Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 1698912" data-attributes="member: 158">Maybe I'm misreading you, but those two statements seem to be contradictory. Reward them not on effectiveness, because they won't be, yet they can still be effective? I'm just saying that if a Wizard has the spells needed to be a major damage-blaster, the Swashbuckler should have the tools necessary at his disposal to dispatch his enemies. As it is, a swashbuckler built with the fighter class and 3.5 rules will be rather ineffective compared to building an archer or stand-up fighter. In order to fight, he will have to shift offense to defense, without enough offensive might being left over to actually incapacitate an enemy, even over a longer period of time.Conversely, an evoking mage will have spells at his disposal to be a militant mage; a cleric will have defensive spells enough to support the party; a Barbarian will have enough hit points to act as armor for toe-to-toe combat; a ranger possesses enough hit points, spells, and skills and damage bonuses to be a skirmish fighter; a monk possesses enough abilities to be a skirmish fighter, as well; and a rogue possesses enough skills to be whatever the heck he WANTS to - craftsman, box-man, acrobat, etc.Barbarian is an excellent example of this idea. Without his d10 hit dice, a barbarian is not as equipped for combat as he should be; he only wears medium or lesser armor, so without an extra compensation, he will not perform the duties his archetype demands. That extra compensation comes in the form of d20 hit dice and rage. Those two abilities, combined with his damage resistance, and unflankability, make up for the feats and heavier armor that a fighter possesses.Now, one COULD make a bare-chested or hide-wearing barbarian with just the fighter class, but would be be effective in his role? No, hence the need for rage, DR, unflanking ability, hit dice, etc., and hence my point.</blockquote>

Verification