|
Some people love paladins and rangers getting spells. Other people hate it. Some don't care. I personally think it ought to be possible to make all three of these viewpoints fairly happy.
Right now neither class starts with spells, and both get various special abilities. I would propose that both classes be given the option for spells (as nromal for their SRD class write-ups_, OR some boosted natural ability. For example, paladins could choose to be either Templars ("temple priests" who gain some divine spellcasting) or Justicars (with natural abilities to detect lies and chaos, and more smites per day). You might even ofter a third option that could be taken at the same time. (Or make special mounts another flexible option, so a character could pick any 2 of Cavalier, Redeemer, Justicar, and Templar for example.)
The point is, this makes these classes more flexible, minimizes rewriting existing characters (they can just take the spellcasting option if it's critical to their character), but give a balanced, uniform option for players and GMs who prefer to not deal with hybrid spellcasters, or remove the spell option entirely in their own campaigns.
i have to agree with that totally. Options and more options are good especially if its one book and i don't have to flick through dozens of books to discover what i'm searching for!!
Well done Owen!!
|
|
Some people love paladins and rangers getting spells. Other people hate it. Some don't care. I personally think it ought to be possible to make all three of these viewpoints fairly happy.
I completely agree. I love the variant class abilities that came along in various sourcebooks, and would like to see at least some options along these lines for each of the core classes.
|
I agree it should be an option, but please stay away from 'alternate class abilities' that the WOTC books have been doing over the last couple of years, adding obfustication to the rules.
Either build it into a class feature choice (like the Wizard's Bonded Object or Familiar choice) or have the variant based on taking a feat.
That way the choice that a character can take is clear and understood.
Thanks!
I was thinking of having a Prestige Class for the Ranger's spells, but I think this might be a better idea.
The point is, this makes these classes more flexible, minimizes rewriting existing characters (they can just take the spellcasting option if it's critical to their character), but give a balanced, uniform option for players and GMs who prefer to not deal with hybrid spellcasters, or remove the spell option entirely in their own campaigns.
Good idea, Cook did that with the champion & witch classes in UA, my players enjoyed it a lot!
So in other words ape 4E? I'm not trying to seem negative or nothing but just sayin...... (Is a fan of 4E)
As someone who loves paladin/ranger spells for some of my characters, and hates them for others, depending on the concept, I could not agree more. Having the alternative to cast spells or do something else (beyond simply choosing bonus feats) would be great.
Regarding class variants and substitution levels, I must say that I love them. Not all of them, of course, but I hope that those I like stay compatible with the Pathfinder system (considering Paizo cannot include them as options without copyright issues).
This post echoes all my thoughts (except that there's really nothing inherently wrong with bonus feats). Thanks!