|
 What it is: The third (and third point five) edition of the Dungeons and Dragons game. 3rd edition came out in 2000, and was designed to be more internally consistent and allow more customization of characters than 2nd edition. 3.5 came out three years later, and fixed a large number of small issues in the rules. The core rulebooks - being the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide - are collectively known as the SRD, and can be seen here for free. A few bits are missing, such as the XP table and a few monsters, but 95% of those rulebooks (along with the Expanded Psionics Handbook, Epic Level Handbook, and Unearthed Arcana) are located there. Doesn't 3.5 have a lot of balances issues? To put it bluntly, yes. Basically, casters are much better than noncasters, especially if you stick to the core books and especially at higher levels. Later books that were released got the balance much better, and Tome of Battle did a lot to help fighting types, but the basic issues are still there. There have been a couple attempts to fix it, or at least mitigate the worst of it: E6/E8: Basically, you go up to level 6 (or 8) as normal, then instead of leveling normally you pay XP for feats. Most 3.5 players think the best balance and the most playtesting has been around that level area. Class Tiers and Partial Gestalt: Basically, the classes are categorized by level/breadth of power into one of 6 tiers, ranging from tier one (wizards, clerics, etc) to tier 6 (commoners, truenamers). A partial gestalt variant is then applied. Tier 1s and 2s are normal. Tier 3s and 4s may gestalt their levels with an NPC class of their choice (Adept, Expert, Commoner, or Warrior). Tier 5s and 6s may gestalt their levels with any other Tier 5 or 6 class of their choice, or Adepts. Result? Again, a healthy power boost for the low Tiers. Suddenly the Rogues can have full BAB and lots of hitpoints, and the Monks can have Fighter powers too. Very handy. Plus, multiclassing works... it's just that if you start as a Fighter//Monk and want to take a level of, say, Ranger, that level must have an NPC class on the other side. If for some reason you wanted Sorcerer, you wouldn't be gestalt at all in that level. Lord knows Fighters get a lot better when they can be Fighter//Monks or Fighter//CA Ninjas or whatever. But isn't there a 4th edition of D&D? Yes there is, and it's also a lot of fun. The thread for talking about 4th edition is here. This is not the thread to argue about 3.5 vs 4E Why should I play 3.5?: Why wouldn't you want to play the edition that both the best D&D setting (Eberron) and the best adventure (Red Hand of Doom) were written for? Also, despite it's balance issues, I've had more fun playing 3.5 than I have 4th edition.  d20 Variants and Spinoffs - Because of the ridiculously open nature of the SRD and the OGL, pretty much anyone could and did make a d20 game. Whether you wanted to play a game about abortion clinics or Monte Cook's World of Darkness d20, there's a d20 game for it. Most of these variants range from terrible to horrible, but here's some of the ones that are good. Spycraft: Spycraft is, as the name suggests, designed to deal with superspies and action heroes. However it also works well for any modern game designed around a mission based system (or TV series style with set episodes). There are a number of Campaign Qualities that are rules tweaks designed to emulate certain genres - post-apocalypse, western, pulp, etc. However, the gear system and listing can be somewhat complicated. Fantasycraft: From the same company as Spycraft, it uses a similar rules setting for a D&D style fantasy setting. Highlights include playable dragons and treefolk that are reasonably balanced. Iron Heroes: Written by Mike Mearls, this is a d20 variant that focuses on non-magical characters in the style of Conan. Never played it myself, but I've heard good things. d20 Modern: d20 Modern is designed to be a generic modern day rpg. D20 Future and a number of other spinoffs also exist. It does the job, but (in my opinion) not very well. For a modern day game, I prefer... d20 Call of Cthulhu: Does a surprisingly good job. The sanity system is mostly ported straight over from the BRP system, and combat is suitably lethal due to having to make a fort save or die whenever taking 10 or more damage in a single hit. Pathfinder: Has it's own thread. Often referred to as 3.75, it's what Paizo decided to do rather than switch to printing 4th edition stuff. Supposedly more balanced than normal 3.5, but opinions vary on how successful it has been in doing so. Useful Links Rules of the Game: Explains a bunch of the somewhat finicky rules situations. Some of these have since been eratted, but its a good place to start. Web Enhancements Bonus Material for many of the published books Heroforge: An Excel-based character generator Pathguy's 3.5 Character Generator: A Javascript character generator, and what I use personally RPTools Open source, multi platform virtual table top software. Google a class name + handbook, and there's a very good chance you will find a guide for that class. Join us on Synirc in #redhandofdoom! Piell fucked around with this message at 12:00 on Jul 25, 2011 |
