Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="drothgery" data-source="post: 4320222" data-attributes="member: 360">Complete WarriorHexblade - Seems like the Shadow Defender if there is one, though a fighter or paladin with some warlock multiclassing would would be a reasonable fascimile. Samurai - What's the difference between a samurai and a fighter again (this was a problem in 3e, too)? Still, probably gets a rework as the ki defender, hopefully losing the two-weapon schtick (well, making it optional, at least).Swashbuckler - there's not a lot of design space for this right now; the Rogue and the two-weapon ranger cover just about everything. The only niche I can see for a dedicated swashbuckler class would be spin the light armor and a rapier or two as a defender instead of a striker, and/or to rely more on INT than CHA or DEX. Though like the barbarian, you'd have a highly mobile defender which could be something of a contradiction.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="drothgery, post: 4320222, member: 360"] [b]Complete Warrior[/b] [B]Hexblade [/B] - Seems like the Shadow Defender if there is one, though a fighter or paladin with some warlock multiclassing would would be a reasonable fascimile. [B]Samurai [/B] - What's the difference between a samurai and a fighter again (this was a problem in 3e, too)? Still, probably gets a rework as the ki defender, hopefully losing the two-weapon schtick (well, making it optional, at least). [B]Swashbuckler [/B] - there's not a lot of design space for this right now; the Rogue and the two-weapon ranger cover just about everything. The only niche I can see for a dedicated swashbuckler class would be spin the light armor and a rapier or two as a defender instead of a striker, and/or to rely more on INT than CHA or DEX. Though like the barbarian, you'd have a highly mobile defender which could be something of a contradiction. [/QUOTE]

Verification