Talk:Vanguard (3.5e Class)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Malicious edit[edit]

reverted from bad edit back to original. Zap284 (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2013 (MST)

Vanguard Class Discussion[edit]

PLEASE tell me what you think about this class. I want to know how it can be refined or improved. Try to ask before making content changes, or at least tell me you've made them. Think the class sucks? Say so, and why. Think the class rocks? Say so, and why. Just keep things descriptive. I'm eager to please here. -- Cronocke 01:17, 24 December 2007 (MST)

Personally, I would rather play a fighter or paladin. Epic progression should include a bonus feat. This class seems rather specialist. This is not good for a base class. Perhaps you could make it a prestige class? --Sam Kay 12:47, 24 December 2007 (MST)
While you might prefer a fighter or paladin to this class, I feel that it does add something. Unlike most other homebrew classes, which tend to be weird hybrids with a smattering of assorted powers, this one knows what its role is, and focuses on that. Rather like the Marksman is a character focused on ranged attacks from concealment, this character is focused on tanking and zone control in a melee. A Fighter has more build flexibility but less ability to control the field, a Paladin has more varied abilities but is less resilient and has more play restrictions, and a Barbarian... well, those are pretty much the exact opposite, just as specialized, but for offense instead of defense. -- Cronocke 14:34, 24 December 2007 (MST)
This class has my personal thumbs-up. There needs to be more people who play tanks, who can just absorb punishment while the rest of the party kicks ass... I mean in a game with miniatures, this class would kick some serious butt!--Gruegirl 14:46, 24 December 2007 (MST)
Something I would recommend about this class would be to choose a gender and stick with it. All the (s)he's get in the way, and to follow suit with all the WotC classes I would just choose a gender and stick with it throughout the entire class. --Green Dragon 14:46, 24 December 2007 (MST)
Sorry about that, Green Dragon. I'll get right on that. And done. -- Cronocke 22:15, 24 December 2007 (MST)
It looks better, thanks for doing that. --Green Dragon 00:18, 25 December 2007 (MST)

Rating[edit]

Power - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because a lot of his abilities are gained at much too high a level and should be granted as rebalanced versions at lower levels. --Zap284 (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2012 (MDT)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it's fine as far as i can tell. --Zap284 (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2012 (MDT)

Formatting - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because much of the abilities aren't linked correctly as they should be --Zap284 (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2012 (MDT)

Flavor - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because there's no picture, history, examples, etc. --Zap284 (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2012 (MDT)

Personal tools
Home of user-generated,
homebrew, pages!
d20M
miscellaneous
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors