Talk:Claymore (3.5e Class)
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Ratings[edit]
|
Ghostwheel opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4. |
|---|---|
| Beyond the grammatical and game term mistakes (of which there are a great many), taking a single level in a class for what is effectively permanent DR, increased ability scores, and |
As a template[edit]
Despite my criticism above, I have to say that I also enjoyed the series. You might enjoy my take on the claymores. Since there's no real magic in the original world as it appears in D&D, I don't see any reason that claymores couldn't be casters or any other class, so it felt more right to make the characters into a template rather than a proper class. --Ghostwheel (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2018 (MST)
- In my opinion, you ignore the fact that when using most of the class features that give DR and regeneration, a player seriously risks losing his character completely, damaging his comrades or just sitting on his knees in the middle of a fight and trying not to go insane.
- English is not my native language. But if you have time to correct grammatic mistakes in the text, I would be grateful. --Nari Mortem 03:15, 31 January 2018 (MST)
- I can tell that you must have great respect and adoration for the subject matter to create such a vivid and comprehensive class. However although it may be accurate to the source material I am not sure it works the way you intended in the DND stetting/ framework. Most of the downsides are little more than fluff. The insanity is simply role playing and has no actual mechanical change that would affect game play much other than dialogue. Giving up your character completely means dying. In DND you are participating in a group game that requires you to work together with friends to co-author a story. If you are trying to balance one persons contributions to this story by saying that they will have to walk away from it than that is a lot like saying "I will play my way or we don't play". As a DM I would hate being forced to take on a player's role as a balancing measure. I would rather punish them by permanently taking away a feat before I would do that. Because then I have to eventually give it back or have them make a new character or tell them to leave IRL. That is not fair to the other players. But, that being said I think there is a lot of potential here. Maybe focus on how these effects are best done in other works and how they are balanced. Because a bluff check automatically stops the whole attacking allies stuff as long as one member of the party has a higher bluff than thier sense motive or can just charm/geas the Clamore before they lose it while they are willing to fail thier save in order to circumvent all the downsides. --Xaiviar (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2018 (MDT)
