Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aus_Snow" data-source="post: 4883532" data-attributes="member: 29112">Mostly, I like them. Here are the things that made me go 'huh?' or the like:Monks: 'They get an unarmed damage bonus instead of monk unarmed damage, at 4th +1d4, 8th +1d6, 12th +1d8 and at 16th +1d12.' This seems awkward, or unnecessary anyhow. What is the reasoning here? The Ranger and Paladin spellcasting replacement features seem ill-matched - the Ranger's is always going, and gets pretty powerful later on, compared with the Paladin's daily smite ability, which arguably isn't as good in the first place, and has (very) limited uses on top of that. . . Clerics vs. Druids: the latter gets shafted here. Heavy armour? Not such a big deal, really. Animal companion (the Druid variety) though? Ouch. There is also the matter of Wild Shape, which has the same potential for slowing down play as. . . Polymorph and Summoning Spells: To say they are still available, per the RAW, but also not available? I dunno. Maybe just change the spells, or even adopt some of the changes suggested in later books (e.g., WotC supplements or the Pathfinder beta). Toughness feat: 'gives 2HP +1/level but can only be taken once.' Is this ongoing? So, you take it earlier on, and it keeps adding a HP per level? Animal Companion as a feat: That's a *hell* of a powerful feat (see above as well) - presumably it's the Druid version? Also, slows down the game, though not nearly so much as wild shape, or yeah, summoning/polymorph. Ritual casting: 'Casters can make any spell with an XP cost a ritual that takes 1 hour or 1 day to cast and no loss of XP.' Is the duration determined by spell level? Anyway, I agree with Dyson about Resurrection (and its ilk, IMO) - they're bad enough in the RAW; this will only make things (much, much) worse. To my tastes, that is.</blockquote>

Verification