Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6030677" data-attributes="member: 6668292">It depends on how much it alters that balance, doesn't it? It's obviously something that you'd need some more context to define. A feat that might "increase spell-casting" would be something that boosts attack rolls with spells (I believe Orb or Staff Expertise feats might fit this?), 3.X metamagic feats, feats that boost save DC, etc.I need a lot of context. Right now, I'd have trouble putting the Fighter at a 3/3/3, obviously. You'd probably need to flesh out all three pillars, then judiciously assign the same number of abilities from each pillar to each class. Give a few options to let people lean a direction, but keep the classes focused on breadth across the pillars.My understanding was that there are enough combat feats that if one wanted to, they could further improve their spell/combat ability with that feat. If so, they're losing out of furthering their spell/combat ability by choosing Linguist.Which, mind you, I'm okay with, for my group. I'm just saying that the same objection should be held.I imagine the sage would also have decently strong social skills, which I think would make up for it. They'd be useful in two out of three pillars; something like 1/3/4. They could potentially go 1/1/5, but I'm guessing that most people wouldn't. To those who did, they'd probably be significantly better, yes. If you don't like it, you would not have to use them.Also, your "comparable in play" usage is troubling; comparable to what? The 3/3/3 character and spotlight time? We're knowingly altering how much spotlight time we're getting by changing ourselves away from 3/3/3, so why make that comparison?We've been over this today. I disagree. You haven't even demonstrated why this would be the case. You just need to buff those skills for the sage.Don't play a sage type when you move away from 3/3/3! Or, heck, don't move away from 3/3/3. Problem solved.By not using the opt-out. Problem avoided. If the sage is merely beefed up, then the default assumption of the Wizard (now Invoker) and your Sage of Ages is still the same.I did go on to say I don't like the approach, didn't I? I'd rather the Lore skills be better than magic.We both keep coming back to this. I'm saying there needs to be support; you're saying "there probably won't be." That's cool, but I'm not talking about what will probably be supported, I'm talking about what I'd like to see supported.No, they won't. Because if you ban the opt-out, then those class features won't exist in your game. Make it very clear that the game was designed around 3/3/3, and the optional opt-out is a campaign setting issue, and what the ramifications will likely be if you use it.You don't want Wizards to be out-shined even in mundane Lore? Cool, nobody in your campaign has the opt-out abilities. Super easy. You didn't take an optional rule and use it. And, as I said, if you just beef up the abilities rather than nerf Lore for Wizards (and etc.), and design to 3/3/3 (like I've said), then you're not going to experience what you're describing.Two solutions! One (that always seems to work) is don't use the opt-out, and use 3/3/3 (problem solved). Two, they can certainly include rules for meta-resolution; it's all optional rules, after all, and if they give you options to choose from, people can pick the stuff they like. I don't know if they'd go for this, but I'm not against it.Another comment on "what is likely" when I'm talking about "what I want to see." I get that yours is a valid reply to my post, I'm just not talking about that subject at the moment.My proposal is to design to 3/3/3, and then clearly inform people to what will happen if they tip that balance, but give them the option to opt-out of forced balance. He'll have more Lore than the Wizard, potentially bigger bonuses (doesn't need to be by a lot), he might have advantage on some rolls, he might have some rerolls, he might get to make up his answers, he might get to use his Lore in new ways that normal people don't. There's a lot of ways you can go with it without hosing Wizard's breadth built around 3/3/3.For whatever reason, I'm a stickler on the mechanics matching the fiction. I need that to happen to enjoy a game. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification