D&D 3E/3.5 What D&D 3e/3.5e classes do you wish had become core in later editions?

[Minigiant]

I couldn't disagree more. Backgrounds are what you were born, Classes are about what you do. There is no inherent reason why a noble should or shouldn't be a fighter or a wizard - or the balance between physical skill and magic. For that matter there is absolutely a case for a warlock noble, either getting their powers from their hereditary pact or from their land or people.

I didn't say a noble can't be a fighter or wizard. I'm saying I would like the option of an adventurer who leveraged his wealth or was forced by his title for special training

And what disadvantages? But seriously I think you're looking in the warlord or marshal category.

The 4e warlord is far more flexible than that and goes right down to the lazy warlord that never makes an attack in combat. I think all the PHB options were frontline - but the later options increased the flexibility.

A warlord or marshal would just be one option. But It's not the only option as different cultures prize different things in their nobles. And many cultures have elite schools for their nobles with different training programs than the commoner ones.

Other than e.g. ritual casting, some multiclassing, and some other stuff. Or if you want a low-medium magic spin there's the bard which needn't be that magical. This also is why the noble as a class is a bad idea - nobles can be very different.

That's the thing. Nobles can be different.

3e multiclassing was a mess
4e multiclassing was a chore
5e multiclassing is better but it still leaves gaps.

So I think it would be better to have base "face skill expert" noble then offer subclasses to make a heavy warrior noble, a duelist noble, a military officer noble, a criminal noble, a clerical noble, a wizard noble, a dark magic noble. Picking 2 sublclasses as tutors.

The Dragonlance noble would choose a military officer tutor and a bardic tutor
The Warlord noble would choose a military officer tutor and a heavy warrior tutor
The Barbaric Chief's son would choose a barbaric tutor and a shaman tutor
A FR noble might could an exotic weapons tutor and a fencing tutor
A drow noble traitor could choose an assassination tutor and a cleric tutor
A noble form amagocracy might pick a wizard tutor and a sorcrerous tutor.
Another noble might choose a religious tutor and a archery tutor
A dark cult escapee could an assassination tutor and a dark pact tutor

The core D&D classes are too focused on mastery of specific things and none of the multiclass systems work enough to get the right levels of skills and arms without many unwanted aspects.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I didn't say a noble can't be a fighter or wizard. I'm saying I would like the option of an adventurer who leveraged his wealth or was forced by his title for special training

And I am saying that that is part of their backstory not something that in the normal run of a D&D campaign you can do in play. In the course of actual play you learn not from tutors, but from the dangerous situations you find yourself in that push you to your limit. Which is why the fact you are a noble is entirely relevant to your background but does not deserve to be a class.

That's the thing. Nobles can be different.

So can commoners. In fact there is far more variation on almost all metrics between commoners because there are more commoners. And tutors and mentors aren't something exclusive to nobles.

 

[Li Shenron]

Is that any different than putting monks drawn from ancient China and medieval Japan and inspired by 1970's Kung Fu movies into the pseudo-medieval environment of D&D?

In fact, I would not have put the Monk in the PHB either, but you asked what MORE classes I would want there. And it's not like because a mistake was made that now I wish they made even more...

In my opinion, bards, barbarians, rangers and druids are narrow concepts and genre-specific classes, while nobles and mystics are not.

Indeed I'd rather prune the list than increase it, but at least those 4 have a long history in the game.

Nobles are certainly a wide concept but they are a social concept not an adventuring concept and classes represent the latter. Good call by WotC to make it a background.

Mystics, I have no idea what they should really represent as there are at least 8 in this list List of alternative Dungeons & Dragons classes - Wikipedia and they are all anyway derivative of other spellcasters.

 

[Minigiant]

And I am saying that that is part of their backstory not something that in the normal run of a D&D campaign you can do in play. In the course of actual play you learn not from tutors, but from the dangerous situations you find yourself in that push you to your limit. Which is why the fact you are a noble is entirely relevant to your background but does not deserve to be a class.

I am thinking more of person whose position and wealth granted them access to more exotic or specialized training than the normal person has.

A skillmonkey in the same idea of a rogue without the Sneak Attack, Thieves Cant, and Acrobatic Backflipping.

Again the only learned men in D&D are thieves, wizards, and bards.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I am thinking more of person whose position and wealth granted them access to more exotic or specialized training than the normal person has.

A skillmonkey in the same idea of a rogue without the Sneak Attack, Thieves Cant, and Acrobatic Backflipping.

Again the only learned men in D&D are thieves, wizards, and bards.

Again, what you are describing is background rather than something they do in play. And the idea that clerics are necessarily unlearned is IMO ridiculous. Even fighters can and should sometimes be learned; amateurs study tactics, diletantes study strategy, and professionals study logistics.

 

[Minigiant]

Again, what you are describing is background rather than something they do in play. And the idea that clerics are necessarily unlearned is IMO ridiculous. Even fighters can and should sometimes be learned; amateurs study tactics, diletantes study strategy, and professionals study logistics.

I'm describing the class features. Class skills and Skill strength.

D&D is missing a class that lets you be an expert at rolling mental skills without relying on sneak attacks or being a full on caster for combat.
The 3e, 4e, and 5e fighter has bad mental skills and do not have the mental abilities. The 4e warlord had the ability scores but not the skills.

