Another Core Class

[Psion]

I think you need a few things to justify a new core class:

1) The class is fairly general and/or a strong archetype in the setting in question
2) The class would reasonably have first level members
3) The class could not be reasonably built using other class, skill, and feat selections.

A nice example of what is justifiable as a class and what is not is to examine the OA samurai and the CW samurai.

The OA samurai is essentially a fighter with fewer feats and more skills. In an asian game, the class is a strong archetype. You could build a pretty close attempt at the class with a multi-class fighter/aristocrat, but in doing so you make the archetype less appealing as a PC and more clumsy. I think in that situation, a new class is perfectly justified.

Now contrast this to the CW samurai. The class is essentially just a warrior with a built in two weapon fighting class. You could build the class by tacking a few feats on. There is no reason this class should not be a fighter. It's clutter.


It's generally easier to justify spellcasting classes, and to justify classes if you have a specific campaign model that removes classes from or otherwise alters the existing class set.

If a class is a specialized concept that starts out looking like one of the other classes, you should have made it a prestige class. A product I am working one a review for right now (Dezzavold) makes this mistake.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I would like to see a combination fighter/arcane magic user, like the paladin but with arcane magic. All I have is the core phb, so I don't know if there is such a critter in UA or Complete Warrior. I suppose you could just make a multi-class fighter/sorcerer, though.

One easy way of doing this would be to use a paladin but with the assassin spell list rather than the paladin one (or create a suitable list yourself)

 

[Plane Sailing]

I have one extra base class in my campaign - the Prophet (spontaneous divine caster, far less powerful than the IMO munchkinny favoured soul).

I really like the idea of using the SW Fringer as a "Peasant Hero" class though. Another potential source of additional base classes is Wheel of Time (Not to mention Conan and various other non-WotC books).

Cheers

 

[Scribble]

The OA samurai is essentially a fighter with fewer feats and more skills. In an asian game, the class is a strong archetype.

This I think, is confusing Base Class with Core class. At least in my opinion.

A samurai is essentially a fighter type. Sure in an Asian themed campaign a Samurai makes a great base class. But in the Core rules, (IE the Player's Handbook) There is already a Class that fights things. The Fighter.

Again, I don't think there is really any reason to add another "core" class unless it can perform some vital function that the others cannot.

A samurai as an optional base class? Yes, perfectly reasonable. But as a core class? No.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

I would like to see a combination fighter/arcane magic user, like the paladin but with arcane magic. All I have is the core phb, so I don't know if there is such a critter in UA or Complete Warrior. I suppose you could just make a multi-class fighter/sorcerer, though.

Doesn't the bard kinda fill that niche?

AR

 

[Staffan]

Doesn't the bard kinda fill that niche?

The bard is more of a rogue/sorcerer than a fighter/sorcerer - crap HD, only a semi-good list of weapon proficiencies, and a spell list much more geared toward subterfuge than combat.

I think the Psychic Warrior is a closer fit, except it uses psionics instead of magic.

On another tangent, in my Eberron campaign I use the classes from the PHB, Expanded psioncs handbook (psion, psychic warrior, soulknife, wilder), the Artificer from the ECS, and a slightly modified version of the Unfettered from Arcana Unearthed. The latter is because I think the "light fighter" doesn't have good representation in D&D, and I like the Unfettered class a lot better than the other one I considered, the Complete Warrior's Swashbuckler (Unfettered is more flexible with bonus feats and stuff, and has class abilities to improve defense via the general Dodge bonus as well as the target-specific Parry bonus).

 

[Psion]

This I think, is confusing Base Class with Core class.

I think the distinction is artificial.

A samurai as an optional base class? Yes, perfectly reasonable. But as a core class? No.

I consider the OA samurai to be about as specialized a concept as rangers or bards.

 

[hong]

This I think, is confusing Base Class with Core class. At least in my opinion.

A samurai is essentially a fighter type. Sure in an Asian themed campaign a Samurai makes a great base class. But in the Core rules, (IE the Player's Handbook) There is already a Class that fights things. The Fighter.

Again, I don't think there is really any reason to add another "core" class unless it can perform some vital function that the others cannot.

A samurai as an optional base class? Yes, perfectly reasonable. But as a core class? No.

By that argument, the only core classes are fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard. And I'm not even sure about the last two.

 

[zalgar07]

Boiling down.

Points all. The biggest holes in the base classes are that the Paladin, Monk and Ranger (BOO for weapon styles!) are too much like prestige classes and that there's no core spontaneous divine spellcaster or versatile light warrior. And psionics just seem too much like spells to me...

(Hong and Green Ronin make me happy)

 

[Scribble]

I think the distinction is artificial.

Maybe, but what I'm trying to say is a base class is something you can start out as. IE Not a prestige class. These can be found in a multitude of books. Anything that appears in the PHB or "Core" rulebook 1 is a core class.

I consider the OA samurai to be about as specialized a concept as rangers or bards.

Yes, in an earlier post in this thread I stated that the only essential classes are really, the fighter (He fights things), The cleric (She heals people and defeats undead), The Rogue (He unlocks doors, defeats traps, scouts ahead), Wizard (she can defeat other magics or obstacles that need magic to be defeated.)

By that argument, the only core classes are fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard. And I'm not even sure about the last two.

See previous responce.

Unless there is an obstacle that cannot be overcome by one of the above classes, the new "core" class is nonessential.

Things like the bard, ranger, Monk... All seem to me to be classes that make up for the occasional lack of the above. Not enough people to make a fighter AND a wizard? Throw the bard in, for example. But if these characters weren't in the game, there really wouldn't be any unovercomable (hey look not just the president can make up words!!!) obstacles.

To expand on my argument, if you look at the 9 "core" classes they're good templates. Using these you can rework them to create base classes for campaign specifics. Like the Samurai. In an asian themed game, start with a fighter and make a few changes to the class. Maybe instead of as many bonus feats, give them some social abilities (as someone stated...) Voila Samurai. (Essentially anopther class that fights things) You can do this for other settings and classes as well... But would you ever start with a samurai and create a new class? You can do the same with fighter the basic fights things class.