Talk:Marksman (3.5e Class)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Rating- 10/10[edit]

I really like this class. It has been well thought out and implemented.

  • It is as ballanced as the rogue and the assassin.
  • It is well written, and no easier to break than the rogue.
  • Unlike the rogue, it has a nice 20th level ability to persuade people to max out levels in the class.
  • It is alot more imaginitive than most sniper classes you see. Most are called "Sniper" or something simular, and are basically a way of mass slaughter. This is no more slaughtering than a rogue/assassin multiclass, but has the definate "marksman" feel.
  • It's sniper rifle is not an overpowered weapon.
  • It has good flavor- it is interesting to read and to play.
  • It fulfils the role of "sneaky person" in the party, so you can be one and not miss out on the important party role.

This class has been well worded ind implemented, 10/10 --Sam Kay 02:34, 20 November 2007 (MST)

Oh, wait, you need to desinate the ability type of each ability (Ex, Su, Sp or Ps). --Sam Kay 10:30, 20 November 2007 (MST)
So I do, must have lost them during edits. And done. -- Eiji 10:49, 20 November 2007 (MST)
The above rating seems to say this is only a little bit better than the rogue. Please remember, a 8 is SRD level, a 9 is already above. From the rating above it seems like a 9/10 class. Are you sure you want to stay with the 10/10 rating? --Green Dragon 23:36, 26 November 2007 (MST)
Although it does have better background than the rogue- the rogue is a general "sneak", and this is a specialist, so it's abilities reflect what it is better. --Sam Kay 09:12, 27 November 2007 (MST)
And so it is rated a 10 :). --Green Dragon 23:37, 2 December 2007 (MST)
Someone please tell me what the special ability "Sharp Eyes" does as it is not written on under special abilities. --Ktonos 11:41, 8 December 2007 (MST)
?....huh, I don't think I put that. Checking into it. (EDIT: Oops, I did. Admittedly I don't recall what it was supposed to be, so I've added something appropriate. Thanks for noticing. Fixed with Alertness now.) -- Eiji 22:25, 7 December 2007 (MST)
This rating has been nullified with the implementation of the new Rating System. --Green Dragon 22:46, 20 February 2008 (MST)

Weapon Proficiencies[edit]

Should the other simple and martial rifles that have been added to the wiki also be included in the Marksman's proficiencies? I'm talking, specifically, about the two weights of each type of arquebus, harquebus, musket, and battle-musket, but not about the exotic Great Muskets or Great Harquebuses. -- Cronocke 16:29, 26 December 2007 (MST)

While I didn't put it in specifically, it makes thematic sense, so I would totally say they get those. I'll figure out a way to word it later, probably "all martial firearms". -- Eiji 17:44, 26 December 2007 (MST)


Power - 5/5: I give this a 5/5 on power because, as Sam Kay stated above, "It is as ballanced as the rogue and the assassin". --Green Dragon 13:40, 25 February 2008 (MST)

Wording - 4/5: I give this a 4 out of 5 on wording because I just have a few questions about some of the abilities, and I feel a few discrepancies within the class features exist.

Snipe Attack: What does "successfully hidden" mean in terms of game statistics? I linked it to SRD:Concealment however I think this could be better explained.

Marksman Bonus Feat: "...ignoring the pre-requisites of Point Blank Shot for some of these feats." is a sentence I feel could be improved. Maybe something along the lines of "If a feat has the prerequisite of Point Blank Shot, it can be disregarded".

Sniper Modifications: Are they only applied to a certain weapon? What happens when the character losses the weapon, or are they separate items the character can attach to weapons? What happens when the characters loses an attachment? Also, can they all be applied to every weapon the character is proficient with? I mean I don't think Telescope would do much on a quarterstaff...

Poison Canister: Exactly how many doses does the upgrade change it to?

Messy Shot: I feel this could be better made into game statistics when it says "before combat officially begins". You could change it to something like "Before initiative is rolled".

Critical Snipe: You may want to state this class feature can be upgraded.

Hide In Plain Sight: Shadows are everywhere... Maybe you could make a requirement for the size of a shadow, or better define a shadow.

Anyway, as soon as these discrepancies are cleared up I am sure this class will be a 5/5. Good work on this class, by the way, I like it. --Green Dragon 13:33, 25 February 2008 (MST)

Wording - 4.5/5: I give this a 4.5 out of 5 on wording because some of the above issues have not been solved yet.
I still feel the wording on Snipe Attack could be improved—I feel that this somehow needs to be better represented by game rules and not just DM fiat, however I am not sure of the best method of accomplishing this.
Also, again, what exactly are Sniper Modifications? I think it would be interesting to re-write them so they are actual attachments the player has learned how to make, attach to her weapon, and use. Also, if they are actual attachments, they should take some time and money to make. I don't know, right now they are coming off to me as just things that the player magically gets on their weapon (even though they are nonmagical). Seems kinda strange to me...
Poison Canister still needs to be looked at...
Hide In Plain Sight still needs to be looked at...
--Green Dragon 23:30, 25 February 2008 (MST)
I changed around Poison Canister, if you would not mind let me know what you think. --Green Dragon 13:44, 5 March 2008 (MST)
Sorry for changing everything around again, but I finally found where the source of my inspiration for Poison Canisters were. They are a ranged version of the Alchemetical Capsules found in Complete Adventurer, pg. 121. The poison capsule thing wasn't sitting right for me (and I think it was wrong, ie. being injury, not contact poisons and needing a critical hit, I'm pretty sure a hit is enough). I changed it and the wording to fit more to be in line with the alchemetical capsules. I think it streamlines the wording too. -- Eiji 02:30, 15 March 2008 (MDT)
It looks better, however the upgrade section could be better explained... --Green Dragon 13:20, 16 March 2008 (MDT)

Formatting - 3/5: I give this a 3/5 on formatting because it uses the old tocdepth formatting style (see the preload for the modern formatting style), does not have enough links to the SRD, and does not have any links from the table to the class features. --Green Dragon 01:07, 24 February 2008 (MST)

In an effort to fix it I just realized I don't know where the preload is for comparison (that and I don't know how to link from the table to the class features. Help me, and I will grant you three wishes. -- Eiji 13:11, 24 February 2008 (MST)
Here's the preload, and see "snipe attack" for an example of linking the table to the description. —Sledged (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2008 (MST)
Thank you. You get 3 wishes in the mail. Fixed and updated. (Aiming for a nat 20!) -- Eiji 13:46, 24 February 2008 (MST)
Formatting - 4/5: I give this a 4 out of 5 on formatting because the image and image description are not included in Template:DnD Base Class Infobox, not enough links to the SRD are present, the epic section does not link to it's class features, and the class features use some of their own formatting (most notably "Sniper Modifications") instead of the standard formatting (italic subsections). --Green Dragon 16:07, 24 February 2008 (MST)
And that should just about cover it... -- Eiji 16:26, 24 February 2008 (MST)
Formatting - 4.5/5: I give this a 4.5 out of 5 on formatting because not enough links exist to the SRD (most notably the class skills section has this problem). Anyway, I added links to the SRD from the first part, so if you need an example... Also, this class is looking very sharp so far! Good work! --Green Dragon 16:54, 24 February 2008 (MST)
Formatting - 5/5: I give this a 5 out of 5 on formatting because this truly exemplifies all the qualities of a well-formatted class. Good work. --Green Dragon 13:43, 5 March 2008 (MST)

Flavor - 4/5: I give this a 4 out of 5 on flavor because, even though this fulfills it's own unique niche, it has major parts of the flavor area missing, such as an example NPC. --Green Dragon 12:32, 25 February 2008 (MST)

Flavor - 5/5: I give this a 5 out of 5 on flavor Everything is present and it fulfills it's own unique niche. Good work. --Green Dragon 13:20, 16 March 2008 (MDT)


I also found this image Image:Marksman.jpg. Which one do you think is better? --Green Dragon 15:19, 5 March 2008 (MST)

I haven't had time to make the appropriate edits yet, but I like your image. Also, I see your Poison edits and like them (especially loading poisons faster), but I am in debate over how it works... but I think its more because I haven't read them well enough. I'm concerned about the DC boost, because DC 5 is a lot and it would pretty much guarantee the application of multiple poisons all at once, if I read it right. Well, more later when I have time. -- Eiji 16:36, 5 March 2008 (MST)
I know, I feel that it may be a tad bit overpowered... I started it at a +5 then the upgrades gave it a +3, but I don't know... --Green Dragon 20:44, 5 March 2008 (MST)
Maybe no bonus at all would be better? --Green Dragon 21:17, 5 March 2008 (MST)
I actually preferred the other image it looked more like something out of a D&D book where as this is a real life photograph. --Hawk 21:21, 5 March 2008 (MST)
I did not like the fist view of the character, however the second two I liked. About the images: I do not care either way. --Green Dragon 22:09, 5 March 2008 (MST)


Sorry Eiji but some of the wording in this class is really annoying me but unfortunately I can't think of many ways to change it. In particular: Bonus feats and Religion --Hawk 20:49, 5 March 2008 (MST)

Bonus feat?[edit]

Would Crossbow Sniper from the Player's Handbook II be appropriate to add to the bonus feat list? SeekAndDestroy 01:38, 15 February 2009 (MST)

Yes. :) Hmm, wasn't it added on there? I'd put Improved Crossbow Sniper (from the Wiki) on there too. -- Eiji 13:08, 15 February 2009 (MST)

Critical Snipe[edit]

This is truely what i look for in a wiki article, and any class i put together will use this as a comparison. However, i do i have one question, how does critical snipe work with similar abilities(ex. Improved Critical, Keen, etc.)? --Ganre 10:02, 24 March 2009 (MDT)

Thank you. I'll clarify it now, but it does stack with Keen/Improved Crit, as follows. Say you are 19-20/x2. With a +3 critical snipe it is now 15-20 (5 numbers). If you have keen, 19-20 (2 numbers) is 16-20 (4 numbers)... then you add. So +3 critical snipe is 13-20. Certainly potent.
Hmm, now, how to word this. If you have ideas on wording, by all means please edit, I'll get to a good wording eventually. -- Eiji 20:14, 24 March 2009 (MDT)

Death Attack[edit]

IP added a death attack. I removed it seeing as the class is complete per its creator. If the IP would like to justify such an addition here or create a discussion of its merits, that's his/her prerogative. For now I'm taking it off. -- Jota 22:11, 11 April 2009 (MDT)

Domo arigato Mr. Jotato. Actually death attack was on there.. at 20th, and it was moved to 5th, I altered that, since it was still there for some reason. I did plan it at 20th, he's not an assassin inherently, it's just frosting. -- Eiji 01:27, 12 April 2009 (MDT)
Old post, but granting the class a Death Attack makes sense. Snipers generally go for one shot kills, stealthy means not repeatedly bashing someone till they fall over. =P Hence why the Assassin has a Death Attack, it's the melee equivalent of the Marksman. Since just adding a bunch of d6's won't neccessarily kill a target, you'll be shooting them repeatedly to get a kill. And if I remember correctly, using gunpowder weaponry is fairly expensive per shot till later levels. Nice class, but I could build a better (more effective) one using Rogue/Assassin/Darkwood Sniper. And if it's buildable, there's no point having a whole new class. CJ 22:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sniper Mod[edit]

IMO I think the sniper modification feature should only be able to affect crosbows and rifles (mabue new stuff w/ dm aproval), putting a tripod on a bow doesnt make sense (you would have to fire it like a footbow or something, which cant be very accurate on the ground). also why doesnt he get camoflauge, every sniper needs camo?! Zau 06:16, 23 May 2009 (MDT)

