Talk:Gemcaster (3.5e Class)

Gems

Should the number of gems a Gemcaster receives really be random, especially when you're using numbers like 1d2? The chances of you not having enough gems to attune to every spell you know are actually pretty low anyway. It seems like an unnecessary clutter of numbers to me. - Viatos 19:44, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

I did a bit of editing and decided to only make the starting number random. All other gems have to be purchased or found. I'm also thinking of adding a value system for gems that have stored spells. Synthii 09:24, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Balance

Just wondering what your arguments for making this a wizard level class were. It has unlimited castings, but from a fairly restricted pool and at a delayed rate... I'm not saying it's lower, off-hand, I'm just not sure and wanted to hear your thoughts on the matter. - TarkisFlux 16:03, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Mostly I just thought this would be something different to offer players, something unique. It is the first class i've ever done though, so if you have any critiques that would be helpful, do let me know. As for the balance, well, i just guessed really. wasn't quite sure which one to pick. - Synthii 04:57, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Gem rules

The gem rules seem incomplete. What kind of gems do you need, how valuable, what is a flawed or flawless gem, is there something in between, what properties take the penalty/get the bonus (range? area? save DC? casting time?)

Also, you left the 1d2 in Attune Gem. Is that an error, or is that meant to be there? --IGTN 19:12, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Well, like the author box says, it still is getting touched up a bit. I realize i probably left a few things in that i meant to delete, but as it is the page gives you enough information to make a class, and by the time you are higher up in levels, this should be finished. I will fix that Attune Gem spot now Synthii 05:00, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Ratings

	Luigifan18 likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	Dude, you somehow adapted Gemcraft to Dungeons and Dragons? That's amazing!

	Tarkisflux dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
	It's not a bad class, though it could still use a bit of cleaning up. And the image of a wizard in a swirling mess of gems is an interesting one. But a full caster sorcerer with unlimited castings per day via recharge? No thanks. I think it would benefit from a tighter spell list, possibly a blaster list like the warmage even, and some other way of gaining utility effects.

ThunderGod Cid dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.

I think this has all of the same noob trap potential as the sorcerer, magnified further by the fact that your future fortunes are wholly dependent on the outcome of your initial gem rolls. If you get good ones, you still have to not be an idiot about spell selection or risk mucking it up. If you aren't that lucky and all your current gems will be obsolete in a few levels, then you either have to convince your DM to give you treasure necessary for your survival and yours alone (not an attractive proposition) or buy more gems out of your own pocket (for which there is no indicated cost, thus making this alternative also subject to DM fiat). Not to mention that gems can be attacked and destroyed, making your entire investment (whatever it was) worthless. The Gem Talents are also just bad (most noteworthy is the Gem Heal, as if I'm supposed to care about 1d3 points of healing per spell level). Tack on what Tarkis said about unlimited castings and you have a frightening amount of power inconsistency throughout.

	Aarnott dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
	As Cid and Tarkis said above. I'll note that having really weak abilities and really strong abilities is not great class design. Arcane channeling has some serious balance concerns that wasn't even mentioned. The full-round action at -2 AC to recharge a spell means infinite time stops.