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 07:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 13:23 |
|
|
This is my single favorite thing in 3.5, and I'm not being sarcastic or anything. It's exactly the kind of idiosyncratically psychopathic thing a high level wizard would invent: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/prismaticWall.htm Violet 7th Energy field destroys all objects and effects.1 1. The violet effect makes the special effects of the other six colors redundant, but these six effects are included here because certain magic items can create prismatic effects one color at a time, and spell resistance might render some colors ineffective (see above).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 07:36
|
|
|
I have never read any material by Frank and K that was worthwhile. They're right up there with Mongoose's Quintessential series in terms of balance and value. Also I have to agree with Ferrinus, Prismatic ________ is the best spell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 07:40
|
|
|
I dunno, I've always been fond of Defenestrating Sphere:Spell Compendium posted:In addition, Medium or smaller creatures must succeed on a Fortitude save or be knocked prone. Creatures that fall prone must then succeed on a second Fortitude save or be swept up by the sphere and driven 1d8×10 feet into the air, dropping 1d6 squares from their original position in a random direction and taking falling damage as normal. If a window is within range, the subject is automatically thrown in that direction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 07:44
|
|
|
I like the name, but as far as mechanics go, I love the prismatic series. Although my absolute favorite spell is Withering Palm, simply because ability damage is so drat good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 07:59
|
|
|
You forgot the best d20 game of them all, Mutants and Masterminds, but I'll let it slide. For now. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 08:02
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:I have never read any material by Frank and K that was worthwhile. They're right up there with Mongoose's Quintessential series in terms of balance and value. Half of the literature in the Tomes is not mechanical at all, it's just expounding about poo poo like how society actually works when a ninth level wizard is on the scene, or how you really need to loving iron out the precise ethical quality of "evil" that negative energy has before your players start statting up Necropolitans and using Animate Dead. You can dismiss it all out of hand and that's totally cool, the point is to have an opinion on this poo poo while you're marshaling to run a game. Eikre fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Mar 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 08:17
|
|
|
Eikre posted:the point is to have an opinion on this poo poo while you're marshaling to run a game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 08:30
|
|
|
Piell posted:I dunno, I've always been fond of Defenestrating Sphere: Oh yeah that's funny I guess quote:You cause the touched subject’s flesh to ripple, grow together, and fuse into a nearly seamless whole. The subject is forced into a fetal position (if humanoid), with only the vaguest outline of its folded arms and legs visible below the all-encompassing wave of flesh. The subject retains the ability to breathe, eat, and excrete, but may lose the use of its senses (see below). If the sudden transformation would prove fatal to the creature (such as fusing a swimming airbreathing subject, or a flying subject), the subject gets a +4 bonus on the save. Unless it loses the use of its senses (see below), the creature can still perform purely mental actions, such as manifesting powers. Oh 3.5
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 09:34
|
|
|
In terms of 3rd party D20 that wasn't horrific, the absolute king for me was Nyambe. It took the concept of setting books for "not asia" (oriental adventures) and "not america" (maztica) and made a really really good "not africa" setting. It reads like an anansi story and has all sorts of cool base class variants. Its like 5 bucks on amazon, and totally worth picking up if you are into 3.x world building. I also liked Dragonmech. It didn't do the best job at system, but the setting was pretty cool. Fight battles atop giant walking death machines crewed by dwarven slaves. Edit: This should probably be in the OP. It is a tier list for almost all the 3.5 classes, not meant as a putdown of any sort, but as a tool for gms who want the comparative power level of a character. Red_Mage fucked around with this message at 10:43 on Jun 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 10:18
