Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 5618065" data-attributes="member: 15538">LOLI, of course, respectuflly disagree. And not every class gets Improved Uncanny Dodge, at least by default. I think the real question is: why doesn't the core monk get it? Monks are supposed to be ready for action, and if anyone should be able to avoid a flanking penalty, I think it would be the monk. Plus, you wouldn't have to make any notes under their Wis bonus to AC, because they would already keep their AC bonuses when flat-fooed. Very convenient! The fact is, several of the classes are modifications or recombinations of classes that already had it. It would be hard to justify taking it away. If you want to nominate candidates who definitely should not have it, feel free. Won't hurt my feelings.There are practical reasons for asking. I can think of at least three ways to do the class, and do it well. But that's a different question than publishing it. I certainly would not publish three alternate, competing assassins in my own book! They are very dissimilar. Different BAB, hit dice, skill list, abilities, structure, etc. And they are both already about 60% written. So that at least is definitely not going to happen. Combining stealth with long ranged attacks. Seriously, none of those classes do that effectively. It's not. The arcane trickster actually made the transition to Pathfinder, for one thing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pawsplay, post: 5618065, member: 15538"] LOL I, of course, respectuflly disagree. And not every class gets Improved Uncanny Dodge, at least by default. I think the real question is: why doesn't the core monk get it? Monks are supposed to be ready for action, and if anyone should be able to avoid a flanking penalty, I think it would be the monk. Plus, you wouldn't have to make any notes under their Wis bonus to AC, because they would already keep their AC bonuses when flat-fooed. Very convenient! The fact is, several of the classes are modifications or recombinations of classes that already had it. It would be hard to justify taking it away. If you want to nominate candidates who definitely should not have it, feel free. Won't hurt my feelings. There are practical reasons for asking. I can think of at least three ways to do the class, and do it well. But that's a different question than publishing it. I certainly would not publish three alternate, competing assassins in my own book! They are very dissimilar. Different BAB, hit dice, skill list, abilities, structure, etc. And they are both already about 60% written. So that at least is definitely not going to happen. Combining stealth with long ranged attacks. Seriously, none of those classes do that effectively. It's not. The arcane trickster actually made the transition to Pathfinder, for one thing. [/QUOTE]

Verification