Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WhatGravitas" data-source="post: 4282936" data-attributes="member: 33132">Okay, it's massive, so it's hard to comment on it. My general impression: It looks solid... but here are still some comments:Well, cantrips are power-wise very weak, but I see a lot of out-of-combat role infringement when you hand out all cantrips with their whole power. I'd rather reserve the full-fledged cantripping power for the start of the paragon path. Instead, I'd rather fold Arcane Student into it with the at-will powers or make them per encounter - all other class features you hand out are also restricted.So that's basically a cleric-only feat?And that a paladin-only feat?Not that there's anything wrong with giving people some synergy, if they do the paladin/cleric split.Furthermore: It's awfully hard to fulfill the prerequisites for the more combat-heavy classes (fighter, paladin, and especially warlord!). It eludes me why you require heavy armour proficiency - for the lightly armoured classes, this requires a huge investment upfront, delaying the entry considerably.And it's not really balancing - if you're in melee, you're going to get armour earlier or later anyway. And there is no real role infringement, as the worse armour, plus hit points, plus other stuff (proficiencies) will keep you from infringing anyway. It only makes it much harder for dabblers and delays multiclassing - but a good multiclassing system should make multiclassing available early, as the point of the system is allowing you to flesh out character concepts.Which isn't fun, nor in line with 4E's philosophy, I think, if you have to wait several levels to even get the most basic feat.Well, all of this obviously depends on the interplay with the Paragon Paths, so my opinion might change on specific points.Cheers, LT.</blockquote>

Verification