Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Creamsteak" data-source="post: 1854190" data-attributes="member: 552">Ok, I still don't like the referneces to "colored" magics, which would imply that there are other "colors" of magic. I don't really like that, however, I could see there being the "circle of six" which represents 6 specialized prestige classes (white, black, red, blue, green, and yellow perhaps.) Even with that "fluff" transposition, I'm still not certain, but at least in that form it would give blue magic a meaning.Just being a bastard, but that's not a very good way to start off.Hrm... I'd be a bit more detailed into these differences. Something akin to, "While most learners study more 'common' or 'simple' creatures such as animals, magical beasts, and monstrous humanoids, there are many learners that focus on obscure aberrations, deadly dragons, and summoned outsiders."I think you could really develop what the "differences" between learners are, and what makes some more like adventurers. Also, because they are learning something about the biology of a monster is such a way that they USE the biology, I could see how they "become" the monster somewhat, so I used that as a basis here.   I'd prefer a d4 class that was really a hardcore spellcaster, but that's me. I'm fine with this.I don't like the base attack bonus prerequisite or the spontaneously casting... or well... I guess I don't like any of this anymore. Here's my idea, for a bit more versatility in the build but focusing more on the arcane side, Skills: Spellcraft 6 ranks, and at least 6 ranks in two of the following skills, Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (Dungeoneering), Knowledge (Nature), or Knowledge(The Planes).Feats: Skill Focus in at least two of the following: Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (Dungeoneering), Knowledge (Nature), or Knowledge(The Planes).Spells: The ability to cast the Alter Self spell or use Alter Self as a spell-like ability. *You could substitute Alter Self for Polymorph I guess.**Extra cool idea, would be to also include the psionic equivelents of Alter Self/Polymorph. Making this class more universal as it were.Meh... I'd say that for a knowledge (and very skill) oriented class, I would use 2 + intel modifier skills. And I would go so far as to allow "Knowledge (all skills taken individually) as the type.I'll leave this be. I might have comments about the specials though. And I still hate reading the word Lancelet.K.   I'd go with 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th. Same number of levels, but comes out slightly less frontloaded-ish. I know that's not a big deal with this class, but I would want to encourage the player to "get over the hump" earlier, the hump being the first level where you don't get a casting benefit. I'm being d20 pedantic here, but using Intelligence Score as the reference just doesn't seem right to me. How about just the learner level? Ten unique monsters spell like abilities have a pretty high power curve, when used right, and I don't see the need to have upwards of 20 of them. Compare this to a psion who knows, what, 30 spells total? I'd like to keep this at 10 for 10 levels, you could still optimize them and pick out 10 really awesome exceptional/supernatural/spell-like qualities. Sorcerers also get so few spells, so I don't think increasing there maximum so hugely would be right.I've got an idea on how to re-build this to work with both psionics and magic, but I'd need to take the time to construct it. It would be two alternate tables, but the basic idea would remain teh same.Ok, I don't like using spell range increments along with a non-spell action. I'd just say, "60 feet." Also, I think *certain* exceptional abilities could legitimately be allowed.   I was thinking that this works a bit backwards. I don't like the formula, but what bothers me more is the "less than +0 == +0" bit, and the saving throw/no saving throw bit. There's got to be a better way to work that out. Also, knowledge checks versus saving throw DCs is obtuse. One scales much faster than the other. I was thinking that a better way to do this would be to have the DCs set by the Blue Spell Level as a flat req, more on that later.I'm cool with that, as it's part of what I like.I just realized that calling them "blue spell slots" is really hard to figure around. Actually, this mechanic might need to go.   This is all getting ugly and ill-conceived looking.[qutoe]Lore: Learners are well-versed in the nature of monstrosities.  As such, he may make a special knowledge check with a bonus equal to his learner level + his Intelligence modifier to see whether he knows some relevant information concerning a monster or blue magic.[code][color=white][b]TABLE L-3: LOREDC    Type of Knowledge            Examples[/b]10    Common, known by at least a        The existence of lycanthropes; more    substantial minority of the local    common blue spells.    population.20    Uncommon but available, known        The nature of angels and eladrins;    by only a few people in the area.    unusual blue spells.25    Obscure, known by few, hard to        The history of a race of monsters;     come by.                powerful blue spells.30    Extremely obscure, known by        The history of an ancient, lost race;    very few.                blue spells learned from extinct species.[/color][/code]</blockquote>I don't like your examples... they seem too low in DC to actual rarity relation.Hrm... not sure what I think of this.I hate this. It's too many bonuses to something so finite, and I don't like the mechanic or thematic elements of the Lancelet.I don't mind spells that allow you to know something's hp (like Status, that's the spell in the PHB that lets you track an ally's HP, right?), but to claim that you can KNOW it from a sense motive check (opposed by bluff) seems video-gamish in a bad way. Something less meta-game related would be better. And the name, Peep, seems pretty boring. I'd rather there be a distance extention to the learning range or something.   Very cool. Not worded quite right, but this makes sense. I *think* I saw a feat like that somewhere, but it may have been epic. This works for me though.Unnecessary statement I suppose.Not, getting, it. So similar to peep, and also taking a step further to know what "affects" the target is undergoing. Now, something that allowed the learner to sense affects as in (stunned, fatigued, exhausted) etc. would indeed be useful. However, the way this deals with this (sense motive by bluff) is something I don't like.Unusual, but I can see it working out. The wording of "saving throws agaisnt the following conditions" should probably be worded a bit differently, since most saves are versus spells, not the affects of the spell (for instance, you save vs. confusion (the spell), not confused (the affect).Meh. I don't know what to think.I strongly dislike most of this. Especially the use of a formula based on CR over a list akin to the spell lists in the Player's handbook. I'm still a proponent of that system over some arbitrary (and often wrong one way or another) formula. Worst of all, CR is a horrible factor for this. CR is so obscure and situation dependant, that I can't see it's relevance. Imagine, a 400 hit diced creature with a weak supernatural ability to see invisible creatures. If it's CR was 50 or something, that wouldn't work. I know I'm picking a far ranging point, but I'm just trying to show that the two are not correlated.[/QUOTE]

Verification