Why does an executioner bother learning to scare people? The emotional state of the corpse doesn't matter much.
Why do executioners have access to Arcana?
I bet you I can come up with a reason why Executioners are intimidating that makes more sense than any reason why they're well-versed in ways of the Arcane. I'm not saying said reasons don't exist, I just think they're more of a stretch.
first page of the article...
Martial and Shadow Striker: Your sense of
timing, skill with weapons, and ability to use the
shadows as a second home allow you to strike
with devastating effect against an unsuspecting
foe. You even mix in some shadow magic when
appropriate.
Why This Is the Class for You: You want to play
a stealthy character that can grievously wound
enemies with a single blow and who dabbles in
both poison and shadow magic.
Trainable skills being determined by class is dumb. There I said it.
Why exactly?
Also, it's not just governed by class; there's backgrounds and even a couple of themes that add skills.
Never mind that the Skill Training feat doesn't care about class skills, so they're irrelevant past character creation.
Trainable skills being determined by class is dumb. There I said it.
Why exactly?
Also, it's not just governed by class; there's backgrounds and even a couple of themes that add skills.
Never mind that the Skill Training feat doesn't care about class skills, so they're irrelevant past character creation.
It unnecessarily limits the number of characters that can be mechanically represented without significant investment of non-skill slot resources. Assuming that a player's DM will let them take themes, backgrounds, and multiclass feats without direct roleplaying representation, these things help make the problem less bad. They do not make it go away.
Trainable skills being determined by class is dumb. There I said it.
Why exactly?
Also, it's not just governed by class; there's backgrounds and even a couple of themes that add skills.
Never mind that the Skill Training feat doesn't care about class skills, so they're irrelevant past character creation.
It unnecessarily limits the number of characters that can be mechanically represented without significant investment of non-skill slot resources. Assuming that a player's DM will let them take themes, backgrounds, and multiclass feats without direct roleplaying representation, these things help make the problem less bad. They do not make it go away.
well it's background, not current... ground.
when a background gives a skill it's usually pretty appropriate to the character idea.
an assassin wanting to take intimidate could take say...
Significant Investment? You can just take a skill training feat...
Personally I don't mind the current system, but I can see where you are coming from. Maybe if they did a "Pick one skill, any skill, and then pick X from this list"
Significant Investment? You can just take a skill training feat...
Personally I don't mind the current system, but I can see where you are coming from. Maybe if they did a "Pick one skill, any skill, and then pick X from this list"
if you play an eladrin you get to do this anyway :P
There is a warlord in our very political game, and he has most assuredly made a "significant investment" to the tune of several feats to put together the skill list he wanted. I just don't see what we get out of restricting skill choices. I understand the single "not having this would be stupid" set in stone skill choices that we have right now. But I don't think we get anything out of the rest of the restrictions.
Counterspin on
0
Options
TurksonNear the mountains of ColoradoRegistered Userregular
edited September 2010
Skills and skill challenges are probably the weakest part of 4th Edition. I think some of it has to do with lazy DM's who pretty ask you if you have a specific skill and then roll the dice. On the other hand, the DM is silent and the players have to ask if a certain skill is appropriate to use. It can kill the flow of the game.
My other big problem with skills is that you can be limited by your class and your role in the game. A Fighter gets what, three skills? And I can already tell that the majority of them will be getting Athletics and Endurance. Why? Because it helps them with being a defender and are based off of his/her's key stats. This can cut down on the RP aspect of the game.
I'm going to do one more rant, and then I'll stop. Why is Religion based off of the INT stat!?! The people most likely to have it (Divine) all have Wisdom as a Primary or Secondary stat. Arglebargle!
I'm off to go yell at some kids standing on my lawn now.
I'm going to do one more rant, and then I'll stop. Why is Religion based off of the INT stat!?! The people most likely to have it (Divine) all have Wisdom as a Primary or Secondary stat. Arglebargle!
Religion is a skill about remembering details. Of course it's Int based.
If you want your Cleric to be good at it, dump Dex or take Skill Focus.
Being tied to the archetypes is exactly the problem, because those archetypes are so broad. A politically astute warlord is not a violation of archetype, but you have to spend a lot to get it. A knight cavalier likewise. That's not reinforcing archetypes, that's blocking off some archetypes and making them a pain to play.
