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

[GQuail]

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.

Well. I took Nycarius' example of the Duskblade to be a hint that his definiton of "full BAB/full spells" is a bit more balanced than what you seem to hav taken from it. :>

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.)

...

Now, there are plenty of valid complaints coming from people who are concerned about the Duskblade being too strong, but if someone who came to me asking to play a Gish type were told by me to consider a Bard, I would expect nothing short of a guffaw at the notion. ;-) Despite the fact it's spontaneous, the more direct combat spell-set of the Duskblade means that he /is/ closer to a wizard in the sense that a fighter/wizard will most likely want to be one: a character who wishes to be a charming wizard/warrior is indeed better off playing a Bard, but that's not what most people mean of when they talk about the Eldritch Knight-style archetype IMHO.

Let's look at this another way: is the Duskblade, in your opinion, balanced? Would it be theoretically welcomed by you in a core rules edition of the future, and if not is there anything tha tcould be done to it to make it so?

 

[GQuail]

Replace the fluff text from monk with european fluff text, and you have your pugilist. Ditto for weapon master - we actually have that prestige class in our campaign, adapted to western background.

There's some merit in that: but (as discussed on a thread not that long ago) I don't think that's the fault of people who can't field-strip the Monk so much as the fact that the Monk is so heavy on flavour already.

 

[Nightfall]

*still think wacky sage core class would be kind of neat to do*

 

[pawsplay]

A lightly armored Fighter is perfectly viable, particularly with a high Dex and if you go the Spring Attack route, throwing in Dash, etc. If you multiclass into barbarian, rogue, or barbarian, things only get better. One of my NPCs is a fighter 4/rogue 2, who is really just all around terrifying, despite being a half-ef. The Complete Warrior swashbuckler is nice, but as the aforementioned fighter/rogue is often better, I suspect it is underpowered, and underdeveloped at high levels.

I've already come up with my own aristocratic fighter variant. Basically, their 1st level bonus feat is mandatorily Mounted Combat, and at 2nd level they get Great Fortitude instead of a fighter bonus feat (see below), and they add Diplomacy and Knowledge (nobility and royalty) to their class skills. They get good Will saves. Tada!

 

[Fenes]

Well. I took Nycarius' example of the Duskblade to be a hint that his definiton of "full BAB/full spells" is a bit more balanced than what you seem to hav taken from it. :>

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

Now, there are plenty of valid complaints coming from people who are concerned about the Duskblade being too strong, but if someone who came to me asking to play a Gish type were told by me to consider a Bard, I would expect nothing short of a guffaw at the notion. ;-) Despite the fact it's spontaneous, the more direct combat spell-set of the Duskblade means that he /is/ closer to a wizard in the sense that a fighter/wizard will most likely want to be one: a character who wishes to be a charming wizard/warrior is indeed better off playing a Bard, but that's not what most people mean of when they talk about the Eldritch Knight-style archetype IMHO.

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.

Let's look at this another way: is the Duskblade, in your opinion, balanced? Would it be theoretically welcomed by you in a core rules edition of the future, and if not is there anything tha tcould be done to it to make it so?

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

 

[Fenes]

There's some merit in that: but (as discussed on a thread not that long ago) I don't think that's the fault of people who can't field-strip the Monk so much as the fact that the Monk is so heavy on flavour already.

You can strip flavor easily.

 

[Stalker0]

I think the vast majority of fighting archetypes can be covered just fine with the base fighting classes. They multiclass so well together that you can fill in the niches you want.

Now I think most will admit spellcasting multiclass is weak, and so those archetypes are often not represented well.

And keep in mind flavor can be chucked out the window anytime if you want to build something else. The ranger is a good example, take his base stuff, chuck the nature stuff out the window, and you can make him into a regular skillfull fighter archetype.

 

[Fenes]

I think the vast majority of fighting archetypes can be covered just fine with the base fighting classes. They multiclass so well together that you can fill in the niches you want.

Now I think most will admit spellcasting multiclass is weak, and so those archetypes are often not represented well.

I would say that those archetypes do not deserve to be represented better, being inherently overpowered.

 

[Moonstone Spider]

You can strip flavor easily.

A lot of monk abilities are rather flavourful. It's not particularly in-concept for a gutter-fighter pugilist to be able to strike you, then kill you hours later with a thought, speak to any living creature, or become a magical being through some sort of meditation/focus.

And then there's that bizarre lawful alignment requirement that's right out of concept for a pit-fighter.

 

[Fenes]

A lot of monk abilities are rather flavourful. It's not particularly in-concept for a gutter-fighter pugilist to be able to strike you, then kill you hours later with a thought, speak to any living creature, or become a magical being through some sort of meditation/focus.

And then there's that bizarre lawful alignment requirement that's right out of concept for a pit-fighter.

The pugilist learns to strike in a way that weakens the heart of the enemy, so that it gives out hours later.

The pugilist gets healed and beaten so often, and pummeled, and fixed, that he ends up with a few magical side effects.

Cheesy and clumsy? Sure. But no one forces you to actually use the tongue ability, or the delayed killing blow.

Alignment restrictions can be ditched without a problem.