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

[Mouseferatu]

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)

I'd argue that the marshal (Miniature's Handbook) can serve the second role very well, and the first to an extent. I realize that the marshal as written doesn't have a full BAB, but the marshal as written has also been acknowledged as a suboptimal build. My preferred tweak to the class--full BAB and 6 skill points/level--makes it perfect for both roles.

 

[Psion]

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...

That's sort of where I was going with the "general" class thing.

For example, my preferred take on the ranger is the one in FFG's Wildscape. What it does is fairly simple: it gives you a dozen new combat styles (some not so combat-y), allowing you to break out of the fairly restricted mold the core ranger is cast in.

 

[Nyaricus]

What's to discuss?

TB, while I love contructive replys and all, that wasn't one of them. Are we not on a d20 discussion board right now? That 'question' was a bit un-called-for, don'tcha think?

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?

It leaves him where he was, obviously. A "plain old mage" would obiously be a more competent spellcaster than a battlemage could ever be; that's how balance works, right? If I give one class everything, then it's not balanced, and therefor not acceptable, thus you need to reduce its power. So a battlemage has to give up something for gaining it's niche, to continue our shared example of the fighter-battlemage-wizard spectrum.

Also consider that PrCs where originally intended to fill a special niche in every world where very powerful and specific roles need to be - like Red Wizards, Purple Dragon Knights, and Spellfire Channelers in FR. Just because there are 600 PrCs doesn't mean that they belong in your game or your world.

If your campaign setting has a high magic focus, then maybe a battlemage is appropriate as a base class, with some more specific PrCs as well. If your campaign is a low-magic setting, then maybe a generic Fighter/Wizard PrC is not appropriate at all. It's all about the fulff and crunch and crunch and fluff, and PrCs are entirely optional in that, and are infact dictated by the Dms own preference of those two elements.

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.

Fair enough, but don't you think that, if properly designed, a Battlemage would fill a niche a fighter/wizard combo couldn't fill? As above, I think that with the proper reasoning, one could make a case for all sorts of archetypes in their campaign setting, depending on the fluff and the crunch therein.

Multiclassing also has that unnice sideeffect of gimping classes in a number of ways (spellcasters and bad saves) while really helping out full-BABers and shared-good saves. This is hardly what TB was talking about when he spoke of how 3e was designed with goals to get rid of class-discrepincies (sp?) in power. A Fighter/Wizard is going to have an abomidable Ref Save, and decent Fort/Will. His BAB and spellcasting will be all over the place, since the 'degrees' of your combo will dictate them. Would not this be the case for a base class?

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.

My thoughts exactly

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

Well, whereever the holes are in the rules, of course; see my list above.

I also agree in making several packages availiable for different classes; one sugesstion I made in a thread about fighters was in order to make a swashbuckler, take away medium and heavy armour profs, all shields, and all martial weapons except those which are finessable, and give Balance, Tumble and some other few skills as class skills, and give +4 SkP/level. Weapon Finesse is a seet 1st level feat. Works nicely, IMO.

Just one example of what you were going for, but not a truel solution, IMO.

There's also the side of fluff; if you need a holy man who's non-combative, where's the 1/2 BAB priest class in the core rules? Nowhere.

 

[jmucchiello]

I agree with Psion and messy for the most part. While light armored archers and non-armored clerics may be suboptimal, the concepts can be made with core classes alone.

The only really useful ability truly missing from the core is a fighter/wizard combo where the character can cast spells into his weapon for discharge when the weapon hits an opponent. There are a couple PrCs like this but they don't give you that ability at low levels. (Such an ability does appear in the forever delayed revision to Character Customization but even I'm sick of me pimping this vaporous product.)

 

[DragonLancer]

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

Most of these concepts are perfectly doable via core classes and multiclassing.

Battlemage/War Wizard - A full BAB wizard should not exist, it would be good enough that no one would play a wizard. This concept is fine with multiclassed fighter/wizard.

Assassin - Is a Rogue! The class has sneak attack and is the master of stealth.

Duellist - Multiclass fighter/rogue.

Pugilist - A few levels of Monk, sparsed with fighter levels. I've played a perfectly good character like this as a street fighter. Works fine.

Noble - The Noble doesn't need to be a class, its more a background. Saying that though, the Dragonlance Campaign Settting has a pretty good Noble base class.

Scout - Ranger! Just because your scout may not be a two-weapon specilist or an archer, doesn't mean that this class doesn't represent the scout archetype. Want to really go sneaky scout then start with 1 or 2 levels of rogue and max out the hide & MS.

 

[DJCupboard]

Two things:

First, I agree that the core base classes do not fill all iconic niches, that some of the new base classes aren't iconic enough to be considered base classes, and that these iconic niches shouldn't all be relegated to PrCs or multiclassing. The High Knight of All Magical Realms should probably be a PrC, but a good combatcaster shouldn't. Similarly, a swashbuckler could be made as a fighter/rogue, but what about the scallywag who's been swashing his buckles since 1st level?

Second, after being very disapointed with the CW Swashbuckler, I built one using the monk as a template (without all the mysticism, of course), if I remember I will post it when I get home.

~DSL~

 

[Fenes]

I think the archetypes "missing" can often be described as the "have my cake and eat it" classes ("full spells and BAB battle wizard" is the best example for that).

The one exception I could see is the light/no armor fighter, but even that can be handled with a few tweaks or items (bracers of armor, f.e.).

 

[arscott]

-Swashbuckler
-Arcane Warrior
-Nature themed arcane caster (Witch)
-Spontaneous divine caster
-Aristocratic Warrior

 

[Herobizkit]

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?

If I were re-doing Wizards, I'd give them bonus Metamagic and Wizard-related feats just like the Fighter gets the horse's share of Warrior and general feats.

 

[Herobizkit]

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...

You'd be playing "Blue Rose" or "True20".