Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 1868273" data-attributes="member: 23012">While they can choose from any spell list -- and thus are flexible in that respect -- the actual number of spells that they know is limited.  They are 'flexible' when choosing a new spell, but very limited in the number of spells they can know. So they only know as many spells as sorcerers (albeit they can choose from a wider range), and they can cast fewer per day than sorcerers.Okay I see your point here.  But in contrast to the standard semi-spellusers (rangers, paladins, bards), it seems that in general it would be a rather 'bad deal' for a warrior to take a few levels in spellcaster.  Especially given that the spellcaster uses the sorcerer spell progression rate (no 2nd level spells until level 4). The latter is what I meant (well, kinda).  I did not mean to suggest that using the generic classes would result in Hyboria.  Rather, I think they might be appropriate for a world in which the majority of adventurers are not be spellcasters (at any level), and spellcasters are generally somewhat rare (i.e. unlikely to exist in any town under 2000 people, etc.).  I guess I have in mind something in between 'standard' D&D, on the one hand, and Hyboria/Middle-earth on the other.  (Maybe something like Jack Vance's Lyonesse setting.)I may have been imposing some of my own houserules here as well (according to which, there has to be a very good story to justify a character taking a level in a spellcasting class after 1st level).Anyway, this minor debate aside, why did you decide to use the generic classes for your homebrew setting?  What was it about your setting that made these classes appropriate?</blockquote>

Verification