D&D Archetypes that are missing from the core books?

[Nyaricus]

Oh, I won't argue that the world was crying out for the Hexblade or Dragon Shaman, but I think it's a major overstatement to say that every concept can be created from the core books. I think there's at least five or six arguably iconic character classes that the core books don't emulate well at all. Either they should be added in 3.6E or (my preference) but into a single discrete PHB2-like tome next time around.

Whizbang, in the above quote, puts words to something I feel is very true - the fact that there are some iconic archetypes that are simply not there in the core rules; mainly as a single class, in my opinion.

If one goes into multiclassing, sure you can sometimes get what you are looking for, but there are several dedicated roles that have gaping holes where they should be.

My own list:

• Battlemage/Warwizard that has full spells/full BAB class (ie the duskblade)
• Assassin/Cut-throat base class; a martial rogue (ie an assassin-like class)
• Duelist/Swashbuckler base class that is a finesse fighter (ie a better-designed swashbuckler from ComWar)
• Pugilist/Pankration-type character (ie a fist-fighter/grappler that isn't a orientally-themed class like the monk)
• Noble/Aristocrat that's not a NPC class
• Scout (ie like a ranger/rogue or the scout class itself)

Discuss

 

[painandgreed]

I would suggest:
- a non-battle oriented divine caster (Cloistered Cleric)
- a light armor archer

 

[Teflon Billy]

Discuss

What's to discuss?

Are you asking why Multiclassing options aren't represented by Core Classes?

The answer is pretty much the same as it ever was: one of 3rd edition's primary design goals was address the wild fluctuations in power balance between chacater classes/races.

Your Full Spells/Full BAB/D12 hp/8 Skill points per level super class isn't in there because it would be treading on the toes of other classes.

That said, there is a reason why the Prestige Class creation guideliens made the final cut. The reason the Battlemage isn't in the core classes is because--well--then where does that leave the plain old mage?

 

[Scribble]

What do you ll think some clear guidelines would be for whether or not something should be a base class?

 

[Psion]

Whizbang, in the above quote, puts words to something I feel is very true - the fact that there are some iconic archetypes that are simply not there in the core rules; mainly as a single class, in my opinion.

If one goes into multiclassing, sure you can sometimes get what you are looking for, but there are several dedicated roles that have gaping holes where they should be.

My own list:

• Battlemage/Warwizard that has full spells/full BAB class (ie the duskblade)
• Assassin/Cut-throat base class; a martial rogue (ie an assassin-like class)
• Duelist/Swashbuckler base class that is a finesse fighter (ie a better-designed swashbuckler from ComWar)
• Pugilist/Pankration-type character (ie a fist-fighter/grappler that isn't a orientally-themed class like the monk)
• Noble/Aristocrat that's not a NPC class
• Scout (ie like a ranger/rogue or the scout class itself)

Discuss

I think classes that can be fairly represented by multi-classes of existing classes are redundant and often inflexible (since you can't vary degrees of each class with your "combo class"; it's hardwired) and thus don't deserve to be part of the core rules.

Making existing classes more general (e.g., making the monk into a martial artist that could be another unarmed fighter type like a pugilist) or realizing concepts that can't be fairly realized by existing classes (a PC noble class) are moves I can get behind.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Whizbang, in the above quote, puts words to something I feel is very true - the fact that there are some iconic archetypes that are simply not there in the core rules; mainly as a single class, in my opinion.

If one goes into multiclassing, sure you can sometimes get what you are looking for, but there are several dedicated roles that have gaping holes where they should be.

I would add aristrocratic warrior (eg full BAB and social skills), commander class (3/4 or full BAB with non-magic leadership abilities, and no the feat does not count), scout (the scout is close, but not enough BAB; the ranger has spells and "mother may I" abilities), and martial artist (full BAB, otherwise similar to swashbuckler, no mystic abilities except maybe as feats). Maybe something like a private investigator and/or spy as well - rogue is close, though.

 

[Scribble]

I think classes that can be fairly represented by multi-classes of existing classes are redundant and often inflexible (since you can't vary degrees of each class with your "combo class"; it's hardwired) and thus don't deserve to be part of the core rules.

Making existing classes more general (e.g., making the monk into a martial artist that could be another unarmed fighter type like a pugilist) or realizing concepts that can't be fairly realized by existing classes (a PC noble class) are moves I can get behind.

What about "customizable" base classes? IE they were base classes, but instead of being totally rigid, the offered a few different options for the class? IE if you were a rogue, instead of always getting backstab, perhaps you can choose from 2 or 3 different options, backstab being one of them...

 

[GQuail]

I think classes that can be fairly represented by multi-classes of existing classes are redundant and often inflexible (since you can't vary degrees of each class with your "combo class"; it's hardwired) and thus don't deserve to be part of the core rules.

Making existing classes more general (e.g., making the monk into a martial artist that could be another unarmed fighter type like a pugilist) or realizing concepts that can't be fairly realized by existing classes (a PC noble class) are moves I can get behind.

I agree with this, on the condition that it's understood that a Wiz5/Fighter5 and a Duskblade 10 are not the same, and caster level rules do make dedicated base classes for odd caster combos you could technically multiclass much more viable.

At heart, I would probably be cool with a system with more generic base classes and feat packages to fill up the holes: not too dissimilar from the UA system of Generic Classes, actually. The big gap in the core rules, as more than a few people here think, is that the only option for bareknuckle fighting is Monk: and you could argue that Rogue is another class which gets used for any skill-heavy character even if sneak attack, trap detection etc isn't their bag.

As for what makes a Core class core: the important thing to me is that a beginner should look at your rules and be able to make the first few things to fly off their head. I saw a good comment on his this forum before about how, sure, there are holes in the 3.5 class listings, but no beginner ever reads the book and says, "Man, there's no enough options in this: where's the rest of the system?" ;-)

 

[messy]

My own list:

• Battlemage/Warwizard that has full spells/full BAB class (ie the duskblade)
• Assassin/Cut-throat base class; a martial rogue (ie an assassin-like class)
• Duelist/Swashbuckler base class that is a finesse fighter (ie a better-designed swashbuckler from ComWar)
• Pugilist/Pankration-type character (ie a fist-fighter/grappler that isn't a orientally-themed class like the monk)
• Noble/Aristocrat that's not a NPC class
• Scout (ie like a ranger/rogue or the scout class itself)

i think that all of these suggestions can be constructed from the base classes, npc classes, and prestige classes:

battlemage -- eldritch knight (doesn't have full bab or spellcasting for balance reasons).
assassin -- rogue.
duelist -- rogue, fighter with weapon finesse, or multiclassed rogue/fighter with weapon finesse
pugilist -- fighter with improved unarmed strike.
noble -- aristocrat.
scout -- ranger, rogue, or multiclasses ranger/rogue

I would add aristrocratic warrior (eg full BAB and social skills), commander class (3/4 or full BAB with non-magic leadership abilities, and no the feat does not count), scout (the scout is close, but not enough BAB; the ranger has spells and "mother may I" abilities), and martial artist (full BAB, otherwise similar to swashbuckler, no mystic abilities except maybe as feats). Maybe something like a private investigator and/or spy as well - rogue is close, though.

ditto:

aristocratic warrior -- fighter with high charisma who takes diplomacy, etc., as cross-class skills.
commander -- fighter with leadersh... oops paladin, then, or just a fighter with high charisma.
scout -- see above.
martial artist -- see pugilist, above.

i think that just about any character concept can be created with just these classes: fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard. everything else is prestige

messy

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I'd like to see a ranger as a core class.

C'mon, you KNEW I was gonna say it.