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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GnomeWorks" data-source="post: 2324137" data-attributes="member: 162">Thanks! <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=":)" />  I like the way it's turned out.  Much better than the original version.That is a good point.  I think they would all require somatic components, and require verbal based on the ability in question (ie, a forst worm's trill would require a verbal component).The talent system does not require the abilities to be classified by level.  All talents use the same number of talent slots to use, that being one.  A talent's spell level is determined by the learner casting it, and is learner level - 1.You need more than 4 bard levels, and more than 6 sorcerer levels.  You can get to this PrC's first level at 7th if you're a bard, and 9th if you're a sorcerer.This was somewhat intentional, yes.  The learner combines the aspects of a few classes and adds some new things on.  Learners require knowledge, arcane spellcasting, and ability in combat (since that's where they're going to learn most of their talents).I don't see a problem with Examine and Analyze as they stand; they were previously very metagame-y, but at this point that feel has been majorly toned down while still retaining the purpose of the abilities (to let the learner determine how to deal with a given creature).  Lore is there primarily so the learner can figure out what talents he can get from a monster, though it does have alternative uses.  These abilities aren't knowledge skills and aren't even related to them, so I don't see a problem with their mechanics aspects.</blockquote>

Verification