Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 6011311" data-attributes="member: 14506">I agree. I would rather have a ranger be chief choice for the character concept. Humanoid hunter with an assassin background. Wala! Multiclass into an illusionist to pick up some of the helpful illusion spells such as invisibility and darkness and others. Would be a really cool character! No need to make a whole class based on this, a background would suffice.Again I agree, there are several instances where a savage background would be helpful to distinguish a character from the more civilized counterparts. Savage rogue, savage druid, savage ranger all valid and interesting. One class should not be the only savage class. As to the rage part, make it a specialty. I see it as no different than fighting with two weapons, it is a technique.A bard could be a triple classed character! Look jack of all trades does not have to be a class that comprises of 3 classes. A rogue/druid/fighter or a rogue/wizard/ranger all of these seem very applicable. Tack on the bardic college background, add in the bard specialty. I really like this concept. It really frees the character concept to do so much and still have the ability to boost your allies with words of praise via feats rather than spells. Then a whole "musical" magic system does not have to be tacked on to the game and explained away with a wave of the hand  and saying no one plays that class anyway. Example: if the bard was a wizard/rogue they would have wizard magic and they would still be able to boost allies via their bard specialty! very cool. Also there are several clerics and specific gods that would make excellent bards too!Warlord would be a specialty of any class. If you are a leader and you want to give your allies bonuses, similar to the bard actually. Non-magical boosts that you have the option to utilize. In fact, doesn't the warlord step on the bard's concept too much?I also feel like the ranger should eat a lot of the features out of this class. The ranger should be the INT based warrior. For those die hard warlord fans would it be too much to have a ranger build that encapsulated the INT based warlord?All warrior types use STR but also important...Fighter CONRogue DEXMonk WISRanger INTPaladin CHAJust a thought...</blockquote>

Verification