Talk:Black Crystal Lord (3.5e Class)
From D&D Wiki
 Under Development
This class is currently under development. It is subject to change at any time. Edits are requested to be done with permission. Thank you. --Jay Freedman 00:40, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
- This class is deemed finished by the author. It is subject to change at any time and edits are requested with permission. Thank you for rating this class. Leave all constructive comments below. Peace. --Jay Freedman 12:51, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
- Changing status to Development. This guys needs some work. --Jay Freedman 22:27, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
- Development is one thing but why the hell has this class a CON bonus to AC without any limitation? Right now you can just mix in one level of this class and get a good AC bonus - that´s not quite balanced. Even else - why do you give an armored class an AC bonus anyway? And how can you think giving an armored class an CON bonus to AC, attack AND damage is not way to overpowered? I mean it´s kind of obvious, isn´t it? Plus walking fast in heavy armor, wearing heavy weapons... you know, the basic idea of balance is, that the power of each class is comparable to all other classes. If you compare the power of this class to the usual fighter, you directly see that it is extremely overpowered. Think about your whole concept and think about what weaknesses this class should have.
- 1st. Sign your posts and indent buddy. 2nd. I know all that. 3rd. I've been mixing my material together, so its all wrong. This class started as a Ranger equivalent and slowly became Tome, Material. So its jacked up pretty badly. So is all my other stuff. I just finished talking for 3 hours with a guy who showed me all my classes where crap. (Its a humbling experience, believe me.) So I have hours of work ahead of me. Fixing this, and every other class I have posted on this sight. (Sigh) But, yeah, your are right." --Jay Freedman 01:21, 6 September 2009 (MDT)
- I actually don't think this class is too overpowered. Perhaps change it so that multiclassing causes you to lose the constitution bonus to AC. This way it removes that problem with relative ease and little change to the class. Also, the ability gained at 15th level to attack all adjacent enemies three times at your highest attack bonus, ya, thats a little overpowered. But just these changes, and I think the class would be perfectly balanced.
- Anyways, just my opinion, let me know what you think. :)--Vrail 00:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- I remember of a prestige class in Races of Stone that let you apply your Constitution modifier to AC as a natural armor bonus. The ability isn't strong by itself, but in that case it replaced the Dexterity bonus. Changing the ability to the Dodge feat if you multiclass doesn't make sense. You replace you hard skin by the ability to dodge attack. What's the point?--Idlem (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2012 (MDT)
Power - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --188.8.131.52 22:03, 8 March 2011 (MST)
Wording - <<<4>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --184.108.40.206 22:03, 8 March 2011 (MST)
Flavor - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --220.127.116.11 22:03, 8 March 2011 (MST)
 Nations Burden
Making it so the bonus can't exceed your level seems like a good idea. Should we remove the multiclassing restrictions?
 Armor Scarred
Armor Scarred (Ex): At 2nd level you receive a -3 to armor check penalties from Medium or Heavy Armor. However, you suffer +3 to armor check penalties from shields.
At first sight, this ability may look easy to understand, but it isn't. Are they good with shields and bad with armors or good with armors and bad with shields? Furthermore, the one of the two with the penalty may very well be applied at first level and removed if and when they multiclass. The bonus may still be gained at level 2, though.--Idlem (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2013 (MST)