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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilja" data-source="post: 4862659" data-attributes="member: 84300">First of all, thanks a lot for all input!The thing with seeing them as non-adventuring classes seems hard for me. If someone wanted to play a newly graduated wizard, I wouldn't say that they should play adept instead because she hasn't adventured. Drizzt Do'Urden didn't adventure until after his graduation (as far as I remember) and then he was already a fighter. I'd rather say that adventuring gives XP, and therefore, adventurers are usually level 2 or higher. But I guess it's a matter of taste.That sounds good. Maybe I'll do a remake of all npc classes to more reflect non-adventuring classes specifically; not making them definately WORSE than the PC classes, but making them more focused on stuff that actually suits them. Give the warrior 4 skill points per level and a bunch of more class skills, since he could be a guard which would be trained in gather information, diplomacy and such, while making a peasant that's great at... growing stuff and keeping animals. I'd make all npc classes favored to all races (mostly) since they all are common parts of society. And get rid of the adept and commoner. I really hate those. An adept could be a first-level wizard using the Witch spell list, and a commoner could be an expert in his field, even if it's shoe-makery.If the expert had spellcasting ability, all experts would cast spells, kinda. Nearly all rogues have UMD, and few rangers go with wis 10. The expert is kind of the back-bone of society - most professionals will be experts rather than commoners.Yeah, maybe. I'm thinking of maybe slaughtering a sacred cow by making the expert have a higher actual maximum ranks in skills. It would give it a unique touch to be able to do something not everyone is. Sure, it might allow it into certain PrCs sooner, but I don't really have a problem with that, generally, especially as our group don't use very much of the non-core stuff. Maybe say that with skill points gained from Expert, you can invest as much as your level +2 in a skill (I'm playing with the pathfinder rules).   Seems fair, and far simpler.YES! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> It's really nice to have a useful expert class to dip into, especially for RP reasons. The thing is that I don't want to punish people for RP'ing.For example, the idea of a dwarven warrior that is also a smith isn't rare. I've seen several. Right now, a dwarven fighter with above-average intelligence gets 3 skill points per level - and skills associated with smithing in the PHB would be blacksmithing, armorsmithing, weaponsmithing, and metallurgy. If he's gonna have a business anytime, he'd also probably need at least Appraise and Diplomacy. Taking a level of Expert solves any skill problems, but he shouldn't be TOO punished in his fighting ability for gaining what, the ability to make decent non-magical stuff?Bruenor Battlehammer must've had an int of 25 or something to account for all skill points he's used.Here are changes I've considered for experts and noblesLooks really neat, especially the aristocrat. I'd give him a few defensive feats as well (especially the saves feats) due to training in avoiding murders, deceptions and the like.I'll check out the dragonlance classes, are they OGC?</blockquote>

Verification