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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jefe Bergenstein" data-source="post: 3935551" data-attributes="member: 31506">Since we don't actually know what their other abilities do, we're operating in a vacuum. If theres another Golden Wyvern feat that lets you add additional targets to buffs, blasts, etc, then the concept would emerge. "Hey, the Golden Wyvern school is your mass battle caster style". Since the designers dont want wizards knowing how to do everything (hence carving up their spells into whole other classes), and want a party to be able to have two wizards who play differently based on their specialities (ie, Iron Sigil, Golden Wyvern, hidden flame) then yes, it makes sense to create packages based around these concepts. Its no more fluff for fluff's sake than saying elves can use a longbow, gnomes get a +1 to hit kobolds, or that there's someone named Tasha who makes people laugh hideously and uncontrollably. Similar to the core pantheon, it helps new DM's (or experienced, time constrained DM's) have semi-fleshed out schools, organizations, what have you's to drop into the campaigns that match the style concepts. New DM's arguably need the most help, and are a population that needs to grow in order for the game to survive. I'd assume the pros can somehow manage to get by renaming a few feats. If instead of Golden Wyvern Adept, lets assume a new feat called Iron Sigil Master that lets you add your Constitution modifier to any the bonus that any spell that raises defense (will, ac, reflex, etc) grants. Is this offensive?</blockquote>

Verification