Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 84 of 84
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    DC area
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: How would you react to these houserules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Proven_Paradox View Post
    Ah, so THAT'S what was meant by "morning after" spells. In that case, yes, that will be an issue. I don't feel this is a bad thing; if the party fails to properly equip themselves--including scrolls of basic things like remove curse--they should feel the consequences.
    The only problem with this is the shear number of Morning After spells and the feasibility of having enough scrolls. Having multiple high level scrolls for each member of the party is going to cost alot, so you should plan your encounters accordingly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proven_Paradox View Post
    As for psionics, I honestly don't know enough about them to say for sure. As I understand things, I -might- have to apply the first point to psions, but I'm not sure. I normally ask players to steer away from psionics for flavor reasons--I'm one of those people who think of psionics as the magic one sees in science fiction. A good friend of mine has been effectively advocating their use to me lately, though, so I'd be open to psionics in future games. I hope to look the psionic rules over during a break from college sometime soon; at that point I'd be able to get back to you on this for sure.
    The Psion is similar to a Sorcerer, limited powers know but he can cast them without preparation. His ability to blast things is slightly better without optimization, but he also lacks many real gamebreakers(and those that are there are copy pastes of Arcane spells). I would recommend not allowing the Euridite, as it would cause the same problem as prepared casters.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proven_Paradox View Post
    It sounds to me like you're getting sorcerer confused with warlock on the bonus feats... Also, that's FAR more of a boost than sorcerers actually need. Plus it keeps people from finding a more innate, human access to spells that I find appealing, flavor-wise. Eschew Materials makes a lot of sense though, and I'd probably give that to all of the spontaneous casters.
    Only the Fey and Fiendish Heritages can be taken by non-sorcerer's, the others are all sorcerer specific, and are found in the Complete Arcane(draconic) or the PHB 2(Celestial and Infernal). Of course, if you prefer Human connections then they'd be somewhat inappropriate. But how precisely is giving them 4 or 5 bonus feats way too much power? Especially in the way they're spread out over the levels? Not familiar with the favored soul, but I seem to remember that they got useful class features, so why not give some to the sorcerer as well?
    How is that a huge boost?

  2. - Top - End - #62

    Default Re: How would you react to these houserules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Proven_Paradox
    Perfectly reasonable, and I quite like those ACFs myself.
    I don't suppose you're planning to run an online game? Seriously, now I really want to try this sorc/FS mystic theurge.

    TS

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007

    Default Re: How would you react to these houserules?

    I like it.
    Though I've always wanted to run a low magic campaign where you can't have more casting than a bard gets.

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    newbDM's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: How would you react to these houserules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Proven_Paradox View Post
    Yes, this is 3.5.

    I'm of the opinion that by giving the druid something to feel not-underpowered, you go right back to being overpowered. In my mind, the core druid class is a case of WotC completely failing to balance their classes properly. The problems with clerics and wizards are in their spells and to some extent in splatbooks (I'm still of the opinion that the core three are too strong without any splatbooks though); the problems with druid are in their spells AND their class features. This class gets a harsh nerf because I'm of the opinion that they need one. If a player feels that my druid nerf is -too- harsh, they're going to have to give a convincing argument as to how this is so. As Strongbad once said, too much of a good thing is an AWESOME thing, but too much of an AWESOME thing is sucky (or something like that).
    I see. To be honest, the Druid is the only core class I have yet to really see (if ever I think) either as a player or DM, since I started playing three years ago. Hence, all I base my opinions on is what I read in the PHB, read on forums, and based on what I see of rangers.

    However, I would suggest taking a few moments to explain this and your reasoning/feelings about all this to any player who desires to play this class. I learned the hard way that not doing so beforehand often leads to problems and even hard feelings.

    And I believed you mentioned allowing the players to obtain both in game as an option? I personally really like that idea. Maybe you can make them feat trees, high-level items/artifacts, or possibly divinely given blessings/gifts? While thinking about this I got an idea/scene I am really enjoying for some reason, about a druid doing a heroic quest/deed/whatever to save an entire ancient forest, so his/her nature deity decides to reward him/her with a powerful animal companion who appears to him/her from that very forest (basically a side-quest for it's god).



    And for the psionics talk, as a player (and now DM) whol loves psionics, I beg you to please not judge it based on what you hear.

    Yes it has a bad rap, but that is mainly for two reasons:
    Some/Many players often take advantage of DMs who do not know the system, or like in my case in the early days I was always the only person to know a thing about it (and this was just starting out) so I made honest mistakes without knowing it. So in this case, I agree. Do not allow it in your games unless you are willing to a least take the time and read through the Expanded Psionics Handbook.
    The older editions of psionics were messed up to one extent or the other. For example, although it was slightly before my time (I started D&D exactly when the 3.5 core books were just released), I hear that 3.0 psionics had the amazing quality of being both broken and underpowered at the same time.


    But to be 100% honest, from my experienced, the very limited options of psionic material makes it so you can never hope to break psionics like you can magic. I have never player in a game with an arcane magic counterpart where I was able to outshine him/her. However, since I prefer role-playing to roll-playing, that has always been fine with me. Let the "silly magic user" be the glass canon who gets all the attention, I settled to my own roles in the group, which were usually much more fun (usually crowd-control. Deja-Vu how I love tee. ).

    Again, just please don't judge it simply based on word of mouth.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Jayabalard's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: How would you react to these houserules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bassikpoet View Post
    If you have any players that want to play anti-undead PCs, then you just put them out of luck by taking away the cleric (and the ability to turn undead effectively). You could fix this by upping the power of the paladin, but that would take quite a bit of homebrew.
    If your only ocmplaint is the lack of turning,then that's trivially easy to fix... just give paladins the same turn undead progression that clerics ordinarily have, and BAM, you'vefixed that problem without "quite a bit of homebrew."
    Kungaloosh!

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    NC

    Default Re: How would you react to these houserules?

    Quote Originally Posted by newbDM View Post
    And for the psionics talk, as a player (and now DM) whol loves psionics, I beg you to please not judge it based on what you hear.

    Yes it has a bad rap, but that is mainly for two reasons:
    Some/Many players often take advantage of DMs who do not know the system, or like in my case in the early days I was always the only person to know a thing about it (and this was just starting out) so I made honest mistakes without knowing it. So in this case, I agree. Do not allow it in your games unless you are willing to a least take the time and read through the Expanded Psionics Handbook.
    The older editions of psionics were messed up to one extent or the other. For example, although it was slightly before my time (I started D&D exactly when the 3.5 core books were just released), I hear that 3.0 psionics had the amazing quality of being both broken and underpowered at the same time.
    I've seen the first reason often enough. For some reason 'psionics' often gets equated with 'science' or at least science fiction and rejected from a game because it isn't 'fantasy'. Shrug, ok it's pseudo science at best but if it doesn't fit a particular world vision, no big deal.

    As for older versions (2nd ed mostly) of psionics being messed up, that really only happened in worlds (settings) which hadn't planned for them to start with. Non-psionic characters were often given absolutely no defenses against mental attacks, not even a Will save. The problem was less about psionics being 'overpowered' than it was about a separate mechanic which hadn't been accounted for in the original system. Settings such as Athas which did account for psionics had far fewer problems than settings which didn't.

    D&D 3.5 (and possibly 3.0, I seldom played it) unified most of the mechanics to the point where non-psionicists had innate defenses against psionic attacks. That made it much less powerful relative to casters.
    -
    I laugh at myself first, before anyone else can.
    -- Paraphrased from Elsa Maxwell
    -
    The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.
    -- Paul Graham in Keep Your Identity Small

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    ...at home.

    Default Re: How would you react to these houserules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Proven_Paradox View Post
    Then we have opposing views on how the game should be played, and it would be for the good of everyone involved that you go elsewhere. I'm not going to try to please everyone with this.
    Hey, you asked I told, why the attitude?
    The game doesn't start until you reach epic levels.

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Proven_Paradox's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: How would you react to these houserules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devils_Advocate View Post
    [snip]
    Yeah, we definitely see eye-to-eye on this issue. That said, no need to get aggressive about it...

    Quote Originally Posted by MeklorIlavator View Post
    The only problem with this is the shear number of Morning After spells and the feasibility of having enough scrolls. Having multiple high level scrolls for each member of the party is going to cost alot, so you should plan your encounters accordingly.
    I think Panacea rolls a lot of the standard "morning after" spells into one, and it's a good choice to sink a favored soul spell known into. As for the rest: I'm rather liberal with treasure, so they shouldn't have troubles with that unless they touch the obviously curse-bestowing item over and over again.

