Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5533287" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Since people are still arguing over the pirate thing, I'll quote more RAW.Now, since it's a DM call, I could see a fighter have a trade-off for class skills, even by RAW. (1) Lose all class skills and all fighter bonus feats to gain all Rogue class skills and 8 + skills per level. (2) Drop skills down to 6+, lose all medium armor, heavy armor, and shield proficiencies, gain d12 hit die.Of course, these are choices that might vary by DM. I don't worry about it when I play my game (which isn't 3.5). But, if a DM thought these were fair trade-offs, then, by RAW, you can make them.As far as my quote from Profession being dismissed, I find it mildly amusing. Let me quote Hussar! (I got his name right, even if he thinks my name is Jason)Let's look at what I quoted!It seems reasonable to me that "specialized tasks" where the "DM sets DCs" might fall into that category that Hussar mentioned where the skill breaks from it's general use (thanks, Hussar, for pointing this out!). And, if you fail a skill, it looks like you can probably retry, as you only cannot retry when trying to earn a wage (thanks again!).It's almost like you can, by RAW, make a Fighter pirate fit what you want. Things are purposefully not written in stone. Still too rigid for my tastes, I'll grant you that. But this argument is nonetheless mildly amusing, when the core books cover things so adequately.But, if you don't like it, don't use it. If you do like it, use it. It really is all good, as long as you're having fun. Play what you like <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=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification