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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6267079" data-attributes="member: 17106">I don't want to limit the fighter. At least, not within its scope. The thread topic was about making a fighter that is good at things that aren't fighting, and to me, that is a diversion from the scope, certainly allowable, but with a cost (not a limit).I don't take that as given at all. What constitutes a class is pretty arbitrary and many of them are not remotely equal in the conceptual space they occupy. A paladin is clearly a small niche. A cleric is much bigger. Classes just don't work that way.My feeling on that is again that I don't like limits, but I do like costs. To me, moving magic over the skills and feats would be an ideal opportunity to add costs. You want Polymorph? First you have to learn Change Self and spend X ranks in Transmutation. You want teleport? Learn five lesser conjuration spells and spend some ranks in Conjuration. You want Fireball? Learn some fire spells first. All doable individually, but this makes it much harder to cherry pick a list of spells for any individual character with limited points and slots, and adds a naturalistic sense of iterative learning to the mix.We haven't seen that approach yet, but it seems obvious to me that adding prerequisites to spells would be a very good thing.Sure it does. Soldiers, gladiators, streetfighters, mercenaries, the list of people who are good at fighting and aren't necessarily good at anything else is quite long. Sure, some of them might be smarter than they look, or leaders of men, or whatnot, but that's hardly the default, and hardly something that should be built into the class by default either. It's not like making fighters focus on fighting is forcing them into a corner. There are tons of diverse examples of what that can amount to.</blockquote>

Verification