Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hardhead" data-source="post: 1148434" data-attributes="member: 2844">While you can get most concepts with the existing core classes, some don't fit very well without a PrC.&nbsp; I think the &quot;swashbuckler&quot; is a good example of this.&nbsp; The rogue doesn't work because they have a medium BAB and you probably don't want to be super skill-oriented and sneaking about.&nbsp; You're more flamboyant, ect.&nbsp; Barbarian doesn't work because you're not an illiterate rager, you're probably a city-born silver-tounged swordsman.&nbsp; Ranger doesn't work because they're abilities don't fit.&nbsp; You're not an archer or a dual-wielder (Weapon Finesse doesn't work with two weapons!).&nbsp; Fighter works alright, but unfortuanately your build is going to be very weak compared to a big Greatsword or double-longsword wielder.&nbsp; Probably the best build is going to be some sort of Fighter/rogue/dualist combo, but unless you're a human, that probably means XP penalties.Simply, you don't *need* new core classes because most concepts are workable using multiclassing.&nbsp; OTOH, a lot of very standard archtypes (like swashbuckler) work better with their own class.&nbsp; Think of it this way: the &quot;holy warrior&quot; archtype could be done with Fighter/Cleric multiclassing.&nbsp; But we have a Paladin too, which fills a specific nich better.&nbsp; Similarly, the &quot;woodsman hunter&quot; could be a Barbarian(or Fighter)/Rogue.&nbsp; Or even just rogue.&nbsp; But we have the ranger to fill the role more specifically (and better).&nbsp; I would say that the &quot;swashbuckler&quot; is just as important as the &quot;holy warrior&quot; and &quot;woodsman&quot; as an archtype, and so it deserves it's own core class just as much as the Ranger and Paladin do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hardhead, post: 1148434, member: 2844"] While you can get most concepts with the existing core classes, some don't fit very well without a PrC. I think the "swashbuckler" is a good example of this. The rogue doesn't work because they have a medium BAB and you probably don't want to be super skill-oriented and sneaking about. You're more flamboyant, ect. Barbarian doesn't work because you're not an illiterate rager, you're probably a city-born silver-tounged swordsman. Ranger doesn't work because they're abilities don't fit. You're not an archer or a dual-wielder (Weapon Finesse doesn't work with two weapons!). Fighter works alright, but unfortuanately your build is going to be very weak compared to a big Greatsword or double-longsword wielder. Probably the best build is going to be some sort of Fighter/rogue/dualist combo, but unless you're a human, that probably means XP penalties. Simply, you don't *need* new core classes because most concepts are workable using multiclassing. OTOH, a lot of very standard archtypes (like swashbuckler) work better with their own class. Think of it this way: the "holy warrior" archtype could be done with Fighter/Cleric multiclassing. But we have a Paladin too, which fills a specific nich better. Similarly, the "woodsman hunter" could be a Barbarian(or Fighter)/Rogue. Or even just rogue. But we have the ranger to fill the role more specifically (and better). I would say that the "swashbuckler" is just as important as the "holy warrior" and "woodsman" as an archtype, and so it deserves it's own core class just as much as the Ranger and Paladin do. [/QUOTE]

Verification