Installera Steam
logga in
|
språk
简体中文 (förenklad kinesiska)
繁體中文 (traditionell kinesiska)
日本語 (japanska)
한국어 (koreanska)
ไทย (thailändska)
Български (bulgariska)
Čeština (tjeckiska)
Dansk (danska)
Deutsch (tyska)
English (engelska)
Español - España (Spanska - Spanien)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanska - Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (grekiska)
Français (franska)
Italiano (italienska)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesiska)
Magyar (ungerska)
Nederlands (nederländska)
Norsk (norska)
Polski (polska)
Português (Portugisiska – Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugisiska - Brasilien)
Română (rumänska)
Русский (ryska)
Suomi (finska)
Türkçe (turkiska)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamesiska)
Українська (Ukrainska)
Rapportera problem med översättningen
With 20 you could have 4 fighter/16 cleric and have 16 BA (enough for all 4 attacks), have weapon specialization, and still get 8th level spells.
With 18 in order to get 4 basic attacks (ignoring spells, two weapon fighting, ect.) you'd need to be 8 cleric, 10 fighter.
You'd instead be shunted all the way down to 4th level spells to continue to be relatively on par with a pure classed warrior type.
So there is a huge difference in terms of balance work, which is in favor of a more interesting setting.
But instead I'm 16 cleric, 2 rogue. The bare minimum for evasion that I wanted, I lose out on my 9th level spells and have to decide how long I want to wait for tumble/evasion and use of skill points.
It gives you another level to think out what is worth sacrificing for your class, and gives pure classed characters a bit more of an edge, if a marginal one. Which I think is good for balance.