Are the core base classes enough to build what you want to play?

[Quasqueton]

Can you build a character with the flavor of the the many non-core base classes (shaman, samurai, hexblade, etc.) using the mechanics of the core rules (core classes, feats, skills, etc.)?

Can you build a character with the flavor of the many prestige classes using the mechanics of the core rules (base classes, feats, skills, etc.)?

For instance. . .

Can a "wu jen" be built with the core rules?

Can a "duelist" be built with the core rules?

Or are many of the prestige classes and alternate/optional/non-core base classes *necessary* for some characters?

Quasqueton

 

[GlassJaw]

The only things I would like to see is a rogue/diplomat-type without sneak attack or a nature priest without wild shape but nothing has come up yet in my campaign that have made either absolutely crucial.

I thought about adapting some of the classes from AU but there not 100% what I'm looking for.

 

[Li Shenron]

With the... flavor? Why not?

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

I think you can build most things from just the base classes:

For a "wu jen" I'd say a wizard or sorceror... just take an elemental stylised spell selection and a careful description of the character.

I'd go one of two ways with a duelist - either a fighter/rogue, ranger/rogue or similar who uses light armour and dexterity - feel that makes a traditional swashbuckling type. Or a high Str/Dex fighter with plenty of feats in the expertise tree - more of a 1 on 1 judicial champion type.

The ones I think are really difficult with just the base classes are the multiclass type of characters. Mystic Theurge, Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster would be very diffiuclt without the Prcs?

The only things I would like to see is a rogue/diplomat-type without sneak attack or a nature priest without wild shape but nothing has come up yet in my campaign that have made either absolutely crucial.

I thought about adapting some of the classes from AU but there not 100% what I'm looking for.

That diplomat archetype sounds a lot like the bard... just take Perform: Inspiring Oratory and I think it pretty much clicks into place?

A cleric with Animal and Plant domains comes quite close for the second... seen that done and it worked nicely.

I really liked the look of AU and ran a shortish campaign arc with it. Lasted about 4-5 months. Found it pretty good fun. The base classes and equipment were the highlights. I liked a lot of the ideas behind the magic system, but that's where it fell down for us. It was similar to DnD but unfamiliar and just didn't click with most of my group.

I'm pretty sure the warmain and unfettered would fit right into most campaigns. Although I think players would choose 1 or other over fighters every time... they're a bit stronger and have more flavor. The Akashic, Totem warrior and Champion would all go over pretty easily as well. Just the magic users might be a bit tricky - the magister might well be worth the effort though.

The only thing I really didn't get on with in AU was the names for the classes, felt they were a little strange?

 

[BiggusGeekus]

I find the core rules are fine if I'm willing to jigger the class skills around.

Actually, the only reason not to completely open all skills to all classes is prestige class requirements. If the DM has a tight grip on what PrCs are permitted, then you're good to go.

 

[Whisper72]

Sure.... most of it has to do with roleplaying, the rules themselves are not necessary. They are just a crutch for those who do not have enuff imagination to play the part IMHO. Sure, you may need to do a bit of homebrew/modding to get certain flavors:

maybe you need to be a bit lenient as a DM in allowing a class to have certain skills as core class skills in stead of as cross class skills, and maybe you would want some feats to be accessible to a class that otherwise wouldn't get them (maybe if you model a ninja based off a rogue, but allow them some fighter specific feats to beef up their fighting skills for example)...

 

[Henry]

To give you a "Diaglo-Style" answer, people were creating Swashbuckling Fighters and Wu Jen-style wizards back in the days of OD&D.

However, to make one that does the types of things these archetypes do, I'd say, no, not in all cases. Swashbuckler is the most obvious example by far. You would need to prop this swashbuckler up with abilities that compensate for the armor bonuses lost by wearing light or no armor. You ALSO need soem sort of minor compensation for the damage lost by not choosing the MEGA-HUGE two-handed power-attacking weapons. Now, there are feats that help; Weapon specialization, expertise, weapon finesse, dodge, mobility, etc., but they are limited enough to the point that the swashbuckler is still not a peer of the tank fighter. I'm playing in a low-magic game now where I'm choosing feats that compensate my low armor class (such as combat expertise); as a result, I'm not "tanking" quite like the traditional D&D fighter, and I'm missing a DARNED sight more than usual, too.

However, with all archetypes, you can build a flavored version of them with the existing classes and races; with an archetype that is equivalent to a maxxed-out version of the base class, you might need the help that a PrC provides.

 

[Endur]

Sure.

From a role-playing perspective, your character can be anything you and the GM agree on.

The mechanical rules are just there to get a systematic resolution on conflicts.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

Yup.

I can't see how else I could make a ranger based off the Byzantine Thema militia. Or how anyone could build a Sengoku-era style samurai vs. a Tokugawa-era one.

 

[S'mon]

You need to be willing to swap out abilities and skills - like the Concepts in Mongoose's Quintessential series, only better done. Like creating a Kensai by swapping out a Fighter's medium & heavy armour proficiencies for weapon focus (Katana), or creating an Assassin by swapping out some of a Rogue's skill points for poison use and an improved sneak attack.