Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3264925" data-attributes="member: 4937">Oh brother.  I'm not going to complain for the reason that you think.  It's not that I'm worried about the fact that the character may have been twinked.   The problem is that you and I have such a different idea of what a character concept is, that we are never going to remotely agree on this.Hogwash.  The exact spell list might be difficult, but the rest of what you mention is easy.Which is not I would note actually a concept.  You are defining a character by what he does, not who he is.  No system is, especially for a given power level of the character, going to be able to support a player bringing any given shopping list of abilities to the table and coming away with exactly what he wants.  He'll either have to settle for a portion of the shopping list, or else wait until he has more 'points' to spend on the character.  That's just the nature of things.That said, I see no reason at all why you couldn't come very close to that with a base cleric, the right feats, and a better system of player options, advantages and disadvantages.  The only thing that I would be skeptical of would be that the exact spell list could be recreated in large part because giving up access to a selected list of class skills and spells and getting anything at all in return is highly abusable.  The way clerics handle spell lists with domains is about as ideal as flexible spell access can be made.   But something which gave a divine spell caster access to a whole arcane school of spells sounds to me to be right out simply because the access to a presumably stronger spell list is the only thing arcane spell casters have going for them.So, probably something like Human Cleric of Fhalarghan + Optional Culture Trait (cultural traits (among other things) change the weapon classifications for a character, moving weapons between the exotic, martial and simple classes,) + Cleric Option (giving up turning undead for inspire rage ability) + Character Disadvantage (Reduced spell list, giving up two schools of magic) + Character Trait (Extra Domain Access, giving you the spells from another domain) + possibly spending a feat to gain access to the long bow.   With the exception of the giving up turning undead for inspire rage, you could do that in my campaign as it is using just the house rules I've already got, and I while I'd have to think about it giving up turning undead for inspire rage sounds close to balanced so I'd happily consider that a new player option.But none of that is a concept nor do I see how any of that is essential to a concept.  It sounds to me alot more like a shopping list of abilities.Complaining that you can't recreate the abilities of a character from a previous edition is just short of ridiculous though.  I can't ever port my elven thief/M-U into 3rd edition, because I was giving up basically one level of spell casting ability for full rogue skill and class ability progression.   I'll never be able to make a character of X level that backstabs as a X level rogue, AND has the skills of a X level rogue, AND has the spell casting ability of a X-1 level Wizard.  Plus, I won't be playing a race which is inherently superior to human.  There is no way I could balance all of that now that skills really matter, and even if I could it wouldn't be an exact port.  The only reason the character was even close to balanced was that after about the 3rd level, thieves were so inherently inferior to other classes in 1st and 2nd edition that giving up one level of M-U was (especially at higher levels) just about (though not quite) balanced.If you can't port something over identically from an earlier edition don't be suprised.  Odds are even if you made a base class for your (very narrow 'concept') it wouldn't be balanced with existing classes, and if it was, it wouldn't be an exact port.</blockquote>

Verification