Additionally, yes we realize how to make the numbers bigger. That doesn't make the justification any better.
In a system that was designed to be modular, I would completely agree with more openness in skills.
But D&D is a game of archetypes, which ties the skill system to the classes.
This is probably my biggest problem with the game: my first instinct when I see an archetype is to avoid or subvert it. A changeling who is completely upfront about being a shapeshifter, a charismatic, artistic orc, a strong, athletic wizard... The game allows mechanical reflection of some of these better than others.
Also my fondness for reskinning everything as anything else.
A Warlord has access to Diplomacy, History and Intimidate straight out of the box. Those seem like the core skills one's going to want in a political climate.
In a system that was designed to be modular, I would completely agree with more openness in skills.
But D&D is a game of archetypes, which ties the skill system to the classes.
This is probably my biggest problem with the game: my first instinct when I see an archetype is to avoid or subvert it. A changeling who is completely upfront about being a shapeshifter, a charismatic, artistic orc, a strong, athletic wizard... The game allows mechanical reflection of some of these better than others.
Also my fondness for reskinning everything as anything else.
Unfortunately, while D&D does allow for some level of subversion there's always been a very strong incentive to play with type instead of against it.
Which is why I'm pretty ok with the skills system as is (especially when you can get freebies via Backgrounds) when I might chafe against it if this were a different system.
Man, I mean, sure, you can't (easily) make a WIZARD who is a great swordsman: but you can certainly make a SWORDMAGE which captures the same flavor. I feel this way about a lot of things in 4e: if I want to play a 1st level Eladrin Wizard (with sleep/control powers) who has a bangin' Long Sword attack, I'm screwed. If I'm willing to play a Half-Elf, I can pull it off. If I'm willing to play a multi-class or hybrid class I can pull it off. If I alternatively say to myself, "Well gee, at 1st level, how would this master of sword and spell have gotten there? Maybe it makes sense that he can't do both well until say level 8", then the system lets me.
Do I get to take every optimum feat? No, of course not, but I'd expect my DM to scale the adventure for the characters. I mean sure, they could be a jerk and just throw CR+6 encounters at a party built around sub-optimum choices, but then they are a jerk. Don't play with that DM.
Really, I think the options are there, it's just a matter of everyone being on board with the game style. If you play a dwarf two axe wielding ranger but take no damage bonus feats and pick movement based encounter/dailies, don't complain when the min/maxed elf ranger great bow wielder is dealing 40+ damage reliably every round and you are doing 20. I mean, that's a choice you made, and it is one your DM shouldn't punish you for, but that other player made a huge sacrifice to get that character: they ditched all the cool feats for linguistics and outdoor camping you took.
Trigger: You kill an adjacent enemy.
Effect: The enemy’s body disappears and becomes trapped in a
small, fragile object of your choice (such as a delicate goblet,
a handheld mirror, a small gem, or a piece of jewelry).
You can release the body into an adjacent square by breaking
that object. You can have only one creature in a shadow
coffin at a time.
In this context, does 'kill' mean 'dead dead, reduced to negative bloodied hp', or does it mean 'dropped below zero hp'? Or does that not matter as much with NPCs? If an enemy could be revived, using this to remove them from the field could be useful mechanically. Also, is there any chance that this could circumvent 'on death' effects?
Oh, and if you have anyone in your party with the ability to animate dead, it could be a handy reserve. "Why, I happen to have a corpse right here!"
The "limit one per assassin" rule could be a fun/annoying hook - breaking into the castle once to do the assassination, then having to break in again because the body got left behind.
Obligatory BiJ: if you did this to a brain in a jar, would it take just the brain? Or would it be a brain in a jar in a pretty little gem?
wildwood on
0
Options
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
edited September 2010
RE: that power: Way to fuck with habeus corpus Wizards of the Coast. If that's even your real name!
Seriously, kill a buncha guards, then the king, take the body home in a mirror and "ransom" it back. Not many better ways to gain advantage over a rival nation really...
