4,650
edits
Changes
no edit summary
::Which, you will note, '''does not bypass AC like you claimed it does'''. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] ([[User talk:Surgo|talk]]) 17:31, 6 May 2019 (MDT)
:::{{Anchor|So}}, first off I just want to say that there is nothing wrong with a 5 level class. A base class implies that something isn't specialized and doesn't require specialized training to start, like a prestige class. A prestige class requires a specific skill set like an Assassin, you dont just leave your house at 16 and say "Hey, I'm an Assassin". There's a specific skill set you need to do that. Also, the amount of levels that a class has indicates either the level of complexity involved in learning the class in cases like Wizard, Druid, Cleric Monk, or in how broad the class is and how much variation and customization are available to that class such as Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, etc. There are other instances in other 3.5e publications that support a base class with less than 20 levels. I do agree that smaller levels ''generally'' do reflect prestige classes ''more'' than base classes, but that's not an exclusionary statement. What a character does after a 5 level class doesn't matter as much as you're making it out. If you take 5-6 levels of Fighter and then take a prestige class for a few levels, and then take a level of something else like Swashbuckler or Knight, that doesn't put you at a disadvantage just because it's your first level of Knight or Swashbuckler. You're more than just 1 level of a class, you're the sum of the parts of the classes you take.
:::As to this class itself, I actually like the idea of the Cascade. It makes use of that bonus damage that would normally be wasted when you hit an opponent and drop them, and where it uses the same attack roll that you got on the original attack, is required to pass the AC of subsequent opponents, and all opponents must be within reach, and he closed off the loop with Great Cleave, I feel that this is fairly well balanced. As far as balance goes, I'm actually more concerned with the Execution feature that essentially adds +10 damage to every hit by bypassing the damage needed. I would prefer that the creature either '''A.''' Get a fort save to remain at -1, or '''B.''' The feature not ''kill'' the opponent, but rather, allow you to just stop the damage done to that opponent when the target hits -1 and then that way you can save the damage for the next target. I feel that would be more balanced and fair. I'm imagining if a DM made a villain that had all 5 levels in this class was fighting the PC's. I'd be annoyed if he could bypass the 10 damage that makes the difference between me living or dying and I don't get a save. [[User:The-Marksman|The-Marksman]] ([[User talk:The-Marksman|talk]]) 18:57, 6 May 2019 (MDT)
