Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 67055" data-attributes="member: 2205">Hardly the ultimate fighter.  Can't use heavy armor and --and I don't know where you got this-- doesn't have any feat progression beyond what everyone gets as they level.  Comparing what you listed with what I proposed:I personally would give you: monk's BAB I have fighter BABsneak attack (every odd lvl) I have this now, but I also proposed a slowed sneak attack progression, which nobody bit on.HD d6 I have d10simple and martial weapon prof I have thislight armor My final proposal also has medium armor, but that's not something really important to merangers skill list (4 per lvl) I have this also, except I added Bluff as a class skillalign (non lawful) I'm not sure why this would be a requirement, or what it adds to the concept.saves (fighter) I have thisfeat progression (as psy warrior- 1,2,5,8,11,14,17,20) I have no feat progressionYour concept is little more than a less-skilled rogue with fighter's save instead of rogue's saves (which are not better nor worse, just a different emphasis) and fighter-like progression of feats in exchange for all rogue abilities except sneak attack.  I think that's a fair trade-off.  However, mine is basically a ranger except that I traded in both favored enemy and the entire spell-casting ability of the class for a sneak attack bonus.  That's closer to my concept, and doesn't seem any less fair.To put it another way, since you're wanting to add fighter and rogue, in a way, what if I tweaked the fighter instead?  Swap out heavy weapon proficiency for ambidexterity, and take two-weapon fighting as my first feat.  Trade out all of the fighter's bonus feats in exchange for the rogue's sneak attack.  This gives me exactly the same thing I proposed, except that I now have a shield proficiency which I won't use instead of Track, which I probably won't use much, but at least it fits my concept.And as to your first point, it's a fallacy that a character can't get the full benefit of everything in the class.  I'd venture to say that most players probably utilize their classes to the maximum, and only players who (like me, typically) want to play a slightly different concept are weakened because they have feats or abilities that they don't ever use and nothing with which to replace them.  Therefore, it's hardly unbalancing or munchkin to create a class that is, on paper, the same power level as a core class, but which perfectly matches my concept so I can use every ability in that class.  It's only the artificiallity of classes that make this seem munchkin.  Any class-less game takes this as a given: you only give characters stuff that you want to use, instead of being saddled with strictly defined archetypes that you have to play.  I disagree fundamentally with D&D's basic premise that the only acceptable way to deviate from a D&D archetype is to multiclass, thus weakening your character by giving up access to abilities to could use to pick up abilities you wont.  It shouldn't be a penalty to deviate from the D&D archetypes: I should be able to create a character that is balanced against the core classes, yet conveys my own concept.  That's what I'm trying to do here.</blockquote>

Verification