Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Greg K" data-source="post: 2586464" data-attributes="member: 5038">Yes, I have had new players describe a robin hood, a legolas type character and even a &quot;jungle&quot; barbarian that did not rage. The natural thing to do is turn to the barbarian and ranger, because&nbsp; the wilderness skills make the classes seem appropriate until the remaining class features come into picture.&nbsp; So basically, they would have been better served by the barbarian hunter variant, a wilderness (rather than thug) variant&nbsp; of the fighter, and the&nbsp; the wilderness rogue variant&nbsp; although not necessarily in that order.&nbsp; I have even had a new player describe the battle sorceror variant.And as a DM,&nbsp; I too would have preferred more variant classes and the base classes that I described avaible from the start.&nbsp; Until UA,&nbsp; I would never run a DND campaign despite having the core books since their initial 3.0 release. The classes and variants I wanted to run the campaign I that I wanted were not available in the core books.&nbsp; Some will argue that the mechanics were there with multiclassing and cross class skills, but as I have said before, I think that is a kludge that penalizes players as is making them wait for certain PrCs.Note: I always felt comfortable making changes along the lines of the Thug variant of fighter, the wilderness rogue, or making changes to the spell list. It was changing other special class features that I&nbsp; never felt comfortable with.&nbsp; And I know other DMs from other boards&nbsp; that never felt comfortable&nbsp; even making any changes to class features, because the player handbook and DMG did not contain enough examples and guidelines.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Greg K, post: 2586464, member: 5038"] Yes, I have had new players describe a robin hood, a legolas type character and even a "jungle" barbarian that did not rage. The natural thing to do is turn to the barbarian and ranger, because the wilderness skills make the classes seem appropriate until the remaining class features come into picture. So basically, they would have been better served by the barbarian hunter variant, a wilderness (rather than thug) variant of the fighter, and the the wilderness rogue variant although not necessarily in that order. I have even had a new player describe the battle sorceror variant. And as a DM, I too would have preferred more variant classes and the base classes that I described avaible from the start. Until UA, I would never run a DND campaign despite having the core books since their initial 3.0 release. The classes and variants I wanted to run the campaign I that I wanted were not available in the core books. Some will argue that the mechanics were there with multiclassing and cross class skills, but as I have said before, I think that is a kludge that penalizes players as is making them wait for certain PrCs. Note: I always felt comfortable making changes along the lines of the Thug variant of fighter, the wilderness rogue, or making changes to the spell list. It was changing other special class features that I never felt comfortable with. And I know other DMs from other boards that never felt comfortable even making any changes to class features, because the player handbook and DMG did not contain enough examples and guidelines. [/QUOTE]

Verification