    The Psion is similar to a Sorcerer, limited powers know but he can cast them without preparation. His ability to blast things is slightly better without optimization, but he also lacks many real gamebreakers(and those that are there are copy pastes of Arcane spells). I would recommend not allowing the Euridite, as it would cause the same problem as prepared casters.
    I'll keep that in mind as I read over the classes.

    Only the Fey and Fiendish Heritages can be taken by non-sorcerer's, the others are all sorcerer specific, and are found in the Complete Arcane(draconic) or the PHB 2(Celestial and Infernal). Of course, if you prefer Human connections then they'd be somewhat inappropriate. But how precisely is giving them 4 or 5 bonus feats way too much power? Especially in the way they're spread out over the levels? Not familiar with the favored soul, but I seem to remember that they got useful class features, so why not give some to the sorcerer as well?
    How is that a huge boost?
    "Way too much" may have been a bit of an exaggeration, but they have access to the most powerful spell list in the game. I'm of the opinion that one doesn't need much more of a boost than that. Favored soul gets energy resistances, weapon focus/specialization with their deity's favored weapon, wings at level 17, and some DR at level 20. The energy resistances are useful, I grant, but the wings come long after you need access to a reliable means of flight, and the DR at level 20 isn't enough to affect much. There's a favored soul ACF in PHBII that gives temporary HP to targets of your helpful spells in exchange for weapon stuff that's actually quite good--but all that and the cleric spell list is still weaker than access to wizard/sorcerer spells in most cases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tequila Sunrise View Post
    I don't suppose you're planning to run an online game? Seriously, now I really want to try this sorc/FS mystic theurge.

    TS
    Heh, right now there's no way I'd have time to run a game. I've got two groups on hold right now that I plan to get going again as soon as I have the time (that's the one Frosty was talking about earlier in the thread). That's a full load for me even with adequate free time. I'll keep you in mind if we need a replacement though.

    Quote Originally Posted by newbDM View Post
    I see. To be honest, the Druid is the only core class I have yet to really see (if ever I think) either as a player or DM, since I started playing three years ago. Hence, all I base my opinions on is what I read in the PHB, read on forums, and based on what I see of rangers.

    However, I would suggest taking a few moments to explain this and your reasoning/feelings about all this to any player who desires to play this class. I learned the hard way that not doing so beforehand often leads to problems and even hard feelings.

    And I believed you mentioned allowing the players to obtain both in game as an option? I personally really like that idea. Maybe you can make them feat trees, high-level items/artifacts, or possibly divinely given blessings/gifts? While thinking about this I got an idea/scene I am really enjoying for some reason, about a druid doing a heroic quest/deed/whatever to save an entire ancient forest, so his/her nature deity decides to reward him/her with a powerful animal companion who appears to him/her from that very forest (basically a side-quest for it's god).
    I would certainly lay out why the druid is overpowered to a player who feels it's not in a calm and logical fashion. I mean... its animal companion is going to be stronger than most fighter--that's a single class feature outclassing an entire class. It's not a hard case to make to a reasonable person I think.

    And what I was talking about before was something like allowing them to take a spell that would allow them to transform as one of their spells known. Something like "lesser animal form" to give access to wolf, eagle, and some kind of shark for example. I would be flexible on that. However, items and feats are both totally valid ways to do it too; if the player didn't want to spend spells known on it, we'd hammer out a way to do something else with it.

    And for the psionics talk, as a player (and now DM) whol loves psionics, I beg you to please not judge it based on what you hear.

    Yes it has a bad rap, but that is mainly for two reasons:
    Some/Many players often take advantage of DMs who do not know the system, or like in my case in the early days I was always the only person to know a thing about it (and this was just starting out) so I made honest mistakes without knowing it. So in this case, I agree. Do not allow it in your games unless you are willing to a least take the time and read through the Expanded Psionics Handbook.
    The older editions of psionics were messed up to one extent or the other. For example, although it was slightly before my time (I started D&D exactly when the 3.5 core books were just released), I hear that 3.0 psionics had the amazing quality of being both broken and underpowered at the same time.


