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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 2349075" data-attributes="member: 22424">But, if you want to create a plains nomad fighter who fights differently to a city guard fighter, give them different feats. If you want to differentiate a gnomish and an elven wizard, choose different spells. The rules already provide the ability to mechanically differentiate these character types, and they do it without giving additional benefits through Substitution Levels.I don't like Substitution Levels for the same reason I don't like the notion that Regional Feats are better than normal feats, or that Dwarves get Weapon Familiarity - I like variation in the characters that are created, and having one set of options be clearly better than another reduces that variation.As an aside, one thing I would like to see them implement in a future 4th edition is the notion of character talent trees for the less-flaxible classes (Ranger, Barbarian, Monk, Paladin, and others), similar to the mechanic in d20 Modern. Basically, Rangers would have a Favoured Enemy tree, an Animal Companion tree, a Tracking tree, and a Combat Style tree. As they advanced in levels, they could choose which trees to follow. This allows players to easily choose to play a "Ranger with more emphasis on Favoured Enemies" or a "Barbarian with more rage". This would remove the need to several prestige classes that currently exist solely to do those jobs, allowing the next batch of classbooks to provide more interesting prestige classes, provide another means of differentiating characters, and allow the third-party companies yet another way to expand the game.Or, of course, you could just do the same thing with feats, and require "4 levels of Barbarian" or whatever to take the feat.</blockquote>

Verification