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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8533478" data-attributes="member: 6987520">FWIW, I have no problems with critiques and am happy to discuss criticism of an idea. If the discussion reaches an impasse, there is obviously no use in continuing it, but such discussion can certainly lead to better ideas as well, so I am all for that!Two-fold really. First for balance in the secondary. For example, allowing damage to be as high as the attack bonus would be too strong IMO. The pairing/order could certainly be off as this was a first draft. Also, the idea of allowing the player to choose which is primary and which secondary allows for another decision point.Again, first draft. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />And as I wrote in the OP, this was just my quick glance at putting them in different places. Depending on your views it makes sense that you feel certain classes would fit better elsewhere, so no issues with that.Ultimately I think going with the idea of choosing your priorities instead of it being class-dependent is probably best. This way your Cleric might be good at defense, but mine might be better at combat and not as good with defense. Do you think that would be better? Allowing the player to choose instead?90% it just worked out that way, and I wanted different classes to keep the strengths and weaknesses different. Again, this is just me against sameyness whenever I can avoid it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification