Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ruleslawyer" data-source="post: 1687559" data-attributes="member: 1757">It's funny, Josh; I like the Wildlander and the Defender, but at first pass, they look just a bit too weak for my comfort. "Monks" are hard enough to run as tough characters (even in a low-magic setting); the defender appears to be just not up to par compared with a fighter or barbarian, or even a combat rogue. The wildlander has good skill-related abilities (again, I like the idea behind it), but again, without some serious beef to it, the class just can't stand up as a wilderness warrior type. (It certainly will never compare to a rogue as a scout anyway, so it seems that it needs to be able to fight in compensation.) This is a good point. My attitude is that setting feel is rarely captured in rules; it'd be easy enough for me to call my (non-spellcasting, BTW) rangers "wildlanders" and monks "defenders" and have done with. (As is, I'm not fond of the "monk" in a setting like Midnight, so I'd prefer a less-Asian flavored character anyway, and I do like the defender's flavor text.) My reasons ffor wanting to keep the D&D classes are twofold: First, I already intimately understand the issues and balance headaches involved in running said classes, and second, my players know how to play them and how the rules work. The point about wizards/sorcs (and, BTW, I'd use AU magisters and greenbonds) not having enough to do besides spellcasting compared to channelers is a good one. However, I assume that this will simply be a risk that PCs will have to take; the fact is that spells are so potent when they ARE used that it more than makes up for the lack when they aren't. As for the spell restrictions, it's hardly a problem, in part because AU already removes many of the flashier spells from the game (and gives out healing spells to all spellcasting classes) and in part because I can just make all damage-dealing spells with an energy or elemental descriptor Exotic and thus render them hard to get without the right feats.  Interesting points from experience on this front, S'mon!  I wouldn't use the 3.5 druid anyway, except possibly as a (much differently written) greenbond-oriented PrC, since I find the druid tough enough to begin with.Well, I guess I could have just downloaded it illegally, hmm? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Seriously, I don't see the classes as being truly integral to the setting, to be honest; the channeler is a nice class, but just doesn't have the appeal to me required to use it. Wil seems to think I can use the setting with different classes! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> As is, I'll be using all the races, the heroic paths, the magic item rules, and basically everything else from my $35 purchase, if you must know; it's really just the spellcasting mechanics that I feel add a bit too much encumbrance.Really, thanks for all the help, guys! It's been huge!</blockquote>

Verification