I have the PHII...

[Steverooo]

It depends upon the Ranger...

Rogue heaven for the ranger replacement ability - no thanks! Almost all the other classes got a replacement ability that made them better at doing their own job... the ranger replacement class ability doesn't benefit him or make it easier to do his job at all.

Any good ideas for an alternative replacement ability

TWF Rend certainly helps the TWF Rangers (TWF Pounce less so, as it applies less often). If the Ranger has 1+ levels of Rogue, the Feat (whose name I fergitz) which allows Sneak Attack damage to apply to some regular attacks would be great. Trapfinding is definitely a good alternate ability for Rogueless parties with a Ranger (and since it's gained at fourth level, doesn't really step on the Rogues' toes).

As I've said before, I also favor Trapmaking, allowing Rangers to set any CR 0 trap involving Bows, Crossbows, Deadfalls, Limb-traps, Net-traps, Pits, Simple Snares, and/or Spring-Snares with either the Survival or Craft (Trapmaking) skills, and without one week's time or 1,000 GP, either. (Survival does too little, in D&D, and - except for Tracking - is easily replaced with a Cleric's 0-level Orison!)

As usual, YMMV.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Another case in point is their scout "skirmisher" that they gave Two-Weapon Fighting to. Skirmish and 2WF are oil and water. A scout is generally better off wielding the biggest, heaviest 2-handed weapon he can get proficient with.

Works in my campaign as one of the players is a scout with a bastard sword. Viscious little bastach I tell ya!

 

[Aaron L]

I just got the book yesterday, and so far I really dig it. Im still trying to muddle my way through the allegiance section, not sure what to make of it.

Interestingly enough, I had an Allegience space on my homemade character sheets, and the high level fighter feats mirror some of the feats I had made up. (these are much better balanced, I am a horrible game designer)



Someones been snooping in my house.

 

[Psion]

In the final analysis, I don't think I'll be using/allowing any of the new base classes from PHBII. This is the biggest base class letdown since the CW Samurai for me:

• Beguiler has better HP, access to more spells than a sorcerer (albeit from a more limited list, but considering the sorcerer spells known limitation, I don't feel that is much of a hindrance), as many spells per day as a sorcerer, and additional class features and skill point. Yeah, I consider the sorcerer a weak point of comparison, but I see the beguiler as WAY, WAY better.
• Duskblade is less flexible than doing the same thing in multiclass.
• Dragons shaman concept doesn't light me up.
• Knight is okay, but I don't see it any better than the one in Heroes of Code or R&R: Excalibur.

 

[Thaumaturge]

• Duskblade is less flexible than doing the same thing in multiclass.

Yes he is less flexible than a fighter/wizard multiclass spellwise, but he gets better hitpoints, BAB, spell channeling, better saves, and free quickened spells in return for his specialization. A decent trade.
Armed with the right feats (*ahem* Arcane Strike) he turns into a nasty melee fighter who has actual options in ranged/flying combats (swift fly, polar ray, seeking ray, disintegrate) without having to carry around mostly useless (to a melee fighter) and expensive ranged weapons. With seeking ray he doesn't even need precise shot. Fighting things with concealment? He has quickened true strike. Fighting a battlefield control BBEG? He has d-door. Fighting things at night? He has 'dusk' in his name.
I also enjoy his plethora of lower levels spells. At higher levels he can arcane strike a first, second, or third level spell every round without too much worry.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Psion]

Yes he is less flexible than a fighter/wizard multiclass spellwise, but he gets better hitpoints, BAB, spell channeling, better saves, and free quickened spells in return for his specialization. A decent trade.

You understand, of course, while that's well and good from the standpoint of whether it will stand up in a fight, a principally player consideration, there are other things that go into my decision as a GM whether or not to include something.

From the get go, I have a reluctant attitude about new base classes; any class that is going to make it into my game has to demonstrate that they are worth the time. I lean away from narrow and redundant classes. OTOH. I find it rather easy to say "yes" to a new base class that is flexible and will accomodate a lot of concepts, and/or that represents a concept that cannot be easily represented by existing material.

Duskblade is neither of these things.

 

[Felon]

From the get go, I have a reluctant attitude about new base classes; any class that is going to make it into my game has to demonstrate that they are worth the time. I lean away from narrow and redundant classes. OTOH. I find it rather easy to say "yes" to a new base class that is flexible and will accomodate a lot of concepts, and/or that represents a concept that cannot be easily represented by existing material.

I'm glad you qualified that a bit, otherwise it would have been terribly ironic for a guy named "Psion" to say that a class isn't worth the time unless it does something some other class can't already do. Psionics certainly accomodate a lot of concepts, but I haven't seen many psionic powers that aren't retreads of an extent spell (indeed, all those powers that just use the name of the spell and tack the word "psionic" in front of it really take the cake).

I do agree that the duskblade is rather narrow in concept. As stated, I don't think a base class should be created just to experiment with game design elements.

 

[Psion]

I'm glad you qualified that a bit, otherwise it would have been terribly ironic for a guy named "Psion" to say that a class isn't worth the time unless it does something some other class can't already do.

/me rolls a will save against the derailing troll...

Would it be too much to ask that we a) keep it on topic and b) not post with the plainly obvious intent to get other people's hackles up? kthx.

 

[Felon]

From your own vituperative, policy-violating response, it would seem the answer to your question is clearly "no".

I was merely pointing out that some aspects of your comment can apply to the established mechanics for certain non-core base classes, including one that you yourself value and defend (somewhat ornerously). A duskblade seems narrowly defined, but is it so much more narrow than, for instance, a psychic warrior? One man's pointless design is another man's newfound joy.

 

[Psion]

How many times are you going to edit you post?