Man, I mean, sure, you can't (easily) make a WIZARD who is a great swordsman: but you can certainly make a SWORDMAGE which captures the same flavor. I feel this way about a lot of things in 4e: if I want to play a 1st level Eladrin Wizard (with sleep/control powers) who has a bangin' Long Sword attack, I'm screwed. If I'm willing to play a Half-Elf, I can pull it off. If I'm willing to play a multi-class or hybrid class I can pull it off. If I alternatively say to myself, "Well gee, at 1st level, how would this master of sword and spell have gotten there? Maybe it makes sense that he can't do both well until say level 8", then the system lets me.
Do I get to take every optimum feat? No, of course not, but I'd expect my DM to scale the adventure for the characters. I mean sure, they could be a jerk and just throw CR+6 encounters at a party built around sub-optimum choices, but then they are a jerk. Don't play with that DM.
Really, I think the options are there, it's just a matter of everyone being on board with the game style. If you play a dwarf two axe wielding ranger but take no damage bonus feats and pick movement based encounter/dailies, don't complain when the min/maxed elf ranger great bow wielder is dealing 40+ damage reliably every round and you are doing 20. I mean, that's a choice you made, and it is one your DM shouldn't punish you for, but that other player made a huge sacrifice to get that character: they ditched all the cool feats for linguistics and outdoor camping you took.
So wait
what exactly is the problem? you... sorta just solved your own beef with things.
also the eladrin wizard gets ye longsword proficiency for free, and if a swordmage multiclass or some other feat allows him to use his sword as an implement, bang
you could also meele train intelligence, or make STR one of your 16's. Or use an array like 16 13 10 16 1410 that'll make melee basic a decent at-will option for close range
Benefit: You can wield a longsword as an implement when using wizard powers. Your longsword adds its enhancement bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls and any extra damage granted by a property (if applicable) when used as an implement. You do not gain your weapon proficiency bonus to the attack roll when you use your longsword as an implement.
If you have any feats or class features that apply a benefit when you wield a wand, you can also apply these benefits when you wield a longsword. If such benefits apply to attacks, they apply only when you use the longsword as an implement for a wizard attack power.
as it turns out
eladrin are PERFECT for being swordy wizards
these are both decent...
first one relies on str to have a decent melee basic right away
the second one patiently waits for level 2 and melee training: intelligence
Horseshoe on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Would that added damage turn Precision Dart from a "Dex Modifier damage" power into a "1d6 + Dex Modifier damage" power, such that you'd gain bonuses to damage rolls from Enhancement and Weapon Focus and etc?
No. Extra damage doesn't gain bonuses of any kind and nor does it count as making you deal a damage roll when you hit with powers. Sneak attack is another good example of an extra damage bonus.
No. Extra damage doesn't gain bonuses of any kind and nor does it count as making you deal a damage roll when you hit with powers. Sneak attack is another good example of an extra damage bonus.
But you would still get the D6 from the class feature straight up, right?
No. Extra damage doesn't gain bonuses of any kind and nor does it count as making you deal a damage roll when you hit with powers. Sneak attack is another good example of an extra damage bonus.
But you would still get the D6 from the class feature straight up, right?
Yes, you only need to deal some damage to do extra damage.
I'm going to do one more rant, and then I'll stop. Why is Religion based off of the INT stat!?! The people most likely to have it (Divine) all have Wisdom as a Primary or Secondary stat. Arglebargle!
Religion is a skill about remembering details. Of course it's Int based.
If you want your Cleric to be good at it, dump Dex or take Skill Focus.
I can your point, but I'd also argue that many religious texts are less about who is who in the zoo and more about parables and teaching what to do in certain situations and why. That to me is more wisdom based. Also, we're arguing about a skill in a fantasy game. I feel exceptionally neckbeardy now
Man, I mean, sure, you can't (easily) make a WIZARD who is a great swordsman: but you can certainly make a SWORDMAGE which captures the same flavor. I feel this way about a lot of things in 4e: if I want to play a 1st level Eladrin Wizard (with sleep/control powers) who has a bangin' Long Sword attack, I'm screwed. If I'm willing to play a Half-Elf, I can pull it off. If I'm willing to play a multi-class or hybrid class I can pull it off. If I alternatively say to myself, "Well gee, at 1st level, how would this master of sword and spell have gotten there? Maybe it makes sense that he can't do both well until say level 8", then the system lets me.
