Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 65759" data-attributes="member: 2205">I'm going to propose a modified ranger to my DM for a new character in a new campaign, and I'm interested in some feedback.&nbsp; Not that I'm going to use that as any kind of &quot;leverage&quot; to get him to accept it; just because I want some feedback on it.My concept is a elven two-bladed sword duelist.&nbsp; I originally had in mind to do him as a fighter, as the feats would quickly give me the proficiencies I need.&nbsp; However, the more I thought about it, the more I thought the virtual feats of the ranger would give me a head start on my two-bladed sword technique, obviously with some sacrifices.&nbsp; The track feature was one I also thought appropriate because he is an elf anyway, and probably does have some outdoor experience, and the lack of armor proficiencies doesn't bother a light and agile duelist.However, here come the changes.&nbsp; I don't really need (or want) the spell-casting, and although I can see some sense in taking the favored enemy (as the duelist studies the fighting styles of his enemies) and I do want access to Bluff as a class skill, so I can make feints and tricky, duelist-type attacks.&nbsp; He'd probably be proficient in feinting, causing an opponent to lose his Dex bonus to AC and then delivering a highly technical blow for major damage, so I also want to pick up the Rogue's sneak attack abilities.Now here's where I'm not quite sure on the balance.&nbsp; Does the loss of the Ranger's spells equal out the gaining of the Rogue's sneak attack and access to Bluff as a class skill?&nbsp; I think it's a bit iffy, so I've thought of some options just in case:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Lower the sneak attack bonus over the course of the class's career.&nbsp; Instead of getting up to +10d6, make it only go up to +7d6 or +8d6 and (obviously) have bonus progression spread a bit.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Lose the favored enemy feature.&nbsp; Although it does work with my concept, it certainly isn't integral to it, and I wouldn't miss it much.</li>
</ul>Any comments?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 65759, member: 2205"] I'm going to propose a modified ranger to my DM for a new character in a new campaign, and I'm interested in some feedback. Not that I'm going to use that as any kind of "leverage" to get him to accept it; just because I want some feedback on it. My concept is a elven two-bladed sword duelist. I originally had in mind to do him as a fighter, as the feats would quickly give me the proficiencies I need. However, the more I thought about it, the more I thought the virtual feats of the ranger would give me a head start on my two-bladed sword technique, obviously with some sacrifices. The track feature was one I also thought appropriate because he is an elf anyway, and probably does have some outdoor experience, and the lack of armor proficiencies doesn't bother a light and agile duelist. However, here come the changes. I don't really need (or want) the spell-casting, and although I can see some sense in taking the favored enemy (as the duelist studies the fighting styles of his enemies) and I [i]do[/i] want access to Bluff as a class skill, so I can make feints and tricky, duelist-type attacks. He'd probably be proficient in feinting, causing an opponent to lose his Dex bonus to AC and then delivering a highly technical blow for major damage, so I also want to pick up the Rogue's sneak attack abilities. Now here's where I'm not quite sure on the balance. Does the loss of the Ranger's spells equal out the gaining of the Rogue's sneak attack and access to Bluff as a class skill? I think it's a bit iffy, so I've thought of some options just in case: [list] [*]Lower the sneak attack bonus over the course of the class's career. Instead of getting up to +10d6, make it only go up to +7d6 or +8d6 and (obviously) have bonus progression spread a bit. [*]Lose the favored enemy feature. Although it [i]does[/i] work with my concept, it certainly isn't integral to it, and I wouldn't miss it much. [/list] Any comments? [/QUOTE]

Verification