Alternative fighter/ranger class

[Odysseus]

I've been DMing/playing 3e for a year now. And from the characters that i see, there seems to be a type of character that players want to play, but struggle to find within the choice of classes.
Now the character i'm talking about is a for lack of a better term a lightweight fighter. Some one who can scout like a ranger but doesn't have all the wilderness / nature stuff. Can sneak like a rogue, but be far better in combat. Or a class a wizard can multiclass in without haiving to wear heavy armour.
What i find players doing is using the ranger class instead. The player doesn't want to actually be a ranger, it just fits what they want . Typically the rogue/ranger combination is used.

So the option I have started using is give the fighter class the follwing options

1.the shield proficiently feat can be exchanged for two weapon fighting.
2. The medium and heavy armour feats can be exchanged for One extra bonus feat.

I havn't changed any skills, as the players who want to use this class, usually multiclass. So have access to other class skills.

Opinions?

 

[Nyaricus]

I cast *thread necromancy*

Have you seen the Scout class from Complete Adventurer, and if so, does it work well for you?

Currently, I am trying to make a class whihc combines elements from the Scout, Ranger and Fighter into a woody-warrio type class whihc would get rid of both the scout and the ranger and sounds a lot like this which you are talking about.

Also, have you found a new class to use, or are you still encouraging multiclassing?

 

[szilard]

Swashbuckler?

-Stuart

 

[Nyaricus]

Swashbuckler?

-Stuart

While that's a great (start to a) lightly-armoured fighter class, it has a more urban skill list and less back-country feel to it. Suboptimal, IOWs.

 

[szilard]

While that's a great (start to a) lightly-armoured fighter class, it has a more urban skill list and less back-country feel to it. Suboptimal, IOWs.

The Ranger was cited as being suboptimal because of its emphasis on the wilderness...

For a straight light fighter-type, Swashbuckler 3/Fighter X works pretty well, and Swashbuckler is a better bet than Fighter or Ranger for a Wizard to dip into.

-Stuart

 

[Nyaricus]

The Ranger was cited as being suboptimal because of its emphasis on the wilderness...

For a straight light fighter-type, Swashbuckler 3/Fighter X works pretty well, and Swashbuckler is a better bet than Fighter or Ranger for a Wizard to dip into.

-Stuart

Whoa I completely read the OPs question wrong then! lol Yeah, then I'd have to go with Swashbuckler for a WotC class, or this one off of WotCs boards, which was made before ComAd was even out- and is, in my opinion, even better than the offical class!

 

[szilard]

Whoa I completely read the OPs question wrong then! lol Yeah, then I'd have to go with Swashbuckler for a WotC class, or this one off of WotCs boards, which was made before ComAd was even out- and is, in my opinion, even better than the offical class!

Not bad - it provides more incentive to stay with the class than Swashbuckler does. On then other hand, a Swashbuckler without a high strength might be more viable.

-Stuart

 

[Nyaricus]

Not bad - it provides more incentive to stay with the class than Swashbuckler does. On then other hand, a Swashbuckler without a high strength might be more viable.

-Stuart

Yeah, it definitly is a lot more interesting than the standard Swashbuckler and has a bunch of neat paths to take ala Ranger Combat Styles. I do, however, like the Int-to-hit that the Swashbuckler has and will probably end up working that into the class when I am through with my own houseruled version of it.