells' DC).&nbsp;&nbsp; Like the level caps for wands and potions - calculated after metamagic.&nbsp; However, I could see how it could be confusing.&nbsp; D&amp;D needs more (yes, even more) terms for those things that are hard to quanity, like &quot;base level of the spell&quot; and &quot;true level (spell slot taken up) of the spell&quot;-The Souljourner</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Souljourner, post: 470804, member: 1622"] Thanks for the compliment kreynolds. Interesting Crothian, that definitely makes multiclassing much less powerful. It means multiclass characters don't get NEARLY as many epic feats as single class. That actually really really sucks. a 20/20 fighter/ranger is now WAY less powerful than a 40th level ranger, just because the ranger's going to get a ton of extra epic feats... That really sucks. It does make prestige classes with obvious progressions much more desireable then, since you only need 10 levels of one class instead of 20. Still.... *shudder* I don't think I like that rule at all. As for the automatic quicken, I think it makes sense. I think everything that refers to the level of a spell refers to the level of the slot it takes up, except where specifically mentioned otherwise (like metamagicked spells' DC). Like the level caps for wands and potions - calculated after metamagic. However, I could see how it could be confusing. D&D needs more (yes, even more) terms for those things that are hard to quanity, like "base level of the spell" and "true level (spell slot taken up) of the spell" -The Souljourner [/QUOTE]

Verification