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="Gnarl45" data-source="post: 6561717" data-attributes="member: 6787695">I suppose I should at least give you the benefit of the doubt when you say you didn't understand what I said. Anyways, I'll try to explain again what I meant and hopefully this will allow us to leave this misunderstanding behind us. I'm sure you also have better things to do than arguing with a perfect stranger on the Internet.In 5e, the class that is the best at skills is the rogue. 5e is a game where being the best at a skill means having Expertise in that skill (and Reliable Talent at higher levels). When I say I want to make a ranger without spells, I really mean I want to make a fighterish character that is the best at outdoors skills. My options for this are: multiclass bard or rogue. Getting proficiency in those skills is not going to make me the best at those skills so that's not satisfying. The bard has spells so that doesn't work either. The rogue has sneak attack and the whole dirty fighter/teamwork fighter is not what I have in mind when I think ranger.5e is also a game where all classes aren't equal in combat. The rogue for exemple gave up a lot of his combat skills compared to a fighter to get those skills. Having a character less efficient in combat but more efficient outside of combat is something I actually enjoy. That's the Lord of the Rings hobbit I was talking about. It's a character that really sucks at combat but is loads of fun to play outside of combat. My only options in 5e to give up on combat abilities is to play or multiclass as a rogue, ranger, or bard. That means the dirty fighter fluff or spells. Bilbo has neither of these.There are many fantasy characters that are really good at something else than fighting. You have scouts, hunters, detectives, diplomates, charlatans, etc... In 5e, really good at something else means Expertise. I would love a fighter subclass with Expertise in a couple of skills and extra outdoors stuff like being able to track faster than normal. If it would be too much bloat, I could settle for a generic fighter subclass that gives you Expertise in any two skills of your choice and other generic skill-based goodies. I could also settle for a rogue without sneak attack and a subclass that grants you generic skill-based stuff. That would be enough to make all those characters that are really good at skills but aren't sneak attackers or spellcasting bards.The generic wizard problem is kind of like the non-sneak attacking rogue. Even if I want to play a generic wizard, picking the evoker subclass gives my wizard a very strong evoker feel, the illusionist a very strong illusionist feel, etc... These subclasses just have a very heavy impact on your character's fluff. A generic wizard would be nice. I could use it to make pretty much any wizard that doesn't heavily focus on one school of magic. I could also use a wizard subclass that gives you Expertise in a couple of feats. I would probably like to play a wizard that has Expertise in the History skill (like Gandalf).</blockquote>

Verification