Post/Author/DateTime	Post
HyperactiveBuffalo 02-07-06, 01:33 PM	I want an opinion across the board on the following adjustments to the core classes. These are for customization in a campaign I am running, but I want to know if they are overpowered (in general they are improvements.) --- Sorcerer: It is often agreed upon on these boards that the sorcerer is underpowered as compared to the wizard. I tend to agree with this statement, and as a 'fix' to this, as well as because it logically makes sense to me that they would have it anyways, I suggest that Sorcerers be given a d6 hit di instead of d4. I also feel they should receive the Diplomacy class skill. I am of the opinion that the sorcerer as described, someone who spends their life on the road, and tends to get into trouble occasionally, would have hitpoints roughly similar to the rogue, another vagabond type character, and not a wizard who is described as being a cloistered pale skinned book reading man. As for diplomacy as a class skill... it just seems to fit the writeup of them, as well as how most are played, and seems a subtle enough change that it doesn't bring balance into question. --- Cleric: The Cleric is said to spend much of his time in prayer and contemplation, and he spends alot of the rest of his time walking among the masses and healing them, as well as giving sermon. The Paladin on the other hand is a holy warrior. As such I feel that the Cleric makes more sense to have a d6 as well, rather than their D8. However, I am strongly of the opinion that preperation of spells is quite silly for someone that has been gifted magic by a divinity, so I think that clerics should be spontaneous casters (rather than the spontaneous healing they currently have.). This stems from my opinion that the cleric is oriented too strongly toward combat, when their actual spells work far better in a secondary supplementary role, and to me, their writeup supports this. With the paladin as a core class the cleric seems to overlap too heavily, and I want to stress the support aspect of them instead. --- Wizard: I feel the Wizard should lose profession as a class skill. There is no reason I can imagine that a wizard, who is uber specialized, would be able to make coin at anything but wizarding. Perhaps a specific profession, Profession: Augerer, or Profession: Astrologer would work, but not ALL professions. So instead, I suggest they recieve any 1 profession as a class skill. --- Ranger: I feel the Ranger should recieve Intimidate as class skills. This represents the subtle threatening nature inherent to the moutnain men. I also feel they should recieve tumble as a class skill, representing their natural dexterity and litheness. --- What do you all think? I await the firepower to be loosed upon me.
Arcade 02-07-06, 01:43 PM	In general, they're not bad. The skill change for the wizard is probably unnecessary- how many wizards really take profession when spellcraft and the knowledge skills are available. The biggest problem I see is the cleric's spontaneous casting. Very overpowered. Clerics are considered to be very powerful as it is, and adding spontaneous casting is too much. If you are going to do that, you need to follow the sorcerer route and trim their spell lists drastically by making them have an individual list of spells like a bard or sorcerer. You can also look at the Favored Soul in Complete Divine, which is a spontaneous caster.
SilvercatMoonpaw 02-07-06, 03:56 PM	The biggest problem I see is the cleric's spontaneous casting. Very overpowered. Clerics are considered to be very powerful as it is, and adding spontaneous casting is too much. If you are going to do that, you need to follow the sorcerer route and trim their spell lists drastically by making them have an individual list of spells like a bard or sorcerer. You can also look at the Favored Soul in Complete Divine, which is a spontaneous caster. Unearthed Arcana actually presents a conversion of the cleric into a spontaneous caster. Furthermore it presents the Cloistered Cleric, which assumes a sort of Medevil monk character shut-in, but which might give you an idea of how to make the cleric less combat-focused. They both can be found for free at some place called the SRD Hyperlink. Arcade? The Favored Soul has access to all the cleric spells.
Hodo 02-07-06, 05:51 PM	Double Post
Hodo 02-07-06, 05:52 PM	These look good. The Battle Sorcerer from Unearthed Arcana is a much better representation of the "wandering advneturer who discovers they have magical powers". Just replace the d8 with d6 and change some skills. I agree that the cleric and paladin are far too similar in general concept (heavily armored holy warrior) to warrant distinct classes, and endorse Silver's suggestion to go with the Cloistered Cleric from Unearthed Arcana. I personaly see the paladin as a bunch of trouble that could be so easily avoided with a cleric/fighter. Most importantly, we can finally easily make lawful neutral "judges" and evil "anti-paladins"!
Chimera245 02-07-06, 06:12 PM	Another idea is to eliminate the Paladin, or change it into a Prestige class instead. There's rules for that in Unearthed Arcana, too. Then you can let the Cleric have the choice of filling the "armored holy warrior" role.
scienceman47 02-08-06, 09:26 PM	Granting hit die to a sorceror is bad. I recommend increased skill points, and skills like diplomacy and intimidate. I can see a sorceror threatening peasants with burning eyes and lightning crackling from thier fingers.
Hodo 02-08-06, 09:40 PM	The battle sorcerer increases hit die, but reduces spells known, as well as the number of spells per day by 1. So they can take damage better, but they aren't as effective at dishing it out via magic.
Yak of Darkness 02-09-06, 04:29 AM	Arcade? The Favored Soul has access to all the cleric spells.Um . . . in the sense that they have access to all the cleric spells for the purpose of adding them to his limited "spells known" list, sure. What the OP was talking about (as he didn't suggest any limit to spells known . . . so even if that's not what he meant, it's what he was talking about ;) ) and what Arcade was responding to was the idea of giving the cleric spontaneous casting a la the warmage, who just uses his class spell list as the spells known list. That would be overpowered for the cleric.
HyperactiveBuffalo 02-09-06, 04:03 PM	I meant to introduce a spells known list. Basically have them choose spells just like a sorcerer does, but not have to prepare.
Yak of Darkness 02-09-06, 04:41 PM	I meant to introduce a spells known list. Basically have them choose spells just like a sorcerer does, but not have to prepare.In that case, you definitely ought to look at the CD Favored Soul. With the unprepared casting and loss of heavy armor proficiency, WotC has done a lot of your work for you. Even if you don't end up liking/using it, it'll get you a good springboard to start from.
Dragonblade275 02-09-06, 04:46 PM	Sorcerer: It is often agreed upon on these boards that the sorcerer is underpowered as compared to the wizard. I tend to agree with this statement, and as a 'fix' to this, as well as because it logically makes sense to me that they would have it anyways, I suggest that Sorcerers be given a d6 hit di instead of d4. I also feel they should receive the Diplomacy class skill. I am of the opinion that the sorcerer as described, someone who spends their life on the road, and tends to get into trouble occasionally, would have hitpoints roughly similar to the rogue, another vagabond type character, and not a wizard who is described as being a cloistered pale skinned book reading man. As for diplomacy as a class skill... it just seems to fit the writeup of them, as well as how most are played, and seems a subtle enough change that it doesn't bring balance into question.I think the d6 hit dice would be too much without further limiting their spells known and cutting back on the number of spells they can cast per day. Sorcerers are very powerful next to wizards, especially if the UA spellpoint system is used. Most of the complaints I've read about the weakness of the sorcerer come from folks advocating that the character take the first available prestige class with +1 level of prior arcane spellcasting class. I personally don't use such prestige classes, so sorcerers don't have that option in my game. Folks have already mentioned the Battle Sorcerer and it sounds like what you're looking for. More next post...