    But to be 100% honest, from my experienced, the very limited options of psionic material makes it so you can never hope to break psionics like you can magic. I have never player in a game with an arcane magic counterpart where I was able to outshine him/her. However, since I prefer role-playing to roll-playing, that has always been fine with me. Let the "silly magic user" be the glass canon who gets all the attention, I settled to my own roles in the group, which were usually much more fun (usually crowd-control. Deja-Vu how I love tee. ).

    Again, just please don't judge it simply based on word of mouth.
    This is very similar to what said friend who's advocating psionics to me has said in the past. I'm definately planning to give psionics a fair chance--as soon as I have time to sit down and really read the rules around it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Weiser_Cain View Post
    Hey, you asked I told, why the attitude?
    We very clearly have conflicting opinions about the way the game is to be played, and us playing together would cause unnecessary conflict. I'd rather just avoid that all together by not playing with you--it's better for everyone involved, including you. I'm not going to restrict how you play in your games, but if you're playing in my game, it's best if you're willing to go with my rules.

    That's all I meant by that--no attitude, no disrespect.
    Last edited by Proven_Paradox; 2008-10-23 at 10:59 PM.

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Devil

    Join Date
    Jun 2005

    Default Re: How would you react to these houserules?

    Proven_Paradox, it looks to me like when you wrote "it would be for the good of everyone involved that you go elsewhere", you meant that Weiser_Cain shouldn't play in your games, but it's easily read as a snippy request to stop posting in this thread. It's not obvious (to everyone) that you're speaking hypothetically there.
    Spoiler
    Show

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: How would you react to these houserules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tequila Sunrise View Post
    I don't suppose you're planning to run an online game? Seriously, now I really want to try this sorc/FS mystic theurge.

    TS
    Hah. Funny. After reading a bit about spontaneous casters this week, I've been thinking about making a sorc/FS/mystic theurge myself.

    Member of the Hinjo fan club. Go Hinjo!
    "In Soviet Russia, the Darkness attacks you."
    "Rogues not only have a lot more skill points, but sneak attack is so good it hurts..."

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kesnit's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Eastern US
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: How would you react to these houserules?

    That you had to do that indicates that the class is too strong, I think. You were playing the class poorly in order to allow the others to still feel useful. This is bad design, which I dislike.
    Actually, it was very easy. Of course, the campaign was LVLs 10-11, so I wasn't getting into high level spells. All I did was stay away from DMM.
    Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

    Proud member of the "I Love Anyway" Club

    Thank you, Ceika, so much for the avatar!

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    ...at home.

    Default Re: How would you react to these houserules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Roderick_BR View Post
    Hah. Funny. After reading a bit about spontaneous casters this week, I've been thinking about making a sorc/FS/mystic theurge myself.
    You mean the Never run out of spells but always be behind the rest in damage dealing-erer?
    The game doesn't start until you reach epic levels.

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kesnit's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Eastern US
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: How would you react to these houserules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Weiser_Cain View Post
    You mean the Never run out of spells but always be behind the rest in damage dealing-erer?
    No, that would be a Sorc/Warlock/Eldritch Therge.
    Last edited by Kesnit; 2008-10-24 at 09:29 AM.
    Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

    Proud member of the "I Love Anyway" Club

    Thank you, Ceika, so much for the avatar!

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Reykjavík, Iceland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: How would you react to these houserules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Proven_Paradox View Post
    This is very similar to what said friend who's advocating psionics to me has said in the past. I'm definately planning to give psionics a fair chance--as soon as I have time to sit down and really read the rules around it.
    That's me, isn't it?

    Anyway, your rules are stricter than I'm used to, and stricter than what I'd impose myself, but I'd still play it, especially since I already know you're a great DM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Narsil View Post
    This is a D&D web forum. There's more cheese here than there is in France.
    Avatar by Savannah

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RPGuru1331's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Default Re: How would you react to these houserules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Weiser_Cain View Post
    I'd walk out, I'm always the wizard.
    There is altogether too much meddling in what the player chooses to be, DM's should run the world not the character sheets. If something isn't broken the DM shouldn't have a say in it.
    Wizards are broken. Good Morning!

    As to the house rules, I think I like 'em, overall. Are you giving Clerics the same treatment as Druids? ..Would that just be making them Favored Souls? And out of vague curiosity, how much help would you be giving someone new?

    The only problem with this is the shear number of Morning After spells and the feasibility of having enough scrolls. Having multiple high level scrolls for each member of the party is going to cost alot, so you should plan your encounters accordingly.
    Conceivably, one could reduce the need for Morning Afters by simply not inflicting spells that require them, yes? Notwithstandign thsi Panacea spell, which I know nothing of.
    Last edited by RPGuru1331; 2008-10-24 at 04:19 PM.

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sunnydale

    Default Re: How would you react to these houserules?

    While I think toning down the pure spellcasters is good, I don't think you should boost the Favored Soul by making it SAD instead of DAD. The class has plenty of abilities that compensate. By making Charisma a dump stat you've immediately freed up Strength to make the class an easy combat powerhouse -- with careful selection of deity to get a good exotic weapon like bastard sword (Eilistraee, Finder Wyvernspur, Helm, and others) or spiked chain (Kossuth). After that, as soon as the FS can cast Divine Power it's ready for anything.

    It's just inequitable to boost the Favored Soul while doing nothing for classes like the Rogue or Paladin. Maybe you could allow those classes to multiclass with your NPC classes -- but at a maximum of 1/3 of total levels.

  17. - Top - End - #77

    Default Re: How would you react to these houserules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Weiser_Cain View Post
    You mean the Never run out of spells but always be behind the rest in damage dealing-erer?
    A smart MT doesn't deal damage, or have more than three offensive spells; smart MTs buff up their buddies and fling utility spells.

    TS

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Proven_Paradox's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: How would you react to these houserules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devils_Advocate View Post
    Proven_Paradox, it looks to me like when you wrote "it would be for the good of everyone involved that you go elsewhere", you meant that Weiser_Cain shouldn't play in your games, but it's easily read as a snippy request to stop posting in this thread. It's not obvious (to everyone) that you're speaking hypothetically there.
    ...Re-reading my post, I see what you mean. That certainly wasn't my intent; apologies for any offense caused and damn text for failing to convey the more subtle nuances carried in language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swooper View Post
    That's me, isn't it?
    Yes, yes it is. I swear, I'm gonna look up psionics over one of my breaks. Just keep pestering me about it until I do.

    Also, flattery will get you nowhere. <<

    Quote Originally Posted by RPGuru1331 View Post
    Wizards are broken. Good Morning!

    As to the house rules, I think I like 'em, overall. Are you giving Clerics the same treatment as Druids? ..Would that just be making them Favored Souls? And out of vague curiosity, how much help would you be giving someone new?


    Conceivably, one could reduce the need for Morning Afters by simply not inflicting spells that require them, yes? Notwithstandign thsi Panacea spell, which I know nothing of.
    Yeah, clerics get just changed to favored souls. As for how much help; it'd depend on how much help they need. If they want, I'm willing to hold a newbie's hand through all of writing up a sheet, and I'll explain why things work out the way they do--why toughness is a terrible feat and why power attack is awesome, why blasting is a bad idea and why Grease is best first level spell EVAR. If I know it, and they want to know it, I'll tell 'em. Heh, I might do that even if they don't want to know it. I've run into several who think that they're making a strong character, then proceed to make a monk. *Shrug*

    As for Panacea, I looked it up not long after I said that, and it turns out I was mistaken. It's not much of a morning-after spell in truth. It ends a lot of negative conditions, but none are long duration. For some reason I thought it included a remove curse effect. It's still a good choice for a spell known, but more because it can put someone who failed against a save or suck back into the fight. They'd still need scrolls. Which I would provide means to obtain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
    While I think toning down the pure spellcasters is good, I don't think you should boost the Favored Soul by making it SAD instead of DAD. The class has plenty of abilities that compensate. By making Charisma a dump stat you've immediately freed up Strength to make the class an easy combat powerhouse -- with careful selection of deity to get a good exotic weapon like bastard sword (Eilistraee, Finder Wyvernspur, Helm, and others) or spiked chain (Kossuth). After that, as soon as the FS can cast Divine Power it's ready for anything.

