Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gargoyle" data-source="post: 66691" data-attributes="member: 529">My opinion is that you're going about this the hard way.&nbsp; You're making major modifications to the ranger class to get to somewhere that would only require a couple of small modifications to the fighter class.I would propose a variant fighter: (you can call the class whatever you want, ranger, etc, but modify the fighter instead)- Add Bluff as a class skill, remove two class skills of your choice.- No medium or heavy armor proficiency, or shield proficiency.- Instead of a bonus feat at 1st&nbsp; and 2nd levels, you get Two-Weapon Fighting and Ambidexterity as virtual feats at 1st level, only when wearing light or no armor.&nbsp; - Sneak attack +1d6 can be gained with a weapon you have the Weapon Specialization feat with, instead of a bonus feat (but not one of your regular feat slots)Now, I think the above is fairly balanced, though of course it hasn't been playtested and may be horrible, but here are my problems with it as a DM:1.&nbsp; It removes the hard strategic choices that you have to make when creating your character.&nbsp; Part of the fun of the game is agonizing over things like &quot;Should I multiclass to rogue to get sneak attack?&quot;&nbsp; or &quot;Should I spend some extra skill points to get Bluff, or max out Jump?&quot; 2.&nbsp; Some of the above &quot;sacrifices&quot; aren't really penalties at all.&nbsp; If I don't plan on wearing armor, armor restrictions are pointless.&nbsp; If I can customize my class skills to be whatever I want, why would I ever need to spend points on cross-class skills?&nbsp; If you almost always have a rapier, the restriction on sneak attack is meaningless...3.&nbsp; Also, most importantly this type of customizing butchers the teamwork aspect of the game.&nbsp; If you can sneak attack very well AND fight very well then that diminishes the role of the party's rogue and any single-class fighters.&nbsp; You're filling the roles of two different classes without the penalties of multiclassing.&nbsp; Note that the rules on page 94 of the PHB are for very minor changes, not completely modified classes.I would recommend that you consider the above implications before adding any custom core classes.&nbsp; (or prestige classes that duplicate core class abilities from more than one core class for that matter)&nbsp; I would also consider multiclassing, even if you get some abilities you don't want.&nbsp; A ranger 3/rogue 3/fighter 14 doesn't cast spells and is still a ranger, and the rogue's Uncanny Dodge and Evasion aren't really going to make your character play any differently, like the way a ranger's spells would.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gargoyle, post: 66691, member: 529"] My opinion is that you're going about this the hard way. You're making major modifications to the ranger class to get to somewhere that would only require a couple of small modifications to the fighter class. I would propose a variant fighter: (you can call the class whatever you want, ranger, etc, but modify the fighter instead) - Add Bluff as a class skill, remove two class skills of your choice. - No medium or heavy armor proficiency, or shield proficiency. - Instead of a bonus feat at 1st and 2nd levels, you get Two-Weapon Fighting and Ambidexterity as virtual feats at 1st level, only when wearing light or no armor. - Sneak attack +1d6 can be gained with a weapon you have the Weapon Specialization feat with, instead of a bonus feat (but not one of your regular feat slots) Now, I think the above is fairly balanced, though of course it hasn't been playtested and may be horrible, but here are my problems with it as a DM: 1. It removes the hard strategic choices that you have to make when creating your character. Part of the fun of the game is agonizing over things like "Should I multiclass to rogue to get sneak attack?" or "Should I spend some extra skill points to get Bluff, or max out Jump?" 2. Some of the above "sacrifices" aren't really penalties at all. If I don't plan on wearing armor, armor restrictions are pointless. If I can customize my class skills to be whatever I want, why would I ever need to spend points on cross-class skills? If you almost always have a rapier, the restriction on sneak attack is meaningless... 3. Also, most importantly this type of customizing butchers the teamwork aspect of the game. If you can sneak attack very well AND fight very well then that diminishes the role of the party's rogue and any single-class fighters. You're filling the roles of two different classes without the penalties of multiclassing. Note that the rules on page 94 of the PHB are for very minor changes, not completely modified classes. I would recommend that you consider the above implications before adding any custom core classes. (or prestige classes that duplicate core class abilities from more than one core class for that matter) I would also consider multiclassing, even if you get some abilities you don't want. A ranger 3/rogue 3/fighter 14 doesn't cast spells and is still a ranger, and the rogue's Uncanny Dodge and Evasion aren't really going to make your character play any differently, like the way a ranger's spells would. [/QUOTE]

Verification