D&D Archetypes that are missing from the core books?

[Mercule]

Duellist - Multiclass fighter/rogue.

Doesn't work. The Duelist archetype requires a full BAB. Period.

Not as many skills as the rogue, but more than the fighter (I think 4 would be fine). Not as many feats as the fighter, but in the same combat league as the paladin or barbarian. No requirement for heavy armor for survival. That's a duelist.

Personally, I'd like to see a light fighter class that could be used to fill either the duelist or monk role. Of course, the reduced wire-work might offend some people's definition of monk, so that could be an issue.

The other archetype I'd like to see filled in the core books is a ranger. The current class is quite playable and balanced, but it the word "ranger" is a misnomer.

 

[Fenes]

Doesn't work. The Duelist archetype requires a full BAB. Period.

Not as many skills as the rogue, but more than the fighter (I think 4 would be fine). Not as many feats as the fighter, but in the same combat league as the paladin or barbarian. No requirement for heavy armor for survival. That's a duelist.

Personally, I'd like to see a light fighter class that could be used to fill either the duelist or monk role. Of course, the reduced wire-work might offend some people's definition of monk, so that could be an issue.

The other archetype I'd like to see filled in the core books is a ranger. The current class is quite playable and balanced, but it the word "ranger" is a misnomer.

The current ranger qualifies as duelist, in my opinion, and quite nicely, especially if mixed with a fighter or rogue.

 

[heirodule]

The Alchemist

One who uses NON MAGICAL alchemy as an alternative to magic.

This would require removing the requirement for spellcasting to use Craft (Alchemy)

and require better rules for what can be done with alchemical items (scaling DCs, scaling damage, etc)

A similar archetype would be a mcguyver-type, tinerking and making cool stuff.

 

[Wik]

What about "customizable" base classes? IE they were base classes, but instead of being totally rigid, the offered a few different options for the class? IE if you were a rogue, instead of always getting backstab, perhaps you can choose from 2 or 3 different options, backstab being one of them...

Like in, say, d20 Modern?

I like the way Iron Heroes set about making "Customizable" classes, even if I wasn't entirely sold on the feats. I think customizable classes would be fun, until you realize it would just make min/maxing even more of a problem.

 

[Mercule]

The current ranger qualifies as duelist, in my opinion, and quite nicely, especially if mixed with a fighter or rogue.

That thought has occured to me, as well. It always gets thrown out, though, because 1) ranger doesn't have Tumble, 2) rangers are genocidal, and 3) lame fighting styles.

#1 and #3 are easy enough to remedy, but #2 would require some balance work, as would some of the other "woodsy" perks (camoflauge, for example).

 

[JustKim]

I have 7 different books with noble base classes and I have no use for any of them. Having a rich daddy is not a class concept for me. It also begs the question of how one character can be better at being rich when all characters must have roughly the same amount of money for party balance, and any mid-high level character worth his XP far transcends nobility in terms of wealth, power and influence. Their class features are just as bad, tending to package some dilettante fencing and skill bonuses with depletable class resources like extra money or contacts that are practically useless.

 

[Sejs]

This would require removing the requirement for spellcasting to use Craft (Alchemy)

I have a serious hate on for that requirement on Craft (Alchemy). I have to be a spellcaster in order to make a bag of glue, or some antivenom? Wha?

You'd think that alchemy would be the mundane man's answer to spellcasting, but no, they go and slap on the 'you must be this magical to get on this ride' requirement and shoot down that option.

*grumble*

 

[Sejs]

[*] Noble/Aristocrat that's not a NPC class

The Courtier from OA is the hand-down best version of the Talk-Fu Nobleman schtick that I've seen to date.

I highly suggest checking it out.

 

[Vlad Le Démon]

Whizbang, in the above quote, puts words to something I feel is very true - the fact that there are some iconic archetypes that are simply not there in the core rules; mainly as a single class, in my opinion.

If one goes into multiclassing, sure you can sometimes get what you are looking for, but there are several dedicated roles that have gaping holes where they should be.

My own list:

• Battlemage/Warwizard that has full spells/full BAB class (ie the duskblade)
• Assassin/Cut-throat base class; a martial rogue (ie an assassin-like class)
• Duelist/Swashbuckler base class that is a finesse fighter (ie a better-designed swashbuckler from ComWar)
• Pugilist/Pankration-type character (ie a fist-fighter/grappler that isn't a orientally-themed class like the monk)
• Noble/Aristocrat that's not a NPC class
• Scout (ie like a ranger/rogue or the scout class itself)

Discuss

I vote for the assassin...The Assassin was in AD&D1, as the Monk and the Barbarian. It was a Iconic Character Class...
The other (swashbuckler, battlemage,pugilist etc) are not necessary...Muticlassing can handle it...But I think that more Feats should be a better idea...

If you want a plethora of classes you can play Rolemaster...

 

[Vlad Le Démon]

I said it once, I'll say it again, and I'll keep saying that I wish I hadn't've sold all my 2e kit books.

We need to see the return of kits. .

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is two things that i didn't like about AD&D2:
_The lack of Assassin, Barbarian & Monk
_The Kits...some of them were to powerfull...(Bladesinger or the Bard kit you mentioned for exemple)...and the result was that the players took all the same kits...