Impressions of the classes so far

[Hammerhead]

In the regards of the Warmain vs. Unfettered's AC, sure, of course it will be higher. The Unfettered pumps his abilities into Dex and Int. The Warmain will generally pump his into Str and Con, meaning he'll have a huge amount of more hit points, do far more damage each hit, still have powerful ACs, etc.

Further, your calculation of the Unfettered AC isn't likely to happen. What kind of swashbuckler uses a shield, much less a large one? In addition, comparing ACs at 20th level doesn't make that much sense. Why not compare at lower levels, where you'll find most campaigns, such as in the 1-12 range, something a bit more reasonable.

 

[Mistwell]

From what I can tell, the Unfettered and Warmain appear to have consistently similar Armor Classes to each other at any given level, when built in the predicted manner. I think it was written to be that way in fact.

 

[Corinthi]

Why a Swashbuckler core class? I tend to be opposed to new core classes, which is why I wouldn't mix D&D with AU. Why not a Soldier class? A witch core class? An Archer class? An explorer? The case could be made for dozens of new core classes that could be easily duplicated by the right feats, skills, and multiclass combinations.

It's your opinion new core classes aren't needed, and you're welcome to that opinion. I like new classes for adding more variety to the game. The inherent flaw to a class based system is that classes are designed to work a certain way. Certainly, you can stretch them to expand thier defined roles, but that doesn't mean they really fit. Fighters /don't/ make good swashbucklers. They lack essential skills. Multiclassing them with rogue can add the skills, but you dilute your base attack, gain intimate mechanical knowledge of traps for some reason, and a near surgical precision with your strikes...but only when your opponent is unready or flanked. Eh. Fighters do make good soldiers. All the skills, feats, and proficiencies are there. Not a stretch at all. Several companies have done Witch core classes, including the Witch in AU (which really isn't an iconic witch). Archer as a core class have been explored a number of times. Explorers have been done as well. Can those archtypes be done with stock D&D classes? Sure, some easier than others. That doesn't mean they can't be done /better/ with an individual treatment.

The Spellsword and the Bladesinger are in WotC's Tome and Blood, a great book. The Veteran Wizard is from Bad Axe Game's Heroes of High Favor series, in the Elf book. All of them are cool fighting magic-users.

A great book in your eyes. I didn't like it so much. Very inconsistent prestige class designs. The magic items posed serious balance concerns, as did the spells, the bladesinger was worthless and deigned 'incomplete', forcing people to download the corrected class online.

I also don't care for the idea that in order to play a 'cool fighting magic user' I have to spend 5-10 levels as an inefficiently designed character just to meet the arbitary prerequisites for a prestige class to finally give me some of the abilities I've been seeking since level one.

Now, Prestige Classes are obviously very popular, and people don't seem opposed to them. I'm don't really see the difference between a wide variety of prestige classes and core classes.

 

[nharwell]

Why a Swashbuckler core class? I tend to be opposed to new core classes, which is why I wouldn't mix D&D with AU. Why not a Soldier class? A witch core class? An Archer class? An explorer? The case could be made for dozens of new core classes that could be easily duplicated by the right feats, skills, and multiclass combinations.

I've long considered the lack of a "swashbuckler" class to be one of the great weaknesses of D&D. That is at least as common an archetype in fiction as the heavily armored warrior, yet it is difficult to make a workable swashbuckler in D&D. Soldier = Fighter; Archer = Fighter. They already are core classes. The witch is another archetype that can be difficult to represent in D&D, but it's also a much broader archetype than the swashbuckler. Ask ten different gamers what a "witch" should be and you'll probably get ten different answers.

 

[DMScott]

I've had the book for a bit over a month now, and just started running a game recently. Here's a combination of my impressions and early player feedback; it's concentrated around the lower levels, since that's where our playing experience is. Thumbs up is an enjoyable balanced class, thumbs down is something not fun or out of balance, thumbs in the middle is either a class with a few non-critical issues or one where I haven't seen enough of it in play to make a call.

Akashic - the wide scope of this class makes it hard for players to get a grip on what an "average" Akashic does. It seems like it might be friendlier to powergamer applications (where a player knows what they want to aim for at the start) than less focused builds. Worries me a bit that the powergamerish builds seem fairly balanced, that makes me think somebody who doesn't go in with a specific plan will find themselves underpowered. So far, I give this one a thumbs in the middle.

Champion - really like the champ so far - nice mix of abilities and an interesting roleplay hook. Thumbs up.

Greenbond - some of my players think this might develop into a high-powered class, with healing combined with a good spellcasting progression. So far, I like the flexibility and haven't seen anything out of balance. Thumbs up.

Mage Blade - a little rough to start at 1st level - no attack bonus, no save bonuses, light armour, not a ton of spells - but it recovers pretty well over the next few levels. Thumbs in middle right now, maybe up after the mage blade player gets some more experience.

Magister - no complaints at all, a very nicely balanced caster. Generally has enough spells to be effective through the four or so encounters a low level group can handle before resting, and the complex spells are a nice perk. Thumbs up.

