Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Humanophile" data-source="post: 1626304" data-attributes="member: 1049">I don't think bards really need fixing.&nbsp; Yes, they're not a good replacement for one of the four &quot;core&quot; party members.&nbsp; They're still good as backup for buffs, social situations, and otherwise as a fifth member.&nbsp; Let the class be what it'll be, even if such is not what's expected of your average dungeon-crawler.&nbsp; If someone choses to play the class outside of its proper range, it shouldn't be too hard to see that they can't leverage their strengths well.&nbsp; A +2 bonus to perform, akin to the druid's bonus to survival, would be archetype-cementing and flavor, but hardly central.Clerics, I have a pretty big list of house rules to bring them into line with where I think they &quot;should&quot; be.&nbsp; I swap the spells/day list for divine casters and wizards.&nbsp; (Oh no!&nbsp; At 11th level, the guy who is solely dependant on his spells is one first level spell ahead, while the guy with armor and a cure stick lacks.&nbsp; For shame.&nbsp; (And yes, I do bump up sorcerers a little to keep them competitive - same infinitesimal bump - but that's outside the scope of this discussion.))&nbsp; Domain spells still stick around, so clerics still have the psuedo-specialist edge, although I'm very fond of UA's spontaneous divine casters rule, too.&nbsp; Clerics lose heavy armor proficiency; at low levels, medium armor's going to be all you have anyways, at higher levels your buffs will make the difference negligible, and if you really want to play a full-fledged war cleric, a fighter level or a single feat is not too much to ask.&nbsp; And finally, I'm still iffy on this as it may make the cleric feel too pigeonholed and unattractive, is to take away one spell available at each level in exchange for a Lay On Hands mechanic.&nbsp; (1 take away 1 would be -, not 0, so Wis bonus spells wouldn't come into play until later.&nbsp; And evil clerics would have a damaging negative-energy equivalent, I'd have to add a Will for half and playtest to see how well it'd work.)&nbsp; This would make domains more important, throw an interesting hiccup into artificing (as it should be; making clerics pay sorcerer prices for most items would help highlight wizards as the best item-makers), and throw a little more multiple-ability stickiness into the game.&nbsp; I worry a little that it'd make a starting cleric a little too dull and be just the power cut to make the cleric 2e medkit unattractive, though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Humanophile, post: 1626304, member: 1049"] I don't think bards really need fixing. Yes, they're not a good replacement for one of the four "core" party members. They're still good as backup for buffs, social situations, and otherwise as a fifth member. Let the class be what it'll be, even if such is not what's expected of your average dungeon-crawler. If someone choses to play the class outside of its proper range, it shouldn't be too hard to see that they can't leverage their strengths well. A +2 bonus to perform, akin to the druid's bonus to survival, would be archetype-cementing and flavor, but hardly central. Clerics, I have a pretty big list of house rules to bring them into line with where I think they "should" be. I swap the spells/day list for divine casters and wizards. (Oh no! At 11th level, the guy who is solely dependant on his spells is one first level spell ahead, while the guy with armor and a cure stick lacks. For shame. (And yes, I do bump up sorcerers a little to keep them competitive - same infinitesimal bump - but that's outside the scope of this discussion.)) Domain spells still stick around, so clerics still have the psuedo-specialist edge, although I'm very fond of UA's spontaneous divine casters rule, too. Clerics lose heavy armor proficiency; at low levels, medium armor's going to be all you have anyways, at higher levels your buffs will make the difference negligible, and if you really want to play a full-fledged war cleric, a fighter level or a single feat is not too much to ask. And finally, I'm still iffy on this as it may make the cleric feel [i]too[/i] pigeonholed and unattractive, is to take away one spell available at each level in exchange for a Lay On Hands mechanic. (1 take away 1 would be -, not 0, so Wis bonus spells wouldn't come into play until later. And evil clerics would have a damaging negative-energy equivalent, I'd have to add a Will for half and playtest to see how well it'd work.) This would make domains more important, throw an interesting hiccup into artificing (as it should be; making clerics pay sorcerer prices for most items would help highlight wizards as the best item-makers), and throw a little more multiple-ability stickiness into the game. I worry a little that it'd make a starting cleric a little too dull and be just the power cut to make the cleric 2e medkit unattractive, though. [/QUOTE]

Verification