Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9887419" data-attributes="member: 4937">One thing that I'm trying to get away from that I feel is very 1e in feel but very poor in design is making lists.  The problem with lists is that while they are very flexible, very flavorful, and can be balanced quite easily, they also are inimical to any expansion of the game with new content because they you have to make new lists and alter existing lists by various amendments.  So you'll note that my version of the Illusionist avoids this completely by having neither a list of allowed and available spells nor a list of allowed and available magic items, a design choice that departs radically from the first instincts of just about every 1e era designer (and most 2e era designers).  The class is durably designed so that it can fit into any homebrew without amendment, and doesn't really care how the game is expanded, the rules would still work as written without need for revision. Charisma was under consideration but was rejected because I didn't want to have too many schools that depended on a particular secondary ability, and both Enchantment and Conjuration/Summoning more obviously depended on Charisma than Necromancy.   I'm perfectly happy to have necromancers who are foul, unlovely and unattractive in personality or appearance as at least an option rather than to suggest that they all must be magnetic to the living as well as the dead.</blockquote>