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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9417994" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Because whether you increase your Wisdom by +2 because of your species, your background, or your class, as long as you only increase it by +2 once... it doesn't actually change anything about how the system functions. The angle of which option gives you the bonus doesn't change what the bonus is, or how the system works with it. Whether or not you gain expertise from a feat, a background feature, a species, or a class it doesn't change how expertise works, or how it functions within the class. Backgrounds already got a feature as part of them. Changing that to a feat isn't actually changing things structurally, and they very clearly considered WHICH feats could be allowed at level one, giving rise to the new origin feat designation. They DID playtest that and DID consider the balance implications. But you are talking about changing a classes structure, and not in the simple way of giving them a new ability, or replacing an old ability, but in taking out a complex system like spellcasting, which has multiple parts attached to it and contains a great deal of nuance. You then want to implement a completely new casting system. At best, you would just have spell slots by another name and everything would remain spells. At worst, this is developing a fundamentally new system of power balance.Monster design is completely different. A paladin is going to be played and exist, ideally, for dozens of sessions for hundreds of hours. A monster taking Burning Hands 3/day and turning into "Flaming Hands" that does the exact same thing at will, doesn't actually change anything if the monster is only expected to survive for three rounds of combat. The reason behind the change is, largely, to simply find a way to include the relevant text into the statblock, so the DM does not need to reference the spell list when they use a key ability. A single monster getting an extra use of an ability, in one combat, during one session, is far less impactful than a Paladin with effectively six extra spell slots every long rest.It isn't about being more or less desirable. The paladin ALREADY was designed to be like the cleric, and ALREADY has spell slots and a spell list and ALREADY uses spellcasting mechanics and ALREADY has features designed to work with those mechanics. It is far easier and far less work to add a spell to the spellcasting chassis, than it is to make an entirely new chassis and convert multiple spells into it. Heck, there even is a spellcasting system that uses points (spell points) and it is largely regarded has having some fundamental balance issues that have yet to be resolved. And if you just converted the paladin to that, which would be a lot easier.... then you would still need to make Divine Smite a spell to balance it with the other smite spells, which was the entire origin of this discussion. It is still spellcasting, just with something other than spell slots. And it has a lot of balance issues, which is why WoTC isn't using it in the base classes, and is just offering it as an optional rule.</blockquote>

Verification