Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sylrae" data-source="post: 4285684" data-attributes="member: 48520">How about the unarmored fighter who relies on quickness, and intelligence? all of the ones you describe still need armor. Plus, what about all the acrobatic abilities a swashbuckler had?The only one of those that sortof fits is the rogue, but theyre sneaky, not flashy and showoffish. Also, they're faster and weaker.Undead summoning/Controlling Cleric. Planar based cleric.An Undead summoning wizard. For that matter, any sort of summoner.Bard (a buffcaster who's quick)Druid (a nature spellcaster)Barbarian(Some sort of berserking character.)A martial artist (unarmored as well)out of what's there, I'd consider playing a rogue for more than one session; maybe a ranger if I had already played a rogue.My first choices were in the things that were removed. I love the whole bring your own personal (summoned or unholy) army Idea. - In 3.5 you couldnt have too many creatures at once with just the 3 main books, but you could sitll have a handful of creatures fighting for you.My order of fun would be:0. Swashbuckler (it wasnt in the 3.5 core either so we won't count it)1. A necromancer or summoner2. A Bard.3. Rogue4. Druid5. Ranger (spellcasting or not doesn't matter)6. A war cleric (not a healer fighter)7. Fighter8. Martial Artist9. Blaster Mage10. Berserker11. A healing cleric - I'm not a party looker afterer.12. <s>A paladin</s> If I ever am told to play the paladin, and the DM is serious, I just won't play.and the lack of any noncombat abilities is annoying too. I've played characters with little combat abilities who were almost all social, and they were awesome. I'm not saying they should have such a divide, but presently they have no real abilities for outside combat.</blockquote>

Verification