T.G. Oskar
2014-06-20, 06:02 PM
"Hmm...this seems a bit pretentious. 'Third Edition', and you're already going for a second helping? Well, at least you considered what other people were saying about the Haste spell being too powerful (though, compared to the clustersuck that's Haste as-is...nah, I'm still sure none of them are any better...) Let's see how the changes fare..."
Races
"I've been always supportive about races being capable of choosing any class from the get-go and free multiclassing for everybody (I have my qualms about multiclassing, which I'll say later), but here's the deal: you're still guiding people to the usual choices, and then some.
First, the Dwarf. This is something I'm seeing too common: instead of a +1 to a stat and a -1 to another, I see a lot of +2/-2. I presume that is to fit your new standard (what's wrong with Exceptional Strength? The way it is now, it's cheap to get to Strength 20 and Constitution 20! Though, considering there's no more Regeneration and all that jazz...), but that's something to discuss. Anyways: with the bonus to Constitution and the penalty to Charisma, you seem to like Dwarves getting into warrior races, right? Strangely enough, dwarves are good...what's the term again...Barbarians? (Caesar's Ghost, what a way to reference Unearthed Arcana from AD&D 1st! Shame not to see Cavalier and Thief-Acrobat, though...) Sad to see the poison and spell saving throws nerfed to a simple +2: I mean, being a race with bonuses to Constitution, and after lifting the penalties to HP that other classes had, Constitution is a must: you could have retained the earlier bonus, which was pretty fine. I know one or two of the guys told you to quit that ridiculous -4 penalty to Use Magic Device proficiency (argh! It's skill now; not proficiency!), but their recommendation to nerf the poison/spell save bonus was too weak. Sorta ambivalent about Stonecunning, since it's not as clear (even though it's meant to represent their original bonus to detect things underground). I feel it's a nerf. It's...decent, but it could have been better.
Going with Elf...it seems you keep the ability scores, but the rest is a bunch of hogwash. Why do Elves lose infravision? Neither Dwarves nor Gnomes lose it, so why do they have to have a pitiful 'low-light vision'? Yeah, I know: the Complete Guide to Elves left you a bad taste in your mouth, but all I see is horrible nerfs. Why not add the +1 bonus to attack rolls with swords and bows? Sure, the free proficiency with them is kinda cool, but if they desperately want it, they could have gotten 1 level in a class that grants proficiency with all of them. Honestly, a +1 bonus is not that big. I'm also kinda confused about the resistances: they get immunity (100%) to sleep effects, but not to charm effects which get a +2 to saving throws. Get your work straight: either +2 to sleep and charm, or full immunity, but not both. Considering how Sleep works now, the immunity is kinda weak unless you want to always play low levels. Sure, the Fighter in the current edition usually drops out of adventuring after 9th level or so, but... Also: what happened to the bonus to surprise? Sure, no metal armor can be a problem, but chances are you're not gonna wear metal armor (isn't there ways to get good non-metallic armor anyways, even if it's expensive as all heck?). That would have been cool on a Ranger. Since the Elf seems to be a good Ranger, anyways (kinda miss the time when Elves could cast spells and Rangers could use Magic-User spells...), if that's what the "favored class" seems to mean. Also, a bit mystified about the Search prof...erm, 'skill' bonus. It could have been as easy as a +2 bonus if passing within 10 ft. and a +4 or a +5 if actually searching for the...ph, so THERE's the 'surprise bonus'! BTW: not very clever. The original bonus was more of an initiative bonus to ambushes, not a silly +2 to the perception proficiencies... Anyways, returning to the Search skill bonuses: +2 if within 10 ft. and the ability to Search automatically, +4 if actively searching. That was simple enough.
Gnomes...wow, they're barely recognizable. I would have expected a +2 to Intelligence and a -2 to Wisdom, but instead they get +2 to Constitution and -2 to Strength. They get no poison/spell resistance (like dwarves), but they don't get the penalty to Use Magic Device either. The bonus to Illusions are awesome, but they don't seem to have Illusionist as a favored class anymore. About the only thing they keep is "darkvision" (i.e. infravision; keep to the classics, people!) and the bonus against kobolds and goblins. Too bad that learning 'burrowing mammal' is now limited to getting high Charisma (a bad move, guys!), because that was pretty cool. So: while they're no more "caster-Dwarf", they're now...direction-less. With Illusionist as favored class and a bonus to Intelligence, they would have made awesome Mages. Now, they make...'Bards', when they don't get the stats right! You definitely need to fix the Gnome a bit more: I remember playing a pretty cool Gnome Illusionist in my days...
