Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 8117248" data-attributes="member: 6777737">In general, I still feel like you should be filling every level 11-20 with something. I think you'll feel like you need to fill endgame with other rewards. Dead levels just suck.My other general sense is that I still prefer my idea of keeping 1-10 the same, squashing the abilitys from 11-20 into 11-15, and then making 16-20 all ASI. But then, I'm not surprised that I like my idea better. It was mine, and I agree with my opinion that the progression levels 1-10 works pretty well.Barbarian:I think it would be fine to do that. I'm pretty sure that the starting design was to have rage damage and number of rages both equal proficiency bonus. Rage damage is really very minor. Honestly, I'd much rather rage damage used bonus dice (+2 = d4, +3 = d6, etc.). That does make criticals more potent, but it just feels so much better to be rolling bonus dice that I'm not sure that I care.Bard:Is there a compelling reason not to move Bard College to level 1? So many of the class's subclasses grant weapon or armor or skill proficiencies that feel super uneven to get at level 3. IMO, it's this class that makes it most clear that all subclasses should start at level 1 as a design rule.If you're allowed to exchange lower level Secrets spells for higher level spells, I don't think I'd bother.Cleric:I would alter Divine Intervention to:Regular: 1% per class level to workImproved: 5% per class level to workI just don't want to think about what an X level spell can do.Druid:I agree, plant wild shape is very thematic. I think question becomes: What is the CR of a shrubbry? Start with Animate Objects stats and try to work backwards?Fighter:If you're changing things, I like the idea of making Indomitable only expend a use on a successful reroll. It's a pretty terrible ability as the game progresses, although getting it at lower level alone helps a lot. It feels awful to blow the ability on bad saves all the time, however.Monk:Ki points progress way too slowly, IMO. Ki will fall quite far behind the other martial classes.Paladin:I think I prefer this style of half-spellcasting, but it does seem to significantly alter the potency of Smite. I'd probably want to limit Smite to once a turn. I don't think cantrips are neccessary, either. I think the VCF that makes cantrips a Fighting Style is a better choice.Ranger:You need to speed up spells known if you speed up progression that much. Honestly, though, I'd just throw that out for rangers entirely and copy the number you can prepare from Paladin. Making Rangers inflexible seems anathema to the concept. I'd probably not bother with Favored Enemy Strike and just use the CFVs in Tashas.Rogue:I don't think Evasion needs the nerf given that Sneak Attack is still on the slow progression track. Not sure if you've kept it. What does Arcane Trickster/Eldritch Knight spell progression look like given the changes to Paladin and Ranger?Warlock:Something feels off and I don't know what it is.Oh! Invocation level limits! Should definitely revisit those.Wizard:I like Arcana Mastery. I'm not a huge fan of making counterspell even more omnipresent, though.</blockquote>

Verification