I think each class having the maneuver mechanic should have a different die size equal to the size of his hit dice: example, the fighter should have 6 d10 expert dice at high levels, when the monk has 6 d8 and the rogue 6d6. Also, on the subject of weapon choices, every characters had time only to learn two (2) weapons in the list given to his class, except for the fighter, who his better trained with weapons, who learns how to use two groups of similar weapons. His damage with such a...
View full commentI think each class having the maneuver mechanic should have a different die size equal to the size of his hit dice: example, the fighter should have 6 d10 expert dice at high levels, when the monk has 6 d8 and the rogue 6d6.
Also, on the subject of weapon choices, every characters had time only to learn two (2) weapons in the list given to his class, except for the fighter, who his better trained with weapons, who learns how to use two groups of similar weapons. His damage with such a weapon are one dice size better than other character using the same weaapon: example, a longsword in his hands do 1d12 damage while in the hand of a rogue it will do 1d10. Melee weapons groups: blades, axes, flails, polearms (including quaterstaff), maces (including hammers), pikes. Ranged weapons: Thrown, Flails, Slings, crossbows, bows, siege machines.
Thirdly, fighters styles should be related to his weapon of choices, while the paladin styles should be related to his actions. Example: a fighter is an archer or a axeman, or a swordman, etc. A paladin is a defender or a slayer or cavalier, or a knight, etc.
To clarify, there is no difference between background and profession. More skills are needed, but profession is a category which helps define the character's skills. A woodcutter, for example, would be recommended to have the skills Climb, Drive, Gather Information, Plants Knowledge and Use Rope, while the ability of a woodcutter to fell trees would be described narratively, without specifying restrictive limits such as how long it takes or how much damage a falling tree would do. A character...
View full commentTo clarify, there is no difference between background and profession. More skills are needed, but profession is a category which helps define the character's skills. A woodcutter, for example, would be recommended to have the skills Climb, Drive, Gather Information, Plants Knowledge and Use Rope, while the ability of a woodcutter to fell trees would be described narratively, without specifying restrictive limits such as how long it takes or how much damage a falling tree would do. A character with two or more professions would use class feature substitution, noted under career path, training or what you may call it, to get more skills than the 6 or 8 options normally available. Similar substitutions available at more specific points in one's career could grant the character other races' traits, religious ordination, a bonus to a specific skill area such as desert survival or dragons, or more general scholarly expertise. It is encouraging to see skills of narrow scope such as Diplomacy and Use Rope emphasized.
Lots of things were broken about it, but tons of people absolutely *loved* it anyway, because but made it practical to achieve all sorts of character concepts you could never have made otherwise. So if they can design an *optional* system that has built in mechanics for fixing game balance issues while still giving folks the things they love about having that flexibility, as far as I'm concerned, that's the best of both worlds. But already in Next, you can do a lot of things with...
View full commentLots of things were broken about it, but tons of people absolutely *loved* it anyway, because but made it practical to achieve all sorts of character concepts you could never have made otherwise. So if they can design an *optional* system that has built in mechanics for fixing game balance issues while still giving folks the things they love about having that flexibility, as far as I'm concerned, that's the best of both worlds.
But already in Next, you can do a lot of things with specialties that required multiclassing in 3e, so hopefully it will be much more rare, even when allowed.
Actually, with separate advancement rules for multiclass characters, it sounds like a compromise with hybrids -- much more flexible than just playing a hybrid (you many more degrees you can use to balance your mixture of classes), but much more level-scaled than 3E, which resembles a hybrid.
I really like the idea of the "cursed (or blessed) cultist". However, I do not like the idea of these things banding together. One minotaur would be the leader of a rag-tag band of lesser followers (goblins?). A minotaur should be a ferocious beast that commands attention.
Pretty good—I like the story here, but I would tweak it in specific ways. (Comments!) yikaria, introduced in the Al-Qadim setting in 2nd Edition. Also called yak-men (or, unfortunately, yak-folk) they even enslaved the Dao Genies... we want them to be seperated from minutarous also we need more fact about the enslavement of the Daos and how many years have it gone sence the contract began ... i mean the contract says that daos are slaves of Yikaria in 1001 years.... and will it be a...
View full commentPretty good—I like the story here, but I would tweak it in specific ways. (Comments!)
yikaria, introduced in the Al-Qadim setting in 2nd Edition. Also called yak-men (or, unfortunately, yak-folk) they even enslaved the Dao Genies...
we want them to be seperated from minutarous also we need more fact about the enslavement of the Daos and how many years have it gone sence the contract began ... i mean the contract says that daos are slaves of Yikaria in 1001 years.... and will it be a total war between Yak-men and Daos?
Yikaria has a very deep story that shouldnt be mashed up with minotaurs.. maybe they have a race war against the minotaurs (Like the githyanki and githzerai race war)
Clerics were more fun in 2nd edition. They were still healers which is (to me) their main distinction, but they did not fall behind as fast on the "I can hit that" scale because feats did not exist. In trying to balance the cleric in 3rd ed. someone somwhere thought they needed to have the same amount spells per day and the same top spell level as wizards. sounds good...but that means they have to lose ground in combat. But the 1st and 2nd edition description of cleric call the class a holy...
View full commentClerics were more fun in 2nd edition. They were still healers which is (to me) their main distinction, but they did not fall behind as fast on the "I can hit that" scale because feats did not exist. In trying to balance the cleric in 3rd ed. someone somwhere thought they needed to have the same amount spells per day and the same top spell level as wizards. sounds good...but that means they have to lose ground in combat. But the 1st and 2nd edition description of cleric call the class a holy WARRIOR. Give clerics less magic at the top 7th level resurrection should be just about the most powerful healing in existence anyway. Then give them back some martial power, and make them really shine vs. undead.
OR take the route 2nd edition eluded to but never really fleshed out. Gods have priest, and clerics and Druids are just two kinds of priests. then the cleric I described above would be like a priest of Kord etc. and a spell throwing buff-giver type would be a priest of some other god.
1. The Cleric Is a Healer: “This one should seem obvious, but it's worth making it clear that we assume that clerics can heal and that their abilities should reflect that. A player new to D&D who creates a cleric could focus on keeping the rest of the characters on their feet, and the mechanics would make that easy to understand and do.” - M.Mearls No, absolutely not. Especially not at the top of the list. A Cleric has the ability to aid his allies, including the ability to Heal...
View full comment1. The Cleric Is a Healer:
“This one should seem obvious, but it's worth making it clear that we assume that clerics can heal and that their abilities should reflect that. A player new to D&D who creates a cleric could focus on keeping the rest of the characters on their feet, and the mechanics would make that easy to understand and do.” - M.Mearls
No, absolutely not. Especially not at the top of the list. A Cleric has the ability to aid his allies, including the ability to Heal them, but this is not his Role. That’s right, you’re trying to pigeon-hole the Cleric as a Heal-bot by giving them the Role of Healer (Remember how you said you weren’t going to force Role’s on Players?!). Put this at the bottom of the list, or take it out altogether since it’s part of #2. Stating this as a Goal for the class disgusts me, it takes the focus off Roleplaying a Divine Servant and shoves it squarely onto playing a heal-bot
2. The Cleric Is a Divine Spellcaster:
I can agree with this as M.Mearls writes it. It is important that the Cleric not outstrip the other core classes by being able to do what they do, only better (using the #4 and #5 points as examples).
3. Divine Magic Is Subtle and Indirect:
I have no problems with this as M.Mearls interprets it.
4. The Cleric Is an Armored Warrior:
I think this can be true and so should be an option for the Cleric, through backgrounds and themes. I think a Clerics choice of Divine should play a large part of what kind of Cleric is being played.
5. Clerics Reflect the Gods:
Yes, absolutely agree with M.Mearls here. I’d go further, and say that each Cleric’s individual abilities and skills are tied to their choice of Divine.
Also, on the subject of weapon choices, every characters had time only to learn two (2) weapons in the list given to his class, except for the fighter, who his better trained with weapons, who learns how to use two groups of similar weapons. His damage with such a...
View full comment
View full comment