NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CleverNickName" data-source="post: 5892041" data-attributes="member: 50987">It took a while for me to warm up to it, but I have come to love the dual options of the 3.5E ranger.  You can play the class as an archer, or you can play it like a two-weapon fighter.  And no matter which one you choose, your character will still be undeniably a ranger: an outdoorsy, hunter-type fighter who's good with animals and all that jazz.  It is a great way to add versatility, without the need for two separate classes.I think the other classes could learn from this fine example.Take the cleric, for example.  What if we took a page out of the ranger's book, and made two different options for this class...one for the cloistered healer-type characters, and another for the warrior-priests.  No matter which one you choose, your character will still be undeniably a cleric: a godly, religious-type spellcaster.What if there were dual options for the fighter?  One option would be for the weapon specialists (those who want to pick one weapon and master it completely), and another option could be for barbarians.  Or pirates, or marshals, or whatever.  Like the ranger, you would make this choice at first level and you would gain a unique set of abilities and bonuses for doing so, but at the end of the day you would still be a weapon-wielding, non-spellcasting fighter with high BAT and HP.You could carry this through all of the classes (rogue --> bard/assassin/burglar;  wizard --> spellsword/guildmage; sorcerer --> warlock/wildmage; etc., etc.), increasing the versatility of the game without relying on prestige classes, or bloating the PHB with three dozen base classes.Thoughts?  Criticism?  Cries of outrage?</blockquote>

Verification