User talk:Franken Kesey/Class Purchasing (3.5e Variant Rule)/Conventional

Why These Fail
As written, rage is just as valuable as bard casting. Which is obviously not true. Bump it up to 4, then bard casting becomes the same as full casting. So no, I don't think this is viable no matter how you dice it. - TG Cid 23:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Moderate spell-casting should cost less than full spell-casting. A few options are: 1) rage getting bumped down one (and more downward shifting), or 2) all spell-casting getting shifted up (full at 5, moderate at 4, and minor at 3).


 * I have no clue how to balance paladin, monk, or soulknife features in this system. Any help in this matter would be appreciated. (There is an area of hidden text that may help explain why some features are where they are.)


 * Are there any other issues with feature placement?


 * As a concept – once theses details are worked out – is it agreeable? --Franken Kesey 00:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The big -- and by big, I mean Macro-Titanic -- issue is that you can trade features of static utility (like feats) for features of ever-increasing utility (like spells and powers). So long as that is the case, this will never be workable. You need to find a way to ensure that what you buy is just as static as what you sell. --DanielDraco