Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vyvyan Basterd" data-source="post: 6126391" data-attributes="member: 4892">What if my character is a coward who would never put himself in harm's way to defend another?What if my character never tries to kill, only subdue?What if my character is actually calm and serene?What if my character thinks dueling is for chumps and would rather stab you in the back?Point being that there is still considerable baggage. I would ignore the word in all the above cases and focus on my concept.These actually work, but what if there is more to your concept than ranged weaponry?I don't have a problem with that route, because IMO it is easier to discard fluff than create it. You can list the package of abilities on your character sheet and ignore the word Gladiator. The real problem I have with your naming convention are that they become very narrow. They could work as feats (especially since they are now 'tremendous'), but are too limited IMO to be a sub-class.Actually, that's why I wouldn't mind seeing multiple paths to the same result. If you could choose the Skirmisher feat and exotic weapon proficiency while someone else picks the Samurai sub-class, I'm good with that too.</blockquote>