Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DDK" data-source="post: 610029" data-attributes="member: 6469">A lotta good suggestions that I agree with for the most part so I'll only refer to the few I didn't like or agree with.Doing this would violate the simplicity of the save or check rule as presented in the DMG (p. 94) which I think is a fundamental concept that should be adhered to. If you start making exceptions then we'll have 2nd ed. all over again.DEFINITELY NOT! I would refuse to buy the books if they changed it to be like that on that basis alone.The opinion that the sorcerer is underpowered is a flawed one. On paper it might seem that way, but in play I've found the sorcerer to be quite powerful enough, thank you very muchly!I would agree that a change of skill selection, however, would be appropriate, to reflect the fact that they ARE different from wizards.I think it's fine as is and any change would upset the system too much and make it even less realistic.Ok, I said I'd concentrate on the things I didn't like but since I'm about to play a druid, I have to concur that their spell selection is bizarre and definitely needs reworking. Although, some of the spells like Produce Flame, Shillelagh and Call Lightning are DAMN cool and should be left as is.Templates for Zombies and Skeletons is a silly idea. You have different sizes of zombies and skeletons and that's it. You don't have to make major changes to them to apply them to any type of creature and since both are mindless, I see no reason for there to be a template, other than to complicate matters unneccessarily.And personally, I like the idea of clerics being better necromancers than wizards, but that's just because I also prefer the notion that necromancy is more divination based (as it historically is), even if that isn't represented in the system.Nooooo, it's bad enough that we have halfling paladins riding goats! We don't need halfling monk/paladin/rogues riding dire dogs!</blockquote>

Verification