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:In terms of 3rd party D20 that wasn't horrific, the absolute king for me was Nyambe. It took the concept of setting books for "not asia" (oriental adventures) and "not america" (maztica) and made a really really good "not africa" setting. It reads like an anansi story and has all sorts of cool base class variants. Its like 5 bucks on amazon, and totally worth picking up if you are into 3.x world building. Yeah, the Nyambe campaign that never got past chargen is one of my 3.5 regrets. Nyambe was like a class in 'this is how you do a culture/region specific sourcebook without coming off like a creepy greasy gently caress, pay attention katana jerks'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 17:44
|
|
|
I love 3.5. I do. I honestly think that with everything available, gestalt 3.5 (or especially d20 in general because then you can do my favorite RPG character ever, the Gunadin (Paladin//d20 Modern Commando) is my favorite character creation process. Just sitting there developing the most ridiculously min/maxed characters and throwing on loads of equally minmaxed gear and templates and stuff. Then playing a lighthearted Silver Age Superheroes-esque game where one guy drops a moon on an enemy, then the next picks it up and throws it 100 miles. Do other systems have better rules and balance, yes. Have I played any that allow for idiotic fun as easily in both chargen and gameplay? Not that I can think of. Except Mutants and Masterminds, another d20 product. projecthalaxy fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Jun 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
quote:Spycraft: Spycraft is, as the name suggests, designed to deal with superspies and action heroes. However it also works well for any modern game designed around a mission based system (or TV series style with set episodes). There are a number of Campaign Qualities that are rules tweaks designed to emulate certain genres - post-apocalypse, western, pulp, etc. However, the gear system and listing can be somewhat complicated. I wanted to like this due to the customization options, but character creation is a massive bear for people who just want to play a game, and one of the immediate problems that came up was that there seemed to be no gun that was really better than a pistol. Also, E6/8 is a novel concept but seems designed to hobble casters without regard for the fact that warriors in 3E barely need hobbling at all. Like, it would be easier just to say "Everyone levels as normal, but spells only go up to level 3." This obviously puts multiclassing into play for anyone who wants those five or six levels of wizard, and thereafter picks up a fighting class or maybe cleric or something, but if we're viewing this from the point of Tolkien here, there's hardly anyone capable of magic that can't also throw down, and the cleric/wizard line in Tolkien is indistinguishable. That, and caster supremacy begins outright at the third level of play.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 19:45
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I wanted to like this due to the customization options, but character creation is a massive bear for people who just want to play a game, and one of the immediate problems that came up was that there seemed to be no gun that was really better than a pistol. Spycraft can be pretty complicated, yes, but I like it. Also, Caster Supremacy starts right at first level (Sleep and Color Spray), it's just the casters are also incredibly fragile early on. Wizards go from Glass Cannon -> Adamantine Cannon relatively quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 22:41
|
|
|
When I tell people, "Your dungeoncrawl is obsolete and finish-lines are trivial so you can never run an adventure like that again in this game now," or, "You have a dozen demons bound to your service and hanging out in your basement, giving you unlimited raw materials and mundane items as well as every magical trinket you can think of below several thousand GP and basically you have stopped interacting with the economy" or "Dying is something you budget for now, like scrolls and arrows," a lot of people want to tell me I'm being ridiculous and that that stuff doesn't happen. Did you know that negative levels were invented by Gygax to manhandle players out of the god-slaying levels and maintain a power range where anyone knew the gently caress what was going on? Before fifth level spells come online you still live in a world where death is basically meaningful, flying creatures can still be brought to earth and terrestrial movement is still worth jack poo poo, and standing armies can still at least be marginally annoying if the King declares war against your five man adventuring group and sends an entire regiment to hunt you down. The mode of adventure that people think is supposed to exist, and which is, by the way, the entire loving game in 4E, is strongest in E6. When everyone knows that, they might be persuaded to actually invest in Climb or whatever and pretend that they still care about farmers. It pays to have a single well-known mechanic that everyone can refer to with it's own terminology, like E6 is. There is discussion and homebrew surrounding E6 far in excess of "hey let's just stop playing at level fifteen okay?