Difference between revisions of "Talk:Militant Spellcaster (3.5e Alternate Class Feature)"
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Ghostwheel (talk | contribs) |
Ghostwheel (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Is this overpowered? Should I also give them light armor proficiency, and allow them to spellcast in it with no penalty?[[User:The Dire Reverend|The Dire Reverend]] 20:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC) | Is this overpowered? Should I also give them light armor proficiency, and allow them to spellcast in it with no penalty?[[User:The Dire Reverend|The Dire Reverend]] 20:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
| − | : I'd say so. Compare to the duskblade (PHB2) or the [[UA:Sorcerer_Variant:_Battle_Sorcerer|battle sorcerer]]. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 00:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC) | + | : I'd say so. Compare to the duskblade (PHB2) or the [[UA:Sorcerer_Variant:_Battle_Sorcerer|battle sorcerer]]. Just the full BAB tells meleers "screw you" even in Tome games that use The Edge. Already giving them that is too much, no need to give them armor prof on top. At the very least I'd reduce it to medium BAB. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 00:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:04, 15 February 2011
Overpowered
Is this overpowered? Should I also give them light armor proficiency, and allow them to spellcast in it with no penalty?The Dire Reverend 20:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say so. Compare to the duskblade (PHB2) or the battle sorcerer. Just the full BAB tells meleers "screw you" even in Tome games that use The Edge. Already giving them that is too much, no need to give them armor prof on top. At the very least I'd reduce it to medium BAB. --Ghostwheel 00:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
