Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CleverNickName" data-source="post: 7849686" data-attributes="member: 50987">Like I said, this was just my first impression upon reading the new document.&nbsp; I'm sure if I sat with it for a little while and did a detailed reading, tested things out, etc., I would have different opinions.&nbsp; But right off the cuff, these were my observations.I feel that &quot;double your Proficiency bonus&quot; messes too much with bounded accuracy, especially in the later stages of character development.&nbsp; I'm sure it's fine mathematically; it's a matter of personal preference.Yeah, I know.&nbsp; And to be honest, most of the changes that are presented here for the cleric I am on board with; this one was the only one that stuck in my craw.&nbsp; Maybe not every cleric needs to be &quot;more martial focused&quot;, ya know? Ah.&nbsp; Well in that case, it's probably fine.&nbsp; I doubt they would get much use at any rate.WotC has been trying for years to build a better ranger.&nbsp; This one is getting closer, but it's still got a ways to go.&nbsp; I would prefer they make the Ranger into a subclass of Druid or Fighter instead of trying to stitch the two together...but I understand why that won't ever happen.&nbsp; Alas, a moogle can dream.Only for flavor reasons.&nbsp; A sorcerer's magical ability comes from their bloodline, not from the whims of a divine or extraplanar entity.&nbsp; So do they change their blood while they sleep?&nbsp; As far as the rules are concerned I think it's fine; I just don't understand why every class has to have the same abilities as every other class.&nbsp; Come on, Wizards.I really like the flavor more than anything else.&nbsp; The specific features could use a little more polish, sure, but I think it's pretty evocative.&nbsp; And I agree--in its current rendition, it will work great for NPCs.True, that wouldn't be bad.&nbsp; Another option would be to give War Clerics the same d10 hit die of other martial classes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CleverNickName, post: 7849686, member: 50987"] Like I said, this was just my first impression upon reading the new document. I'm sure if I sat with it for a little while and did a detailed reading, tested things out, etc., I would have different opinions. But right off the cuff, these were my observations. I feel that "double your Proficiency bonus" messes too much with bounded accuracy, especially in the later stages of character development. I'm sure it's fine mathematically; it's a matter of personal preference. Yeah, I know. And to be honest, most of the changes that are presented here for the cleric I am on board with; this one was the only one that stuck in my craw. Maybe not every cleric needs to be "more martial focused", ya know? Ah. Well in that case, it's probably fine. I doubt they would get much use at any rate. WotC has been trying for years to build a better ranger. This one is getting closer, but it's still got a ways to go. I would prefer they make the Ranger into a subclass of Druid or Fighter instead of trying to stitch the two together...but I understand why that won't ever happen. Alas, a moogle can dream. Only for flavor reasons. A sorcerer's magical ability comes from their bloodline, not from the whims of a divine or extraplanar entity. So do they change their blood while they sleep? As far as the rules are concerned I think it's fine; I just don't understand why [I]every class has to have the same abilities as every other class.[/I] Come on, Wizards. I really like the flavor more than anything else. The specific features could use a little more polish, sure, but I think it's pretty evocative. And I agree--in its current rendition, it will work great for NPCs. True, that wouldn't be bad. Another option would be to give War Clerics the same d10 hit die of other martial classes. [/QUOTE]

Verification