Nyaricus
First Post
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 statementsFenes said: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).
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.Fenes said: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.).
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 greatHerobizkit said: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.
My original point exactly, but put in better words by far. Thansk for thatwayne62682 said: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??
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.GQuail said: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.
We need the proper mechanics to back up the appropriate fluff, and can then go from there.