ehren37 said:I actually voted against the warlock because they make mediocre NPC's. An NPC warlock is a weak adversary. Its strength lies in his unlimited supply of invocations. Given the short lifespans of NPC's in combat, the warlock is somewhat weak. An npc cleric or wizard is substantially tougher.
Unless people are playing githyankis, it's idiotic. Nowhere else does anyone take one race's name for an archetype and use it as a standard term. TWF rangers aren't "Drizzts."Shade said:What's wrong with gish?
BLING! There's the crux of your problem. Commandos ARE NOT as 1337 as you make them out to be. There is no single D&D base class that can emulate the Navy SEAL/ Marine/ US Army Ranger stereotype. But there should be.Sammael said:Because of balance issues. The spec-ops soldier stereotype (which I do not think holds true IRL, but that's another story) is simply too good to be a balanced base class. Tough, strong, fast, skilled, capable with weapons, capable in unarmed combat, cunning, able to survive, agile, athletic... the list just keeps going. It's got "prestige class" written all over it. Or gestalt, if you prefer that alternative.
Same problem people have with the ninja stereotype, IMO. Proper ninja aren't as 1337 as people seem to think they have to be.J-Dawg said:BLING! There's the crux of your problem. Commandos ARE NOT as 1337 as you make them out to be. There is no single D&D base class that can emulate the Navy SEAL/ Marine/ US Army Ranger stereotype. But there should be.![]()
![Devious    :] :]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png)