Oathsworn - I really like the flavour and built-in adventure hooks, but worry a bit about long-term viability. The class seems a little weaker than its mechanical counterpart, the Monk, where most other AU classes are in the same range or stronger than their counterparts. Thumbs in the middle.

Runethane - split decision here. The Runethane makes an ideal nemesis/villain type of NPC, with flexibility and power on defense and a fair amount of lethality against a known opponent. As a PC, it seems to be a lot harder to play well, particularly given the offensive mindset of many players - forting up behind runic traps usually is a last resort rather than a plan. Thumbs in middle for this one, too.

Totem Warrior - nice set of abilities, great flavour, wide range of effective builds... really great class. Thumbs up.

Unfettered - I'm a big swashbuckler fan from way back, so I loved this class from the moment I cracked open the book. That may make me biased, but I don't understand the Warmain/Unfettered complaints in this thread - statistically they seem close enough that only the most dedicated min/maxer would worry about the difference in AC, attack bonus, or damage. Thumbs up and buckles swashed.

Warmain - so many other classes have such interesting gravy, my players have mostly steered clear of this meat and potatoes class. It's performed really well in NPC/opposition duty and I have a soft spot for heavy metalheads, so thumbs up.

Witch - players have had a bit of trouble figuring out what sort of niche the Witch fits into, since it seems to occupy a sort of middle ground between the Mage Blade, Champion, Magister, and Greenbond (depending on Witchery abilities). Perhaps it's a bit similar to the Akashic in that respect. Going to give it a thumbs up despite that, the class has a ton of flavour.

So four in the middle, rest up. Your mileage may vary, but I think that's pretty decent.

 

[jrients]

Why a Swashbuckler core class? I tend to be opposed to new core classes, which is why I wouldn't mix D&D with AU. Why not a Soldier class? A witch core class? An Archer class? An explorer?

These sorts of discussions have been going on since probably at least 1975, when the thief was added in Supplement I: Greyhawk. Heck, many a day I think the seven classes from the '81 Basic/Expert set would do just fine for most purposes. That being said, if specialty mages exist in the rules, I don't think that specialty fighters is that odd of an idea.

I really don't see how the Ranger comes with many assumptions, especially the 3.5 ranger.

I don't own the 3.5 handbook, so I'm only familiar with the prior versions of the class. The wilderness skills (traking, animal whatever) and the you-hate-some-monster-type rules seem to steer the class in a particular direction.

And who the heck is Erol Otus and his PC in the Rogue's Gallery?

You're making me feel like a relic over here. I apologize for making an obscure reference. At one time every D&D player I gamed with recognized the name Erol Otus and/or knew of a product called the Rogue's Gallery.

Erol Otus was one of the premiere illustrators in the hobby back in the early eighties, prior to Elmore and Holloway. Recently, he's done a cover for a Hackmaster module and a Troll Lords convention-only release. He has a unique vision for fantasy gaming illos. You can find my little web-shrine to him here.

The Rogue's Gallery was an NPC collection put out in 1980 or so. The front section was kinda like the generic NPC tables in the front of the 3e DMG. The back was a collection of famous characters from early D&D campaigns: Mordenkainen, Robilar, Erac's Cousin, Serten, and many others. Erol Otus contributed a fighter that was, to the best of my knowledge, the first swashbuckler statted out in an official D&D product. Deuce if I can remember the name though. The character only worked when equipped with the right magic items, like most versions of the monk class.

 

[Darklone]

As a general guideline: Monte made everything bigger. More hitpoints, more damage, more AC, more BAB, more abilities. Not that I think it's bad, but keep it in mind if you compare AU stuff to D&D.

About the classes: Like them. Except for the champion, that shield thing is simply boring. Personal taste.

Bye dudes, gotta go back to my Hawk totem warrior with three attacks at level 4...

 

[RobNJ]

I tend to be opposed to new core classes,

What's the use of continuing the conversation past this point, then?

 

[Pevishan]

DMScott, don't forget that the Mageblade gets something that no other class really gets - a free magic weapon that lets you get weapon enhancements easier.

 

[Hammerhead]

What's the use of continuing the conversation past this point, then?

I think I presented my ideas unclearly. Sorry for the misunderstanding. To clarify, I find that within the existing 3rd Edition rules system, new core classes are not necessary, and concepts can be relatively easily achieved with the right combination of feats, skills, multiclass combinations, and, if your DM allows them, prestige classes.

That is the beauty of AU. It introduces a cool new system of classes that are far more flavorful than standard D&D classes. Are the AU classes balanced with each other? In my experience, I find that they are not. Just like D&D. (Cleric vs. Bard? C'mon!)

It's unfortunate, IMO, that the two coolest classes, the Winter Witch and the Unfettered, are also some of the weakest. (Compared to D&D, where I found that the three classes I liked most: Cleric, Rogue, and Sorcerer were some of the most powerful).

You know, I'm surprised that the Thief wasn't a core class until 1975. What did players use for stealthy characters before that point? (Other than Knock, Spider Climb, Find Traps, Invisibility, and the plethora of other spells that we used once the Thief came out and was useless, of course.)

The Mageblade weapon-yeah, you can't ever discount their weapon. Especially since you can add enhancements so cheaply, like Holy or Flaming that can greatly increase your damage potential.