Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7543327" data-attributes="member: 6919838">I suppose one core change i would definitely have liked to see is the following...move every class archetype choice to 3rd level and let the first two levels be learning the core basics of the class - beginner at 1st, advanced at 2nd, while holding the major commitment to 3rd level for everybody.Why?So that for each class in play you have a few levels to see &quot;how this works&quot;, &quot;how this table is being run&quot;, &quot;What my other partners bring in, etc and generally get a very fundamental idea of how things are playing out and which choices offer you which practical gains in the specific - for your table/GM/group.These would also create in effect a mini-tier at 3rd where everybody makes their calls on where to commit - and likely as not in-character that can be a sort of group dialog if they want - after all, several levels worth of adventures in you have some practical team play.For clerics, you study a pantheon at 1st and 2nd but then have to commit to a god and a domain at 3rd as a rite of devotion.For sorcs, you start tapping that well off &quot;odd&quot; at first then more at second but when you hit third its a (perhaps literally) transformative awakening.For warlocks, the first two levels are the hunt for the patron or &quot;jpb interview&quot; period, devloping basic arcane arts to get the attention of the patron (or other flavor) and the 3rd level choice is where your pact is signed and things really take off.Wizards - early levels are basics but at third you have to knuckle down and specialize... choose a major as it were.Similar for the martials and the others - I might even hold heavy armor off fighters until 2nd level. as part of the basic-advanced split.personally i find the options to make the more restrictive choices and narrowing of focus type decisions to be better overall if they come *after* a bit of play with the table/gm/group, not before you even know your party. But thats me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7543327, member: 6919838"] I suppose one core change i would definitely have liked to see is the following... move every class archetype choice to 3rd level and let the first two levels be learning the core basics of the class - beginner at 1st, advanced at 2nd, while holding the major commitment to 3rd level for everybody. Why? So that for each class in play you have a few levels to see "how this works", "how this table is being run", "What my other partners bring in, etc and generally get a very fundamental idea of how things are playing out and which choices offer you which practical gains in the specific - for your table/GM/group. These would also create in effect a mini-tier at 3rd where everybody makes their calls on where to commit - and likely as not in-character that can be a sort of group dialog if they want - after all, several levels worth of adventures in you have some practical team play. For clerics, you study a pantheon at 1st and 2nd but then have to commit to a god and a domain at 3rd as a rite of devotion. For sorcs, you start tapping that well off "odd" at first then more at second but when you hit third its a (perhaps literally) transformative awakening. For warlocks, the first two levels are the hunt for the patron or "jpb interview" period, devloping basic arcane arts to get the attention of the patron (or other flavor) and the 3rd level choice is where your pact is signed and things really take off. Wizards - early levels are basics but at third you have to knuckle down and specialize... choose a major as it were. Similar for the martials and the others - I might even hold heavy armor off fighters until 2nd level. as part of the basic-advanced split. personally i find the options to make the more restrictive choices and narrowing of focus type decisions to be better overall if they come *after* a bit of play with the table/gm/group, not before you even know your party. But thats me. [/QUOTE]

Verification