Complete Warrior to have new base classes

[I'm A Banana]

Perhaps variant fighters would be a better way to put it...

Trade out medium and heavy armor for Tumble, maybe some more skill points, no Ride, perhaps some sort of pseudo sneak-attack. Limit the bonus feats to things that emulate swiftness, mobility...Boom, you have a Dextrous Warrior.

Do the same but using perhaps craft skills, spot, a few wilderness powers. Limit the bonus feats to things that emulate accuracy, cover...Boom, you have an Archer.

I mean, after the Core Four, every class could pretty much be a prestige class. The choice is more about flavor than about power. Some people like to play dextrous fighters or superb archers or sneaky backstabbers (without the trap baggage) from Level One, and don't like to have useless powers.

Of course, they're all optional, just like the OA classes, or my Final Fantasy classes. As long as they're balanced with the Core, I don't care what they add...I can adopt it or discard it as nessecary.

Of course, this bodes well for variant base classes in things like the Complete Magician (different spellcasting methods?) or the Complete Priest (holy warriors?) or the Complete Sneak (illusionists of shadow?)

 

[Olive]

I know. What a bunch of hooey they fed us a few years ago about learning rom TSR's mistakes and not going the 2E route again. Mind you, I guess there were different people in control back then...

This is a pretty silly comment. If you compare the amount that TSR was putting out, versus the amount htat Wizards is putting out, there really is no comparision. Wizards is putting out maybe 2 DnD books in an average month right? Most months only one. At the hight of the maddness TSR were putting out at least three times that every month, with planescape birthright etc. added to that. Plus the TSR habit of requiring books other than the core three to use other books meant that if you bought one, you pretty much had to buy them all. Not so with WotC.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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.

The other benefit to base class vs PrC is that the base class can be more flexible... Yeah, the duelist represents ONE finesse/mobility focused warrior, but if you want to play that kind of fighter who uses a two weapon style or longsword and shield, the duelist is fairly focused. Similar with a 'ranged fighter' base class. I don't want to go looKing for the perfect bow centered PrC, then look all over again for a whole new PrC when a different character needs to be a knife thrower, etc. I suppose in theory I could take a archer PrC and transform it into a throwing PrC... But wouldn't it be better to be able to build a good ranged fighter out of a core class (but be better suited to it than the fighter is)? The fighter isn't quite versitile enough to cover some fighter archetypes, but the option of unrealistic multiclassing to get into PrCs that are overly specialized into one way of doing mobility, or range, or precision is just as bad. (IMHO, obviously)

Kahuna Burger

 

[AmerginLiath]

One thing to keep in mind -- its the "Complete WARRIOR", not eh "Complete FIGHTER" -- its about options for FIGHTING, not just FIGHTERS...

 

[Kahuna Burger]

One thing to keep in mind -- its the "Complete WARRIOR", not eh "Complete FIGHTER" -- its about options for FIGHTING, not just FIGHTERS...

well, it better not be for the warrior class...

When I say "fighter class" I mean a class with full bab. Its not my fault that they used the two most generic terms as official names...

Kahuna Burger

 

[The Little Raven]

well, it better not be for the warrior class...

When I say "fighter class" I mean a class with full bab. Its not my fault that they used the two most generic terms as official names...

Kahuna Burger

I think the point Amergin was trying to make is this...

This is not a repeat of the 2E Complete X Handbooks... this is a book that focuses on making all 11 base classes more effective in terms of combat ability. I'm sure we'll see a few more in this series, such as one for arcane spellcasters, one for divine spellcasters, and one for skill users. Those are the four basic groups of abilities in the core rules, so I'm sure we'll get treated to four hardcover books.

Just wondering if the divine sourcebook would be called the Complete Adept...

 

[Ranger REG]

I think the point Amergin was trying to make is this...

This is not a repeat of the 2E Complete X Handbooks... this is a book that focuses on making all 11 base classes more effective in terms of combat ability.

I'm sure it's not like the old Complete Handbook series. Besides, Mongoose Publishing is pretty much has taken over that role with their Quintessential series.

I think it will be the best of both Complete Handbook and Class Guidebook series.

HOWEVER, it does not change the fact that the upcoming Complete Warrior is introducing new base/core class(es). So aside from the Asian type of classes mentioned above, what more do we need?

 

[frankthedm]

I really hope so. IMHO there is need for a base class with fighter bab that depends on agilty, percision, etc. A base archer class would be nice too... For being the supposedly most versitile class, the fighter is simply unable to play certain fighter archetypes without multiclassing in a way that dilutes the warrior theme...

Kahuna burger

Staring at that monk wis bonus to AC? need a few more skill points?

Page 94 of 3E PHB, top of second collumn. Customizing your character. Hopefully it wont be too hard to work with your DM.

 

[Deadguy]

I have no idea about the actual contents of this book, but it seems to me that there is a niche for a few alternative fighting core classes. Not necessarily for a generic game, but to customise classes for a specific campaign. For example, imagine that there are variant core classes including the Duellist and the Soldier. They might be very useful, and replace the Fighter, in a Renaissance-styled campaign.

It strikes me that people tend to assume that campaigns are meant to be 'all in', i.e. utilising all of WotC's material. Rather, if they provide us with more cloth we can cut ourselves a campaign to suit!

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'd like to see something like the Unfettered and a martial artist without random ki abilities. Maybe both could have a class bonus to AC instead of extra Int or Wis bonuses to AC.

I don't think a cavalier base class is needed - just give 'em a scaling mount.

I'd also like to see some BAB 16+ feats (or at least something that requires Improved Weapon Focus/Specialization) and some parrying ability that doesn't allow a halfling with a dagger to party multiple dragon tail attacks in the same round while generating extra AoOs *sigh*