Remind me again why this is a bad idea.
Uller
Adventurer
apsuman said:
I don't think his point was that you can't build a Street Brawling fighter...I think that was a bad example to illustrate that there are character concepts that you can't achieve through the core classes and that an expanded feat/skill selection system would have been better. A "Street Brawler" can easily be accomplished with combination of some unmodified core classes.
My response? Sure. There are some (valid) character concepts that don't translate well to 3e D&D. Class systems are based on archtypes and if there is not an archtype(s) that roughly translates to your concept, you'll likely run into problems. The best solution in 3e is to slightly modify one of the available classes or build an entirely new one. No big deal and as was mentioned, the DMG gives some advice on how to do that. First, you best play around with the system as is so you can learn how all the various classes work, otherwise you will likely mess something up.
As for the "Penalty" associated with class features that go unused(like the Rogue/Fighter who doesn't use heavy armor)...so what? That happens with every class and most character concepts. All fighters know how to use Longbows, but not every fighter concept is interested in archery. A fighter from a culture where there are no bows(or bows are not used for war) would not know how to use one. So as a PC, you just don't.
EOL
First Post
Yes it's prefectly alright to mess with a core class if you know what you're doing.
But it's really generally not necessary. There is a tremendous amount of flexibility already built into 3E and with a good knowledge of the books and some creativity you can model almost anything.
In addition trading these unused feats for other stuff sounds like someone who's trying to squeeze every last ounce of power out of something which generally bugs me.
But it's really generally not necessary. There is a tremendous amount of flexibility already built into 3E and with a good knowledge of the books and some creativity you can model almost anything.
In addition trading these unused feats for other stuff sounds like someone who's trying to squeeze every last ounce of power out of something which generally bugs me.
I had choosen to demonstrate the Rogue/Ranger as a choice for a light fighter because it was basicly what he had described. And he was asking if changing out a class virtual feat for another feat was unbalancing. My example was an alternative to changing core classes. Multi-classing is much easier in 3ed then it used to be. The Thug by description is a fighter/rogue. But the player may not wish to loose as many skill points for what they would gain in feats. The best alternative is take ranger instead of fighter.
As to peoples complaints over the ranger played as per the current PHB. The only real problem I have with it is the inability to have your race as a favorite enemy if you are good. We have very good detectives in this world that know how to track and search for the human being. I wouldn't concider them evil. In a city game Human is a very good choice for favorite enemy.
As to peoples complaints over the ranger played as per the current PHB. The only real problem I have with it is the inability to have your race as a favorite enemy if you are good. We have very good detectives in this world that know how to track and search for the human being. I wouldn't concider them evil. In a city game Human is a very good choice for favorite enemy.
Uller
Adventurer
Macbrea said:
I completely agree with this(although it seems a different thread). Perhaps it is just a balance issue(assuming most PCs are good or neutral and that humans are rather common foes).
As a DM, I'm completely willing to toss out this rule if the player has a reason why members of his own race would be his favored enemies...
ok, ROGUE, my bad.
But, my point was that depending upon your view of street fighting, a ranger would do it for you.
don't get me wrong, your vision can include uncanny dodge and sneak attack.
Basically, I was (trying to) do two things. First bolster the idea that the core rules allows for the character type he described, second, describe one way to do it with a class that had not been mentioned but one time at that point in the thread.
...
now on to the rest, yes, there are some character concepts that don't fit, but I think not many (ok, change that to many less than the 2e days) given the multiclass rules.
as it stands, the original idea of trading the armor prof for others suggested feats is just bad, imho.
now, i can see cases where trading one feat for a different one might be fair and equitable.
g!
But, my point was that depending upon your view of street fighting, a ranger would do it for you.
don't get me wrong, your vision can include uncanny dodge and sneak attack.
Basically, I was (trying to) do two things. First bolster the idea that the core rules allows for the character type he described, second, describe one way to do it with a class that had not been mentioned but one time at that point in the thread.
...
now on to the rest, yes, there are some character concepts that don't fit, but I think not many (ok, change that to many less than the 2e days) given the multiclass rules.
as it stands, the original idea of trading the armor prof for others suggested feats is just bad, imho.
now, i can see cases where trading one feat for a different one might be fair and equitable.
g!
If you want this guy to be a big, dumb fighter...(low skills), then you run a straight fighter, you put him in the armor YOU feel he'd have, and you give him his weapon and his few skills...
NO, it isn't min/maxed, and yes, if you wanted him to have some high skills and sneak attack bonuses, you could go with rogue... but your argument was based on YOUR CREATED PERSONA for your character.
its just a base fighter class that you have the versatility to run whatever armor you want... doesn't mean you HAVE to...
NO, it isn't min/maxed, and yes, if you wanted him to have some high skills and sneak attack bonuses, you could go with rogue... but your argument was based on YOUR CREATED PERSONA for your character.
its just a base fighter class that you have the versatility to run whatever armor you want... doesn't mean you HAVE to...
Similar Threads
