Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sylrae" data-source="post: 5001128" data-attributes="member: 48520">The witch doctor would be cool, the tricky part would be figuring out what to give him for abilities to make him different than a a druid or a cleric or a sorcerer.As for the Bard slightly sucking, it's because the bard is a skill-based character, like the rogue was in 3e, more than it is a full caster.And, since as you pointed out in the 3.5e Houserules forum (before I realized ENworld had all these nifty hosted forums...), Skills are not nearly as useful in 3.5e as is (They are often a way to avoid consequences, not a way to do things), the Bard and Rogue suffer for it.You've turned the rogue into a full-on melee class, in the hit hard but don't get hit back, kind of way. Which is cool, considering 3.53/PFRPG don't make skills do enough.But with your change, the swashbuckler is just a slight flavor change on the rogue. They're a rogue with different abilities, sure, but they're not really a that much more of a fighter than a rogue. I thought it was a tad ridiculous to give a swashbuckler a d10 in Complete Warrior, but a bunch of their things were not as good as they could have been.For a Swashbuckler (A niche I much like) &gt; Really should be a monk/rogue type, but with different gear limits; having low HD (d6), full BAB, precise strike/flurry, no more than light armor for class abilities, some kind of AC bonus,&nbsp; Good Reflex, and I'd say will before Fort, but it would depend, they're close to even probabilities. In my game I'd probably use medium progressions on FORT and WILL, but most people don't have Medium Progressions or use Fractional saves (I've seen fractional BAB before).The Bard, should really be a full caster. Don't beef up his combat abilities, that just seems silly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sylrae, post: 5001128, member: 48520"] The witch doctor would be cool, the tricky part would be figuring out what to give him for abilities to make him different than a a druid or a cleric or a sorcerer. As for the Bard slightly sucking, it's because the bard is a skill-based character, like the rogue was in 3e, more than it is a full caster. And, since as you pointed out in the 3.5e Houserules forum (before I realized ENworld had all these nifty hosted forums...), Skills are not nearly as useful in 3.5e as is (They are often a way to avoid consequences, not a way to do things), the Bard and Rogue suffer for it. You've turned the rogue into a full-on melee class, in the hit hard but don't get hit back, kind of way. Which is cool, considering 3.53/PFRPG don't make skills do enough. But with your change, the swashbuckler is just a slight flavor change on the rogue. They're a rogue with different abilities, sure, but they're not really a that much more of a fighter than a rogue. I thought it was a tad ridiculous to give a swashbuckler a d10 in Complete Warrior, but a bunch of their things were not as good as they could have been. For a Swashbuckler (A niche I much like) > Really should be a monk/rogue type, but with different gear limits; having low HD (d6), full BAB, precise strike/flurry, no more than light armor for class abilities, some kind of AC bonus, Good Reflex, and I'd say will before Fort, but it would depend, they're close to even probabilities. In my game I'd probably use medium progressions on FORT and WILL, but most people don't have Medium Progressions or use Fractional saves (I've seen fractional BAB before). The Bard, should really be a full caster. Don't beef up his combat abilities, that just seems silly. [/QUOTE]

Verification