    It's just inequitable to boost the Favored Soul while doing nothing for classes like the Rogue or Paladin. Maybe you could allow those classes to multiclass with your NPC classes -- but at a maximum of 1/3 of total levels.
    I boost paladin by telling players to make crusaders--when lawful good, their flavor is so similar to that of a paladin that I don't see a need to make a distinction--or use an online re-write. I've got such re-writes available for paladins and fighters, monks are better represented by unarmed swordsages, and rangers who want to be archers will be encouraged to go scout/ranger with Swift Tracker.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tequila Sunrise View Post
    A smart MT doesn't deal damage, or have more than three offensive spells; smart MTs buff up their buddies and fling utility spells.

    TS
    This man is correct; mystic theurge will still be weaker than a straight favored soul or sorcerer, but when played as he suggested they can still be quite effective, especially in drawn-out encounters.

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    ...at home.

    Default Re: How would you react to these houserules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tequila Sunrise View Post
    A smart MT doesn't deal damage, or have more than three offensive spells; smart MTs buff up their buddies and fling utility spells.

    TS
    I knew that actually.
    The game doesn't start until you reach epic levels.

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sunnydale

    Default Re: How would you react to these houserules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Proven_Paradox View Post
    I boost paladin by telling players to make crusaders--when lawful good, their flavor is so similar to that of a paladin that I don't see a need to make a distinction--or use an online re-write. I've got such re-writes available for paladins and fighters, monks are better represented by unarmed swordsages, and rangers who want to be archers will be encouraged to go scout/ranger with Swift Tracker.
    So you're changing full casters, beefing up or substituting melee types, and ignoring utility players entirely? Seems like pretty poor treatment for someone who wants to play a Rogue or Factotum.

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Proven_Paradox's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: How would you react to these houserules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
    So you're changing full casters, beefing up or substituting melee types, and ignoring utility players entirely? Seems like pretty poor treatment for someone who wants to play a Rogue or Factotum.
    Rogue could use a boost in combat ability--which is quite easy to do with a swordsage dip, and I encourage those who want to play combat-focused rogues to do just that. Factotum is absolutely fine where it is without change. Same for beguiler. Scout is already solid when done as scout/ranger with swift tracker. I have a homebrewed ninja class in my signature for those who don't want to make their ninja a swordsage.

    Basically, I'm not fixing what isn't broken. The skill-monkey classes are mostly okay without change in my mind.
    Last edited by Proven_Paradox; 2008-10-25 at 07:33 AM.

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default Re: How would you react to these houserules?

    The Wizard is dead! Long live the Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Warlock and Warmage!

    I enjoy these rules, and entirely understand your reasoning. In fact, I'd consider going ahead and banning the Sorcerer as well, just so you don't end up in the position of the most powerful class left in your game being the most boring. My one complaint is about Archivists: While prepared spellcasting from any divine source anywhere is icky and broken, Dark Knowledge is a wonderful and flavorful thing. For my money, nothing else in 3.5 really captures that feeling of "You are more powerful because I knew something". Would you consider making it an alternate class feature for something, so the scholarly PCs could have somewhere to go? Maybe Bard, to replace Bardic Music?

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PirateCaptain

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The Hurricane State
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: How would you react to these houserules?

    I, myself do enjoy these rules. To me, without even knowing anything else about your campaign you already have displayed some thought into trying to balance out classes, in your own world.

    As I favor RP, and story more then just hack and slash this creates curiosity then anything else.
    Boo!

    Steam ID: Dublock

    Battle tag: Dublock 1-7-2-5

    Feel free to add me but say GitP :)

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Proven_Paradox's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: How would you react to these houserules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishy View Post
    The Wizard is dead! Long live the Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Warlock and Warmage!

    I enjoy these rules, and entirely understand your reasoning. In fact, I'd consider going ahead and banning the Sorcerer as well, just so you don't end up in the position of the most powerful class left in your game being the most boring. My one complaint is about Archivists: While prepared spellcasting from any divine source anywhere is icky and broken, Dark Knowledge is a wonderful and flavorful thing. For my money, nothing else in 3.5 really captures that feeling of "You are more powerful because I knew something". Would you consider making it an alternate class feature for something, so the scholarly PCs could have somewhere to go? Maybe Bard, to replace Bardic Music?
    I personally find sorcerer to be far from the most boring class in the game, but to each his own. That reasoning doesn't really work for banning the class.

    As for Dark Knowledge, something like that could be hammered out, sure. Alternatively, characters who want to get that kind of advantage could pick up the Knowledge Devotion feat.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •