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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nonlethal Force" data-source="post: 2923131" data-attributes="member: 35788">I too think that this is just showing off how 3.5 could be tweaked.  Although about the only thing that would get me out of 3.5 and into 4e would be a completely classless system that allowed characters to buy certain options as the equivalent of the 3.5 class levels.  [Or, save levels to buy bigger options ... such as the ability to buy a feat in exchange of two class level equivalencies.  That would rock - and totally eliminate the racial favored class mechanic that most DMs I know ignore anyway.  [Although I don't ignore it, personally]I am especially tempted by this caveat:If anyone form WotC Research and Development is reading this thread take note.  Make this section as good as the PHBII section regarding class variants and it will go a long way in making this book well worth the expense.Additionally,Additionally, make the sections noted by my own emphasis worthwhile.  General arcanists have gotten support in most of the Complete books if not all.  Please God, if there is anything good under the sun, let the section on Warlocks (and to a lesser extent) Wu Jen support be worthwhile.I think if WotC can put the Complete Mage together in a way that supports the Warlock, the Wu Jen, and especially gives variant magical options to the other classes you will have happy customers.The only thing I almost regret is the fact that with another complete book we'll be getting three more base classes, no?  I mean, how many more magic users do we need?  We already have for Core+Complete: [Help me out if I miss any]Wizard (and specialists)SorcererBardWu JenHexbladeWarmageWarlockSpellthiefIf we add in the PHBII we get the addition of the Duskblade and Beguiler.  Do we really need more ways to throw arcane power around that cannot be done with an existing class and/or a PrC?  [This is a legitimate question, not a rhetorical one.]</blockquote>

Verification