Castles & Crusades...not sure about it

[JohnSnow]

[An aside: As for rogues/thieves, I liked the distinction back in Rolemaster -- you had fighters (tough combat dudes), thieves (essentially sneaky burglars, a la Mr. Baggins, but not combat ready at all), and rogues (a mix between fighter and thief -- some stealth, some tough). D&D/C&C, unfortunately, has never found a good breakdown like that IMO.]

Interesting point and one I heartily agree with. To be consistent with fantasy fiction, the game needs (IMO) a fighter (combat guy), a thief (sneaky guy) and a true rogue (JoAT/mix). I think D&D intended to accomplish this with the multiclassing system, but I imagine you could mix and match classes to accomplish something between the D&D fighter and the D&D rogue that fills this role. Hmmm...let me take a stab:

HD: d8 (halfway between)
Armor: Light plus buckler and small shield
BAB: Tricky...in 3e, it's gotta be full BAB. In C&C, the one the ranger/bard gets.
Skills: between fighters and rogues - 4 or 6 sp/level in 3e. Some class abilities in C&C.
Feats and abilities: Not as combat focused as the fighter, not as skill-focused as the thief. Delicate balancing act.

What you've essentially got here is a true duelist/swashbuckler class. Strangely enough, it looks awfully similar to the C&C ranger. No wonder people have always liked rangers...

This is possible with 3e's multiclassing rules, but the character concept has to be pretty solid. A good concept and the proper selection of abilities produces a coherent character of this type (*cough*Gareth*cough*). And maybe it's best to accomplish it with multiclassing. I'm not sure.

Tell you what, if you come up with a good "blend" class for C&C (and don't leave for Dublin before then), I'll happily playtest it when we bring Gareth back from stasis.

[As an aside: one of the things I like about the previews I've read of Iron Lore is that Mearls is trying to open up the "options" for different types of "fighter." The classes are: archer (ranged combat), armiger (heavy armor class), berzerker, executioner (assassin type), harrier (mobile, skirmisher type), hunter (tactical, strategic ambush class), and weapon master, plus man-at-arms (a JoAT class), thief (a cunning trickster type) and arcanist (spellcaster). Color me intrigued...]

 

[Akrasia]

What you've essentially got here is a true duelist/swashbuckler class. Strangely enough, it looks awfully similar to the C&C ranger. No wonder people have always liked rangers...

I think there are some differences from the duelist/swashbucker class -- or, rather, a true 'rogue/brigand' class could include the duelist/swashbucker as a subtype, but is broader as a concept.

... This is possible with 3e's multiclassing rules..

Yeah, but 3e multiclassing rules really annoy me (but that is a subject for a different time).

In fact, I dislike most multiclassing rules (in any edition). This is one reason why I hope C&C delivers with its promise for 'customized' classes (or some similar option) in the CKG.

Tell you what, if you come up with a good "blend" class for C&C (and don't leave for Dublin before then), I'll happily playtest it when we bring Gareth back from stasis.
...

Okay -- let's see what we can do!

 

[Akrasia]

... Worth a thought: Did you ever notice that every character ever mentioned from Gygax's early campaigns is a spellcaster (Mordenkainen, Tenser, Bigby, Nystul, etc.)? That Greenwood has more spellcasters than you can shake a palantir at, or that Monte Cook's favorite character (Malhavoc) is a wizard? ...

I don't know the details of each of these person's reasons for playing wizards, John, but one reason why I've always preferred to play wizards is simple: they seem like more interesting character types. This would be the case even in a 'weak magic' campaign. I am not sure it is always simply a case of 'wanting power'.