Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="oreofox" data-source="post: 8232237" data-attributes="member: 6776240">A few of the things that bug me or Undead not being templates. It was one improvement Pathfinder did over 3rd.5e's way of doing animal companions. It's gotten a bit better as the years have gone on, but it's the original implementation and WotC's reluctance to modify anything that came in the PHB.Ability scores since 3e. I preferred them how they were done in AD&amp;D (I didn't mind exceptional Strength, but some of the limitations on who could get what number annoyed me), and have thought of changing it back to that.Sorcerers being based on Charisma for casting. Someone who's magic is innate and comes from within should be Constitution based. Charisma is perfect for bards, as their magic comes from their music, performances, and personality. Monsters are Constitution based with their DCs, there's no reason why sorcerers can't be as well. Luckily I'm the DM and have changed that in my own games.The Warlock class. I know it fits a fantasy trope of obtaining power through making a pact with a magical being, but it out-edgelords the rogues in every character (which is compounded by the numerous tiefling warlocks).WotC putting ASIs keys to class progression instead of character progression. Also, not having the classes give the +2 ASI instead of the base race/lineage. Again, luckily I am the DM and have changed this in my own games. They started the playtest with the classes giving an ASI when you took them, and it is something they should have kept with.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="oreofox, post: 8232237, member: 6776240"] A few of the things that bug me or Undead not being templates. It was one improvement Pathfinder did over 3rd. 5e's way of doing animal companions. It's gotten a bit better as the years have gone on, but it's the original implementation and WotC's reluctance to modify anything that came in the PHB. Ability scores since 3e. I preferred them how they were done in AD&D (I didn't mind exceptional Strength, but some of the limitations on who could get what number annoyed me), and have thought of changing it back to that. Sorcerers being based on Charisma for casting. Someone who's magic is innate and comes from within should be Constitution based. Charisma is perfect for bards, as their magic comes from their music, performances, and personality. Monsters are Constitution based with their DCs, there's no reason why sorcerers can't be as well. Luckily I'm the DM and have changed that in my own games. The Warlock class. I know it fits a fantasy trope of obtaining power through making a pact with a magical being, but it out-edgelords the rogues in every character (which is compounded by the numerous tiefling warlocks). WotC putting ASIs keys to class progression instead of character progression. Also, not having the classes give the +2 ASI instead of the base race/lineage. Again, luckily I am the DM and have changed this in my own games. They started the playtest with the classes giving an ASI when you took them, and it is something they should have kept with. [/QUOTE]

Verification