Playable Character Races and Classes

[HobGoblin42]

This is still the Codex. Did you think getting your own forums here will suddenly make us all nice and polite?

I've never expected that, but other developers like my colleagues (who are new to the Codex) have other standards and their threshold is lower. So, please don't blame them - I am glad that I still have sane co-workers in that project.

And I've never attacked your arguments, but you shouldn't complain if people quit a discussion if the disagreement becomes too obvious (->'plain bullshit')

 

[Excidium]

There's a difference between being blunt and being an overreacting moron.

Calling something 'bullshit' is hardly being an 'overreacting moron', unless you have very large sensibilities

Not my fault you people can't read and start drawing conclusions and screaming DECLINE!!

Was I the only one that actually understood what the fuck the devs were saying?

 

[evdk]

There's a difference between being blunt and being an overreacting moron.

Calling something 'bullshit' is hardly being an 'overreacting moron', unless you have very large sensibilities

Not my fault you people can't read and start drawing conclusions and screaming DECLINE!!

Was I the only one that actually understood what the fuck the devs were saying?

Probably yes. You could have said something, you know, instead of smugly berating us after the fact.

 

[Gakkone]

There's a difference between being blunt and being an overreacting moron.

Calling something 'bullshit' is hardly being an 'overreacting moron', unless you have very large sensibilities

Not my fault you people can't read and start drawing conclusions and screaming DECLINE!!

Was I the only one that actually understood what the fuck the devs were saying?

Well, Ferdator did say 'We choose which new spells you learn on level-up' which can't be interpreted in too many ways and I didn't see him correct others when they reacted to that.

 

[Excidium]

There's a difference between being blunt and being an overreacting moron.

Calling something 'bullshit' is hardly being an 'overreacting moron', unless you have very large sensibilities

Not my fault you people can't read and start drawing conclusions and screaming DECLINE!!

Was I the only one that actually understood what the fuck the devs were saying?

Probably yes. You could have said something, you know, instead of smugly berating us after the fact.

Well last time I checked the thread only had 3 pages. Then suddenly this.

But smugly berating people and pointing their stupidity always feels great.

 

[Rpguy]

I can understand both sides of the argument , and while I do have some issues with the developers decisions so far, limiting spell progression is not one of them. Once you decide to let people choose spells freely there is no excitement in finding new spells and most people figure out the most powerful combination pretty quick ( fireballs, summons... ) . This is a good way to balance wizards which everyone agree are OP compared to other classes.
I believe that the main reason for the limited spell progression is so that the party's power does not get out of hand rather than "cater for stupid choices" and I am all fine by it.

Remember the might and magic / avernum games? you actually had to work to get spells and not "hey i am level 15 - lets pick the fly/teleportation spell"

 

[Vulcris]

Tbh, I'd even prefer no spell selection at all. If I remember well, in IWD you could end up with a pretty crappy spell selection if you had a few spell casters (and thus the need to share the wealth) and bad luck with random loot. It's kinda refreshing when you can only fill a spell level with crappy spells and have to find a usefulness for them instead of having the usual suspects.

 

[Gulnar]

If I remember well, in IWD you could end up with a pretty crappy spell selection if you had a few spell casters (and thus the need to share the wealth) and bad luck with random loot.

This. To be honest, it makes no sense tht a wizard, as soon as he reach a new level, suddenly know how to cast another spell. I mean, yes, experience, yes, you did indeed learn much from slaughtering that orc village, but how the hell did that exactly help you in understanding the fine formula of casting Evard BlackTentacles or Leomud Instant Harem? The most sensible choice - imho - would be that no spells on level up, restricting the gain of new magic from quests, drops, and vendors.

This way, you can both have control upon which spells are in the hand of a player and offer a degree of personalization (or rather, the illusion of).

 

[April]

If you have it this way, make sure Scribe Scroll is in, otherwise multiple wizards in a party would be screwed.

 

[HobGoblin42]

If you have it this way, make sure Scribe Scroll is in, otherwise multiple wizards in a party would be screwed.

It's already in. As soon as your wizard reaches a new level, he can scribe as many scrolls (of this spell level or lower) as he wants. In my opinion, learning spells from scrolls (or beeing taught) is much more believable than picking a spell from some imaginary list that only exists in the interface.

