Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5053913" data-attributes="member: 4937">Doesn't sound crazy at all.  It's one of my big problems with the 3e base classes.  I know why the 3e pretty much had to do it, but I'm not happy about it either.Barbarian => FanaticA 'Barbarian' is a relatively primitive member of a fanatic warrior cult.  You might also find fanatic members of a religious cult, fanatical members of an elite martial unit, or simple plain crazies.  I made various other changes as well, but that's the base idea.Druid => ShamanThe 3.5 Druid is problimatic anyway, with combat power approaching or exceeding the top martial classes once you factor in buffs, wildshape, and an animal companion and spell-casting ability approaching that of a wizard.  The addition of the fact that the Druid is simply one particular shamanistic tradition unique to Northern Europe makes the entire class suspect.  I prefer the Green Ronin shaman.  Druid spells not already on the shaman spell list or available through domains, can be moved over to the shaman list.Monk => FighterThe Monk is at heart a variant fighter specializing in wearing no armor and making unarmed attacks.  IMO, virtually all the combat abilities can be ported over to feat trees.  Many of the class abilities are simply feats anyway.  All that is left is finding some way to expand the skill list/skills per level.  If you must retain the Monk as a separate class, see if you can find a Duelist/Swashbuckler base class and assume that Monks are one flavor of same, and then provide a martial artist feat tree for general use.  About the only thing you are likely to loose if you go this route is the extraordinary fast movement ability and the capstone ability (which is flavor specific).  If you must have them, I'd recommend making them part of a PrC.  Paladin => ChampionMy base inspiration here is Green Ronin's 'Book of the Righteous', which includes rules for a wide variaty of variant Paladin's under the more general 'Holy Warrior' class.   A supplement for 'Unholy Warriors' was released using the same material and setting, but its by a different author and the quality isn't as good.  The rules could use some cleaning up and updating (originally for 3.0 and hewed closely to the 3.0 Paladin), but its a good solid start.Ranger => HunterThe Ranger has all sorts of problems.  First, it is too heavily tied to the wilderness.  Second, it is too heavily tied legacy issues related to being loosely a 'Tolkieneque' class.   Thirdly, it is too heavily tied to being a spell-casting class.  A more base class to cover bounty hunters, detectives, mundane hunters, ghost hunters, etc. is required.  If you really insist on having Rangers in your setting, they can be either multiclassed Ranger/Shamans or if you prefer Prestige Classes then Ranger can be a suitable PrC.</blockquote>

Verification