| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Bookwyrm
Great Reader
USA
4740 Posts |
 Posted - 14 Jun 2003 : 16:44:56
|
We've had several new weapons, items, and spells, new skills and feats, and even a discussion that included some discorse on the bard spell list. We've had a small discussion on technology and firearms and at least three new character races. All of these have been fan-based.
But what else is out there? Do you have new rules, rulings, or techniques that you've had in campaigns? Or just things you wonder about but haven't tested for whatever reason?
Step right up and post 'em here! You've just entered the Candlekeeper's Review Board!
|
Hell hath no fury like all of Candlekeep rising in defense of one of its own.
Download the brickfilm masterpiece by Leftfield Studios! See this page for more. |
|
|
Bookwyrm
Great Reader
USA
4740 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jun 2003 : 17:08:52
|
The reason I started this was because I'd had a small thought stemming from a bit of idle character-creation. I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent; in D&D terms I'd give myself an Intellegence modifier of at least +2, maybe +3.
However, I have a horrid time learning languages. I lived in Italy for over three years, but (I kid you not) my teacher actually gave up on my learning the language. I was not happy, even though I suddenly had a free hour that the school officials assigned to other work (thus giving me more time to finish that work). I wanted to carry on a conversation in Italian without a translator or the other person knowing English. There's no better way for a kid to feel like a barbarian outsider than living in a foreign country for three years without learning enough to ask for directions with appropriate grammer.
(Of course, as anyone who has been there knows, Italian, like most west-European languages, is about one-tenth body language. That part's easy. Did you know there's a hand movement for "stupid idiotic pedestrian/driver" that isn't actually vulgar? The Italians use far less vulgarity than Americans.)
Okay, back on topic. As I said, I have a hard time with languages. But I'd also give myself at least a +2 modifier, which, if I were a D&D character, would give me two bonus languages. If, as that character, I increase my Intelligence score with further levels, I'll gain more with each increase. That just isn't me.
So what happens if you're playing a character in that situation? What if your character's from a place that hasn't had a lot of external contact, so (s)he'd had less chance of learning a new language? What if you want that character to be a kind of fish out of water, lingustically? You can choose not to give your characters the bonus, but you get nothing in return.
So, I think that if you don't want your character to have an extra language or two, they should be converted into skill points. Of course, I don't think that giving up a language would really work for an increase in Jump ranks or something; it doesn't seem to follow. So, how about you treat the language as if it were ranks in Speak Language (one rank per language for bards, two for everyone else) and transfer them to a skill with Intelligence as the primary ability? I know that Speak Language has no real ability tied to it, but it is powered by Intelligence, after all.
What do you think? |
Hell hath no fury like all of Candlekeep rising in defense of one of its own.
Download the brickfilm masterpiece by Leftfield Studios! See this page for more. |
 |
|
|
Belfar
Seeker
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jun 2003 : 17:25:32
|
The bonus languages should be converted to skill points. I would say 2 skill points per bonus language is reasonable. I would rather take a language than 2 skill points though. I would only put the skill points on a skill that had a charisma modifier such as diplomacy or bluff.
In my current campaign I allow one of my players,who is a cleric, use some rouge like abilites such as open locks and find traps because he used to be a petty thief when he was young. I only allow this because the party lacks a rouge to open locks and such. I'm sure some people allow there players to exchange class skills for cross- class skills because of special circumstances.
While I was sitting here thinking about rules, I was wondering how fighting is affected by shrinking. Such as if I shrunk the PCs and suddenly lizards and spiders became giant and gravel became boulders. Are there any special rules that exist for this? |
Edited by - Belfar on 14 Jun 2003 17:35:19 |
|
|
|
Bookwyrm
Great Reader
USA
4740 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jun 2003 : 17:36:24
|
| That's covered in The Player's Handbook, and I assume in The Dungeon Master's Guide, though I haven't read that one yet. "Customizing Your Character" (page 94) makes reference to two such things: a dwarf raised by humans who lacked the bonuses attatched to dwarven culture, but gained some others (up to the player and DM); and a fighter who used to be an enforcer for the thieves' guild, and so has access to only the weapons that a rogue would have, but gets two extra skill points per level (half of the class bonus of the rogue) and gets Innuendo and Bluff as class skills. |
Hell hath no fury like all of Candlekeep rising in defense of one of its own.
