NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 5707206" data-attributes="member: 54710">For utility powers, I think there are very good reasons to organize these by power source.  Other than a small number of role-specific utilities (mostly marking and healing abilities), I don't see many examples where it would be problematic for all the power source examples to share a single list.  I mean, sure the Fighter would be able to take the Rogue's sneaking utility powers, but who cares?  I think you put all of that one a shared list and simply limit some utility powers to "class X only" (or "class X and Y only", or "class X and other defenders only").As to the number of utility powers, I think at least one of the even levels when you get a new utility power, you should get a new class ability instead.  One of the concepts behind this design idea is to increase the importance of class abilities, and I've never heard a justification for the vast number of utility powers a character can accumulate other than the desire to have something cool at every level.I completely agree.  I think we got STR/WIS clerics only because traditional D&D involves a cleric wielding a mace.  Clerics should have just had a WIS/STR version that included the occational weapon ability and allowed STR to be used as the booster to some powers.  I'm not opposed to adding role keywords, although I think many powers would be role-neutral.  So, your Flaming Sphere example could have a "Wizards and Other Controllers Only" limitation, but there's no reason to apply the same limitation to every power.Oh, and I agree with your idea up-thread that some exceptional classes will have more class-specific powers.-KS</blockquote>

Verification