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

[Nightfall]

"Want to play a sage? Create a wizard and never memorize any spells. Enjoy!"

Nah I have spells! I just don't feel like using them on people!

 

[Nightfall]

Oh, and for all you "wacky sage" fans,

It's called an Expert. It's an NPC class. It's got enough guts to be a viable core class. You could even be generous and let them gain spells as a Bard.

I don't know how useful an Expert would be in a dungeon crawl, but with the right skills, he could hold his own for sure.

Yeah but I like casting my spells too! Experts don't get spells.

 

[Fenes]

So, a swashbuckling rogue would think of trapfinding as "open brasierres with one hand without looking?"

Yes, that is too much to ask. It basically is making a rogue who pretends he's something else but otherwise effectively acts just like a rogue.

I don't see any rule that states a rogue has to put even one point into search or disable device.

And I don't see any rule that forces a character with a few rogue levels to "act just like a rogue".

If you can't separate mechanics and flavor, then you need a new base class for every concept.

 

[Nightfall]

And I don't see any rule that says a wacky sage can't have skills like an expert but the spellcasting power of a wizard. (Just that he doesn't use them that often! )

 

[Herobizkit]

I do. See Skill Points under the "Wizard" class description. Now see Spells per Day under the "Rogue" class description.

Now, why can't your "wacky sage" take Rogue, max out his "Use Magic Device" and "Spellcraft" skills, and have his item-dependent "magic" only work some of the time? Wacky sage-magic doesn't always work, ya know, because if it did, it wouldn't be so wacky...

And people tend to look sideways at people who profess they cna cast spells and then suddenly can't, for some reason...

"Now, where did I put my magic staff? Oh yeah! I set it down when I got a piece of cake..."

 

[GQuail]

You can strip flavor easily.

I don't want to get too dragged down into this side debate: I will just say that I think Slow Fall, Ki Strike and the body powers of the Monk are very keyed into a "martial arts" character, and if you wanted to do a more western-style Boxer or Wrestler I dunno if it would all be as simple as just saying, "Yeah, you, um, eat a lot of pies and work out so you can heal your own wounds."

 

[GQuail]

I don't know about other players, but I can simply decide to not use a class feature I don't want to use. So, if I'd play a ranger as a duelist, I'd have no problem with not using all the nature stuff.

This, along with a similar statement about being a Monk but not using the death strike, seems a bit at odds with the goals of everyone else on this thread. As Whizbang Dustyboots notes, the classes are balanced by their powers, and class balance clearly matters to tou since the Duskblade is "overpowered": so why would an "underpowered" choice be a valid way of doing things? It will jus tinsert the same problem (different power levels of classes) into the game, albeit at different points on the spectrum.

I've wnated to use the Urban Ranger out of UA for policeman, but I'm a b it unsure about the spells. Do I ditch them and up the skills/bonus feats to counter, or do I keep them and note than a D&D fantasy world would have a pile of mundane magic in such roles? At no point would "I just tell the player not to use his spells" enter my head, which one might argue is "rollplayer" of me: but if balance matters to your game, it's just as big a problem to be too weak as to be too strong from the norm.

 

[Fenes]

This, along with a similar statement about being a Monk but not using the death strike, seems a bit at odds with the goals of everyone else on this thread. As Whizbang Dustyboots notes, the classes are balanced by their powers, and class balance clearly matters to tou since the Duskblade is "overpowered": so why would an "underpowered" choice be a valid way of doing things? It will jus tinsert the same problem (different power levels of classes) into the game, albeit at different points on the spectrum.

I've wnated to use the Urban Ranger out of UA for policeman, but I'm a b it unsure about the spells. Do I ditch them and up the skills/bonus feats to counter, or do I keep them and note than a D&D fantasy world would have a pile of mundane magic in such roles? At no point would "I just tell the player not to use his spells" enter my head, which one might argue is "rollplayer" of me: but if balance matters to your game, it's just as big a problem to be too weak as to be too strong from the norm.

Most of the powers can be easily adapted to another flavor with just a bit flexibility. Call the self-heal from a monk "second wind". Slow fall can stay slow fall, no reason why only oriental martial artists would know how to fall. Ranger spells can be renamed too, if needed.

I guess I see the stuff much more abstract, without tieing all powers to their description. I have problem taking the mechanics, and giving them a new "paint coat". That way, there's no question of being underpowered.

 

[Cam Banks]

Dragonlance has the noble, mariner, mystic, and master as base classes. The noble is essentially the Star Wars d20 noble tweaked for a fantasy setting. The mariner is a viable alternative to duelists, non-spellcasting bards, etc as it fills a support and direct lightweight melee role (especially with the revised version I wrote for Legends of the Twins). The mystic is a single-domain spontaneous casting divine class. And the master is to the expert what the fighter is to the warrior - fleshed out and customizable, taking the Perform, Craft, Profession, and Knowledge skills as central concepts and adding d20 Modern-style "knacks" to increase their worth in the party.

Having played with all of them in the game and worked with them extensively in DL sourcebooks and adventures, I think they fill all the required "empty" core class slots very well. Of course, I'm terribly biased.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[GQuail]

I was replying to Wayne in that, he talked about "fighting as well as a fighter, casting as well as a wizard".

You are, however, holding it up as a charge against anyone on this thread who suggests that a Duskblade-like class should exist, basically insinuating the only way such a thing can exist is with a D12 HD, full BAB, 8 skill points per level, full casting and bonus feats at every level monstrosity, which I think is a bit disingenious.

However, I think the communication problem we're having is simply a differing view of how many things one class has to get to become "fighting as well as a fighter, casting as well as a wizard"...

I consider it unbalanced, and unwelcome, and see no need to make it welcome. A fighter/wizard would serve in a more balanced way.

....because I've got Duskblades in my game world, and it has in no way made Fighters or Wizards superfluous: furthermore, if a character came to me even in core rules with a Fighter/Wizard straight multiclass, I would probably talk to them to make sure they realised that this could mean Cones of Cold when the rest of the group is using Wish. A caster level defecit (whether from multiclassing, LA or whatever) can render a character's spellcasting functionally useless, and that's why people would ask for a base class.

You may see that as not a problem, and in fact an intentional part of the multiclassing system: in which case we will have to agree to disagree on this subject. Certainly, the existence of base & prestige classes to replace pure multiclassed fighters/mages and add-on rules systems like the Magic Rating in UA make it clear that there's definatly demand from some people to make combo mages a more potent option, but I can appreciate why you wouldn't necearilly want to see it get upgraded from splatbook to core rules option. ;-)

In my honest opinion, most people who clamor for a fighter/wizard want the 2E bladesigner resurrected, the class that trumps pure fighter and pure wizards alike. I consider that unbalanced.

Just so it doesn't look like I'm picking on Fenes' every word, I just want to add:

* My first thought on reading the Duskblade was that it reminded me of the old BD&D Elf class, and in my campaign it's only appeared on Elves. Both classes were, level limits/XP caps or not, pretty potent in their day and I can imagine why people would look at the 3.X version of that idea with suspicion.

* I personally don't see the fighter/mage type as an archetype D&D doesn't fill, exactly. To me, it should exist for game balance reasons (because multiclassed casters can become pretty much irrelevant spellusers with only a few lost levels)but not because there's a horde of sword-wielding mages out there to be duplicated: to be honest, I can;'t think of a single one. At least the Ranger/Monk, narrower than other base classes they may be, are easilly compared to people in literature: where are the 1st level Duskblades, eaxctly?