Download the brickfilm masterpiece by Leftfield Studios! See this page for more. |
Edited by - Bookwyrm on 14 Jun 2003 17:37:44 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2003 : 08:35:32
|
This is an exciting idea Bookwyrm. I really like this approach. Not only will it serve as a sounding board for those of us with homebrew rulings, or tinkered mechanics, but it can also serve to promote fresh new ideas on older core rulings that nobody may have even considered.
May all your learning be free and unfettered
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2003 : 09:02:34
|
One of my original homebrew rulings was similar to the elimination of exclusive skills, but that no longer seems relevant anymore so I won't mention it here.
One problem I have always had, is with the allocation of skill points to the Rogue class and Wizard class. Although I understand the reasoning behind the design decision to incorporate things this way, I still have never felt that it is right that the Rogue class should have such a large allocation, and the Wizard class does not. So rather than over balance the system by swaping the two allocations around, I simply allocated two extra points at first level for the wizard bringing his allocation up to four, however skill points at each additional level still remain at 2 points.
I had off set this benefit by only allowing a first level wizard only one extra first level spell in his spellbook per two points of intelligence bonus, keeping in line with the old rule for class modifications - for every good benefit added to a class, there must be a negative affect as well to offset the benefit and keep the class balanced.
Suggestions?
May all your learning be free and unfettered
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Bookwyrm
Great Reader
USA
4740 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2003 : 23:58:03
|
| I always figured that the better thing to do was to cut the Rogue's skill points down to 6 plus the modifier. Since no other core class has 6, I've been thinking that it's a huge jump up from 4. |
Hell hath no fury like all of Candlekeep rising in defense of one of its own.
Download the brickfilm masterpiece by Leftfield Studios! See this page for more. |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jun 2003 : 08:07:09
|
That's a good point, but since a lot of the Rogue's class abilities and traits are tied to nearly all of it's skills, the reduction in skill points might under-balance the effectiveness of the Rogue. If you intended to reduce the skill points of the Rogue down to 4, you would have to give the class a benefit somewhere else, maybe another free skill at first level or something.
May all your learning be free and unfettered
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Bookwyrm
Great Reader
USA
4740 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jun 2003 : 08:16:06
|
No, not four, I was thinking six. But then maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about . . . the only character I've played is a wizard, and all he's done so far is sit at a table and talk to two other PCs. (The PbeM's been dead for a while. Mumadar's having some big difficulties with Real Life, it seems.  ) |
Hell hath no fury like all of Candlekeep rising in defense of one of its own.
Download the brickfilm masterpiece by Leftfield Studios! See this page for more. |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jun 2003 : 08:26:11
|
They tried something similar to this on the WotC FR forums back in January. A major reworking of all the core classes, altering such fundamental things, as skills, skill points, free feats at first level etc. A lot of the changes simply unbalanced the classes so far, that it seemed as though there was no other way to work the stats. However your idea intrigues me enough to have another go at reworking some the core classes, starting with the Rogue.
