Impressions of the classes so far

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I am not sure that Holy is available in a standard AU campaign - there is no evil Alignment...

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[jrients]

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?

I have no idea. I would guess that since weapons and magic were the only obvious solutions to life's little trials, weapons and magic were what most players employed. Fighting man, cleric, and magic-user. Human, elf, dwarf, and hobbit. These were your only options in the original boxed set.

 

[Hardhead]

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.

While you can get most concepts with the existing core classes, some don't fit very well without a PrC. I think the "swashbuckler" is a good example of this. The rogue doesn't work because they have a medium BAB and you probably don't want to be super skill-oriented and sneaking about. You're more flamboyant, ect. Barbarian doesn't work because you're not an illiterate rager, you're probably a city-born silver-tounged swordsman. Ranger doesn't work because they're abilities don't fit. You're not an archer or a dual-wielder (Weapon Finesse doesn't work with two weapons!).

Fighter works alright, but unfortuanately your build is going to be very weak compared to a big Greatsword or double-longsword wielder.

Probably the best build is going to be some sort of Fighter/rogue/dualist combo, but unless you're a human, that probably means XP penalties.

Simply, you don't *need* new core classes because most concepts are workable using multiclassing. OTOH, a lot of very standard archtypes (like swashbuckler) work better with their own class.

Think of it this way: the "holy warrior" archtype could be done with Fighter/Cleric multiclassing. But we have a Paladin too, which fills a specific nich better. Similarly, the "woodsman hunter" could be a Barbarian(or Fighter)/Rogue. Or even just rogue. But we have the ranger to fill the role more specifically (and better). I would say that the "swashbuckler" is just as important as the "holy warrior" and "woodsman" as an archtype, and so it deserves it's own core class just as much as the Ranger and Paladin do.

 

[Hammerhead]

Rogue's make perfect swashbucklers. A medium base attack is still good, especially when combined with Weapon Finesse, High Dexteriy, etc. Also, considering the amount of moving swashbucklers typically do, you're unlikely to get more than one attack per round. Rogues have Tumble, Balance, Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Perform, etc. While Rogues may have access to Hide and Move Silently (just like Unfettereds), absolutely nothing requires them to take those skills. Their class abilities are in no way hindered by the lack of these skills, and they can deal out far more damage than Unfettereds in a suitably dramtic fashion. The two swashbucklers duel for a while, inflicting minor nicks and cuts (1d6+1 with their puny rapiers), then the protagonist does some unexpected, daring maneuver (feints his opponent, usually) and nails his opponent with some fatal sneak attack.

By the way, I'm not sure how you ever got this information, but Weapon Finesse does work with two weapons. Also, a double longsword fighter would be far better off using shortswords (they get an additional -2 attack penalty in exchange for one more point of damage-it's a bad deal).

I agree, a Rogue/Fighter/Duelist is a great way to make a swashbuckler. However, you only suffer multiclassing penalties if you're an elf, a half-orc, or a gnome. (All prestige classes don't count towards XP penalties). Further, if you're an Elf, all you need to do is to keep your fighter and rogue levels within one level, which isn't going to be too difficult.

Further, Swashbuckler may be a very common archetype in novels and movies. However, you rarely, if ever, see an unarmored Swashbuckler fight side-by-side with the brave knight clad in mail. When the warrior types don't wear armor, no one does (except for the mooks, but who cares about them anyway?)

 

[Pevishan]

BUt that is multiclassing, and some people will not want to do that.

Also what if I don't care for all those skill points?

 

[Hammerhead]

Well, the fighter levels are generally pretty optional; it depends how many feats you want. But if you don't want to multiclass, well tough. What if taking a feat fits your concept? If WotC introduced some swashbuckling-related feat, would you complain about that? Why would you complain about not using an option? And really, who wouldn't want to multiclass? Is there something wrong about multiclassing?

Swashbuckler-type skills for the Rogue: Balance, Jump, Tumble, Bluff, Sense Motive, Diplomacy, Use Magic Device, Intimidate, Spot, Listen, Search, certain Knowledge skills, Perform, Ride (and perhaps Open Lock, Disable Device, Hide, and Move Silently, depending on your exact character concept). That's more than a dozen skills; even if you elect not to take some of them, you'll still have plently of skills to pick from.

 

[Macbeth]

Okay, I just feel a need to say something about this semi-pointless arguement. New classes are not absolutely needed, we COULD get along with the base classes, multiclassing, and Prcs, but thats not the point, the point is they are fun, especially when they totally replace the base classes. When I strated reading AU, I had a flurry of ideas about what classes to play, suddenly playing the straight up combat guy seemed fun again, playing a spell-slinger felt just as fun and mysterious as when I started playing D&D, and seeing all these new classes gave me that feeling of wonder that is so hard to recapture after your first few games. I could just play a very specialized fighter instead of a Unfettered, or a wizard in place of a Magistar, a druid in place of a Greenbond, but it was fun to have an all new set of classes to work with. Are these classes better then the core classes? Not nessecarily, its mostly a matter of taste. