Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6296540" data-attributes="member: 17106">Classes aren't synonymous with exclusive niches. If we look at classes as instead being packages of abilities that either go well together mechanically or are popular, than ranger makes a lot of sense. A lot of people want a dip in thief skills, good combat ability, and a little healing after the battle. If D&D were a point buy game, a lot of characters would look like rangers, some like fighters and wizards, and very few would look like paladins or bards.Also, we already have a cleric ranger, that's called a druid.I think it's always been problematic that spellcasting isn't a d20-based commodity, and it doesn't work the way d20-based stuff works, and thus casters don't multiclass well.If I wanted to multiclass ranger and rogue, for example, the skills that they share would retain their full advancement, their BAB would stack and thus be in between a straight ranger and a straight rogue. With spellcasters, you just get crap spells and no stacking. That's not going to change as long as magic looks anything like what it looks like.It interacts with the question I'm asking, but doesn't fundamentally change it. To get rage, you have to take an actual level in barbarian. That has significant implications distinct from rage being available as a feat or through some other means to every class. If you're a caster in particular, you give up a level of spellcasting to get it. Depending on what scale your campaign is on, that one level in barbarian may divert a large portion of your conceivable advancement. By the rules, it also risks a multiclass penalty.Thus, 3e rage is more exclusive than the fighter's bonus feats; the fighter's only really exclusive ability is a small number of optional, but not particularly powerful feats that simply add numerical bonuses.</blockquote>

Verification