Half-Elves...I feel you should reconsider what you did to Elves and buff them a bit more, because they're almost indistinguishable from their half-brethren. The +2 to sleep and charm effects fits better on Half-Elves (instead of full-on immunity), the 'low-light vision' ability works well on them...they even get a small bonus to Search, which is exactly half the one from Elves. Seriously, I feel the 'Elf' more like the Half-Elf. Also, they get nothing nice from Humans, other than their favored class is "any". They get no bonus nor penalty (they could have gained the +1 to Dexterity, IMO, and maybe the -1 to Constitution to represent the elven ancestry). I could have also added the skill point bonus from Humans, at least.
I understand that you want to change the old idea of Hobbits into these radical new 'halflings', but some things make little sense. Sure, they're not 'Hobbit-Dwarves' anymore (I still say Cook doesn't have much imagination, but you can't really blame him...BTW, isn't one of you guys also a 'Cook'?). So: no more chances of infravision, no more spell save bonuses, no more elf-like surprise bonuses... Well, they do, but this is a matter of consistency: you consider an ambush the realm of perception proficiencies or stealth proficiencies? Because 'halflings' get bonuses to Listen and Move Silently, which is sorta the opposite of what Elves get. Honestly: you should have turned the improved surprise into a class feature. The thrown weapon skill remains, the bonus to saving throws is...bland, and the save bonus vs. fear...reminds me of Kenders. So, you put Hobbits and Kender into a blender (rhyme not intended) and got a Halfling in exchange? Another race with an odd focus, though it makes them better Thieves...erm, I mean, Rogues. I mean, that's their favored class, right? I can't wait to see my players playing Halflings as Kenders...
And finally, humans. Their only benefit (free choice of classes) is gone, but I feel you overshot their benefits a bit too much. I'm not sure how good "feats" are, but that additional skill bonus (aka non-weapon proficiency) is a tad too good for my tastes. It's strange that Half-Elves don't get this. Their favored class is 'any' so I presume your intention is to keep their advantage this way?
I appreciate your intention to renew the races a bit, but it feels like Humans got real good while others got weird changes (Gnomes, Halflings), even though they really needed them. Gnomes and Halflings really felt like repackaged Dwarves and Elves anyways, but the change doesn't do them justice. I still suggest Gnomes should play to their elemental heritage, and maybe tweak Halflings a bit more (and remove all traces of Kender!)"
Half-Orc
"Let's go for the new race. Just by looking, it seems you overstated your penalties too much: looking at your 'AD&D 3.5e Monster Manual' thread and the Orc, they get half the Strength but a huge amount of penalties. Why not keep it to +2 Strength, -2 to any one mental stat? Also, I see nothing that reflects their human heritage? Half-Elves already get the skill bonuses, so why not get a washed-down version of the bonus feat? Also, why not also make Half-Orcs get any class as a favored class? I really don't get it... Besides, on the MM thread, you mention that Orcs can be played, so why have a race like this anyways, which seems like a poor-man's orc?"
Classes
"Finally, what I consider my specialty!
Let's go with the big four. I honestly expected to see 'Warrior' instead of Fighter and 'Priest' instead of Cleric, considering there's no more 'Mage' or 'Thief'. You used the group names for two classes and the original names for the others.
Before I start: why lose the prime requisite benefit? I found that to be pretty cool: after all, considering you're using Method V for ability score generation, and everyone gets the same XP progression now (can't say much about that, though), it would have been a nice thing to keep. Makes it easier to explain to my players why Strength is so important to Fighters and Wisdom is so important to Clerics and so forth.
Going with the Fighter...I'm deeply disappointed on your choice of keeping the limitation of your attacks during the round to the "full attack" action mechanic. I know you do it to limit the extra attacks you get, but have you seen the penalties? That alone is enough! I still say that you should keep the attacks as part of the attack action, and give all attacks the highest attack bonus as the full attack mechanic; I mean, everybody else in the thread insists on that! Still: I feel the Fighter got nerfed real bad. I mean, the BAB and saves bonuses fit the bill for the old cluster of saving throws (kudos on keeping Fort/Ref/Will rather than 'save vs. death, save vs. wands, save vs. w/e' thing; even I found that confusing...), but all they get is...feats. You also turned most of the stuff the Warrior class could do into feats, like wielding a weapon in each hand. The Fighter still keeps Weapon Specialization (yay!), but I already ruled that all members of the Warrior group could get Weapon Specialization in a limited way (Rangers could get it with bows or one melee weapon they could wield in each hand, Paladins could get specialization in longswords, warhammers and lances, etc.) so a return to the old ways is kinda wrong. I saw the Feats at a glance, and I'm disappointed that the Wizard specialization is better than these feats. You take 4 feats to get something decent, while the Wizard only needs to sacrifice two schools, while still getting access to the other 7 without penalties. Is that fair? Also, what's that about removing Fighters their free barony? My players are going haywire after hearing that! The Leadership feat is broken, BTW: now even a Wizard can get to be a noble and stuff. I'm definitely writing a way to get Leadership closer to its original incarnations. I'd say that the Weapon Focus line should be expanded a lot more, sorta like what Fighting Men got in Rules Cyclopedia; I adapted that to my game and it does wonders. Strange that you didn't do that?
The Cleric...hard to say if it's good or not. It's certainly different: the Spheres are now 'Domains', they keep proficiencies on most blunt weapons but can now wield sickles and daggers (good news for the guy that loves playing a cleric of Mask and buggers me to let him use a dagger at least). They keep their old proficiencies with armor and shields, which is a bit ambivalent to me (I often rule that proficiencies with armor and shields are limited to their deity, but the default is up to breastplates and the like...I think you consider them 'medium armor' proficiencies? Also, light shields). Turn Undead seems weaker IMO, particularly that bit about limiting the HD of undead affected. However...the change to Clerics getting 9th level spells and a list of their own... I spoke it to the guy who wants to play the cleric of Mask, and he's telling me it's kinda broken. His words, not mine: 'I feel like a Wizard now, except with better armor and shields and weapons and BAB and...you know what? I feel better than the Wizard!' I kinda feel sad for the poor Wizard...
The Rogue...alright, so the Rogue is the Thief now, and some of their unique features are now skills/non-weapon proficiencies. Pick Pockets is now Sleight of Hands, Open Locks is now Open Locks, Find and Remove Traps is a combination of Search, Disable Device and the Trapfinding class feature, Move Silently is...Move Silently (lack of imagination, perhaps?_, Hide in Shadows is now...Hide (seriously?)...there's no more Read Lips skill (good riddance!). The Thief player feels cheated a lot, since he lost the things that made him unique, and he says that he doesn't get enough skill points to do what he wants and take advantage of the new and unique skill system you guys promised, because he has to spend all 8 skill points from the class to get what he could originally do (at least he's thankful that Read Lips was absorbed into Spot; that means he doesn't need an excessively high Intelligence score). He still insists that Hide and Move Silently into Stealth, and Listen and Spot into Perception (and also Search), so he could invest in more skills. I tell him that doing that will make the Rogue a bit weaker, but he insists that he doesn't. I tell him 'Jay, think about it', and he goes and says 'DM, I'm thinking about it, and it won't hurt that much, because the only other guy who gets as much skills as I do is the Bard; it's not like I'm challenged...' Anyways, he says Sneak Attack is both better and worse: better because it can affect most creatures, worse because he insist that, because it hits weak spots in the enemy's defense, it should affect more creatures. He's fine at keeping plants and oozes immune, but he says keeping undead and constructs immune is cheap. Also, he says that the damage scales somewhat fairly. I say that backstab is better, and I was using a hybrid of backstab and sneak attack anyways, so it's no biggie. He's pissed that Thieves' Cant is no longer a language (and further pissed that Innuendo was wrapped into Bluff, though he appreciates that there's more use to Bluff now), and that now everyone can use scrolls freely via Use Magic Device (again, his words, not mine: 'Use Magic Device is the most broken thing ever, specifically if you use partially charged wands'). He's also not impressed that he has to take Leadership to create his thieves' guild. Happy for the higher HP, though he says that Thieves should get a d8 instead of Clerics. I mean, Rogues instead of Thieves. That's one thing Jay likes a lot. At least I won't see another repeat of his 'Pathfinder Society' front for the Thieves' Guild he usually does...
