Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Yair" data-source="post: 1609369" data-attributes="member: 10913">All comments are strictly IMHO. So, these are my 2cp,This will make the characters more powerful then the average for their level. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but I have to ask: why? What is the advantage, cruch- or fluff-wise, to allowing him them more hp/level ?This is equivalent, on average, to +1 hp/HD. I prefer to add a straight bonus rather than change the HD; I allow an Improved Toughness feat to do just that.Again, I fail to see the advantage in increasing the cap on max class skill ranks. A character with a bonus of +X will be two levels lower in your method - so what? A given level of skill still aligns to a certain character level, you just slightly changed the scale.Consider also the implications to prestige class requirements.As for the Craft/Knowledge/Profession no cap rule - that is an interesting idea. I would agree that it can contribute to creating low-level professionals. However, I would be weary of Knowledge treated in this manner - IMC, knowledge skills can provide substantial hints, and I am not sure allowing them unlimited will be a good idea.You might also want to add other skills to the list (Dechiper Script?).Sounds good to me. Again, however, this will allow PCs to be accepted to prestige classes before the proper time, and slightly increase their power for the given level.Interesting. Why only arcane spellcasters?Make sure you leave the cap on maximum applied metamagic, at the very least.The problem is that the caster could then cast a lot of powerful spells. Take a 13th level wizard; with the core rules, he can cast perhaps 2 Maximized Fireballs (IIRC). With your rules, in addition to these he could also cast all his allotment of 3rd to 6th spells as maximized fireballs (a level 7 spell equivalent, supposedly). That is a lot of fire power. Yes, he takes some arcane spell failure. But as he can control the amount of risk here, he will only take it when it is worth it. Overall, he still has much more firepower, and is bettter off than in the core rules.I find this to be an unbalancing idea, giving way too much power at high character levels to what I consider to be the most powerful classes (primary spellcasters). I would not accept it into my game.A fine ruling.Ick! Druids are gods, immensly powerful. And you want to allow them to cast any druid spell on the fly?!!! Too powerful, waaay to powerful. There is a reason why the sorcerer gets such a short list of Known Spells.You allow druids to cast spells spontanously, but clerics and wizards can't? No fair.I would disallow both rulings; the spell list is just too large. If a wizard/cleric really wants to, he can leave a spell slot empty and prepare a spell mid-day. As casting a spell takes three rounds in your system, that is hardly relevant in combat - so the time this takes is not important here. I don't see why casting one in three rounds is superior.I think a better rule would be to allow wizards/clerics to change their prepared spells mid-day. Still problematic, mind you, giving them a great advantage - but it will allow them to cast any needed spell without sacrificing a spell slot, if that is what you are after.Can work, yes. I don't see a problem here - the multiclassing spellcaster could use some help.</blockquote>

Verification