May all your learning be free and unfettered
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
eilinel
Learned Scribe
France
296 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jun 2003 : 10:52:01
|
and the contrary could also exist, i think: i wouldn't give me all the intelligence score that i should have, since i can talk 5 languages and know two ancient ones... of course, i could have put some of my skill points there, after all. 
i do think its a great idea, if u don't spend time in learning langugages, u should know more about others subjects. The idea of a skill points retribution is quite good and seems balanced if they are used in intelligence skills but only in "sage" skills, not some like diable device and the kind.
ill notice this idea.
|
|
|
|
eilinel
Learned Scribe
France
296 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jun 2003 : 10:55:40
|
but there is still a problem -i always find a problem in everything -
a character can use it and just think that she doesn't need languages since she can have all of them by a spell. A mage could easily think that. so she would have more skills and all the languages?
i know its a wrong use of the rules, but the fact is that i don't trust the players. they are too actracted by power, and this gives u a bit more power... |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jun 2003 : 13:35:41
|
There are some interesting points there Eilinel. I will definitely consider those while I rework the overall stats for the Rogue core class.
Would you be interested in seeing the end result?.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
eilinel
Learned Scribe
France
296 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jun 2003 : 14:56:28
|
for sure!
and i may find others problems!
im kidding, but i think DnD is pretty far to be perfect, thus everyone can take a piece to make it closer with the perfection. (closer with?)
my english is not perfect at all for instance...  |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jun 2003 : 15:10:16
|
I think that is one of the best aspects of 3e D&D. The fact that it isn't a perfect system of rules promotes the gaming public to find their own ways of using the rules to create what they really want. 2e tried to do this, but ended up making a mess of the whole system.
May all your learning be free and unfettered
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Bookwyrm
Great Reader
USA
4740 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jun 2003 : 05:23:24
|
That's what this thread's supposed to be about, Sage. We all throw out things we've thought of or have used, and then each of us pick and choose what we each like best. We won't all be satisfied, and some won't find anything new they could use. But someone will, and others will at least find them interesting.
And Sage, just post your revised stats here when you're done with them. (On the forum, not necessarily in this thread.) I'm sure that more people than just Eilinel and I would be interested. |
Hell hath no fury like all of Candlekeep rising in defense of one of its own.
Download the brickfilm masterpiece by Leftfield Studios! See this page for more. |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jun 2003 : 07:26:24
|
I know that. I was simply stating that the 3e D&D 'imperfections', are actually better than if the system was actually designed as near to perfection as can possibly be for an evolving mechanical system such as D&D.
Anyway, I have starting a reworking of the Rogue core class. I'll post it up when I'm done. Although, it is turning out to be a little more difficult than I originally thought. Still, it is fun.
May all your learning be free and unfettered
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
branmakmuffin
Senior Scribe
USA
428 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jun 2003 : 16:43:59
|
Sage:
I disagree. Perceived bad mechanics (and the "neccessity" to tinker with them) do not enhance a game system.
"Perfection" is, like beauty, in the large central orb of the eye tyrant. |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2003 : 09:50:36
|
branmakmuffin, isn't that really all dependent on how well the person understands the rules and mechanics of the D&D system. I mean, even if the system is bad, a person who understands the rules and mechanics well can use them to create effects to his own choosing. The D&D rules and mechanics are structured and designed for the people to use and build upon. You only have to look at the rapid proliferation of third-party material to see this effect in action. Nearly everything can be incorporated into the rules system, just as long as you understand them properly.
May all your learning be free and unfettered
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
eilinel
Learned Scribe
France
296 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2003 : 17:56:53
|
and i think when Sage means "properly", he means also that nobody could use these rules to cheat. I mean its just like real laws. until there is no problem, u don't have to make laws. If a first guy begins to use the rules to take more power than he should normally, well, u have to change them.
I agree its not a real "cheat" since u don't, but its not fun at all.
thats why society is always moving up and down and DnD rules follow the same line.
May all your learning be free and unfettered
Sage |
|
|
|
branmakmuffin
Senior Scribe
USA
428 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2003 : 18:42:28
|
Sage:
Maybe you're not talking about what I think you're talking about. I think you're talking about mechanics. If I'm misunderstanding the thrust of your gist, my comments in this reply may not be very relevant to the specific discussion, but are of extreme interest to everyone in the solar system nonetheless.