Finally, the Wizard. Let's get this straight: who's supposed to be the Mage-equivalent, the Wizard or the Sorcerer? They're a bit too similar. I believe it must be the Wizard because it keeps the old form of preparing spells, plus the specializations bit. Anyways. Way. Too. Powerful. My Mage player is delighted: he doesn't need to spend days preparing his spells, and there's no more drawbacks to them. He really admires what you did to the Wizards, but I don't. I mean: Haste doesn't age people anymore? Still thankful you reconsidered and nerfed Haste (I was all 'Ha, Sean, now you can't cast two spells in a row!' and he goes 'I still can with Quicken Spell'). Speaking of 'Quicken Spell'...still iffy about metamagics. I mean, sure, it's a creative idea, but Warrior classes get nothing of the sort. Think about this: the Weapon Focus chain can't compare to the School Specialization class feature at all, and now you get something that boosts your spells even further? I'm already seeing trouble with Color Spray, Glitterdust, Stinking Cloud and Web. Jay, the Thief player, told me that I should allow people trapped by Web to use their BAB alongside their Strength to escape, which is cool, but I still say they're too powerful. I usually take Sean's sheet as a measure of what's too powerful, so here's the list: Color Spray, Grease, Ray of Enfeeblement, Sleep, Blur, Glitterdust, Alter Self, Mirror Image, Mnor Image (actually, all the Image spells; there was a debate about whether constructs should see the illusions or not), Knock, Suggestion, Blink, Fly, Web, Haste (even if nerfed...), Stinking Cloud, Black Tentacles, Solid Fog, Scrying (that and Detect Magic have ruined my games forever!), Shadow Conjuration, Enervation (particularly at latter levels with Empower Spell; at least he doesn't cast a doubled Empowered Enervation via Haste anymore...), Polymorph, Dimension Door, Resilient Sphere, Break Enchantment, Cloudkill, the Planar Binding line, Teleport, Wall of Force (Sean says it's the only worthwhile Evocation spell...), Overland Flight, the Shadow line of spells (which my Wizard player says its the 'second best Evocation spell', even if it doesn't), Greater Dispel Magic, Wall of Iron (note: you should make something so it doesn't get used with Fabricate; that combo can ruin economies), Mass Suggestion, Contingency ('Best. Evocation. Spell. Ever' by the Wiz), Disintegrate, Flesh to Stone, Spell Turning, Greater Teleport, Plane Shift, Forcecage, Mass Invisibility, Ethereal Jaunt, Reverse Gravity, Mind Blank (oh yeah: also pissed with the immunity to mind-affecting abilities from Protection from [alignment], though I have a soft spot because it's really awesome when a Pally uses it; Jay told me to limit it to creatures of that alignment, which I think it's fair), Clone, Polymorph any Object (because of shenanigans), Gate, Shades, Power Word: Kill, Wail of the Banshee, all 9th level Transmutation spells, and of course, Wish. Might want to reconsider most of those. I know most of the people here are saying that Wizards with dead levels are an aberration (and so do Sorcs)...I dare them to play with my Wizard player. He claims he's now a 'god' with all those spells, letting his minions (aka the rest of the party) do the 'dirty job' of killing monsters. At least his insta-kill Enervation trick is gone. Whatever you do, don't EVER try to create some sort of repeating spell effect or anything like that.
As for the rest..."
Barbarian
"Brings a tear to my eye to see a reference to Unearthed Arcana. That said, the Barbarian isn't anywhere near what it was before. It suffers from the same as the Rogue/Thief, losing some of its cool stuff (healing wounds, surviving in the wild) to skills that now everybody can use. They get no horde (again, like the Fighter), and they depend on magic items a lot more. I'd suggest some sort of 'spell resistance' like what the Drow have, to recall their old-school super-resistance to magic effects. BTW: has anyone noticed that Dwarf and Barbarian seem to mesh real well? Rage depends on Constitution, Dwarves get spell save bonuses that would benefit the feel of a Barbarian, they use axes as their traditional weapons (well, also mauls and greatswords, but I always imagine them using axes). Speaking of Rage: pretty cool ability. About one of the few good things you made. If only they could move and make all attacks...people would cry foul, but after playing with Sean, I'm honestly looking for that."
Bard
"Fair improvement. Happy that a Bard has better music, and more varied songs as well. I say, good riddance to that thing about getting Bardic Music at 1st level and then dropping off the class because you could get Perform in other ways. I didn't see how multiclassing worked, so I treated it as dual-classing, and Jay tried to dual-class Rogue and Bard: when he realized how the class worked, by the time he got to 4th level, he dropped Bard and went full Rogue, got Perform, and by the time he was a 15th level Rogue, he had pretty much all Bard songs. Good to see you followed that idea. Still: between that and the boost to Inspire Courage, they're great, but they could get something else. Sean says that Bards are worthless, even if he says they got some fairly good spells."