Dragonblade275 02-09-06, 04:58 PM	Cleric: The Cleric is said to spend much of his time in prayer and contemplation, and he spends alot of the rest of his time walking among the masses and healing them, as well as giving sermon. The Paladin on the other hand is a holy warrior. As such I feel that the Cleric makes more sense to have a d6 as well, rather than their D8. However, I am strongly of the opinion that preperation of spells is quite silly for someone that has been gifted magic by a divinity, so I think that clerics should be spontaneous casters (rather than the spontaneous healing they currently have.). This stems from my opinion that the cleric is oriented too strongly toward combat, when their actual spells work far better in a secondary supplementary role, and to me, their writeup supports this. With the paladin as a core class the cleric seems to overlap too heavily, and I want to stress the support aspect of them instead.Clerics are also based on orders of holy knights. The Paladin is just a slightly more combat oriented cleric with better hit die type, a few minor special abilities, a better list of class skills, etc... I believe it is balanced against the cleric, though I personally prefer a fighter/cleric multiclass as I'm not a fan of the Paladin's mount and I like the Fighter's bonus feats. I'll leave the Cleric at d8 and take a hard look at the Cloistered Cleric. I actually want to make a 3.5 Crusader (I read about them in a second edition book) with d10 hit die type, good BAB progression, good fort and will saves, a vastly reduced list of spell list and spells per day, and some minor special abilities. Making Clerics spontaneous casters would be fine if they had a limited list of spells known like the Sorcerer (as far as number of spells goes). My Crusader would probably have an even shorter list. Personally, I upped the hit die size of all non-primary spellcasters. Paladins get a d12 and Clerics stay at d8. Barbarians get the mysterious d16 (hehehe....).
Yak of Darkness 02-09-06, 05:00 PM	I think the d6 hit dice would be too much without further limiting their spells known and cutting back on the number of spells they can cast per day. Sorcerers are very powerful next to wizards, especially if the UA spellpoint system is used.Are you kidding? The UA spellpoint system practically makes sorcerers worthless. The sorcerer keeps his edge on spells/day through having more points, but the wizard gains the ability to cast his spells on the fly, with a brand spankin' new "spells known" list every day. And blasting magic (one of the things the sorcerer is generally considered "better at" than the wizard) takes a hit, as you have to pay extra to ramp the damage of your spells up, without any of the benefits of the psionic augmentation system (such is the problem with using spellpoints in a magic system that wasn't designed with them in mind). If you want to play with spellpoints, use psionics. But if you have to choose an arcanist, then you might as well go with the wizard. Spellpoint sorcerers are pointless.
Dragonblade275 02-09-06, 05:03 PM	Ranger: I feel the Ranger should recieve Intimidate as class skills. This represents the subtle threatening nature inherent to the moutnain men. I also feel they should recieve tumble as a class skill, representing their natural dexterity and litheness.I think Rangers should have a Ranger Bonus Feat list instead of being locked into a Combat Style. You might want to look at the Waking Lands' Ranger (http://www.wakinglands.com/htm_files/classes_ranger.htm) by one of the authors of Races of the Dragon, Kolja Raven Liquette. Personally, I like it a lot better than the core Ranger, but I use my own Ranger variant which is a mixture of Kolja's and the core Ranger.
Dragonblade275 02-09-06, 05:16 PM	Originally Posted by Dragonblade275 I think the d6 hit dice would be too much without further limiting their spells known and cutting back on the number of spells they can cast per day. Sorcerers are very powerful next to wizards, especially if the UA spellpoint system is used.Are you kidding? The UA spellpoint system practically makes sorcerers worthless. The sorcerer keeps his edge on spells/day through having more points, but the wizard gains the ability to cast his spells on the fly, with a brand spankin' new "spells known" list every day.I disagree. The wizard isn't able to prepare more spells per day than the sorcerer, so he's still limited. Also, the wizard has to pay just as much to increase the power of his spells in spell points while having less to do it with. Also, I'm keeping in mind that the spell points per day need adjusted as they were published before the Expanded Psionics handbook. I've adjusted them upwards. And blasting magic (one of the things the sorcerer is generally considered "better at" than the wizard) takes a hit, as you have to pay extra to ramp the damage of your spells up, without any of the benefits of the psionic augmentation system (such is the problem with using spellpoints in a magic system that wasn't designed with them in mind).The system can be modified. We are talking houserules, aren't we? And I do agree with UA that the Sorcerer needs more spells known if all the casters become spontaneous casters. So, I've taken that into account, too.If you want to play with spellpoints, use psionics.I don't really care for psionics. I allow players to play them, but I'm pretty hum-ho about psionics.But if you have to choose an arcanist, then you might as well go with the wizard. Spellpoint sorcerers are pointless.Not when a wizard will have a shorter list of spells ready to cast every day and less spell points to do it with. The wizard's only saving grace is that he can have a different list of spells readied tomorrow (if he has them in his spellbooks and has time to prepare them). Let me ask you a question... How many spells per day would you let a wizard prepare when using spell points? How does that compare to what you would let a sorcerer prepare?
