Complete Warrior to have new base classes

[JPL]

This stuff is optional. Some worlds might benefit from a samurai or swashbuckler base class; others might not.

The problem in 2nd Edition was that TSR kept introducing new options which were not just different, but BETTER. Serious power creep, often in the form of kits. WotC prestige classes have been better (although everyone can probably point to one or two that are unbalanced).

There are different ways to model different character concepts. A samurai might just be a paladin with a funny-looking masterwork bastard sword in some campaigns; in others, he might be have the Master Samurai prestige class; in others, he might be an OA samurai.

Likewise, a master archer or swashbuckler could be done as a fighter with the proper feats; a multiclassed fighter/ranger or fighter/rogue; by using a prestige class; or with a different base class altogether.

Different options for different gamers, man.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

The Dualist anyone?

Thats a prestige class... which needs to be a PrC because you cannot do that with the fighter or any other base class... so I don't see how this changes my point. esp since (IIRC) it requires cross class skills as prereqs.

Kahuna burger

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Really? I've found that with proper feat selection, a fighter can be pretty well suited to just about any role. Though, I guess it does suffer in the skills department.

not just the number of skill points, but the limited selection of class skills. The way the rules are set up, if you want a lightly armored fast moving fighter, you must have tumble. But tumble is not a class skill for fighters. So effectivly, if you want a ightly armored fighter, you must multiclass with a non fighrter class (ie, dilute your bab.) the high fort low ref save progression also pretty much typecasts the fighter class as a big dumb brute.

You can always say, "if you want to be lightly armored and fast, you want a rogue or monk", but thats just begging the question. There is definitly a role for a fighter - not an overskilled sneaky guy, not a lawful semisupernatural guy, but a born and bred warrior - who is fast and precise rather than big and cleaving. That a certain style of fighting (not the wish to sneak or slowfall or search for traps) requires multiclassing means that the fighter is not the versitile class it wants to be.

but thats just me... no one is going to come to your house and make you allow the alternate fighter classes, but I'm looking forward to seeing them.

Kahuna Burger

 

[SpiderMonkey]

Shades of 2e

Hmm...

I have to say that the concept of the the "complete guide to x" books have me a little worried. I'm actually very excited for 3.5, and have been in the camp of willing to try and use all of the changes. I had reservations about the splat books when they came out, but I didn't find any really unbalanced mechanics that affected play too much (well, after the errata and faqs were applied ).

It's just that these complete books are awfully reminiscent of the carnival of splat books and what not that came out under 2e that really undermined the balance of the game. While I realize that they are optional, the mere fact of their official endorsement further blurs any sort of consensus as to what constitutes the game. Hopefully the designers will try to bear the mistakes of the 2e splatbooks in mind when they engage in this endeavor. I don't mind the idea of more prestige classes and other crunchy bits, but the idea of new core classes makes me nervous; one of those "sacred cow" bits that has the traditionalist in me fidgeting.

But ultimately, who knows? They could craft an amazingly well-balanced and flavor-filled masterpiece. I hope so. So far, I've been astounded by the general quality of their releases, so here's to hoping. Rant off.

 

[drnuncheon]

no one is going to come to your house and make you allow the alternate fighter classes, but I'm looking forward to seeing them.

Me too.

Especially Monte's "Unfettered" in Arcana Unearthed.

J

 

[Apok]

Me too.

Especially Monte's "Unfettered" in Arcana Unearthed.

J

I was just about to mention that, and you beat me to it.

 

[jasamcarl]

Thats a prestige class... which needs to be a PrC because you cannot do that with the fighter or any other base class... so I don't see how this changes my point. esp since (IIRC) it requires cross class skills as prereqs.

Kahuna burger

And my point is that you don't really need a core class, because with this prc, finesse style abilities are allowed to scale into higher levels.

 

[drnuncheon]

And my point is that you don't really need a core class, because with this prc, finesse style abilities are allowed to scale into higher levels.

Unless of course you want to be an effective finesse fighter from the beginning, instead of starting at level 6.

I mean, I had no problems doing it as a rog/ftr, but I can see where a lot of people would prefer a core class to do the same, especially if they didn't want all the rogue baggage like trapfinding, sneak attack, and players from older editions assuming that rogue = thief in all cases.

J

 

[Ranger REG]

This may be old news, I don't see everything but about 20 minutes ago Ed stark confirmed on the wizards boards thier would be new base classes in the complete warrior.

Why?

I mean, I don't mind any new base/core classes if it is campaign-specific, such as the samurai in Oriental Adventures, but what other new combat-oriented class(es) do we need as a core rules add-on?

 

[JoeGKushner]

On this post I see mention of worry that WoTC will go the old TSR route and they're worried that they'll be too many books.

Please tell me you're not just running an "official" campaign because if so, you're missing out on a ton of great material that's not official but still great.

I feel that WotC can come out with whatever they want but the cream will rise to the top unless people are just so stupid that they can't help themselves. "I hear this WoTC book on underwater adventuring doesn't compare to Necromancer Games but beause it's Official, I must have it!"