Tweaks I'd like to see for Specialties

[PolaroidNinja]

3. Magic User. Tweak: cantrips able to be cast in armor. (That might actually be better in the spell descriptions in How to Play. I’d also want this to apply to the High Elf, if it doesn’t already.)

You know I've been looking at this and I believe that the default assumption for spellcasting is that it can be done in armor without penalty, unless your source of spells specifies otherwise.

Here are my reasons:

1 - In the "Casting a Spell" section armor is never mentioned.
2 - The wizard specifically states that it's spells cannot be cast in armor, as does the Sorcerer (which is then overridden in the dragon bloodline)
3 - The cleric does not mention whether it can or cannot cast in armor. Interestingly, I have not met anyone that has questioned the cleric's ability to cast in armor.

With those things in mind, it stands to reason that the default assumption is that all magic can be cast in full armor, unless your class specifies otherwise.

Back to your tweak - the feat gives you some cantrips from the wizard's spell list, but it does not say you cast them as a wizard. In fact it goes so far as to say that you use Intelligence to cast them, which wouldn't be needed if they functioned exactly like a wizard.

So as far as I can tell, an elf fighter/magic user can cast all day in his armor.

To that point I'm not entirely sure that Wizard Cantrips cannot be cast in armor as they function differently from all other wizard spells already (and are listed in a separate category), but there is less of a case for that.

Either way, I think it should be made a bit more clear.

 

[Ellington]

I agree with most of these.

I'd also like to say that I'd like to split the sharpshooter speciality in two. There should be a speciality that focuses on few, accurate shots and one that focuses on rapid shooting and a bunch of ranged attacks.

 

[Kobold Stew]

You know I've been looking at this and I believe that the default assumption for spellcasting is that it can be done in armor without penalty, unless your source of spells specifies otherwise.
<snip>
Either way, I think it should be made a bit more clear.

I agree!

Thanks for the analysis. And welcome to the boards! Woo!

 

[Kobold Stew]

Nop.
Archer "twin strike" feat is supposed to be balance because you do half damage. With spells, often the damage is not really relevant. A "twin" ice-ray that can do 1d3+slow to two enemies is quite better than a single 1d6+slow to one.
And that's just with the few spells we currently have. If you factor in the not-seeing-yet spells, this can go out of hand quickly, imho.

Yeah, this is a good call. It's what Drago Rinato was saying in post 5 --

instead of 1d6+slow it would have to become 1d3+slow and 1d3.

 

[MarkB]

Yeah, this is a good call. It's what Drago Rinato was saying in post 5 --

instead of 1d6+slow it would have to become 1d3+slow and 1d3.

Yeah, with weapon attacks the possibility of applying a secondary effect twice is a major part of what makes multi-shot worth taking - but with spells, the secondary effect is often the more important part.

The suggested fix is a good one, but as a concession to spellcasters I'd suggest allowing them to decide which target it affects after making both attacks, so as to allocate it to best effect.

 

[PolaroidNinja]

Yeah, with weapon attacks the possibility of applying a secondary effect twice is a major part of what makes multi-shot worth taking - but with spells, the secondary effect is often the more important part.

The suggested fix is a good one, but as a concession to spellcasters I'd suggest allowing them to decide which target it affects after making both attacks, so as to allocate it to best effect.

I don't know, seems to me that this type of thing might fit better into the "meta-magic" style of feat. Something like +1 spell level to target an additional creature with a single target spell.

I think the whole "double shooting" or "quick draw - fire" thing should remain a weapon based martial thing. /2 cents