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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Grayhawk" data-source="post: 1830486" data-attributes="member: 11288">To me, the advantage is greater customization. With 3e's multiclassing system it's easy to take a few levels of an appropriate spellcasting class to make a paladin or ranger with spells, especially as I've removed xp penalties. It seems that giving some classes limited spellcasting is an artifact from the older editions where multiclassing rules where more rigid.And without getting into the whole 'what's a ranger?', I like the idea of having a base ranger class, which is a d10 HP warrior type with wilderness abilities and favored enemies. If you want your ranger to be more scout-like with a d8 HP as in 3.5, multi with rogue. If you want him to have spellcasting abilities, multi with cleric (or druid, if I get around to making one). In any case, I think it's fair that you give up a little of your BAB and core ranger abilities for the addede versatility. You'd still call your character a ranger, you would just have used the multiclasing rules to taylor him to your liking. I too would prefer that formula. My reason for the +3, is that it seems wrong to me that those with high stats can be much better untrained than those with average stats, but for whom the skill in question is a class ability.For instance, my rogue has Alertness (listen, search, spot) as a class ability. It's based on Wis. Had the party's cleric a 16 in wis and the rogue a 10 and not the +3 bonus for a class ability, the cleric would be better at spotting, etc for the first few levels. Also, the +3 makes it possible to keep the current DC's.I've played around with this as well, but I settled against it. If every character gets 2 free core skills that progress like class skills, I would expect a lot of characters with what you call awareness (and which I call alertness). And to me, that would infringe too much on the ranger and rogue's domain.Pretty much. Here's my list:Sneak (Hide, Move Silently), dexAlertness (Spot, Search, Listen), wisAthletics (Climb, Swim, Jump), strInfluence (Intimidate, Diplomacy, Bluff, Gather Info, Perform), chaHandle Animal (Ride), chaHeal, wisSurvival, wisKnowledge, int n/uOpen Locks, int n/uDecipher Script (Forgery), int n/uPick Pockets, dex n/uSpellcraft, int n/uTrack, wis n/uTraps, int n/uScale Walls, dex n/u'n/u' means 'Not Untrained', so you won't be able to make an ability check to try those unless you have them listed as a class ability (or, in the case of Knowledge, have chosen that particular form of knowledge at charcter creation with your Int modifier points). Please note that it doesn't matter how 'powerful' some of these groupings my seem, as you can't pick any of them. You either have them as class abilities or you try them untrained.My reason for seperating climb and scale walls, is that everybody should be able to make a str check to climb, but only the rogue knows how to scale a wall with dex (and improves at it as he goes up in levels).My list isn't necessarily final, so feel free to point out anything you feel is missing or which doesn't make sense.Not sure what you mean. What I propose is that you have to end your move when you enter a 'Melee Zone' (basically a threatened area). So a ranged attacker staying out of melee range is not affected.  I prefer opposed attack rolls myself, but if you read the attached document <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=105637" target="_blank">here</a>, you can see someone else opting for an 'attack/save' mechanic.  I can see how it may seen so. But I'm confident that it only seems that way because the mechanic is unfamiliar; in play it's bound to be very simple:You make a Spellcasting check, which is the easiest check in the game, being a d20 +level. Your DC's are fixed and written down on your sheet next to your spells: DC 12 for 1st level spells, DC 14 for 2nd level spells, etc. These DC's never change. Make your check and your spell gets off right away (no risk of getting it disrupted), fail it and your spellcasting carries over to the next round (weaving the magical energies is not a hard science) and the spell takes effect just before your next action comes up in initiative, just like casting a spell with a CT of 1 round in the current rules.And if this still feel likes it adds complexity, that's ok because I've yet to see a more elegant way of making spellcasting hazardous in combat in a way that mimics the very tense initiative rolls we had in 1e & 2e, where it was crucial to roll well on your initiative when trying to finish off the badly bleeding necromancer, who was about to teleport to safety. Or when you yourself just had to get off that Heal in time, to avoid being slain.Even the full 3e rules with it's AoO's doesn't have anything to make spellcasting in combat the thrill it was. Betwen 5 foot steps and defensive casting, it has become a pretty sure thing to get your spells off unchallenged, and I just don't like it that way. Does 'I would have wizards have more lower level spells, and then cast all their spells like sorcerers' mean that they have more castings per day than sorcerers or that they know more spells? In any way, it seems more complicated to me to try and get that ratio right compared with just going with the plain wizard and his progression. (And I'm not planning on a sorcerer class - at least not at this time.) I hope so  <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=":)" /> Thanks for your comments!</blockquote>

Verification