Basically the 5e version of a Noble would have expertise and all the knowledge and conversation skills as class skills. A bard minus bardic inspiration and being a 9th level spellcaster.

It wouldn't be so bad if WOTC didn't make everyone but rogues and bards have weak skills mechanically. But theyleft that how open and you can be an adventuring noble and mechanically play like one.

 

[Vael]

I'd make Psionics and the Artificer Core ... and while I voted Duskblade, I voted for it as a representative of a Core Fighter/Mage class. Whether you call that Swordmage, Magus, Duskblade, etc. doesn't matter.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm describing the class features. Class skills and Skill strength.

D&D is missing a class that lets you be an expert at rolling mental skills without relying on sneak attacks or being a full on caster for combat.
The 3e, 4e, and 5e fighter has bad mental skills and do not have the mental abilities. The 4e warlord had the ability scores but not the skills.

Basically the 5e version of a Noble would have expertise and all the knowledge and conversation skills as class skills. A bard minus bardic inspiration and being a 9th level spellcaster.

It wouldn't be so bad if WOTC didn't make everyone but rogues and bards have weak skills mechanically. But theyleft that how open and you can be an adventuring noble and mechanically play like one.

Being an expert at rolling mental skills is not really a niche in D&D; the skill system is deliberately thin.

And given that my warlords tended to end up with most of the mental skills trained I can only disagree with you about not having the skills; multiclass feats are almost never worth getting.

As for being a noble and mechanically playing like one, that depends on what your conception of a noble is. Not all of them were bookworms - and I'd expect the ones that were to also learn magic. I'd also expect the ones that focused on their studies rather than more active pursuits to not become adventurers. This means that down-the-line bard or possibly even wizard covers almost all the bookworming. Possibly the 5e bard is slightly overpowered - but that's an issue with the bard.

The key reason noble is a background not a class is because you don't learn special stuff after character creation by being a noble - you don't suddenly run off to return to your tutor every time you level. If you take the Noble background you get an education, you get training in social manipulation (persuasion), you get a language, and you get social status. That's playing like a noble and what you claim to want.

But different nobles in different countries or even different families or even different places in the family get different training and different tools to approach the world. When the British gentry used to train the first one to inherit, send the second into the army, the third law, and the fourth the church as the pattern why would they all get the same class? Why should a colonel and a bishop share a class just because they share parents when their parents pointed them at those careers from birth?

(And yes I know the gentry were one step below the nobility)

 

[Minigiant]

Being an expert at rolling mental skills is not really a niche in D&D; the skill system is deliberately thin.

That's the point. That's what's missing.

And given that my warlords tended to end up with most of the mental skills trained I can only disagree with you about not having the skills; multiclass feats are almost never worth getting.

I like to see how. The 4e warlord has1 INT skill, 1 CHA skill, and 1 WIS skill.

As for being a noble and mechanically playing like one, that depends on what your conception of a noble is. Not all of them were bookworms - and I'd expect the ones that were to also learn magic. I'd also expect the ones that focused on their studies rather than more active pursuits to not become adventurers. This means that down-the-line bard or possibly even wizard covers almost all the bookworming. Possibly the 5e bard is slightly overpowered - but that's an issue with the bard.

The game lets you grow up as a noble then transition to an adventurer. The problem is you really can't leverage your time as a noble to your adventuring life. That is unless your noble society is strictly based on an existing class.

That's why I think 5e is a good system for this. Subclasses allows for creating various mechanical versions of missing narrative archetypes.

But different nobles in different countries or even different families or even different places in the family get different training and different tools to approach the world. When the British gentry used to train the first one to inherit, send the second into the army, the third law, and the fourth the church as the pattern why would they all get the same class? Why should a colonel and a bishop share a class just because they share parents when their parents pointed them at those careers from birth?

(And yes I know the gentry were one step below the nobility)

subclasses
subclasses
subclasses

Not every warrior is the same but we only have one pure trained warrior class.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's the point. That's what's missing.

And as a design decision. First to make skills simple and then to make sure muggles don't get that much in the way of cool stuff. This is something that goes deeper.

I like to see how. The 4e warlord has1 INT skill, 1 CHA skill, and 1 WIS skill.

Multiclass feats. Plus frequently playing a human.

The game lets you grow up as a noble then transition to an adventurer. The problem is you really can't leverage your time as a noble to your adventuring life. That is unless your noble society is strictly based on an existing class.

And how does this make Noble different from any other adventuring background? What makes nobles different from street rats, scholars, or members of monastic orders? In all the cases you can leverage your time in your background to your adventuring life when it comes up. Which it does rarely.

That's why I think 5e is a good system for this. Subclasses allows for creating various mechanical versions of missing narrative archetypes.

And all of them are about what you are doing at the time, not about what you once did in the past and are somehow bouncing back and forward in time to do.

If noble should be a class then so should bodyguard, blacksmith, or ratcatcher. If noble should be a subclass then so should bodyguard, blacksmith, or ratcatcher. You are not mysteriously special just because you have blue blood.

And before you say "But Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay has those careers" it does including noble. And that's the type of game WFRP is. You would need to entirely overhaul D&D to make it such - and noble would not be the best place to start.

Not every warrior is the same but we only have one pure trained warrior class.

But being a warrior is something you are actively honing your skills at in a normal D&D campaign. When you are adventuring you are not honing the skills your tutor once taught you.