Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 1490424" data-attributes="member: 172">Gah!Y'know, sometimes I think Sean is right on the money.But when he starts talking about science in reference to D&D of all things, it makes me wince. (I'll never forget the invisibility/infravision thing.)When you are talking about strength in D&D, you should be using mythical heroes as reference points, not physicists. Otherwise you get into real trouble when you get to that sticky HP thing.Am I the only one not seeing the difference this causes in game terms. Other that it prevents elves from meeting the prerequisite of "proficient in X" for feats and classes, which is an effect I would not think is sensible.This is a moment where he is right on the money.WotC's current design staff pays WAY too little attention to the subject of backwards compatability. If they are going to put out changes every few years, they really need to start.Fair enough, though I think that it would have made more sense for the bonuses to be disguise and bluff for a race that 1) resembles 2 other races and 2) might be considered an outcast and shunned if they can't "fit it".Fair enough, but I could live without it. I see no driving need to have half-orc sorcerers and don't mind the race modified driving them away from such.I can see where he is coming from, but it doesn't really bother me beyond how BAB in general bothers me (make these class skills for fighters and cross class skills for other "non fighty" classes and notice how the difference immediately becomes more stark...) He neglects proficiencies, but it is a pretty significant factor to neglect, and it means a good difference in damage and other weapon statistics. Further, I don't see first level characters as exactly "seasoned". It's probably a good thing that my wizard can still hold his own with a light crossbow once he has burned of his 2 first level spells.Again, on the money.I think running the numbers, we all agree with that (and have commented on this since early 3.0)However, in play, it still doesn't trip the one "balance litmus test" I have: people don't seem to preferentially play them.I agree with his house rule suggestion, but more on flavor grounds. The cleric, as written, is a somewhat martial class. I use the priest from AEG's Good for this reason.Again, money.Fighters and monks... money. Especially this:Preach it, brutha Sean! This was the change to 3.5 that I was hoping for but DIDN'T see.Paladin... let's just say I think you know how I feel about Pokemounts.Not to mention, it doesn't pidgeonhole the class too much. (Would that the bard should be so broad.)My house rule for rangers... and there is a benefit, it doesn't lock all NPC rangers into being archer or drizzt-like commandoes. Adding feats like mounted combat could explain horseman style scouts, run for plainsrunners, etc.Sorcerers do seem to lack a little and I could see the first two house rules here. The third combined with the second? No way. It would turn the balance the other way.I agree, again, that there is a compatability problem.I disagree that the schools are all balanced now (this depends as much on the role of the school as the spells available), and attempts to push it that direction result in some painful distortions to the spell list (like power words, parsing out the symbol, etc.) The single most appropriate change was moving teleportation to conjuration.But beyond that, I fail to see that anything was wrong with the 3.0 specialist wizards.Oooh, no like. That would, as you say, make the wizard into something more specific. This is not a good thing IMO, as I prefer my classes to be broad.I can see from a design-for-abuse standpoint why one might want this to be true.But my players aren't uber-optimizers and often forget an important feat early on and it's nice to be able to do some last minute planning to get the character that they want.One of the reasons given for Prestige Classes over kits (and I agree with) is that prestige classes can be added to existing characters. You make it too hard to enter prestige classes, you nullify one of their reasons for existings.Not to mention, if you are going to make a character wait 3 more levels for a class that they could have otherwise entered at 6th if they were human, you are making the boon of getting a feat at first level too influential in terms of permitting character design freedom.In short, I think that forcing that rules conclusion is not only not a good thing for the game, in some ways it is harmful.</blockquote>

Verification