Yak of Darkness 02-09-06, 05:43 PM	Let me ask you a question... How many spells per day would you let a wizard prepare when using spell points? How does that compare to what you would let a sorcerer prepare?Bad question for two reasons: The spellpoint sorcerer doesn't prepare his spells (for his "known" list). He's still stuck with his spell choices for at least a level, just as a normal PHB sorcerer is. The whole concept of "preparation" is completely foreign to the sorcerer. This is a big boon to the sorcerer in a normal game (the only boon, really . . . as extra spells per day is nice, but not so much if the wizard's casting higher-level spells than you), as he never runs into the "why didn't I get an extra fireball?" problem (although he has to limit himself on utility magic, due to his small known list). But using UA spellpoints also lets the wizard avoid that problem, while giving him the added flexibility of a daily "known" list, all in addition to the wizard's normal advantages of being able to cast higher-level spells eariler, add extra spells to his book beyond what is gained through level-up, and the miscellaneous class bonuses (bonus feats, better skills, more skill points through Int synergy). I can understand (even if I don't necessarily agree with) arguments that the sorcerer isn't worse off than the wizard in a normal game. But when using UA spellpoints, there's no question. I wouldn't use either the spellpoint wizard or sorcerer, because I think the UA system is flawed. ;) Although, really, clerics benefit from UA spellpoints the most, what with the adding of domain spells and cure/inflict spells to the "known" list for free, as well as a spell list that doesn't normally have effects requiring extra dice (meaning they don't often need to pay in extra points). But that's neither here nor there. Of course, you can take the UA stuff, then change it to give the sorcerers more spells known, or maybe change some of the spells to allow for more versatility. You can also then find a way to make the paying for extra dice not a total waste, possibly by adding something similar to the XPH's augmentation, but at that point you might as well be using psionics anyway. Otherwise, you have to go out of your way and spend a lot more time to force something into maybe working as well as the psi system (which you could've gotten from the SRD for free all along :P ).
Fargren 02-09-06, 06:19 PM	The spell-point sistem just doesn't work becuase the spells are not thuoght in function of the system. A level 17 wizard can cast about 20 gates per day(I'm not sure about the number, I don't have UA at hand), and that REAL broken. If you want a spell-point system, I recomend using psionics, and changing the flavor if you don't like it.
Dragonblade275 02-09-06, 07:36 PM	Let me ask you a question... How many spells per day would you let a wizard prepare when using spell points? How does that compare to what you would let a sorcerer prepare?Bad question for two reasons: The spellpoint sorcerer doesn't prepare his spells (for his "known" list). He's still stuck with his spell choices for at least a level, just as a normal PHB sorcerer is.True. This is a drawback to being a sorcerer.The whole concept of "preparation" is completely foreign to the sorcerer. This is a big boon to the sorcerer in a normal game (the only boon, really . . . as extra spells per day is nice, but not so much if the wizard's casting higher-level spells than you), as he never runs into the "why didn't I get an extra fireball?" problem (although he has to limit himself on utility magic, due to his small known list).OK.But using UA spellpoints also lets the wizard avoid that problem, while giving him the added flexibility of a daily "known" list, all in addition to the wizard's normal advantages of being able to cast higher-level spells eariler, add extra spells to his book beyond what is gained through level-up, and the miscellaneous class bonuses (bonus feats, better skills, more skill points through Int synergy).It doesn't matter how many spells are in your spellbook if you don't have the right ones prepared (or don't know them) or can't cast them because you're out of slots/points (which the wizard will run out of faster). Ultimately, the wizard and sorcerer are fairly well balanced against each other. I prefer the sorcerer as I don't tend to play characters that would want to vary their readied spells much on a day to day basis and I like the ability to cast more spells per day.I can understand (even if I don't necessarily agree with) arguments that the sorcerer isn't worse off than the wizard in a normal game. But when using UA spellpoints, there's no question.I agree about the normal game, however I prefer spell points. UA's spellpoints might need modified for some (but then a variant of a variant is still a variant). I've modified them and they work for me and the sorcerer is quite nice with spellpoints and one extra spell known per level. I wouldn't use either the spellpoint wizard or sorcerer, because I think the UA system is flawed. ;) To each his own. I agree that the UA system isn't perfect. I've modified it, myself. It's the idea I like.Although, really, clerics benefit from UA spellpoints the most, what with the adding of domain spells and cure/inflict spells to the "known" list for free, as well as a spell list that doesn't normally have effects requiring extra dice (meaning they don't often need to pay in extra points). But that's neither here nor there.If I were voting on which class was the 'toughest', I'd have to say that clerics are the toughest (though, not my favorite for flavor reasons).Of course, you can take the UA stuff, then change it to give the sorcerers more spells known, or maybe change some of the spells to allow for more versatility.Both, good ideas. I have added one spell known per spell level to the sorcerer.You can also then find a way to make the paying for extra dice not a total waste, possibly by adding something similar to the XPH's augmentation, but at that point you might as well be using psionics anyway.I actually believe that having to use more spell points to get a better fireball (for example) makes the spells more balanced. Of course, folks will disagree with me (and that's their choice).Otherwise, you have to go out of your way and spend a lot more time to force something into maybe working as well as the psi system (which you could've gotten from the SRD for free all along :P ).I actually think that the modifications I've made to the spellpoint system from UA will make it work as well as the psionic system. The flavor of psionics is what I don't particularly care for. How it works is fine.
Dragonblade275 02-09-06, 07:42 PM	The spell-point sistem just doesn't work becuase the spells are not thuoght in function of the system. A level 17 wizard can cast about 20 gates per day(I'm not sure about the number, I don't have UA at hand), and that REAL broken. If you want a spell-point system, I recomend using psionics, and changing the flavor if you don't like it.If the level 17 wizard just wants to use it as a cool travel spell, what's the problem? However, if they want to gate in creatures, their gonna pay quite heavily. I don't see any wizard doing this 20 times at 17th level in one day. 20,000 XP is too hard to come by in a day's time in my game. And, even if it would be gained in a day, there are better uses for XP.
Fargren 02-09-06, 08:25 PM	I just choose a powerfull spell. I forgot about the xp cos. That was not the piont. The point is spells tjhat don't deal damage are really overpowered under the spellpoint system.
Yak of Darkness 02-09-06, 09:08 PM	This has probably gotten more than a little off-topic at this point, but I do wonder about one thing: It doesn't matter how many spells are in your spellbook if you don't have the right ones prepared (or don't know them) or can't cast them because you're out of slots/points (which the wizard will run out of faster).Why is it that you consider the possibility of not having the right spell only a weakness of the wizard, and not the sorcerer, especially in a spellpoint system (where the wizard doesn't need to worry about preparing multiple copies of the same spell, or other such nonsense)? I mean, it's entirely possibly a wizard will find himself with all the wrong spells for a situation, but if he was smart enough to prepare at least one "escape route" in his spells, he can always come back tomorrow with a new set, especially picked for the occasion. The escape route preparation works even better in spellpoints, as you don't need to worry about prepping more than one dimension door, say, in case there is an ambush later on. You just count it as one of your "known" spells for the day, and if it doesn't come up more than once, you haven't wasted anything (and even if it never comes up that day, it's better safe than sorry). But the sorcerer has no such luxury. If he finds himself with all the wrong spells for a situation, he has to wait at least a level before he can change his "spells known" list. The sorcerer doesn't even have any real advantage on spells known, depending on the level*, and he really is SOL if there is something he doesn't have the right spells for. And all this for a whopping 17 extra spell points over the wizard at 20th level? No, UA spellpoints don't do anything in the sorcerer's favor. * A wizard, for example, will always have more 9th level spells prepped for the day than a sorcerer will have 9th level spells known. Hell, at 20th level, the wizard will have one more 9th, 8th, 7th, and 6th level spell than the sorcerer. What does the sorcerer get? One more 1st and 2nd level spell known, and five more cantrips known. That'll show the bad guys! I'm pretty sure you can find a single ninth-level spell you'd want access to that's worth seven low-level spells (and only two above level 0!). The fact the wizard gets an additional extra spell at the lower three levels on top of all this . . . well, I certainly have a reason for not liking UA's spellpoints.
HypnoticMonk 02-10-06, 12:52 PM	As someone who has studied statistics and probabilities, I am always amazed when I read "Oh no, a D6 will give too many hit points compared to a D4". On average, the difference is only 1 HP per level. Given that fact, if you have a sorceror with the feat Improved Toughness and a rogue without it, they will average the same HP total (all other things being equal). Should we ban that feat for a sorceror or wizard? will we declare that no arcane caster will have a constitution higher than a rogue? The only advantage a D6 has is that occasionally a "6" will come up. But it will actually come up less often (16.66...%) than a "4" will come up on a D4 (25%). So the D6 will only come up with a roll that a D4+1 can't beat in one out of 6 rolls... [As an aside, this reminds me of when I analyzed a fighter character someone showed me in college. He was 10th level , and after I subtracted the HPs from his CON bonus, he had 98 hit points that Supposedly he had rolled a LOT of 10s to get. I showed him that his odds of doing so was PowerBall lottery level odds. ( You should have seen his DM's face at that point...)] Just a word or two from an ex-math geek...
Dragonblade275 02-10-06, 05:22 PM	This has probably gotten more than a little off-topic at this point,...True enough......but I do wonder about one thing:It doesn't matter how many spells are in your spellbook if you don't have the right ones prepared (or don't know them) or can't cast them because you're out of slots/points (which the wizard will run out of faster).Why is it that you consider the possibility of not having the right spell only a weakness of the wizard, and not the sorcerer, especially in a spellpoint system (where the wizard doesn't need to worry about preparing multiple copies of the same spell, or other such nonsense)?That's a pretty good question. It's mainly because of the way I've seen them played. A Sorcerer, in my experience, usually focuses on doing one thing well. They know what they are ready for and are well aware of their capabilities. A wizard, being more of a jack of all arcane trades, isn't always as intimately familiar with what they can do. Sorcerers are more focused because their spells known don't really change (at least not often).I mean, it's entirely possibly a wizard will find himself with all the wrong spells for a situation, but if he was smart enough to prepare at least one "escape route" in his spells, he can always come back tomorrow with a new set, especially picked for the occasion.True. It's also true that the sorcerer might not know the right spells at all and might have to recruit other means of overcoming the obstacle/situation. They can both get through it. It just might require different means to get to the same ends. Also, the sorcerer might have an edge here with the higher charisma. The wizard might not be able to always get the right spell. He might not have access to it and might need to recruit other means. Since it's likely that the wizard's charisma will be lower than the sorcerer's (given an equal set of scores), it's likely the sorcerer will have access to other means beyond just magic. That's not to say that the wizard couldn't accomplish the same thing. There would just be different means to get to the end.The escape route preparation works even better in spellpoints, as you don't need to worry about prepping more than one dimension door, say, in case there is an ambush later on. You just count it as one of your "known" spells for the day, and if it doesn't come up more than once, you haven't wasted anything (and even if it never comes up that day, it's better safe than sorry).True enough and this is why the sorcerer needs one more spell known per level in the spell point system. The wizard encroaches on the sorcerer's terf in the spell point system.But the sorcerer has no such luxury. If he finds himself with all the wrong spells for a situation, he has to wait at least a level before he can change his "spells known" list. The sorcerer doesn't even have any real advantage on spells known, depending on the level*, and he really is SOL if there is something he doesn't have the right spells for.Which is why charisma is doubly important for the sorcerer. There's more than one way to accomplish most things and charisma has it's advantages.And all this for a whopping 17 extra spell points over the wizard at 20th level? No, UA spellpoints don't do anything in the sorcerer's favor.True. I did state earlier in the thread that UA was published before the XPH and that I don't believe that I'm the only one who thinks that had the XPH been published first that the sorcerer would have had more spell points in relation to the wizard. This is an easy enough do-it-yourself fix. * A wizard, for example, will always have more 9th level spells prepped for the day than a sorcerer will have 9th level spells known. Hell, at 20th level, the wizard will have one more 9th, 8th, 7th, and 6th level spell than the sorcerer. What does the sorcerer get? One more 1st and 2nd level spell known, and five more cantrips known. That'll show the bad guys!Actually, the wizard won't. A 20th level wizard would have to have a 19 intelligence to cast 9th level spells. With bonus spells for high intelligence factored in, a wizard will have 5 spells readied of levels 1-5 and 4 spells readied of levels 6-10. The sorcerer, on the other hand, will have 6 level 1 & 2 spells, 5 3rd, 4th, & 5th, and 4 7th, 8th, & 9th. (Remember, UA does suggest giving the sorcerer one additional spell known per spell level.) So they will have comparitively the same number of spells ready to go each day. The sorcerer just has to be more careful when initially selecting them. And, the sorcerer still has more spell points (and we've already discussed that the UA numbers need some adjustment because of the XPH which would further emphasize the difference between the sorcerer's spell points and the wizard's... in my world a 20th level sorcerer will have about 75% more spell points than a 20th level wizard).I'm pretty sure you can find a single ninth-level spell you'd want access to that's worth seven low-level spells (and only two above level 0!). The fact the wizard gets an additional extra spell at the lower three levels on top of all this . . . well, I certainly have a reason for not liking UA's spellpoints.And you're entitled to it. :D I certainly have my reaons for liking it! :D
Dragonblade275 02-10-06, 05:34 PM	As someone who has studied statistics and probabilities, I am always amazed when I read "Oh no, a D6 will give too many hit points compared to a D4". On average, the difference is only 1 HP per level. Given that fact, if you have a sorceror with the feat Improved Toughness and a rogue without it, they will average the same HP total (all other things being equal). Should we ban that feat for a sorceror or wizard? will we declare that no arcane caster will have a constitution higher than a rogue? The only advantage a D6 has is that occasionally a "6" will come up. But it will actually come up less often (16.66...%) than a "4" will come up on a D4 (25%). So the D6 will only come up with a roll that a D4+1 can't beat in one out of 6 rolls... [As an aside, this reminds me of when I analyzed a fighter character someone showed me in college. He was 10th level , and after I subtracted the HPs from his CON bonus, he had 98 hit points that Supposedly he had rolled a LOT of 10s to get. I showed him that his odds of doing so was PowerBall lottery level odds. ( You should have seen his DM's face at that point...)] Just a word or two from an ex-math geek...I appreciate the input. The player was playing the wrong game if they rolled those hit points. Two things. 1. Not everyone rolls their hit points. Of those that roll their hit points, not everyone does it the same way. There are many houserules for different ways of doing it. 2. In our game, the PC's are a cut above and always get max hit points on every hit die. We treat it just like skill points. We don't roll skill points so we don't roll hit points. The character's are gonna need every single one of 'em anyway. Also, the Dread Necromancer (probably my favorite class, even though I've never played one) compared to the Battle Sorcerer shows what kind of variation there is room for in changing the sorcerer. Both have d6 size HD or better, but both have drawbacks a regular sorcerer won't have to deal with. Thanks for the math! :D