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

[Nyaricus]

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?

Pardon me, I meant more skillsy, to clarify.

 

[Nyaricus]

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.

I didn't bring it up, so you're asking the wrong guy here...

However, the Archivist does a decent job at this as a base class, if a bit niche. I really like that class

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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

Reading the whole post helps.

You keep suggesting that a character not use their abilities to magically transform into another class. They can't do that and be as effective as a character as characters that actually DO use all of their abilities.

 

[Fenes]

A fighter/rogue has strength and weaknesses. More skills and better ref save than a fighter, but less bab and hitpoints. Looks pretty balanced to me.

 

[Fenes]

Reading the whole post helps.

You keep suggesting that a character not use their abilities to magically transform into another class. They can't do that and be as effective as a character as characters that actually DO use all of their abilities.

I am more suggesting people use the PHB tips to modify the flavor - like lidda calling her move silently skill "footpaddin'". Is it too much to expect players to use the mechanics of a class like ranger, and replace the flavor with another flavor?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I am more suggesting people use the PHB tips to modify the flavor - like lidda calling her move silently skill "footpaddin'". Is it too much to expect players to use the mechanics of a class like ranger, and replace the flavor with another flavor?

So, a swashbuckling rogue would think of trapfinding as "open brasierres with one hand without looking?"

Yes, that is too much to ask. It basically is making a rogue who pretends he's something else but otherwise effectively acts just like a rogue.

 

[pawsplay]

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.

What does a swashbuckler need? You stick the pointy end of the rapier in the other guy. Good armor, dodge, mobility, spring attack, weapon finesse, combat expterise, improved disarm pretty much covers it. Jump and climb are class skills for a fighter; 5 ranks of Jump gets you +2 to Tumble, so you can take a few ranks of Tumble cross-class and have a better than even chance of evading AoOs (which you already get +4 AC against and can use Combat Expertise to defend against).

Now, if you also want to be a tight-rope walking, seductive cat, yes, you'll want some rogue levels. Two will net you evasion, as well. You can find traps, but without a lot of ranks in Search, you're not a specialist. Think of it as a lucky knack. Maybe it's from robbing from the rich or something, who knows? Just chalk it up to alertness. +1d6 sneak attack never hurt anybody's character concept. It goes nicely with that feint, or when fighting on top of a narrow beam.

 

[Herobizkit]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is two things that i didn't like about AD&D2:
_The lack of Assassin, Barbarian & Monk
_The Kits...some of them were to powerfull...(Bladesinger or the Bard kit you mentioned for exemple)...and the result was that the players took all the same kits...

Some *were* too powerful. But by the same token, some Prestige Classes are too powerful, but that doesn't mean everyone will want to take the same Prestige class, or even be able to!

'Sides, if every player took the same kit, GREAT! This immediately gives you common ground for players to begin play, and it themes your campaign nicely. I remember a time when all my players took the Swashbuckler kit: a Fighter, a Thief, and a Bard. FUN times, there.

 

[Herobizkit]

Oh, and for all you "wacky sage" fans,

It's called an Expert. It's an NPC class. It's got enough guts to be a viable core class. You could even be generous and let them gain spells as a Bard.

I don't know how useful an Expert would be in a dungeon crawl, but with the right skills, he could hold his own for sure.

 

[Nyaricus]

Some *were* too powerful. But by the same token, some Prestige Classes are too powerful but that doesn't mean everyone always takes the same ones.

'Sides, if every player took the same kit, GREAT! This immediately gives you common ground for players to being play, and it themes your campaign nicely. I remember a time when all my players took the Swashbucker kit; a Fighter, a Thief, and a Bard. FUN times, there.

I'd have to agree with all of these; would you say that the package sin UA are similar in nature, though (despite being moreso dictated by your specific class in 3e, however)?