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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Merlion" data-source="post: 2469316" data-attributes="member: 10397">This one, along with the Monk's is the one I find most annoying. Partially because its such a tight straightjacket, and partly because it involves the whole law/chaos thing which I loathe anyway.I cant really agree with your statement tho. If the restriction was removed, you could still have your LG paladins who have to try to be champions of good but still abide by the "legitimate authorities" of wherever they are, and I could have my NG paladin who's just a champion of good and worries only about right and wrong.Its a roleplaying restriction, and I consider it against the espoused philosophy of the game. It has stayed the way it is because its a sacred cow and for no other reason.In a related note, I'd also like to see the paladin and monk multiclassing restriction crud dropped. I didnt say anything about removing division of roles. I said make it all class by class...and remove the "arcane" and "divine" division. Which contrary to popular belief isnt a division of roles anyway, not in terms of the rules. Look at the Druid and the Bard. The Druid is a "divine" caster but almost as good a blaster as the Wizard, and the Bard is an "arcane" caster that can heal.   The only difference between "arcane" magic and "divine" magic is that one is subject to "arcane" spell failure, and the other is not, and one type of spellcasters get all their spells for free and the others have to pay for/aqquire them or something similiar, and people's perception that "arcane" equals damage and "divine" equals healing.  So what I am saying is, ditch the monoliths and have each classes magical methods, abilities, and role decided by what class they are, not by some overreaching and ill applied mass catagorization. Actually I think Bards should be a total exception, in the sense of that the majority of Bard spells should be verbal only. Conceptuality, I prefer a balanced class by class aproach, as it is in AU, or simply removing it entirely.  The Cleric for instance is not balanced as is with the ability to cast in armor. The Wizard is fine without it, but would probably be fine with it too. No, its not. It looks that way on the surface but if anything its less so. I will admit I havent played it, but I have played a high level wizard in the D&D system, and its a massive headache. Deciding which spells to prepare, and wether to prepare multiple copies...and then you throw in metamagic as it is now, you have to decide wether to use a slot for a spell of its level or for a metamagiced spell etc etc  With something like the AU readied spells and spells slots, or the UA Spell Point system, you simply choose which spells you want to have avaible to cast, and then you use your resources to cast them until your resources run out.It is, or seems that it would be, far easier to deal with, as well as being more "realistic" as far as fitting better how magic is portrayed in stories (once you know a spell you can cast it till you cant cast no more)On a related note, even if the overall magic system stays more or less the same, at least Metamagic needs to be improved so that its easier to use and more of the feats are actually worth using. The Daily Uses Spontaneous Metamagic variant in Unearthed Arcana works quite nicely for this. And even more importantly it would help to balance these classes, especially the Cleric and especially with regard to other spellcasters I dont understand what you mean. The Warmage works just like a "divine" spellcaster already...they automatically know every spell on their list. Its a little off the subject, but I disagree about Rogue being neccesary at all...or anyway its totally campaign dependent. Some campaigns make so little use of traps that it really doesnt matter. Or just let anybody Search for traps automatically, which is more logical anyway And it would prevent the designers from feeling like the Cleric has to be made extra desirable by making it stronger than the other classes. This is a good idea, but a diffacult one to actually execute. Something like the Unearthed Arcana rule about spellcasting levels for non caster classes might work.Also, I feel that most of the "multiclass zipper" classes do work pretty well. Some better than others. Arcane Trickster for instance does a pretty good job. Eldritch Knight is ok, but Spellsword I think is better. My answer to the issues the Mystic Theurge is trying to solve is simply to let Wizards be what they really should be anyway...the arch spellcasters. Wizards should be able to heal a little, and should have spells like Spell Resistance and Death Ward and Find the Path. Barbarian needs to go, and it needs to be made possible for Ranger and/or Fighter to fit the niche of a savage warriorI'm pretty ok with the current ranger, but I think it would be nice for more of the abilities to have multiple choices. Perhaps options for stealth, melee, and archery at each instance would be good. I wouldnt object to a swashbuckly base class (like the Unfettered in Arcana Unearthed) but it should be made easier for Fighters to persue different pathsI think the Monk is pretty good as is. I'd just remove the alignment restriction and make the second Ki Strike ability simply emulate the Monk's chosen alignment. This I agree with wholeheartdly. The Cleric needs to either be a primary spellcaster with little to no physical/melee ability, or have medium ability at both as they used to. On the level of personal taste, I dislike the extremely heavy element of "divine" stuff in D&D and really wouldnt be sad to see the Cleric...or any character class based of being a "priest" go out the window. To me "priest" is a cultural role not a character class archtype...and even if you have a system of gods etc in a game, they would recruit their "priests" from apropriate classes...fighters rangers etc for war gods, mages and bards for gods of knowledge and magic etc etcHowever since D&D is bent on having a spell casting "priest" class it should 1) be balanced and 2) as you say try to actually reflect the differences in different gods. There are many easy and balanced ways by which this could be accomplished. Including spell slots? I dont really have a problem with spell slots, or with x/day abilities. I just have some issues with the rigid and rather fantasy-illogical Vancian "memorization/preparation" system that links the number of spells you can cast in a day to which specific spells you have availble in a day I wouldnt have a problem with classes having more class abilities, as one way to reduce magic item dependency. Most of the AU classes have more class abilities than most D&D classes, but its not done in an overly dramatic way.I find the current level of magic item dependency both stylistically distasteful, and a big bookeeping headache and would really like to see it changed. But their options do need to be expanded. I think Feats should be allowed to encompasses a wider range of abilities. Some of the things that are class features in D&D such as Rage, Uncanny Dodge, most of the high level rogue abilities, and others should be availble as feats. I also think some more possibly almost non-mundane feats for fighters to help them defend themselves from magic might be good.Overall, I'd like to see balance, ease of use, and the ability to create a wide range of characters and situations take precedence over legacy issues, more than anything.Also I'd like to see it being reinforced to players and DMs especially that the rules are not a Bible, and if you need or want to change something to fit a character concept or a campaign idea, you should do so.</blockquote>

Verification