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

[Nyaricus]

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).

How do you figure that? If properly designed, and with a few tweaks to the system as-is, and you'd have it, basically. In any case, bring some stuff to back up what you're saying please - I can only guess your reasoning, and want to actually have a discuss, not a list fo statements

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.).

Not even close. Light or no-armour fighter is still vastly underpowered, and does even have Tumble or Balance on his class skills list, which is a big loss.

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.

Great point, HB. I am not familiar with the AD&D kits other than their purpose, but with the unifying mechanic of the d20 system, the supposed wildly un-balanced AD&D Kits could be tweaked to be more in line with 3.X's base powerline, which would be great

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??

My original point exactly, but put in better words by far. Thansk for that

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.

Well, There are some superfluous base classes that, in actuality, belong in the PrC realm, IMO. Ranger, as a specialized hunter and woodsman, does. Druid, with their very specific flavour and abilities, does. Monk doesn't belong there AT ALL, etc. Then, bring in the Scout class, the Pugilist class, the Shaman class, et al and let-r rip. There are some archetypes that just aren't there, which is a pity, really.

We need the proper mechanics to back up the appropriate fluff, and can then go from there.

 

[Fenes]

A class that can fight as well as a fighter, and cast as well as a wizard is unbalanced, Asking for "stuff to back that up" is pointless. Both the fighter and the wizard are specialists in fighting and casting, and a class that equals them in both areas is overpowered.

For the duelist - ranger, with some rogue for tumble, and the wilderness flavor dropped. Or ranger with the feat that makes tumble a class skill.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The current ranger qualifies as duelist, in my opinion, and quite nicely, especially if mixed with a fighter or rogue.

What about "duelist" implies nature spells, running at full speed while tracking and having a big old animal pet?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

And he'd still be better off wearing armor and being more of a "fighter" than a swashbuckler, particularly as he's missing all the skills that make up the other half of the swashbuckler equation.

Unless, of course, we want a swashbuckler to be able to find traps and backstab simply so that they can be social as well.

 

[Fenes]

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.

Backstabbing is called sneak attack these days, and is something I'd consider a duelist would do - place the attacks as efficinetly and precisely as possible, when possible. For the find traps crack - no one said you have to spend skill points on them, not even as a rogue.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

A class that can fight as well as a fighter, and cast as well as a wizard is unbalanced, Asking for "stuff to back that up" is pointless. Both the fighter and the wizard are specialists in fighting and casting, and a class that equals them in both areas is overpowered.

Drop it already, you're misconstruing what one person said and then clarified to mean something else.

For the duelist - ranger, with some rogue for tumble, and the wilderness flavor dropped. Or ranger with the feat that makes tumble a class skill.

So you can play a ranger with one hand tied behind his back or a ranger/rogue multi-class with two hands tied behind his back, all in an attempt to get a character equally as viable as a regular ranger or rogue. This really isn't a solution most folks are going to be excited about.

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

 

[Fenes]

So you can play a ranger with one hand tied behind his back or a ranger/rogue multi-class with two hands tied behind his back, all in an attempt to get a character equally as viable as a regular ranger or rogue. This really isn't a solution most folks are going to be excited about.

Then play a fighter/rogue multiclass. Very viable as a duelist.

 

[IcyCool]

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

You mean a bard?

 

[Nyaricus]

For the duelist - ranger, with some rogue for tumble, and the wilderness flavor dropped. Or ranger with the feat that makes tumble a class skill.

Here's the thing though; I am talking about archetypes that are missing from the core rules here in regards to base classes; thus houseruling or mutliclassing doesn't cut it; in the case of houseuling they generally make wony characters, and in the case of houserules, why should it be worth the effort?

There are a number of poorly done and/or non-existant archetypes which are not in the core rules, and should be. There are a number of good supplimentary classes which help fill this gap however, but in the end why should a new player have to buy over 100 bucks just to get the exact sort of character he wants.

Now, I know you could justify it by saying "well, multiclass it - duh!", by that isn't the point. While it will sate said noobie for a while, once he gets an understanding of the rules, he will see that his original choice was flawed, was not what he was really aiming for. But then he looks in book X and finds what he wanted! If you were said player, would that make it acceptable? Would you want to buy 2+ books when all you wanted was one thing from the second book? Neither would I.

 

[Fenes]

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

Loremaster, prestige class from the DMG. Or an expert. Both work as sages easy enough. Add other classes to get your idea of a sage, if those do not work for you.