Isn't it true that most thrd-party D20 add-ons are sourcebooks? I include prestige classes in the "sourcebook" category, as prestige classes simply use elements of the core mechanics, they don't alter them. If I am correct (on all above accounts) then most third-party books are examples of enhancing the "software" of D&D, not the "hardware". In my opinion, D20 mechanics lend themselves to being "added on to" no more than GURPS, Basic Roleplaying or Fuzion. WotC has attmpted to "genericize" D20 and they have, more or less. Character classes keep it from being truly generic, in my opinion.
If a mechanics system is excrutiatingly bad (Shadow Run, Recon) it's probably not worth using, let alone tinkering with. It'd take so much tinkering that in the end, it wouldn't resemble what it started out as and you might as well use a different mechanics system from the get go.
I've said many times I don't use D20 mechanics, but it's not because I think they're bad (I think 1e/2e mechanics are bad). |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2003 : 19:38:20
|
No...I think we are pretty much on the same wavelength, however while I was in a trough, you where at a peak (I hope everybody gets that) . There's been a lot of debate about what the current state of what third-party books represent, and the opinions of what everyone believed could lead us around in circles for hours.
I think what it comes down to is that every persons own personal opinion of the rules and mechanics is what makes the difference between them being good and bad.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Bookwyrm
Great Reader
USA
4740 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jun 2003 : 17:34:53
|
Here’s something I’ve always had a peeve about ever since I read it in my Player’s Handbook. Why is it that bonus spells never apply to cantrips or orisons? Why is the Bonus Spell Table like this:
Modifier 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 - 1 - - - - - - - -
2 - 1 1 - - - - - - -
3 - 1 1 1 - - - - - -
4 - 1 1 1 1 - - - - -
5 - 2 1 1 1 1 - - - -
6 - 2 2 1 1 1 1 - - -
7 - 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 - -
8 - 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 -
9 - 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
. . . instead of something more like this?
Modifier 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 1 1 - - - - - - - -
2 1 1 1 - - - - - - -
3 1 1 1 1 - - - - - -
4 2 1 1 1 1 - - - - -
5 2 2 1 1 1 1 - - - -
6 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 - - -
7 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 - -
8 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 -
9 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
(Sorry the tables are crooked -- the forum won't let me add extra spaces and such.) |
Hell hath no fury like all of Candlekeep rising in defense of one of its own.
Download the brickfilm masterpiece by Leftfield Studios! See this page for more. |
|
|
|
Bookwyrm
Great Reader
USA
4740 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jun 2003 : 17:36:12
|
And here's the other one I want to address today. Why, pray tell, is there an ultimate cap on the number of spells per day for each spell level? No matter how much a bard or wizard progresses in class levels, (s)he can never gain cast more than 4 spells of a particular level before adding bonus spells. Same with clerics, druids, and sorcerers, where the first two have a limit of 5 and the latter one of 6. And when any character’s spellcasting class reaches 21st level, spells per day don’t accumulate at all.
This seems to make little sense in game balance, and absolutely none logically. Why would things suddenly just stop like this? It makes no sense that in real life (even bearing in mind that this is fiction) a spellcaster would not gain in power with more experience. And I’m not talking just after Epic level; this comes into play well before that.
Am I the only one who feels this way? Don’t you think it needs some changing? |
Hell hath no fury like all of Candlekeep rising in defense of one of its own.
Download the brickfilm masterpiece by Leftfield Studios! See this page for more. |
|
|
|
branmakmuffin
Senior Scribe
USA
428 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jun 2003 : 18:31:05
|
Why no 0-level ranger and paladin spells? I give them the 0-level druid and cleric spells, respectively.
No, it doesn't make any sense that spell casters stop gaining spells cast per day. It's arbitrary.
Sage:
I think there are truly bad mechanics. Shadow Run is a perfect example. They were way too annoying to figure out, so we switched mechanics to GURPS. Recon is another. An example from Recon is the hit location chart. It's very detailed (it has "larynx" on it), but nowhere in the rules does it say what happens if a PC takes X amount of damage or X% of hit points to his larynx.
