Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 2380416" data-attributes="member: 5100">Nope.&nbsp; Too much change to too many assuptions.&nbsp; I'd like to see it made more like d20 Allegiences.&nbsp; This is, essentially what I do in my game.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I've heard this several times.&nbsp; I just don't like it.&nbsp; Honestly, I like the &quot;bonuses at even values, prereqs at odd levels&quot; method that's currently in place.&nbsp; That said, it's really just semantics.&nbsp; I don't think it'd have much of an impact on play and I'm amazed that it's a significant issue to anyone.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Do you mean removing the cleric?&nbsp; Yeah, that'd change D&amp;D, but I don't think for the best.&nbsp; Personally, I think the divine magic should have a different mechanism than arcane, but that'd be a pain.&nbsp;&nbsp;Did you have 12 in mind, or do you just like that number?&nbsp; I agree that the skill list could use some tidying, but it isn't horrid.&nbsp; Really, changing the list wouldn't be that massive of a change.&nbsp; Hardly anyone noticed when they did it between 3.0 and 3.5.&nbsp;&nbsp;Oh, sweet lord of the dance, no!&nbsp; Getting rid of the glut of base classes that seemed to be everywhere in prior editions was a good thing.&nbsp; What I'd like to see are strong, but flexible, archetypes.&nbsp; We know they are all through fantasy literature.&nbsp; Woods/wildsman, knightly/professional warrior, cunning/light warrior, arcanist, divinist, rogue/guileful &quot;player&quot;.&nbsp; Figure out what the big blocks are and build them from the ground up.&nbsp; Multiclassing lets you build the crossbreeds.&nbsp; Then, use the Prestige Class system to grow experienced characters into narrower archetypes with better definition.&nbsp; Paladin is a great example of a base class that should be a PrC.&nbsp; The Ranger and Barbarian are an example of an unnecessary and clumsy split of a stronger base archetype.&nbsp; The Swashbuckler is an example of an archetype that isn't well serviced by the RAW.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 2380416, member: 5100"] Nope. Too much change to too many assuptions. I'd like to see it made more like d20 Allegiences. This is, essentially what I do in my game. I've heard this several times. I just don't like it. Honestly, I like the "bonuses at even values, prereqs at odd levels" method that's currently in place. That said, it's really just semantics. I don't think it'd have much of an impact on play and I'm amazed that it's a significant issue to anyone. Do you mean removing the cleric? Yeah, that'd change D&D, but I don't think for the best. Personally, I think the divine magic should have a different mechanism than arcane, but that'd be a pain. Did you have 12 in mind, or do you just like that number? I agree that the skill list could use some tidying, but it isn't horrid. Really, changing the list wouldn't be that massive of a change. Hardly anyone noticed when they did it between 3.0 and 3.5. Oh, sweet lord of the dance, no! Getting rid of the glut of base classes that seemed to be everywhere in prior editions was a good thing. What I'd like to see are strong, but flexible, archetypes. We know they are all through fantasy literature. Woods/wildsman, knightly/professional warrior, cunning/light warrior, arcanist, divinist, rogue/guileful "player". Figure out what the big blocks are and build them from the ground up. Multiclassing lets you build the crossbreeds. Then, use the Prestige Class system to grow experienced characters into narrower archetypes with better definition. Paladin is a great example of a base class that should be a PrC. The Ranger and Barbarian are an example of an unnecessary and clumsy split of a stronger base archetype. The Swashbuckler is an example of an archetype that isn't well serviced by the RAW. [/QUOTE]

Verification