Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sir Elton" data-source="post: 1700576" data-attributes="member: 14486">Good.&nbsp; Swashbucklers aren't tanks anyway.&nbsp; Try suggesting to play a rake, or a fop as a tank.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;The Fop&nbsp;&nbsp;Playing an effeminant fighter changes the dynamic.&nbsp; He's someone who is bored with fighting and he will not go in there and mix it up like Conan and/or Henry V.&nbsp; So your looking at a fighter who has an inordinate ammount of feats.&nbsp; No weapon specialization.&nbsp; Certainly weapon finesse, weapon focus, dodge, and mobility.&nbsp; Watch _Zorro: the Gayblade_ for an example of a foppish fighter.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;The Rake&nbsp;&nbsp;The Rake is different in concept sense he is, well, a little rich boy -- a middle child (unless you are a Prince of Wales or a Duke of Cornwall).&nbsp; He spends Father's money for his own enjoyment and gets into duels of honor. Again, your looking at Combat Expertise and all the classic Swashbuckler feats; but the Rake could also use power attack too.&nbsp;&nbsp;Strangely enough, one can create these concepts using a pure fighter. A multi-class Rogue/Fighter is possible as well.&nbsp; But then, you run into the problems I was facing with the Ranger (I don't like the ranger being a hateful person, favored enemy represents hatred).&nbsp; So sometimes you need make up a core class to fit the concept into the core rules.&nbsp;&nbsp;It's exactly this limited view, of making up a new character archetype, that be moans many people who use GURPS instead of D&amp;D.&nbsp; Although strangely enough, the more things change, the more they stay the same.&nbsp; (I guess I'm rambling off topic).&nbsp;&nbsp;So my point is that the Core Classes are flexible enough to handle most concepts.&nbsp; But not all of them.&nbsp; That's why we have all these different options to add on to our game.&nbsp; Oriental Adventures, the Expanded Psionics Handbook, etc.&nbsp; All of these can add flavor to the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sir Elton, post: 1700576, member: 14486"] Good. Swashbucklers aren't tanks anyway. Try suggesting to play a rake, or a fop as a tank. [b]The Fop[/b] Playing an effeminant fighter changes the dynamic. He's someone who is bored with fighting and he will not go in there and mix it up like Conan and/or Henry V. So your looking at a fighter who has an inordinate ammount of feats. No weapon specialization. Certainly weapon finesse, weapon focus, dodge, and mobility. Watch _Zorro: the Gayblade_ for an example of a foppish fighter. [b]The Rake[/b] The Rake is different in concept sense he is, well, a little rich boy -- a middle child (unless you are a Prince of Wales or a Duke of Cornwall). He spends Father's money for his own enjoyment and gets into duels of honor. Again, your looking at Combat Expertise and all the classic Swashbuckler feats; but the Rake could also use power attack too. Strangely enough, one can create these concepts using a pure fighter. A multi-class Rogue/Fighter is possible as well. But then, you run into the problems I was facing with the Ranger (I don't like the ranger being a hateful person, favored enemy represents hatred). So sometimes you need make up a core class to fit the concept into the core rules. It's exactly this limited view, of making up a new character archetype, that be moans many people who use GURPS instead of D&D. Although strangely enough, the more things change, the more they stay the same. (I guess I'm rambling off topic). So my point is that the Core Classes are flexible enough to handle most concepts. But not all of them. That's why we have all these different options to add on to our game. Oriental Adventures, the Expanded Psionics Handbook, etc. All of these can add flavor to the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification