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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CAFRedblade" data-source="post: 5721878" data-attributes="member: 34503">"4) avoid stacks. That's the principles of <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />overpower. Special attention to items"Gratuitous stacking does need to be handled, not sure if removing all stacking would be the solution, but it perhaps needs to remain no more than 5 differing categories, preferably 3 from my perspective. The best bonus/adjustment stacks with the adjacent categories bonus/adjustment.  "3) reduce number of class, based in concept. For example, "specialist"  could englobe rogue, bard, assassin. You choose a Major Class feature  from Sneak Attack, Bardic Song, Assassins poison use, etc. If possible,  the people can do anyrhing like "dual specialization" of wow, so  character can have 2 different roles<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />6) character themes be part of character creation. So it gives bonuses  to some skills, bonuses to interact with some organizations, skill  related and "class" features. So we can create a "devoted fighter",  "wizard spy", etc" I wouldn't mind a little more custom options on the player side like that.  4th ed sort of does it, even more so with the essentials.  But the above would mean you would be one step away from simply piecemeal building your class based on differing characteristics/options.  (which some rule sets do a fine job of)  But DND needs a little more definition in that respect.  I do like the idea of a more built in Theme/Specialization system for the classes. "7) recall the spell levels and old spell system. Lots of spells in 4 e looks like an normal attack.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />"I think more non-combat utility spells need to be provided, but that 4th does a decent job of balancing pure combat spells now.  (was a little weak at the start) And please keep the differing Realms apart.  Continue to flesh out the 4th Default Realm, give it a proper name, and through out more details that have appeared since 4th ed began. ( some of this in the Nerath Board game)  It's a decent world, but mix-matching the current campaign worlds would destroy each and every one of them.  And besides, jumping from world to world is one possibility for high level play if you want to do it.  Just my two cents.Should have used the multi-quote.. doh.</blockquote>

Verification