Druid
"I see you're fans of the Druid. Man, this class is broken! And not in a bad way; in the worst way! They're too powerful. The shapechanging ability is now worse because Druids can transform into Dire Bears and Dire Lions now, and STILL get to cast spells via Natural Spell. They also stole the Ranger's animal companions (seriously, WTF!?), and the Animal Companion is even BETTER (yes, I know you heard that the ACs died easily while the Pally's mount didn't, but the AC is now BETTER than the Pally's mount!). Their spells are also pretty impressive. They can fight better than a Fighter, and that's saying a LOT! Honestly, this class deserves a nerf, STAT!"
Monk
"Boy, have I got a surprise for you... Since I had forbidden Sean to play Wizards for a while, he tried to play a Monk. I already had my reserves, seeing that it had a lot of stuff, and when he got his greedy hands on the PHB to see how to play a Monk, my alarms went off instantly. His character died in the third session, and then he says to me 'the Monk sucks'. I dunno if that's an achievement or something to worry about, but when he explained that to me...what he said convinced me. Sure, they hit like a truck, but their penalties to attack rolls are hilariously bad (you hit at a -2 penalty), you depend on four stats (Strength, Constitution, Dexterity and Wisdom), their AC is nowhere near as high as a full-plate wearing Fighter (with or without a shield), their damage is pitiful compared to a Barbarian or Fighter, their class features suck (honestly: a ring of feather falling was the first thing Sean bought when he had the money, and he then said 'can I replace Slow Fall for something that doesn't suck?', and the feared Quivering Palm is a joke. Even Stunning Fist is a bit of a joke. If the full attack mechanic hurt Fighters and other Warrior group classes, it hurts Monks a lot; it seems like, somewhere in your development sessions, you figured a Monk had to be mobile, and then you scrapped the mechanic, but kept Flurry of Blows intact. Spring Attack is not that good, even with the high damage of a monk's fist. Which also reminds me: why change the way Ki Strike worked? They can't get their fists enchanted unless they wear an Amulet of Mighty Fists (which is horribly expensive), and their special Monk weapons are a joke. If the Bard needs help, the Monk needs twice the help. When you hear your powergamer say 'I'd rather play a Bard than a Monk', I'd listen to it. It feels like a trap."
Paladin
"*sigh* I honestly wanted to play a Paladin once, but I feel disappointed.
I play with another group of guys, and they agreed to use your rules. I happily made a Paladin (a human, since the two races that fit the Warrior bit have penalties to Charisma and the DM didn't allow me to play an Aasimar (really, what kind of name is that? Sounds like a bad name, honestly). I recalled what Sean told me about the Monk, and I was surprised to see that the Paladin ALSO needs four good stats: Strength, Constitution, Wisdom and Charisma (a reason why I wanted to play an Aasimar at first instance). I dismissed it because Paladins were supposed to require a lot of stats to play, specifically since they were really powerful.
The first thing I was disappointed at was the loss of the Aura of Protection. Aura of Courage is no exchange: that -1 to attack rolls against evil creatures and summoned monsters was a lifesaver. Being immune to fear is cool, I must admit, but nowhere near as good as making your enemies hit less. The second thing I was disappointed was that the Holy Sword no longer granted immunity to spells (though I never got one, to be honest; I just saw what the Holy Avenger granted and was disappointed that it was replaced by spell resistance, which could be beaten). Smite Evil is nowhere near what Rage is, and the 1/day use was a joke. Oh, and the free Remove Disease effect? ALSO a joke. A bad joke, that is, and a stale one at that (Remove Disease is a spell now; MAKE IT A SPELL FOR PALADINS!!!). So does the Turning ability of a Paladin (the original was much better)
Some stuff was spot-on, though: the spells are exactly as before (though I would have improved the caster level, given that they can cast 5 levels earlier), the mount is much better now, and Divine Grace is way too powerful at 1st level. I mean, with a decent Charisma of 14, I get the same bonus as the current Paladin, but if I get two more points of Charisma, I get a higher bonus. It makes the immunity to all kinds of diseases (including mummy rot and lycanthropy, which is awesome) a bit redundant, since you're mostly preventing the event of a natural 1 roll. Lay on Hands is slightly better now (and Wholeness of Body from the Monk is the old Lay on Hands), but the HP inflation makes it worse than before. Think about it: a 9th level Paladin could heal 18 HP, while the typical Fighter has an average of 9d10 (about 49 hp) plus its Constitution modifier (let's say 15, so it gets a +1 bonus; that'd mean +9 HP, so a grand total of 58 hp), so it's about a third of its HP. This version heals about the same, though higher Charisma means higher healing, but not for much (about 27 hp or so with Charisma 16?). Meanwhile, a Fighter with the same Constitution bonus as before (15) now has much more HP, and with full HP at start, that means the HP got to 72, so the Paladin heals 9 more HP but the Fighter got about twice that amount. That's being generous, since Fighters didn't get as much HP after 9th level...but here, they get another HD at 10th level, and they don't have to reroll HP, so the HP is MUCH higher now. I mean: think about a 20th level Fighter's hit points? That's easily over 100 HP WITHOUT adding Constitution bonuses, when a Paladin with 20 levels and a Charisma of 20 will get to heal only 100 hp. See how it's better and at the same time worse? I think even Wizards and Clerics, with their far higher HP, have the same predicament.
So, how does this version of the Paladin compare to before? Well, it's not much of an improvement, IMO. Turning is worse (Cleric -3 instead of Cleric -2, just like in the current edition), there's more uses of Smite Evil but it's just the same as before and no improvement, the caster level for spells is still a joke, and the class is STILL too front-loaded. I would have half-expected...I dunno, returning the Aura of Protection to level 7 or something. At least you added Sense Motive, but the skill list is still too narrow."
Ranger
"First and foremost: why nerf the Ranger's HD to d8? They've been traditionally a d10; even your first revision had them as a d10. They're less efficient at front-lines than before! That said: it's good to see the animal empathy fixed as a class feature (rather than the odd skill, which while being exclusive to them was a waste of skill points most of the time), and a return of their animal companion. The combat styles are cool, but limited to being Drizzt-clone or Legolas/Aragorn isn't funny. There's no such thing to make the Ranger a Hunter of sorts (no trap disabling, no trapfinding, not even proficiency with nets and bolas!). They've definitely improved, and I'm tempted to play a Ranger one of these days, but they could be a tad better IMO."
Sorcerer
"Finally, the last class. I thought at first this was your version of the Illusionist, but I see that was relegated to school specialization and Wizards (sad to see Illusionists go, though), which I should have half-expected anyways. The change to fixed spells is sorta unique, and they play good faces because of their choice of skills, but they need a few more skill points. Honestly, though, I would have expected the Sorcerer to learn spells faster. I have nothing much to say, other than my Wizard player tested it and said it was 'Wizard-lite', but a rewarding one if you had enough mastery of the system. However, he says the Wizard can beat it any time of the day."
Multiclassing
"Finally, I get to your multiclassing rules. Generally, I allowed everyone to multiclass into another class of their predilection, but they had to justify it, and some mixes were forbidden (Fighter/Cleric and Paladin/Cleric were forbidden because they made better Paladins than the Paladin, and so did Ranger/Druid). Your multiclass rules...are horrible. First, they're essentially dual classing but refluffed: you can drop out at any time and you keep the powers, but they're weaker. It seems like you tried to keep the multiclass favor by imposing the XP penalties, but that didn't really work. I would have gone with the classic multiclass rules anyways: something like 'take 2 classes, get the best of them (HD, BAB, saves, etc.), but you level up slower (-20% to your gained XP), and only certain combinations work'. Dual-classing would eventually be some sort of multiclassing: you keep what you learned, but you must take levels in the other class (at a reduced speed; probably 20% of the XP required to gain a new level), and once the two levels were equal, you shift to multiclass rules. The favored class rules make no sense whatsoever, and I would remove them; though, I've been thinking of reducing the penalty to XP if you do old-school multiclassing with a favored class, though some favored classes would change (I.E. Dwarves get Fighters and Clerics as favored classes, and they get a 10% XP penalty if one of their classes is either Fighter or Cleric). I'd still keep some combinations forbidden (Fighter/Cleric, Paladin/Cleric, Ranger/Druid, Rogue/Illusionist Wizard) since they'd be better than their counterparts. Other combinations would be somewhat limited (Paladin/Ranger get a different spell list and must choose between their mount or their animal companion). Still undecided about certain mixes (Cleric/Wizard and Druid/Wizard), since they seem to be too powerful.
Anyways, that's as much as I'll say for now; it's getting to be real big. Maybe later I'll check on the feats and on your thread regarding Prestige Classes (are they the replacement to kits? Or are they like what the Paladin was to the Cavalier and the Thief-Acrobat was to the Thief, and what the Bard was originally to the Fighter/Druid/Thief mix?)."
Wow, trying to analyze 3.5 from the eyes of a 2e player is exhausting! Turning off signature to retain the illusion of old-school.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.