Do I get to take every optimum feat? No, of course not, but I'd expect my DM to scale the adventure for the characters. I mean sure, they could be a jerk and just throw CR+6 encounters at a party built around sub-optimum choices, but then they are a jerk. Don't play with that DM.
Really, I think the options are there, it's just a matter of everyone being on board with the game style. If you play a dwarf two axe wielding ranger but take no damage bonus feats and pick movement based encounter/dailies, don't complain when the min/maxed elf ranger great bow wielder is dealing 40+ damage reliably every round and you are doing 20. I mean, that's a choice you made, and it is one your DM shouldn't punish you for, but that other player made a huge sacrifice to get that character: they ditched all the cool feats for linguistics and outdoor camping you took.
So wait
what exactly is the problem? you... sorta just solved your own beef with things.
also the eladrin wizard gets ye longsword proficiency for free, and if a swordmage multiclass or some other feat allows him to use his sword as an implement, bang
you could also meele train intelligence, or make STR one of your 16's. Or use an array like 16 13 10 16 1410 that'll make melee basic a decent at-will option for close range
Sorry, I must have been unclear, I meant, you CAN do whatever you want. People are complaining that they feel hemmed in by archetypes, and I'm saying, no, no, think about this differently. It is all possible.
I was just using real-world examples of my own real world.
Actually, the two weapon ranger thing does kind of bug me. You really have to work it to get a two weapon ranger at level 11 who does the damage output of a greatbow wielding elf battlefield archer. (Unless anyone knows a secret trick). It even hits you in little ways, like needing two enchanted weapons if you aren't using inherent bonuses.
I've always interpreted the religion skill as Knowledge (Religion) rather than like.. Righteousness or something.
Yea, righteousness is really more of a game trait than a comprehensive understanding of religion and religious systems. I mean, it makes sense that a cleric would be good at religion (hence being trained in it), but if you have a cleric who isn't at all book smart, why would he know that Sir Jim of Smithsville rose to power as the 3rd leader of the Roses Thorn sect in the year 1829?
I don't think religion is typically used to convince or manipulate or persuade--rather, those are charismatic traits--but for knowing obscure religious facts.
I'm going to do one more rant, and then I'll stop. Why is Religion based off of the INT stat!?! The people most likely to have it (Divine) all have Wisdom as a Primary or Secondary stat. Arglebargle!
Religion is a skill about remembering details. Of course it's Int based.
If you want your Cleric to be good at it, dump Dex or take Skill Focus.
I can your point, but I'd also argue that many religious texts are less about who is who in the zoo and more about parables and teaching what to do in certain situations and why. That to me is more wisdom based. Also, we're arguing about a skill in a fantasy game. I feel exceptionally neckbeardy now
Actually, I'd put preaching as Diplomacy and being empathetic as Insight. Religion is raw knowledge about not only your religion but all religions. My take is that if it's something you might have to look up, it's Int based.
Man, I mean, sure, you can't (easily) make a WIZARD who is a great swordsman: but you can certainly make a SWORDMAGE which captures the same flavor. I feel this way about a lot of things in 4e: if I want to play a 1st level Eladrin Wizard (with sleep/control powers) who has a bangin' Long Sword attack, I'm screwed. If I'm willing to play a Half-Elf, I can pull it off. If I'm willing to play a multi-class or hybrid class I can pull it off. If I alternatively say to myself, "Well gee, at 1st level, how would this master of sword and spell have gotten there? Maybe it makes sense that he can't do both well until say level 8", then the system lets me.
Do I get to take every optimum feat? No, of course not, but I'd expect my DM to scale the adventure for the characters. I mean sure, they could be a jerk and just throw CR+6 encounters at a party built around sub-optimum choices, but then they are a jerk. Don't play with that DM.
Really, I think the options are there, it's just a matter of everyone being on board with the game style. If you play a dwarf two axe wielding ranger but take no damage bonus feats and pick movement based encounter/dailies, don't complain when the min/maxed elf ranger great bow wielder is dealing 40+ damage reliably every round and you are doing 20. I mean, that's a choice you made, and it is one your DM shouldn't punish you for, but that other player made a huge sacrifice to get that character: they ditched all the cool feats for linguistics and outdoor camping you took.
So wait
what exactly is the problem? you... sorta just solved your own beef with things.
also the eladrin wizard gets ye longsword proficiency for free, and if a swordmage multiclass or some other feat allows him to use his sword as an implement, bang
you could also meele train intelligence, or make STR one of your 16's. Or use an array like 16 13 10 16 1410 that'll make melee basic a decent at-will option for close range
Sorry, I must have been unclear, I meant, you CAN do whatever you want. People are complaining that they feel hemmed in by archetypes, and I'm saying, no, no, think about this differently. It is all possible.
I was just using real-world examples of my own real world.
Actually, the two weapon ranger thing does kind of bug me. You really have to work it to get a two weapon ranger at level 11 who does the damage output of a greatbow wielding elf battlefield archer. (Unless anyone knows a secret trick). It even hits you in little ways, like needing two enchanted weapons if you aren't using inherent bonuses.
I'm going to do one more rant, and then I'll stop. Why is Religion based off of the INT stat!?! The people most likely to have it (Divine) all have Wisdom as a Primary or Secondary stat. Arglebargle!
Religion is a skill about remembering details. Of course it's Int based.
If you want your Cleric to be good at it, dump Dex or take Skill Focus.
I can your point, but I'd also argue that many religious texts are less about who is who in the zoo and more about parables and teaching what to do in certain situations and why. That to me is more wisdom based. Also, we're arguing about a skill in a fantasy game. I feel exceptionally neckbeardy now
Actually, I'd put preaching as Diplomacy and being empathetic as Insight. Religion is raw knowledge about not only your religion but all religions. My take is that if it's something you might have to look up, it's Int based.
Welcome to neckbeardhood. :P
take away his razors and deodarant
give him the shirt from thinkgeek with all the greasy fast food stains on it
:P
Horseshoe on
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
edited September 2010
Looking at the Assassin paragon paths now, Shadowblade seems like it could work with the essentials version pretty much unchanged. Obsidian Stalker and Master Poisoner are doable aside from the level 20 daily having a minor part of the effect section deal with shrouds. Soul Thief doesn't really work since most of the abilities are based around Shade Form.
Posts
first page of the article...
in conclusion...
...
Inquisitor77: Rius, you are Sisyphus and melee Wizard is your boulder
Tube: This must be what it felt like to be an Iraqi when Saddam was killed
Bookish Stickers - Mrs. Rius' Etsy shop with bumper stickers and vinyl decals.
Trainable skills being determined by class is dumb. There I said it.
And the skill system in general could be better.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Also, it's not just governed by class; there's backgrounds and even a couple of themes that add skills.
Never mind that the Skill Training feat doesn't care about class skills, so they're irrelevant past character creation.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
vastly superior to the previous editions
also doesn't require insider sub
It unnecessarily limits the number of characters that can be mechanically represented without significant investment of non-skill slot resources. Assuming that a player's DM will let them take themes, backgrounds, and multiclass feats without direct roleplaying representation, these things help make the problem less bad. They do not make it go away.
This, of course, goes without saying.
well it's background, not current... ground.
when a background gives a skill it's usually pretty appropriate to the character idea.
an assassin wanting to take intimidate could take say...
the background called "occupation: executioner"
seems pretty straightforward
Personally I don't mind the current system, but I can see where you are coming from. Maybe if they did a "Pick one skill, any skill, and then pick X from this list"
if you play an eladrin you get to do this anyway :P
it's not a bad idea
My other big problem with skills is that you can be limited by your class and your role in the game. A Fighter gets what, three skills? And I can already tell that the majority of them will be getting Athletics and Endurance. Why? Because it helps them with being a defender and are based off of his/her's key stats. This can cut down on the RP aspect of the game.
I'm going to do one more rant, and then I'll stop. Why is Religion based off of the INT stat!?! The people most likely to have it (Divine) all have Wisdom as a Primary or Secondary stat. Arglebargle!
I'm off to go yell at some kids standing on my lawn now.
But D&D is a game of archetypes, which ties the skill system to the classes.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
If you want your Cleric to be good at it, dump Dex or take Skill Focus.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Additionally, yes we realize how to make the numbers bigger. That doesn't make the justification any better.
This is probably my biggest problem with the game: my first instinct when I see an archetype is to avoid or subvert it. A changeling who is completely upfront about being a shapeshifter, a charismatic, artistic orc, a strong, athletic wizard... The game allows mechanical reflection of some of these better than others.