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 00:26
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I wanted to like this due to the customization options, but character creation is a massive bear for people who just want to play a game, and one of the immediate problems that came up was that there seemed to be no gun that was really better than a pistol. A bullet is a bullet. Going to modern systems from D&D or whatever means accepting that guns are not inherently balanced. If you are pouring through the lists looking for the best broadsword for making trip attacks it is a bad deal. Besides, most pistols on the lists can't do automatic fire and have poo poo range or ammo capacity. MY main issue with Spycraft is the depth of minutia it inspires; I remember the rabbit hole I ended up going down when I took a feat that let me use the BLEEDING rules which forced a lot more rules lookup and an amazing amount of mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 03:12
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:A bullet is a bullet. Going to modern systems from D&D or whatever means accepting that guns are not inherently balanced. If you are pouring through the lists looking for the best broadsword for making trip attacks it is a bad deal. Besides, most pistols on the lists can't do automatic fire and have poo poo range or ammo capacity. It wasn't about the bullets, it was that linking certain features on the pistol with certain feats/class abilities meant that you could pretty much spend one pistol round doing something that took ten with just about anything else in any situation. Like, it didn't matter how big your bullet was, it mattered how many attack and damage bonuses you could stack onto one shot with a pistol. That and at one point I engaged in suppressive fire with a bolt action rifle. That being said, it's a spy game and not Commando: The RPG, but then you get this problem with stuff like Shadowrun too, which is also a spy game, yet all the Commando poo poo is left out on the table. I would have to pour through the book again to remember the specifics of the pistol stuff--I think we lasted two sessions--but yes the Spycraft rules are like the diametric opposite of d20 Modern's oversimplification of combat and characters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 03:20
|
|
|
I sorta wish they had done the Spycraft Lite they discussed at one point, d20 modern is too goofy simple and Spycraft 2.0 is too baroque (and gently caress, I play GURPS for preference) and minutia obsessed. A medium between the two would rule.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 03:23
|
|
|
Spycraft 3 is in the works, but there's no set release date yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 03:50
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:I sorta wish they had done the Spycraft Lite they discussed at one point, d20 modern is too goofy simple and Spycraft 2.0 is too baroque (and gently caress, I play GURPS for preference) and minutia obsessed. A medium between the two would rule. The problem with Spycraft is basically this: it's got more poo poo to know than PHB D&D 3.5, and shares surprisingly little in common with 3.5 itself. Getting to grips with that is tough because of the sheer volume. It's a neat system but I have a really hard time keeping all that poo poo in my brain for the rare opportunities there are to use it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 04:07
|
|
|
UrbanLabyrinth posted:Spycraft 3 is in the works, but there's no set release date yet. It has been in the works in various forms for a few years now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 04:09
|
|
|
One of the problems I've had with games of Spycraft is that there is a major encouragement to split the party, which is wonky in a social table game. You have The Wheelman and The Face at two entirely different games within the same rulebook; to different degrees the same can be said for Soldiers and Snoops (and whatever the Hackers were called) and the Scientists. All in all, there is not as much a focus in the rules for everyone to be having a grand old time together.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 04:44
