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

[Henry]

So let's switch this around. What if a fighter chose to have a good charisma at the cost of a slightly smaller con score? Are we supposed to give them something to balance that too?

I'd say no, because the archetype of a negotiator exists in the rules; now, if the player wanted a high-charisma leader-type who was more of a born leader than a fighter, then I'd point them toward the Leadership feat, as well as the Trustworthy feats, and the skill focus: diplomacy.

However, in the case of a swashbuckler archetype, dodge does not work well, because it it designated for one opponent (I see images of Jose Ferrer facing off against a dozen armed men and picking one of them as his dodge opponent, and I can't recocile it), and Combat expertise hurts a swashbucking fighter's already meager ability to do damage. Comparing the fighting ability of the two of them, the heavy fighter will go up against his foe and power attack for a two-for one tradeoff, making damage capability render his staying power less relevant. On the other hand, a swashbuckler already begins with a penalty to their ability to dispatch a foe, in the form of smaller weaponry; add to that their AC bonus at the expense of a further to-hit penalty, and the swashbuckler cannot keep up. He can't slay and enemy faster than the enemy can slay him, round for round.

In other words, broad as the rules are, they can't cover every single eventuality and archetype that comes up; that's why the PHB even makes the suggestion in chapter 6 that DM's may want to work with their players to give-and-take on certain skills and abilities.


As for tailoring the adventure to the PC's, I certainly agree, and you could remind that swasbuckler about environmentaly surroundings, using chandeliers, rope riggings, precarious barrels, etc. to damage their foes via high-flying heroics, but there's also no reason a PC could fulfill an effective role AND have a character concept not covered by the existing classes through use of a little tweaking, either.

 

[Afrodyte]

Alas, no, the classes are a little too cookie-cutter.

Some of the more flexible classes (eg mages and fighters) are still getting prestimyopia thrown at them, as well.

I think a series of feats that would make a swashbuckler viable but not better than a tank is doable. Be sure to state that the feats only work in light armor (the way Spring Attack works) so you don't end up with uber-tanks.

I agree. I think that more accurate iterative attacks or more attacks in general (something like flurry of blows) would be enough for me. OK, maybe a better ability to dodge and parry would work too.

 

[Endur]

When I think of swashbucklers, I think of Errol Flynn. Swinging on the chandilier and holding on with one hand and stabbing with the rapier with the other.

Obvious Fighter feats that come to mind for a swashbuckler.
Expertise, Spring Attack (and pre-reqs).
WhirlWind Attack comes in handy (pre-reqs above, + int 13, dex 13).

By taking Spring Attack, you automatically can't wear heavy armor.

Other feats: Weapon Finesse, Quick Draw, Improved Initiative, Improved Disarm, various weapon focus/specialization feats, etc.

Plenty of support for a swash-buckling fighter in the PHB.

Is this as effective as a swashbuckler from other sources? no. But neither are other classes as effective as they will be with splatbooks.

I see splatbooks as an arms race to increase pc power.

edit: On the other hand, the WOTC authors obviously recognize some paradigms are covered better than others. Note the DMG PRCs for Duelist, Eldritch Warrior, Arcane Trickster, and Mystic Theurge. Not really a prestigious organization, but more a different way of doing things.

 

[Acid_crash]

It's fine and dandy to say that chapter 6 in the DMG says that if the DM allows for players to pick and choose class abilities to make a more unique character that best fits with the concept of what he wants to play, but how many DM's allow players to actually do that?

I can only speak from experience, but around here in the five or so games I have been a player in in the last three years, no DM has allowed me to actually do that because they say it's an option, not a required rule, and therefore they won't go for it. I say that's pathetic DMing right off the bat, because it then limits me to the core classes as listed, and some of my ideas require adjusting the classes to best fit my concept.

One example of a concept I wanted to play is a explorer, someone who goes around tombs searching for artifacts, has extensive knowledge of monsters and regions (like bardic knowledge but I call it obscure knowledge), does not cast spells, has lots of skills, can evade traps but has no sneak attack, and he can track in the wilderness and has a favored terrain ability. A simple concept that would work, but in the core classes I would end up multiclassing between rogue, bard, and possibly ranger to get all these abilities and also get abilities that I don't want. In effect, it would require a new core class, but because of what I want, I have yet had a DM let me create this exact character because it would require some alterations to the classes.

This is what the limitations are in the core 11 classes. Sure, we can create many concepts, and most of them come across in skill selection, feat selection, and class selection, but sometimes we need something different. By using just the core classes, sometimes our best ideas are left out.

 

[Henry]

Obvious Fighter feats that come to mind for a swashbuckler.
Expertise, Spring Attack (and pre-reqs).

Agreed; those are the bread and butter (and in the case of Expertise, the LIFEBLOOD of a finesse fighter).

Other feats: Weapon Finesse, Quick Draw, Improved Initiative, Improved Disarm, various weapon focus/specialization feats, etc.

Plenty of support for a swash-buckling fighter in the PHB.

Support, yes; effective support, no. Given the disarm rules, the rapier, shortsword, and dagger are just too light to perform an effective disarm. Tripping might work better to disorient the enemy.

Weapon Focus and Specialization would be great, were they only open to finesse fighters, for example; it would give them the slight boost they need to compensate for the to-hit capability in heavier-armored fighters.

Is this as effective as a swashbuckler from other sources? no. But neither are other classes as effective as they will be with splatbooks.

I'm of the opinion that they're not even as effective as regular fighters from the core sources; no need to go outside the other material.

I see splatbooks as an arms race to increase pc power.

I usually don't allow them, either, but I will allow certain rules items on a case-by-case.

