|
9 months ago ::
Aug 28, 2012 - 9:53AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Aug 12, 2012
|
I had a question along these lines. Do the feats that grant cantrips/orisons qualify the character for feats that have the ability to cast wizard/cleric spells as a prerequisite?
For example, the Magic-User specialty. Lvl 1: Arcane Dabbler. Prerequisite at least 11 INT. Reads: "Choose two minor spells (cantrips) from the wizard's spell list. You know and can use those spells." Lvl 3: Find Familiar has a prerequisite that reads: "Able to cast at least one spell from the wizard's spell list.
So can any character with at least 11 INT take this specialty and get the familiar? Might be good for, say, a Rogue. The Acolyte specialty is also structured like this. And if we're mixing and matching, then Arcane Dabbler or Initiate of the Faith could qualify a character for the feats under the Necromancer specialty (Aura of Souls, Animate Servant).
Seems obvious from the way these are written that the Magic-Using Rogue or the Acolyte Fighter would be totally legitimate. Thoughts? Objections?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 28, 2012 - 9:58AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Thoughts? Objections?
I object to that 11 INT being there.
Attribute requirements never balance anything. They just exclude for no goddamn reason.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 28, 2012 - 10:32AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
Not "no reason" - just no reason related to balance.
The reason is because they are intended as logical nods to immersion - it is logical that a character would need to be smart to be able to cast spells.
Not necessary - perhaps not even desireable - but logical.
Personally - I'd agree with the removal of the attribute restrictions. In my experience, even people with substandard intelligence can eventually learn most things. They just take longer and have to work harder to do it.
So an Int 5 fighter can (or rather - should be able to) learn how to cast cantrips - they just take longer and any part of the spell that is based on Intellignce will not work well for them.
Carl
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 28, 2012 - 10:41AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
Not "no reason" - just no reason related to balance.
The reason is because they are intended as logical nods to immersion - it is logical that a character would need to be smart to be able to cast spells.
Not necessary - perhaps not even desireable - but logical.
Personally - I'd agree with the removal of the attribute restrictions. In my experience, even people with substandard intelligence can eventually learn most things. They just take longer and have to work harder to do it.
So an Int 5 fighter can (or rather - should be able to) learn how to cast cantrips - they just take longer and any part of the spell that is based on Intellignce will not work well for them.
Carl
Just to seek clarification: when you select a Specialty at Level 1 and take the first feat, are you obliged to take the 3rd level feat within the same Specialty at level 3? Or can you pick the 1st or 3rd level feat available in another specialty at 3rd level (since you seem to be only bound by the pre-requisite and not the specialty itself)?
So as an example could I take Dual Wielder (two weapon fighting) at first level, but take Toughness (in the Survival specialty) at 3rd level?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 28, 2012 - 10:56AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
If you choose the specialty - you take it as a package; you take the listed feats at the levels shown. They have indicated that there will also be ways of customizing characters through a more open selection of feats, but they haven't given us any real information about how that will work.
Carl
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 28, 2012 - 11:17AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Feb 15, 2011
|
I must say I agree on Carls suggestions here. It struck me immediatly as interesting options with having fighters and rogues have a familiar, when I read the specialties.
Acolyte seemed to par with for example a paladin warrior. I tried to fit in a cleric with a familiar, but it started to get harder.
Some specialties are very linear that they don't promote differentiation at all. They are more extended arms of a specific class, and not optional at all.
My view of this is that this iteration tries to make choices of versatility but the 4E options based choices (pre-requisites, stat+ etc.) Simply removes the choices and gets you back to playing on your strengthes or you will fail (or rather be just weak all over instead of versatile).
For example you would like a fighter go with magic missile as an option to ranged (magic-dabbler), might been a fun choice if it wasnt based on Int. Same for lets say a fighter Acolyte. I dont meant you should just use your main stat, but it severly limits you and ergo you will not divert but rather stay with your main choice.
But again we don't know the advanced option, that might present itself. But I must agree there are some core flaws here.
/Aurel
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 28, 2012 - 12:21PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2004
|
Thoughts? Objections?
I object to that 11 INT being there.
Attribute requirements never balance anything. They just exclude for no goddamn reason.
+1. They should drop all requirements except level. Looking at the Arcane Dabbler feat, why do I need an 11+ INT? I can make a wizard with a 3 INT and HE can learn cantrips, so why does someone else need more?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 28, 2012 - 12:25PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
They should drop all requirements except level.
Did D&D ever actually do that? Usually, where an overt level minimum would go, the requirement was something like "BAB X" or "cast X level spell" or similar.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 28, 2012 - 4:48PM
#19
|
|
|
Thoughts? Objections?
I object to that 11 INT being there.
Attribute requirements never balance anything. They just exclude for no goddamn reason.
Ok, so if there are no requirements on anything, why don't we just have people write up what they want their character to do and be done with it? "I want a Dwarf that has heavy armor and wields ice magic." "Ok!".
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 28, 2012 - 6:30PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
Thoughts? Objections?
I object to that 11 INT being there.
Attribute requirements never balance anything. They just exclude for no goddamn reason.
Ok, so if there are no requirements on anything, why don't we just have people write up what they want their character to do and be done with it? "I want a Dwarf that has heavy armor and wields ice magic." "Ok!".
Straw man much?
|
|
|