 

[April]

Any chance the game will react to say summoning zombies in town with the inquisition being summoned to hunt you down or such? Ie forcing practitioners of certain magic in a realistic way to lay low and thus having them be rarer?

An example of a botched attempt of that would be blood magic in DA where the lore says one thing but if you become a bloodmage there's no consequence at all, even if you use it in the middle of town.

 

[Rpguy]

If you have it this way, make sure Scribe Scroll is in, otherwise multiple wizards in a party would be screwed.

It's already in. As soon as your wizard reaches a new level, he can scribe as many scrolls (of this spell level or lower) as he wants. In my opinion, learning spells from scrolls (or beeing taught) is much more believable than picking a spell from some imaginary list that only exists in the interface.

This system + open world map to explore can be used to create hidden ( or not ) places in the game you can not go to without the proper spell - which is usually hard to find ( or as a special quest reward ) for example - a pool that can't be crossed without a walk on water spell or a very high mountain that can only be reached with a fly spell etc.
It is also nice to find in the late game a teleport to town spell.

 

[AbounI]

If you have it this way, make sure Scribe Scroll is in, otherwise multiple wizards in a party would be screwed.

It's already in. As soon as your wizard reaches a new level, he can scribe as many scrolls (of this spell level or lower) as he wants. In my opinion, learning spells from scrolls (or beeing taught) is much more believable than picking a spell from some imaginary list that only exists in the interface.

This system + open world map to explore can be used to create hidden ( or not ) places in the game you can not go to without the proper spell - which is usually hard to find ( or as a special quest reward ) for example - a pool that can't be crossed without a walk on water spell or a very high mountain that can only be reached with a fly spell etc.
It is also nice to find in the late game a teleport to town spell.

This reminds me one of the concept art

 

[JarlFrank]

Ooooh that's sexy!

 

[Maerimydra]

Choosing a single spell from a limited spell list when leveling up seems very reasonable. At least, if you have two or more wizards in your party, you can give them different spells when they level up. It also gives more importance to scrolls you buy or find. Are you going to spend your money on scrolls to give more spells to your wizard(s) or will you focus on providing better weapons and armors to your fighters?

I'm also fine with not gaining any new spell when leveling up, like in AD&D and the IE games. Since Wizards/Sorcerers are very powerful classes in 3.5 OGL, this is a reasonable nerf. It also sits well with the ''Old School'' vibe the devs want to give to CC.

About the no-multiclassing part, I'm curious. Will I be able to give Weapon Proeficiency (greatsword) to my Rogue or Wizard without multiclassing? In other words, will the various ''Weapon Proeficiency'' and ''Armor/Shield Proeficiency'' Feats will be featured in CC? I like playing Str-based Rogue/Fighter, but since this is not an option, I hope that I'll able to equip my Rogue with decent weapons and armor. I also like playing non-archetypical characters, like a greatsword-wielding sorceress.

Keep up the good work!

 

[Ferdator]

About the no-multiclassing part, I'm curious. Will I be able to give Weapon Proeficiency (greatsword) to my Rogue or Wizard without multiclassing? In other words, will the various ''Weapon Proeficiency'' and ''Armor/Shield Proeficiency'' Feats will be featured in CC? I like playing Str-based Rogue/Fighter, but since this is not an option, I hope that I'll able to equip my Rogue with decent weapons and armor. I also like playing non-archetypical characters, like a greatsword-wielding sorceress.

The feats for item proficiencies do not have any class prerequisites in OGL 3.5. Nor do they have in our game.

All classes do usually gain some of the proficiencies by default with character creation. But that doesn't prevent you from taking any missing one at a later time, when you are allowed to choose a new feat for your character.

 

[sxyz123]

You could introduce quests that create "mutually exclusive" options to learn different spells.
That way, you still control what's available, but not everyone is going to be the same.

Everyone may know "fireball" spell because you find it in a chest that you have trip over to reach the first exit.
But the warlock in the woods, will reward you for completing his quest by teaching you the secret of summoning undead or demons, but not both.
Maybe if you got two wizards, each one can make a choice....