Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bonedagger" data-source="post: 454916" data-attributes="member: 2564">Ok. I know that titel was biased <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />I never liked the D&amp;D ranger. I never either understood why the fighter should have so few skills to chose from.My plan now is to remove the ranger class completely. Then add the rangers skill selection choise to the fighters. Giving the fighter some needed flexibility. The only skills that will be added that cannot be used untrained is Animal Empathy (Former forbidden skill) and Intuitive Direction (Former cross-class skill).This way you can have ranger types (As per not D&amp;D classic and Drizzt) who don't all fight two-handed and cast spells.My question now is. Do anybody see a balance problem with this. I am seriously considdering doing this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bonedagger, post: 454916, member: 2564"] Ok. I know that titel was biased :D I never liked the D&D ranger. I never either understood why the fighter should have so few skills to chose from. My plan now is to remove the ranger class completely. Then add the rangers skill selection choise to the fighters. Giving the fighter some needed flexibility. The only skills that will be added that cannot be used untrained is Animal Empathy (Former forbidden skill) and Intuitive Direction (Former cross-class skill). This way you can have ranger types (As per not D&D classic and Drizzt) who don't all fight two-handed and cast spells. My question now is. Do anybody see a balance problem with this. I am [u]seriously[/u] considdering doing this. [/QUOTE]

Verification