Precise shot unbalanced?
- Thread starter Erithtotl
- Start date
hong said:
If by "eminently sensible" you mean "stupidly broken", I suppose you're right.
TWF/Ambidexterity aren't great/broken because two-weapon fighting itself isn't great.
But a class that gives you the best BAB, a bunch of skills, and three free feats (two of them EXCELLENT feats) at first level? That's just dumb.
Now, it all ends up balancing out IMO if the guy doesn't multiclass -- and this elven ranger isn't. So that's fine. I'm talking about the feat-swap in general -- it's really stupidly broken if/when someone human fighter-type decides to take only one level of ranger on his way to becoming Mr. Archer.
Or a class that has fighter as its preferred class does the same.
EDIT -- Does Monte's ranger still cast spells? If so -- lord, man, that's sick.
Tons of skill points, good skills to choose from, almost as many bonus feats as a fighter, a better save . . . AND spells. And they sacrifice what? One hp/level?
Oooooooh. Even if they didn't get spells, it'd be damn touchy.
Last edited:
Forrester said:
The great thing about house rules is that they exist at the sufferance of the DM. If someone starts abusing them, the house rule doesn't exist anymore.
As it stands, the TWF/Ambidex thing is one of those 2E sacred cows that nobody wanted to kill off. Not only is it a sacred cow, it's one of the sillier ones to boot. If someone wants to get rid of it, more power to them.
Don't get me wrong -- I think the way rangers start with Ambi/TWF is extremely dumb. Especially when you consider the fact that they can't use it on double-weapons.
And some switching-out makes sense. I just think that allowing a switch-out to two great archery feats is going to make people take one level of ranger even more than they do now. At least stagger the feats so they aren't both gained at 1st level.
And some switching-out makes sense. I just think that allowing a switch-out to two great archery feats is going to make people take one level of ranger even more than they do now. At least stagger the feats so they aren't both gained at 1st level.
Apok
First Post
Crothian said:
Well, our group does, but our DM expects it of us. He lets us build our PC's any way we want (as long as we can come up with a fairly-reasonable explanation for a given class combination) and in exchange, we don't complain when he uses the same min/maxed munchkin tactics against us. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say.
Crothian said:
You'd be surprised.
In the end, this sort of thing is best decided on a case-by-case basis. If I had a player who really wanted to play a woodsman type, but didn't care for the TWF schtick, I wouldn't have any problems letting them switch out the feats for something more to their liking. This is assuming that I trust they're doing it to get a character they can better identify with. If it was a dedicated powergamer who wanted the same thing, I'd react differently. I don't have any qualms about knocking back people who treat the game as a competition with the DM.
Crothian said:
Well, I've done it. A 1st level strongheart halfling (extra feat instead of +1 on all saves), starts off as a ranger, then goes Rogue the rest of the way.
Weapon Finesse (dagger), Weapon Focus (dagger), Two weapon fighting, ambidexterity, and Track, plus a 20 Dex.
+8 attack bonus with a dagger at 1st level, +6/+6 with two weapon fighting, or +9 with a thrown dagger. (I could get +10 thrown if I took point blank shot instead of weapon finesse, but I wanted to be able to fight in melee.)
Then go rogue the rest of the way, for the ultimate two-fisted, sneak attacking halfling knive fighter.
It made sense for the character.
Last edited:
