Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GuardianLurker" data-source="post: 156285" data-attributes="member: 786">Actually, the primary balance seems to be the lack of Arcane Touch spells, especially at high levels. Not surprising given the squishy nature of your typical wizard. Limiting it to Arcane only does reduce the power to a much more bearable level, but I'm still cautious. Introducing non-core spells (whether home-brew or from products like FRCS or R&R) could really push it over.Hmmm... what would you think about splitting the feat into two? One, open to both divine and arcane, that allows the use of a light weapon while using the other to cast spells. And an Arcane Metamagic feat (with (perhaps) Brew Potion and Create Magic Arms as prereqs) that allows channelling of a touch spell through the weapon at (say) +2 level cost? This would have the result of giving that low-level wizard something better than a dagger, while raising the channelling ability to a higher level (as well as capping the spell-levels).As for focused strike; yeah, at those levels the bonuses will tend to swamp out the weapon damage die, but "any change that removes randomness favors the players". Also, depending on how combat heavy your campaign is, it could be the difference between saving the use for climatic (or near-climatic battles) and using it to squish cockroaches. And frankly, even 1/day/level seems like too often to me. But then, I like to keep my players short on resources. <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=":)" />Your points about PrCs are fairly interesting; I must admit, I look at this primarily from a GM perspective. PrCs are different than Kits, although they do both suffer from the "shiny toy" problem, and I've never really considered PrCs to be player driven - either in intent or common usage. Every PrC gets doublechecked by me before I allow it into my campaigns, and *I* am the only one who can create new ones for my campaign. I also don't have as much of an issue with the splatbook PrCs; for the most part they aren't bad, and only rarely do they need any more than "flavor" tweaking. Finally, it's a lot easier to control access to the PrC than it is to a feat, so I'm more inclined to experiment with them.I've also found that for me, feats are harder to balance (as a system) than PrCs, primarily due to those unanticpated resonances. Also, extracting abilities out into feats starts driving 3e towards a classless system, and trying to make 3e classless (in my experience) is nothing but a recipe for disaster. I'm not knocking classless systems - I've played my share and had a lot of fun - but trying to turn DnD into one is like trying to put a big square peg into a small round hole; you may get the peg in, but something's going to break.</blockquote>

Verification