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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Housemaster3000" data-source="post: 4832065" data-attributes="member: 84180">This class is much easyer to understand with the charts, but, sadly, i could not attach them.  im looking into the unearthed arcana for the spell points, and having the reserve points as the bonus(instead of bonus spells points per day), so that its not an overwhelming bonus of spell points.  the point of the character is to have a great amount of versitility, and spontanious casting. having all your spells in a wand, staff, and other misc objects is way different from a spell book. making a spellcraft check to cast your spell the first time, then being able to focus through that channel later is very useful. sorcerers have a hard time with quicken spell. the arcane addepts spells in the wands are considered prepaired, they just have to be activated, making the arcane adept able to uses such a feat efficiently.  the 2 main reasons i want to use the arcane adept are 1, spell points, and 2 no mangy spell book, and a good selection of spells.  the arcane focus gets expensive. i think that helps ballance out the versitility.  my current Arcane adept has 8 wands, a staff, 4 rings, and a mithril bracer all with gems attached to it coming out ot about 26000 gp value. thats level 10, and he doesnt have that many magic items. those wands, and such are his spell book. he has a lot more spells to choose from than a sorcerer, but doesnt get as many magic items because of it, cant cast as many spells per day (averaged). but he does get to cast quickened spells if he so chooses, and takes a full round action to cast the spell with the metamagic feat on it the first time.  i agree that it is very complecated, and i might take the spell points from the unearthed arcana. the spellcraft check system averages very well, and i checked it through excel. i need to come up with a better chart for the arcane focuses though. it needs more play testing.</blockquote>

Verification