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

[Herobizkit]

I said it once, I'll say it again, and I'll keep saying that I wish I hadn't've sold all my 2e kit books.

We need to see the return of kits. d20 Modern does it in the way of Occupations, and it's a fabulous thing to have in the way of character customization. In this way, for example, my Strong Hero with an Academic background can add a few Smart class skills and be the brainy, brawny hero like Indiana Jones... at first level!

By the same token, my 3.x Bard could take a "Blade" kit (assassin-esque weapons display entertainer from The Complete Bard's Handbook), giving him acesss to a few Fighter feats (or maybe the Bladed Weapons weapons group) and one or two neat tricks (like a level/AC bonus to Fighting Defensively or level/attack bonus similar to Barbarian Rage, but only lasting one round). My Fighter could also take the "Blade" kit and gain access to Tumble, Sleight of Hand (for juggling) and Perform skills... and so on.

Tastes great, more filling.

 

[wayne62682]

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

And that is exactly why making them base classes is a good idea. So you can do the concept WITHOUT multiclassing. For example, since there now exists a "Core Class" that is a fighter/mage (Duskblade), you can do it without waiting until level 10 by taking Fighter 2/Wizard 5/Spellsword 3/Eldritch Knight xx and sucking eggs for most of the time because you can't fight as well as a fighter and can't cast as well as a Wizard.

How is it balanced (or fair, for that matter) to force a player to wait for half of a campaign to even remotely get close to doing the concept they had at the start of it??

For what it's worth, I cast my vote towards generic classes that you can customize. I may be the only person in the world who loved the old Skills & Powers system for that very reason. Hell, even in my groups now we're allowed to swap things out if we want... I have a Ranger (Well, he's a Hexblade/Ranger) who took Sneak Attack as my "combat style" since neither archery nor TWF fit the concept.

 

[Fenes]

And that is exactly why making them base classes is a good idea. So you can do the concept WITHOUT multiclassing. For example, since there now exists a "Core Class" that is a fighter/mage (Duskblade), you can do it without waiting until level 10 by taking Fighter 2/Wizard 5/Spellsword 3/Eldritch Knight xx and sucking eggs for most of the time because you can't fight as well as a fighter and can't cast as well as a Wizard.

How is it balanced (or fair, for that matter) to force a player to wait for half of a campaign to even remotely get close to doing the concept they had at the start of it??

It's balanced and fair because any class that can fight as well as a fighter AND cast as well as wizard is unbalanced.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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


duelist -- rogue, fighter with weapon finesse, or multiclassed rogue/fighter with weapon finesse

A fighter with weapon finesse and light armor is suboptimal. There would need to be a lot of new feats to make it not suck.

pugilist -- fighter with improved unarmed strike.

As above.

noble -- aristocrat.

Useless for adventuring.

commander -- fighter with leadersh... oops paladin, then, or just a fighter with high charisma.

That's missing the point. There's no leadership ability, and nothing that you can do with that high Charisma.

 

[Fenes]

That's missing the point. There's no leadership ability, and nothing that you can do with that high Charisma.

Fighter bard, change the musical flavor to command speech flavor and bardic knowledge to military knowledge.

 

[diaglo]

Useless for adventuring.

i wouldn't say useless. but i would agree it is limited. you would have to pick your adventures more.

 

[GQuail]

And that is exactly why making them base classes is a good idea. So you can do the concept WITHOUT multiclassing. For example, since there now exists a "Core Class" that is a fighter/mage (Duskblade), you can do it without waiting until level 10 by taking Fighter 2/Wizard 5/Spellsword 3/Eldritch Knight xx and sucking eggs for most of the time because you can't fight as well as a fighter and can't cast as well as a Wizard.

While I think that's a good example (like I said above, the caster level sacrifices a multiclassed spellcaster has to make don't make it a very viable option in core rules) plenty of people would probably argue that a swordsman/mage should be a PrC option and not something a first level character can muster. Tales are full of weedy spellcasters, but those whoc an bang out Acid Arrows and do a full-attack are pretty slim on the ground. ;-)

As much as I like some of the new bnase classes we've seen and think they fill holes in the system, I dunno if they're a good thing to include in the core rules. As it stands, the 11 classes in the PHB already cover a lot of different options, and can be a bit intimidating to starting players: throwing in a Swashbuckler or a Noble into that might only compound it further. Or perhaps following the model of the Prestige Paladin and offering prestige classes to fill those roles but from a far lower level? That way players still "waste levels" to reach their character concept, but far fewer and can hopefully progress further.

 

[GQuail]

It's balanced and fair because any class that can fight as well as a fighter AND cast as well as wizard is unbalanced.

It would be, but I don't think it's fair to mark everyone who says "I'd like a fighter/wizard base class" as implying they want a D10 HD, full BAB, up to 9th level spells class: the Duskblade has been mentioned in this thread, and I think that represents what a lot of people are asking for.

The Bard is core rules, and that to an extent is sort of what people are asking for: except it's Rogue/Sorcerer rather than Fighter/Wizard. It has a bit of each of the parent classes, but in both cases the parent classes are more competant at their primary objective: a party with a Bard instead of a Rogue cannot play the same, and a Bard instead of a Wizard is not something I'd seriously consider.

(Of course, some people think the Duskblade is unbalanced and are discussing this in another thread as we speak: but with 5th level spells and D8 HD, he's not the be-and-end-all class you seem to fear)

 

[Fenes]

I was referring to the post that spoke exactly of a class that could fight as well as a fighter, and cast as well as a wizard.

If I'd incorporate a fighter/wizard, it would be a bard.

(A duskblade is a spontaneous caster, so it's not closer to wizard than a bard is.)

 

[Wystan]

I tried to create a fair unarmed combatant that is not a monk. Please look at the following and tell me what you think.