Well, he does get the power to remove his penalties to hide, that's sort of camo. But ah, I can actually imagine a bow with a tripod. Maybe not a shortbow so much as a long, something big enough that you can plant the base into the ground for stability. Anyway, I'll look over the camo issue. Heh heh. -- Eiji 11:57, 23 May 2009 (MDT)
Maybe this is off the point, but do you think it would make sense for this class to work with a Ballista(sort of like a big crossbow...) --Ganre 21:33, 10 July 2009 (MDT)
If you can carry it somehow... yes. XD Do for it you crazy siege engineer. -- Eiji 23:10, 10 July 2009 (MDT)
I think the Sniper Mod needs to be thought out a bit more. If these modifications are just additions to a weapon that you can take off and put on, what stops a level 20 marksman from making a bunch and selling them to a level 1 Marksman? Or even a level 1 Wizard? This is the main problem I see with items, is that they can be used by anyone, regardless of level...Rogue The Demonchild 00:17, 30 October 2010 (MDT)
The page clearly says "They are nonmagical attachments and only work for the marksman, who knows how to use them properly". --Badger 13:26, 30 October 2010 (MDT)
"Only work for the marksman" includes anyone who has at least one level of the marksman class...Rogue The Demonchild 23:14, 30 October 2010 (MDT)
"The marksman" implies, to me at least, that it only applies to one person in particular, in this case the marksman who made it. I think you would say something like "a marksman" if it could work for any marksman. Something to do with definite and indefinite articles... --Badger 14:32, 31 October 2010 (MDT)
By the description of it, it looks (to me) like it's saying no one can understand how to use it except someone with the proper training (which would be any marksman of a high enough level to have been trained to use it). This implies that a higher level marksman can make one for a lower level marksman. OR, each item is so complex that only its maker knows how to use it (which would be that marksman). And if that's the case, he can still explain it to someone. I just think it should be a special ability rather than items, because items get too difficult to keep to a single class.Rogue The Demonchild 22:38, 31 October 2010 (MDT)
There is no point for a higher level marksman to make one for a lower level marksman. If the lower level guy is trained enough to know how to use it, he can make his own. If the lower level guy isn't trained enough, he doesn't need one because he can't use it. --Badger 23:52, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

A problem I found with placing on this site.[edit]

There are no such things as firearms in d&d. Firearms only come in through iron kingdoms. Just as I say this I realize that d&d is suggested that it can be played in other time periods at the DM's option, but still. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vrail (talkcontribs) 00:31, August 9, 2009 (MST). Please sign your posts.

Actually on page 144 to page 147 of the DMG it has a whole section on using different technologies in D&D including firearms and having the game set in other eras including futuristic. There are also plenty of user created firearms on this very site. -Sarrow 02:13, 9 August 2009 (MDT)
Forgotten Realms sourcebook gives the option of getting a Pistol, Powderhorn and 10 bullets as starting equipment, Lantan region I think. Firearms really aren't that powerful when you remember magic is available. Some DnD worlds are almost more advanced than our current day, using magic instead of science. Or both, in the case of most gnomes. It's also actually fairly easy to justify their usage in most games. The guns are mostly handmade, leading to large costs involved in purchasing, they're an exotic weapon as magic/crossbows/bows are the norm, a rogue with a crossbow within 60ft is a lot more dangerous, and a 20th lvl wizard makes the rogue look bad. As well as the city it's in at the time. =P CJ 22:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

An idea[edit]

I would think that in order to one-shot kill something, you would NEED to hit a critical area. I think that that Death Attack and the Critical Snipe should be used together, and that the Death Attack only activates when you critically hit with Critical Snipe. Maybe it could be that, starting 20th level (with Death Attack), "whenever you successfully score a critical hit with the Critical Snipe ability, the target of the attack must succeed a fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 Marksmen level + Wisdom modifier) or become paralyzed for [1d4?] rounds. If the target fails the fortitude save by [5?] or more, the Critical Snipe instead deals damage equal to the target's hit points +10." --Rogue The Demonchild 16:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because It's essentially a rogue that is meant for long-range, which is the way I pictured my rogue-ish character, it uses the same type of table for snipe attacks that the rogue had for his sneak attacks. The long-distance requirement and the sniper mods don't seem too overpowering either. -- 23:58, 6 October 2010 (MDT)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because the wording is pretty decent and easy to understand. -- 23:58, 6 October 2010 (MDT)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because the formatting was nice and easy to understand. -- 23:58, 6 October 2010 (MDT)

Flavor - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it's pretty cool, I like the concept, but it seems so skewed towards guns, you have to have a rifle it seems or else the sniper mods don't make sense. Crossbows can be used, yeah, but it doesn't seem like they fit together with the idea and theme of the class. -- 23:58, 6 October 2010 (MDT)


Power - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5 I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> -- 18:17, 10 March 2011 (MST)