Were it up to me, i'd add to the core rules the duelist's main canny defense ability as a feat available at 3rd or 4th level, and the bonus damage die with light weapons only at around 6th level. But since it's not, it's enough to allow the Duelist PrC from the core 3.5 rules, since it and the Mystic Theurge are both around for the same purpose - filling an archetype.

 

[Wombat]

I've always been willing to work with my players to help create the characters they want to play, rather than the characters the rules present them with.

A classic example in our games has been the Rogue. The first two people who wanted to play Rogues under the 3.0 rules were ruffled by the notion that every Rogue is necessarily an assassin at heart, as all of them build up in Sneak Attack. After a discussion, we removed the automatica Sneak Attack, made it into a stackable Feat (+1d6 each time), and made it but one of several options -- now at every rank where a Rogue would normally pick up Sneak Attack, there is instead "Bonus Feat" and a list of options.

If you are willing to alter the rules, the game will come closer to the stories you wish to tell. In the end, as long as you don't go too wonky, the rules are easier to change than the campaign.

 

[MerricB]

If you're changing the rules, you're not using the core classes. So, if you give that answer, in actual fact you're saying "No, the core classes are not enough".

I am strongly of the opinion that you cannot replicate most of the new classes with core classes, prestige classes and feats - or, in the cases when you can do it, you need a character with exceptional ability scores.

Let's look at the three books I have and their classes: (I don't yet have Eberron).

Miniatures Handbook

Favoured Soul - A spontaneously casting cleric.

Quite frankly, you can't do this one with the standard rules.

The Healer - Healing spells extreme.

In theory, you can create something quite similar using the cleric class and then not using many of its benefits. A couple of feats might approach the Healing hands special ability, although you wouldn't have the benefit of the extra skill points and improved diplomatic skills...

This class really exists more as an NPC class, anyway.

Marshal - Inspiring leader

The bard can approach the Marshal in abilities, although the armour the Marshal wears is a problem, and you might want a themed prestige class to replicate abilities. I don't think this class is strictly necessary, but building a character that approaches its abilities could be difficult.

War Mage - Blows things up.

Even more focused than the sorcerer, though it does wear armour! This class can probably be replicated by the sorcerer, but there are enough tweaks to give a sorcerer problems with duplicating it properly.

Complete Warrior

Hexblade - Arcane 'paladin/ranger' who curses things.

Don't even try building this one - you won't be able to do it.

Samurai - Two-sword wielding noble fighter in heavy armour.

Ignoring whether or not this is a samurai, mechanically this class is distinct from all other fighter builds. Conceptually, it approaches the paladin, but the paladin has a bunch of baggage that is incompatible with the Wizards' "Samurai" concept.

Swashbuckler - Lightly armoured, dextrous and diplomatic fighter.

You could conceptually create this with a fighter/rogue build. Mechanically, you can't. This is a borderline class, but I've played a Swashbuckler and had a great amount of fun with it.

Complete Divine

Shugenja - Oriental divine caster

I don't have a clue. More seriously, there is such a variance in the spell list, that this one is unique.

Spirit Shaman - Spontaneous Druid (sort-of)

Impossible to replicate. Great concept.

###

Honestly, there are a couple of these new classes that possibly could be replicated with the standard rules. In the majority of cases? Not a chance.

Do you need all of these classes? Probably not. However, when you look at the D&D gaming world in general, each person will react to different classes. Certainly, I wouldn't mind playing a Samurai, I've played a Swashbuckler (and it was good!) The Favoured Soul has also been played in my games.

Cheers!

 

[Koewn]

What I've always wanted to see is the Bard class without the musical powers - the actual jack-of-all-trades, the generic 'Adventurer', without the lyre. I just don't know what to replace it with. Some of the music bits are group oriented, and it's hard to come up with a valid group-oriented replacement.

That's not *hard* to do with the core classes (Hi, Fighter/Mage/Thief) but, it's awkward.

To wit, one of the greatest lines out of Order of the Stick (giantitp.com), slightly paraphrased:

Bard: I'm a bard!

FMT: My dad taught me bards were weak. I'm a Fighter/Wizard/Thief, specialized in Enchantment.

Bard: Doesn't that strike you as needlessly complicated?

FMT: -frowns- Not until just right now, no.

Such is my quandry.

Koewn

 

[Umbran]

I am strongly of the opinion that you cannot replicate most of the new classes with core classes, prestige classes and feats - or, in the cases when you can do it, you need a character with exceptional ability scores.

Yes, clearly you can point to a game mechanic that is not in the core classes and say, "See, the core classes can't replicate this". But that begs the question - do you need a separate class or mechanics to make the general character concept work? Do you need separate mechanics to play a character that feels like a samurai?

The point that you make at the end is important - different people will "click" with different classes. But go too far down that road, and you wind up in "I have to include everythign ever printed so that everyone finds something they click with," which in the long run isn't constructive.

No game system does everything well. No finite list of classes will satisfy every whim. So as a DM you must pick your battles.

 

[GSHamster]

Well, mechanically speaking, would a heavy armour/weapon fighter (HF) always be able to beat a lightly armoured fighter (LF)?

The only tactic I can really think that would allow a LF to win would be to constantly retreat 30' and shoot a ranged weapon at the HF. There would need to be obstacles in order to prevent the HF from charging.

The LF could also seek to gain high ground using a skill that the HF has trouble with (Climb, Swim) and then shoot them with ranged weapons. This is very dependent on the environment, and the HF can always retreat.

Alternatively the LF could Improved Feint, Sneak Attack for extra damage, but I think the HF would dish out more damage in a full attack.

All other tactics (trip, etc) are too symmetrical to give one side an advantage. (Actually, Sunder is on the HF side.)

So, I agree with Henry that under the current system a LF cannot match a HF in combat. The problem (as I see it) is that Charge too easily overrides the LF's main advantage of extra movement and higher skill checks.