|
|
|
Eikre posted:When I tell people, "Your dungeoncrawl is obsolete and finish-lines are trivial so you can never run an adventure like that again in this game now," or, "You have a dozen demons bound to your service and hanging out in your basement, giving you unlimited raw materials and mundane items as well as every magical trinket you can think of below several thousand GP and basically you have stopped interacting with the economy" or "Dying is something you budget for now, like scrolls and arrows," a lot of people want to tell me I'm being ridiculous and that that stuff doesn't happen. Did you know that negative levels were invented by Gygax to manhandle players out of the god-slaying levels and maintain a power range where anyone knew the gently caress what was going on? Yeah, E6 is nice if you want to retain any illusion of having the same game premise, though I believe you can stretch it to E8 without completely annihilating the premise, since it adds Scrying and Bestow Curse to the available options. The opposite end is Tome really. The whole idea is "Magic stuff makes the setting like so, lets push that to it's natural end result and then improve everything that doesn't reach at least sorceror power to that point". I think the problem is more that a lot of the designers working on it have a rather flippant approach, and a lot of the abilities are Just Because.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 07:10
|
|
|
Chiming to show my appreciation for 3.5. I strongly favor the Partial Gestalt balancing rules, if only because it seems to open up a lot more options as valid choices for a character. I'd never heard of E6 or E8 before this thread. Sounds like an interesting balancing mechanic. Additionally Fantasycraft hasn't been getting any love at all here, and I'm somewhat sad to see this is the case. It seems like a fun alternative, from what little I have played. Rhjamiz fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Jun 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 04:47
|
|
|
I read through the Tomes linked in the OP and I have to say there was some interesting stuff in there. I like the scaling feats and armor, for instance, and some of the base class tweaks. Some stuff was off-the-wall bizarre, but it was an entertaining read, especially the economics of D&D. Makes you think outside the box.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 11:55
|
|
|
Scaling up your earlier abilities is a good idea really. Keeps a sense of consistency, instead of your old skills systematically becoming obsolete.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 14:46
|
|
|
Hey guys, selling a bunch of my old 3.5 stuff plus more odds and ends http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3418496
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2011 22:36
|
|
|
I've been playing in a 3.5 campaign for a little over a year. This Sunday, I was forced to retire a character (mostly my choice) because his arc had transformed him from a heroic Lawful-Good fighter into a Chaotic-Evil force of destruction. This was actually rather frustrating for me because everytime I tried to steer my character's arc towards redemption, the DM would have something awful happen to him (like my brother being transformed into a literal god who had been using me as his devil in order to gather more believers so that everything I thought I was doing for good had actually been done for evil). I'm still perfectly welcome to play in the campaign and in our current plot being a wizard makes a lot of sense. However, I want to be able to handle any of the dumb poo poo my DM throws at me, so I'm not particularly interested in balance after my last character was placed in several "no-win" scenarios that the DM had to handwave to keep me alive for as long as he did. Besides, the rest of the party is terribly broken too. It's the kind of party that made a lot of people who just wanted to go adventuring really dislike the game. We have two clerics, one of which is designed to be an enlarging chain fighter. Then there's the lurker (psionic rogue) who whines about having a useless character when she has better bonuses to all of her skill checks that anyone else, does obscene amounts of damage in combat, and can completely manipulate a battlefield to make all enemies incapable of attacking her. So, if I'm making a level 6 wizard who has to be able to compete with PCs like that, where should I start?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 02:04
|
|
|
Wizard 3/master specialist 3. Pretty much any of the schools are good, but I would pick either conjurer (which leads into any number of other things), illusionist (can lead into that fear based PrC), enchanter (can lead into a ton of other things), or abjurer (initiate of the sevenfold veil is sexy).