Also my fondness for reskinning everything as anything else.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Which is why I'm pretty ok with the skills system as is (especially when you can get freebies via Backgrounds) when I might chafe against it if this were a different system.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Do I get to take every optimum feat? No, of course not, but I'd expect my DM to scale the adventure for the characters. I mean sure, they could be a jerk and just throw CR+6 encounters at a party built around sub-optimum choices, but then they are a jerk. Don't play with that DM.
Really, I think the options are there, it's just a matter of everyone being on board with the game style. If you play a dwarf two axe wielding ranger but take no damage bonus feats and pick movement based encounter/dailies, don't complain when the min/maxed elf ranger great bow wielder is dealing 40+ damage reliably every round and you are doing 20. I mean, that's a choice you made, and it is one your DM shouldn't punish you for, but that other player made a huge sacrifice to get that character: they ditched all the cool feats for linguistics and outdoor camping you took.
In this context, does 'kill' mean 'dead dead, reduced to negative bloodied hp', or does it mean 'dropped below zero hp'? Or does that not matter as much with NPCs? If an enemy could be revived, using this to remove them from the field could be useful mechanically. Also, is there any chance that this could circumvent 'on death' effects?
Oh, and if you have anyone in your party with the ability to animate dead, it could be a handy reserve. "Why, I happen to have a corpse right here!"
The "limit one per assassin" rule could be a fun/annoying hook - breaking into the castle once to do the assassination, then having to break in again because the body got left behind.
Obligatory BiJ: if you did this to a brain in a jar, would it take just the brain? Or would it be a brain in a jar in a pretty little gem?
Seriously, kill a buncha guards, then the king, take the body home in a mirror and "ransom" it back. Not many better ways to gain advantage over a rival nation really...
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
So wait
what exactly is the problem? you... sorta just solved your own beef with things.
also the eladrin wizard gets ye longsword proficiency for free, and if a swordmage multiclass or some other feat allows him to use his sword as an implement, bang
you could also meele train intelligence, or make STR one of your 16's. Or use an array like 16 13 10 16 1410 that'll make melee basic a decent at-will option for close range
Which would be pretty cool.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
i'm not sure whether "you can use swordmage implements" applies to wizard powers or not
i can log into ddi but then i get error pages for mosta the stuff i'm lookin for
oh shit HAH i forgot the arcane power feat
as it turns out
eladrin are PERFECT for being swordy wizards
these are both decent...
first one relies on str to have a decent melee basic right away
the second one patiently waits for level 2 and melee training: intelligence
No. Extra damage doesn't gain bonuses of any kind and nor does it count as making you deal a damage roll when you hit with powers. Sneak attack is another good example of an extra damage bonus.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
Yes, you only need to deal some damage to do extra damage.
I can your point, but I'd also argue that many religious texts are less about who is who in the zoo and more about parables and teaching what to do in certain situations and why. That to me is more wisdom based. Also, we're arguing about a skill in a fantasy game. I feel exceptionally neckbeardy now
Sorry, I must have been unclear, I meant, you CAN do whatever you want. People are complaining that they feel hemmed in by archetypes, and I'm saying, no, no, think about this differently. It is all possible.
I was just using real-world examples of my own real world.
Actually, the two weapon ranger thing does kind of bug me. You really have to work it to get a two weapon ranger at level 11 who does the damage output of a greatbow wielding elf battlefield archer. (Unless anyone knows a secret trick). It even hits you in little ways, like needing two enchanted weapons if you aren't using inherent bonuses.
Yea, righteousness is really more of a game trait than a comprehensive understanding of religion and religious systems. I mean, it makes sense that a cleric would be good at religion (hence being trained in it), but if you have a cleric who isn't at all book smart, why would he know that Sir Jim of Smithsville rose to power as the 3rd leader of the Roses Thorn sect in the year 1829?
I don't think religion is typically used to convince or manipulate or persuade--rather, those are charismatic traits--but for knowing obscure religious facts.
Welcome to neckbeardhood. :P
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
ah yes the Suicide Ranger
it still has some problems
take away his razors and deodarant
give him the shirt from thinkgeek with all the greasy fast food stains on it
:P