Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GnomeWorks" data-source="post: 2668888" data-attributes="member: 162">That would be much better, so far as I'm concerned. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />The ability you have works much better.  It's equivalent, but it looks better.Indeed, shield proficiency doesn't make sense with an archer - nor a scythe-wielder, in my opinion.  Just because a class that is roughly similar makes a poor design decision doesn't mean you should follow it.Again, just because other PrC's of roughly the same type do this, doesn't mean this class needs to.  I think that giving proficiency with other scythes is appropriate, and perhaps a few other similar weapons, but giving broad proficiency just doesn't fit.I suppose it is mostly a combat class... this struck me as more rogue-ish in feel than fighter-ish, hence my thoughts for it being d8, but it works as d10.I agree with this assessment.  The class might be favored by followers of Seto, but that doesn't mean that the class is meant for Seto-followers only.</blockquote>