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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Spatzimaus" data-source="post: 2950617" data-attributes="member: 3051">You're partially right.  It DIDN'T feel like "classic" D&D.  The problem is, we realized we hadn't been playing stock D&D for a long time as it was; our House Rules were pretty extensive, so it wasn't much of a stretch to just write a similar system that fit our philosophy and was balanced a bit better.  Under our system, pretty much every player had at least a little magic ability, but even the most caster-oriented characters still used swords and wore light armor.See, we originally had intended this system to be a magic expansion of D20Modern, and it was meant to build off their six base classes.  For instance, if the magic class gave bonus Feats, you could select from your base class's Feat list.  In a modern environment, the mages would still carry guns and so on, so we balanced it a bit differently than how core D&D does.  Most magic was more about buffing and utility than raw damage, so when we switched it back to the D&D setting, that meant that the mages had to be able to still rely on armor/weapons.  It was still balanced; the very act of being a mage made you more vulnerable to magic, and you'd never be as good with a sword as a fighter-type.I should note that the three magic classes were Wizard (WIS-based "slot" caster, a lot like a Cleric), Channeler (A psion-based INT caster that spends HP to cast), and Mutant (class with lots of inherent boosts and spell-like abilities, based on the Hero from 4CTF).  So, to be fair, the Fighter types tended to take Mutant levels, and wouldn't be anything like the classic Wizard archetype, and the Channelers by their natures had to be a bit more durable than a d4 hit die (they were more like Psychic Warriors).</blockquote>

Verification