1e and 2e are two others. They are so arbitrary you can't play them without constantly referring to the rules. A well-designed game system doesn't use charts and tables, it uses rules from which you can easily calculate stuff during play. Take overcoming a target's spell resistance. In 1e and 2e, you have to consult a table of random numbers to find out how well the target resists. In Basic Role Playing, you only need compare the statistic Power of the attacker to that of the defender and, knowing the general rule, you can easily calculate the chance. |
Edited by - branmakmuffin on 24 Jun 2003 07:22:26 |
|
|
|
Bookwyrm
Great Reader
USA
4740 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jun 2003 : 20:45:33
|
| Yes, I thought about that no-0-spells for rangers and paladins and prestige classes. I was planning on looking for some to add. |
Hell hath no fury like all of Candlekeep rising in defense of one of its own.
Download the brickfilm masterpiece by Leftfield Studios! See this page for more. |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jun 2003 : 11:25:11
|
branmakmuffin said -
quote:
Why no 0-level ranger and paladin spells? I give them the 0-level druid and cleric spells, respectively.
I have always done the same thing, basically as far back as when 3e was new. The useage of Druid and Cleric orison spells just seemed to be the right choice.
As for the cap on the number of spells per day, well...I have always thought this was a very limiting aspect of the D&D magic system. Like everything else that is affected when a PC advances in level, the spell cap should also be expanded as well, illustrating the power mastery of magic that the spellcaster commands.
I had toyed with the idea a while back of trying to create a system that expanded the cap as well as all the other advances a PC gains when he progresses, maybe somebody here has some ideas.
May all your learning be free and unfettered
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Bookwyrm
Great Reader
USA
4740 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jun 2003 : 12:16:00
|
| I have, actually. I saw a particular pattern in the way spellcasters (except sorcerers) gain spells per day. I just extended it for the classes. |
Hell hath no fury like all of Candlekeep rising in defense of one of its own.
Download the brickfilm masterpiece by Leftfield Studios! See this page for more. |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
|
|
Bookwyrm
Great Reader
USA
4740 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jun 2003 : 12:38:18
|
I'm glad you like it. Just to make it clear for others what I'm talking about, here is the extended pattern for clerics (minus domain slots), druids, and wizards:
Wizard spells per day
L- - 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9
01 - 3 - 1
02 - 4 - 2
03 - 4 - 2 - 1
04 - 5 - 3 - 2
05 - 5 - 3 - 2 - 1
06 - 5 - 3 - 3 - 2
07 - 6 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1
08 - 6 - 4 - 3 - 3 - 2
09 - 6 - 4 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1
10 - 6 - 4 - 4 - 3 - 3 - 2
11 - 7 - 5 - 4 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1
12 - 7 - 5 - 4 - 4 - 3 - 3 - 2
13 - 7 - 5 - 5 - 4 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1
14 - 7 - 5 - 5 - 4 - 4 - 3 - 3 - 2
15 - 7 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 4 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1
16 - 8 - 6 - 5 - 5 - 4 - 4 - 3 - 3 - 2
17 - 8 - 6 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 4 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1
18 - 8 - 6 - 6 - 5 - 5 - 4 - 4 - 3 - 3 - 2
19 - 8 - 6 - 6 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 4 - 4 - 3 - 2
20 - 8 - 6 - 6 - 6 - 5 - 5 - 4 - 4 - 3 - 3
However, I must point out that this is not what I'm proposing for the revised version. Clerics and druids should get a few more spells per day than wizards, the way they do in the original. But that's the pattern, anyway. |
Hell hath no fury like all of Candlekeep rising in defense of one of its own.
Download the brickfilm masterpiece by Leftfield Studios! See this page for more. |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
|
|
Topic |
|
New Rules and Rulings