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 02:08
|
|
|
Haraksha posted:So, if I'm making a level 6 wizard who has to be able to compete with PCs like that, where should I start? Druid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 02:13
|
|
|
A druid would be pretty tempting just because the lurker is the first non-druid the girl has played.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 02:32
|
|
|
Another caster supremacy patch: Change Focus. At low levels, caster supremacy is less important due to their fragility. It really starts to emerge in the middle levels (7-12) when "normal" adventuring is still a focus. It's here that you start to change the focus of the game to have adventuring in different circumstances. At this level, if you're routinely adventuring underwater, while flying, or in dangerous territory where uninterrupted, un-magically-enhanced rest is dangerous, you basically reduce the amount of spells available per day, or you reduce the XP of the caster via magical item creation. This is a bit of juggling, but it helps lay the groundwork for what happens next. At this level you also start to introduce personal opportunities for the characters - rivals, villains with grudges, non-adventuring related problems and opportunities. Then when you hit high levels, you focus entirely on uber-adventuring prompted by these individual opportunities. Caster supremacy is less important when the crucial decisions in the game can only be made by a particular character.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 02:33
|
|
|
I hate druids as written in the core. They have everything that slows the game down to a crawl: animal companions, shapeshifting, and prepared spells. whenever I run D&D I usually make them spontaneous casters (as per the UA variant), make them pick a form they can shift into at every odd level, and drop the animal companion for anything other class feature. It just makes everything go so much smoother when I don't have one player who has to decide what spells out of the entire selection of spells he wants, takes twice as many turns as everyone else, and constantly digging through monster manuals looking for a new thing to tame.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 02:52
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:Wizard 3/master specialist 3. Pretty much any of the schools are good, but I would pick either conjurer (which leads into any number of other things), illusionist (can lead into that fear based PrC), enchanter (can lead into a ton of other things), or abjurer (initiate of the sevenfold veil is sexy). I'd second this, especially the Conjurer, it's straightforward, and summons are good enough that if you get them down to a standard action via this variant, you pretty much have it made. Or if you don't want to summon theres like a half dozen other avenues to focus on. As for druid, the first part of it is making sure the guy has them wildshape statblocks prepared for any combat forms, out of combat, sure, turn into the wee burdie for scouting, but if you want to turn into something in combat you better drat well have their stats on hand or you aren't familiar enough. Or you could just use the PHBII Shapeshift stuff. One of the two. The spells are the lesser evil mostly, any spellcaster can be like that if they've no idea what to do with their primary class feature.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 07:56
|
|
|
veekie posted:The spells are the lesser evil mostly, any spellcaster can be like that if they've no idea what to do with their primary class feature.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 09:20
|
|
|
Theres some issues with that as well, lots of spells are sufficiently niche that a prepared caster might know them, but no spontaneous would(because its not worth the effort). A sort of balance might be to go with a Spirit Shaman style thing, you have a list of known spells, you have a SMALL list of prepared, and you can cast your prepareds as long as you have slots to spare. Personally, spell preparation is largely a problem only when you know your whole spell list. Option paralysis and all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 10:28
|
|
|
veekie posted:Theres some issues with that as well, lots of spells are sufficiently niche that a prepared caster might know them, but no spontaneous would(because its not worth the effort).
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 10:44
|
|
|
Here's some more good spinoffs that I've gotten through rpgnow: True20: This is a slightly simplified, hit-point-less d20 implementation that uses a cool fatigue track system for magic and has only three classes: fighting, magic/kewl powerz and skills. Characters are assembled by various levels of these in the proportion to how good they are at each. A lot of interesting settings including Tales From the Caliphate Nights (al qadim owns forever) and Blue Rose, a Lackey-esque romantic fantasy world with pretty princesses, hot guys with their shirts unbuttoned and talking animal companions. Mutants & Masterminds and Silver Age Sentinels both had d20 editions, though M&M went in a slightly different direction for Third Edition and SAS came from a Tri-Stat game (I think), so don't know if they need to go in here. Trailblazer is probably the best of the "let's balance 3.5" editions out there because it provides a lot of customization options for different styles of play and discusses the math of each option pretty seriously. This also makes it boring to read but it goes after a goal really well. Modern20 is an underappreciated new take on a modern adventure setup. They have supplements for pulp, postapocalyptic and a wacky technomagic setting as well. Very detailed and a quite different approach from d20 Modern.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:It's true, which is why I usually just outright ban prep casting in general and make every class have a spells known list. Sorcerers can use int or cha, get either all knowledges or all cha skills, can specialize like a wizard, and get bonus feats (metamagic every 5 or heritage every 4, chosen at cc). I think it works a lot better because it takes the edge off feeling like you have to have the right spell every time, and it makes preparing sessions easier since I don't have to try to guess what the wizard/cleric/druid is gonna prepare on a given day. I don't know why you would roll a wizard at all under this system. But then again under normal conditions I would never roll a sorcerer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 01:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 13:23 |
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I don't know why you would roll a wizard at all under this system. But then again under normal conditions I would never roll a sorcerer. Wizards still get spells a level earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 03:42
|
|