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

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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

You're skipping part of what I wrote.

A rogue is balanced by having all of its abilities. A player choosing not to use some of those abilities to fit into a concept has an unbalanced (in the direction of being underpowered) character by definition.

A duelist shouldn't have the choice of being a crippled ranger or a crippled rogue. It's a major archetype -- certainly more vastly more prominent than the D&D cleric -- that simply cannot be built with just the PHB and measure up to other PHB characters. And when speaking of a combatant, that's an essential issue.

 

[Fenes]

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.

Ignoring the nature flavor of the ranger is not houseruling. It's simply not using an option that's there. Like when my sorcerer doesn't pick a familiar.

Of course, if you don't want to multiclass, and do not want to enter a prestige class, or tweak a system a bit, then I guess the new base class is for you.

Usually someone else, most likely the DM, will have the book the new player needs, and can advise him or her while creating a character anyway. Atleast that's how we do it. So the "new player needs more base classes" argument is not really valid.

 

[Stalker0]

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

Yep, combat expertise with improved disarm and perhaps improved feint and your ready to go. For those saying light armor can't get it that's wash. Mithral can get you in to the medium armor ACs, so your AC is only lagging a few points behind the heavy armor guy, plus you get all the benefits of having a high dex. Heck, I've seen dex monkey light fighters with higher ACs than the full plate guys. And at very low levels you can't afford heavy armor anyway, so a duelist character can really get it done.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Loremaster, prestige class from the DMG.

So, a level 1 sage character would be, what? A level -5 loremaster? This isn't a helpful answer.

Or an expert. Both work as sages easy enough.

Of course, the DMG explicitly states that NPC classes can't measure up to a PC class. If someone wanted to play one as a PC (I personally don't, but lots of people like lots of stuff that I don't), telling them to pick a character class that even the core book says sucks is a pretty crappy way to be.

I get that you don't want to play this way, but could you be a little less dismissive of how other people want to play the game?

 

[Nyaricus]

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.

So you're saying I have to wait, 5, 6, 7 levels for a concept which *could* be realised with a base class, and is archetypical to be justifyed as such. That's at least 1/4, if not 1/3 of most PCs [non-epic, if playing with] lifespan, which isn't fair.

 

[Fenes]

You're skipping part of what I wrote.

A rogue is balanced by having all of its abilities. A player choosing not to use some of those abilities to fit into a concept has an unbalanced (in the direction of being underpowered) character by definition.

A duelist shouldn't have the choice of being a crippled ranger or a crippled rogue. It's a major archetype -- certainly more vastly more prominent than the D&D cleric -- that simply cannot be built with just the PHB and measure up to other PHB characters. And when speaking of a combatant, that's an essential issue.

A fighter/rogue is not crippled. I don't know where you get this idea from.

 

[Fenes]

So you're saying I have to wait, 5, 6, 7 levels for a concept which *could* be realised with a base class, and is archetypical to be justifyed as such. That's at least 1/4, if not 1/3 of most PCs [non-epic, if playing with] lifespan, which isn't fair.

How about you first define what a sage has to be able to? Then we check how best to model it with PHB base classes. I for one don't really get what a sage is supposed to do other than having a lot of knowledge.

 

[Nyaricus]

A fighter/rogue is not crippled. I don't know where you get this idea from.

Will Saves, anyone? BAB when you *really* need to be hitting, the fact that you'd need to sacrifice HP and BAB is wishing to become more personable?

Fighter Rogue works as a backalley backstabber, but not as a duelist. It's too all-over-the-place.

 

[Fenes]

Will Saves, anyone? BAB when you *really* need to be hitting, the fact that you'd need to sacrifice HP and BAB is wishing to become more personable?

Fighter Rogue works as a backalley backstabber, but not as a duelist. It's too all-over-the-place.

Will saves? a simple feat (iron will) makes up the difference compared to a pure rogue or fighter. And they will have better reflex/fort saves compared to the single class. "Personable"? What do you mean by that?

 

[Nyaricus]

Ignoring the nature flavor of the ranger is not houseruling. It's simply not using an option that's there. Like when my sorcerer doesn't pick a familiar.

Come now, how can you not miss a rangers nature flavour; new players would be all "wtf?" all over the place. You are missing the fact that a noobie will take to heart the aragorn-esqe feel of the ranger class. It's undeniable. Sure, you can change it, but it should simply be there.

Of course, if you don't want to multiclass, and do not want to enter a prestige class, or tweak a system a bit, then I guess the new base class is for you.

Trust me, I'm a tweaker through and through, but WBs statement really struck a cord with me, is all

I'm fine with the concept of PrCs as very specific roles, but frankly, some base classes are oo niche, and some PrCs are too broad. There aren't any guidelines that have been followed with 3.xe with this, and thus there is a lot of floatsam and jetsam which we have to deal with. Alas.

Usually someone else, most likely the DM, will have the book the new player needs, and can advise him or her while creating a character anyway. Atleast that's how we do it. So the "new player needs more base classes" argument is not really valid.

That's how we do it as well, but it doesn't answer why those "extra" classes are not core; are not there already.