Wording - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> -- 18:17, 10 March 2011 (MST)

Formatting - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> -- 18:17, 10 March 2011 (MST)

Flavor - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> -- 18:17, 10 March 2011 (MST)

I think the above rating should be invalidated as the raters has given no justification for his ratings. Although if there is a 20 out of 20 class on this wiki, this is it. --Ganre 21:20, 10 March 2011 (MST)


Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because while it can be powerful in certain situations, it requires tactics and cooperation with allies. The 'Snipe Attack' ability scales well (as with most Sneak Attack lines), Death Attack is a great capstone and certain tweaks allowed through weapon modifications can allow you to identify with the character. The removal of Point Blank Shot as a requirement for Feats can be agreed upon once examining the class and its ambitions. A good standard for any class to abide by. -- 00:40, 22 December 2011 (MST)

Wording - 4.5/5 I give this class a 4.5 out of 5 because there are a select few grammatical errors. The article is well edited as a whole, and the errors that exist are rather commonplace in WotC published books, leaning me towards only a .5 penalty. -- 00:40, 22 December 2011 (MST)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because the class specifics are well planned out, efficient to find and easy to read. Whoever formatted this page must have really taken his time and had a friend proof-reading his work. -- 00:40, 22 December 2011 (MST)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it captures the feel of a 'sniper/assassin' character; such a class has been needed in the D&D world beyond making an assassin using extraordinary means (such as the Dark Template). It succeeeds at filling this niche without coming across as 'min/maxed' or 'munchkinned'. It really seems like a path an existing protagonist would aspire towards and take, without any metagame help. -- 00:40, 22 December 2011 (MST)

Starting Gold[edit]

Starting gold was recently increased by an IP edit. It was 5d4 x 10(125), it is now 5d6 x 10(175). I would prefer this be discussed before it is accepted. Anyone else have any input on it.? --Ganre 12:12, 28 March 2012 (MDT)

Starting gold on all other base classes (if I'm not mistaken) is Xd4. So I definitely think it should not be 5d6, as there is no reason here to change the rules suddenly. Rogue The Demonchild 23:24, 28 March 2012 (MDT)
Please do not start discussions at the start of discussion pages. If you "[s]tart a new section" it goes to the bottom, that archives well, etc. Anyway, I reverted the edit. If you see edits like this in the future please take some action. That IP was actually a vandal who has been blocked. Also, thanks for the information about that edit. --Green Dragon 09:22, 29 March 2012 (MDT)



Power - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --~~~~

Wording - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --~~~~

Formatting - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --~~~~

Flavor - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --~~~~

Marksman Rating[edit]


Balance - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because its power is very inconsistent. In some situations (when it can get a vantage point) it can flat-out destroy a lot of classes without those classes having a chance to respond. Any class that can't spot the marksman is doomed, simple as that. On the other hand, it's sometimes useless- inside a building or underground, it's much weaker. Without cover, it's much weaker (until it gets Hide in Plain Sight). The class will sometimes be very powerful, and sometimes will feel useless. Also, the sniper rifle is far too good, at least far too good to be a class weapon proficiency. If it required you to take an exotic weapon proficiency, it would be more balanced. If its crit multiplier was reduced to x3, it would be closer to reasonable. --~~~~

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because the wording is generally good. There were some problems, which have mostly been fixed. --~~~~

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because the formatting is good. Not much else to say. --~~~~

Flavor - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because its flavor doesn't fit into a lot of campaigns. The 'weapon modifications' seem odd and tacked-on. If they're just mechanical additions, why can't they be bought by anyone? For that matter, why do they seem to apply to every weapon the marksman wields? Why don't they require some time to craft, or a trip back to town to buy? These would be more flavorful if they were handled as special abilities, like the rogue class features. Poison canisters could be replaced by the ability to apply poison to bolts as a free action with no chance of poisoning yourself. Telescope, or Silencer, or Overclocked could be handled as increases in the marksman's skill. In fact, they would make more sense that way- with the class as written, you can apply a silencer to a longbow, which doesn't make sense at all. --~~~~


Balance - X/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because --~~~~

Wording - X/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because --~~~~

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a X out of 5 because --~~~~

Flavor - X/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because --~~~~

Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!