Complete Warrior to have new base classes

[JPL]

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?

Archers and fencers have already been mentioned.

Totem-warriors, gladiators, cavaliers, Zen warriors, variant "paladins" for different alignments, warrior-smiths [able to craft and wield weapons imbued with their own spiritual power], undead hunters, various "transformational" classes [gradually gaining animal or monstrous abilites].

Again, most of this could be accomplished with prestige classes, multiclassing, or feat selection, but in certain campaigns it might make more sense to have different classes.

 

[Apok]

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*

The parrying rules presented in Dragon magazine (can't remember the exact number, but it was oriented towards swashbuckling characters) are some of the best designed ones that I've seen.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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)?

I'd prefer to see a couple of feats made available/Core - Cosmopolitan from FRCS, or a feat that gives an extra skill point per level - and then you can build your Tumbling Ranged Fighter as a Ranger/Fighter with Tumble as a Class Skill.

The whole point of the Fighter class is that its feats give it the versatility to cover a range of archetypes. If you create a Core Class to cover each of those archetypes and do it better than the Fighter, the original class becomes obsolete.

It's why I dislike the specialised Prestige Classes like OotBI and Tempest.

"He's like a two-weapon fighter, but better than a Fighter. But it's okay, because you can only use the PrC if you want to play a two-weapon fighter."
"He's like a finesse fighter, but better than a Fighter. But it's okay, because you can only use the PrC if you want to play a finesse fighter."
"He's like a bow fighter, but better than a Fighter. But it's okay, because you can only use the PrC if you want to play a bow fighter."

When there's a PrC - or worse, a new Core class - for every concept that handles that particular concept better than the versatile class, there's no reason for the versatile class to exist.

-Hyp.

 

[Knightfall]

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

I like the idea of variant classes. Case in point, the variant core classes in FFGs L&L Path of the Sword sourcebook.

FULLY FLESHED OUT VARIANTS

The Commander - embodies the leader/warrior, from mercenary boss to the noble knight.

* Good will saves
* 3 + Int for skills.
* Bonus feats (x6) and special command ability.
* Command I to V (command bonuses to allies, similar to bard inspiration abilities but without singing)

The Hunter - more focused tracker/slayer ranger variant.

* good fort and will saves.
* No alignment restriction.
* d10
* Special abilities: Chosen foe (x5), night stalker, trackless step, merciful strike, sense foe, forceful strike, weak spot, inescapable pursuit.

The Outdoorsman - tough and rugged fighter/ranger cross that is at home in the wild.

* Good fort and reflex saves.
* Favored terrain
* Preferred weapon
* Bonus feats (x5)
* Animal companion
* Fast passage
* Lightstep
* Bestial companion
* Magical companion

SHORTER VARIANTS

Urban Warrior - city-based fighter, who has spent little time outside the walls of his hometown.

Same as fighter except for:

* no bonus fighter feat at 1st level.
* 4 + Int skill points.
* Expanded class skill list - more rogue like.
* new Urban Lore skill is a nice addition to skill selection.

Seeker of Wisdom - Mok who combines quest for inner development with quest for knowledge.

Same as monk except for:

* Altered class skills.
* Only allowed three of the listed monk weapons.

Ghost Hunter -

Same as monk except for:

* must be LN or LG
* Altered class skills.
* 1/ day - can turn undead as a cleric of half his class level. No extra turning.
* fortitude save progression as per rogue.

These are excellent core class variants, IMO. Buy the book, you'll be glad you did just for this one section.

Cheers!

KF72

 

[Morgenstern]

Working with a sort of 'renovation, not innovation' mindset, I'd expect the book to include some of the 'missing' 2nd ed classes. Possibly a cavalier or knight (taken from Dragonlance) and a Gladiator (derived from Dark Sun).

Ultimately, there are some concepts that work for base classes, and some that don't really require it. A "lightly armored, nimble fighter" might fit the bill, since some better choices of feats at low level to tide you over until you can join the Duelist PrC is one option, but a strong case can be made for needing different Saves and Class skills from the word go. MORE importantly, you can argue that low-level nimble fighters exist, and should have demonstable difference as early as 1st or 2nd level.

I have a harder time arguing that a low level "commander" should exist, or that such a character isn't covered by good feat selection and a different class. Take a bard for a level if you want to be a commander - you ain't strumming a lyre or singing love poems - you're barking orders at those maggots! Same mechanics (no, you're not as handy with a sword as the equivalent level grunt - you shouldn't be), flavoring that matches the vision.

 

[Yeoman]

The parrying rules presented in Dragon magazine (can't remember the exact number, but it was oriented towards swashbuckling characters) are some of the best designed ones that I've seen.

Dragon #301.

 

[JPL]

I'd prefer to see a couple of feats made available/Core - Cosmopolitan from FRCS, or a feat that gives an extra skill point per level - and then you can build your Tumbling Ranged Fighter as a Ranger/Fighter with Tumble as a Class Skill.

The whole point of the Fighter class is that its feats give it the versatility to cover a range of archetypes. If you create a Core Class to cover each of those archetypes and do it better than the Fighter, the original class becomes obsolete.

It's why I dislike the specialised Prestige Classes like OotBI and Tempest.

"He's like a two-weapon fighter, but better than a Fighter. But it's okay, because you can only use the PrC if you want to play a two-weapon fighter."
"He's like a finesse fighter, but better than a Fighter. But it's okay, because you can only use the PrC if you want to play a finesse fighter."
"He's like a bow fighter, but better than a Fighter. But it's okay, because you can only use the PrC if you want to play a bow fighter."

When there's a PrC - or worse, a new Core class - for every concept that handles that particular concept better than the versatile class, there's no reason for the versatile class to exist.

-Hyp.

I see your point. But hopefully, these classes will be more along the lines of the paladin or the barbarian --- better than the fighter at some stuff, not as good at other stuff.

The fighter class should always be the best all-around fighter, and the most versatile of the fighting classes. Surely these new classes won't have all of the advantages of a fighter, plus additional perks. Like the paladin or barbarian, they will have their own advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Ranger REG]

Archers and fencers have already been mentioned.

Totem-warriors, gladiators, cavaliers, Zen warriors, variant "paladins" for different alignments, warrior-smiths [able to craft and wield weapons imbued with their own spiritual power], undead hunters, various "transformational" classes [gradually gaining animal or monstrous abilites].

Again, most of this could be accomplished with prestige classes, multiclassing, or feat selection, but in certain campaigns it might make more sense to have different classes.

Maybe it's me. But if I want variant classes, I'd rather look at third-party product like Sovereign Stone for the archer base class.

Maybe I'll take a look at Monte Cook's Variant Rulebook, Arcana Unearthed.

BTW, I wonder if having a samurai base class (just speculating) in the Complete Warrior would hurt the sale of their current Oriental Adventures book. What do you think?

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Oriental adventures is way more than the Samurai base class.

I liked that class, would have translated into any campaign as a noble warrior x: hoplite, knight, cataphract, boyar, you name it.

Anything with great equipment, social skills, and less dedicated tactical training.

 

[Apok]

Dragon #301.

Thankyou.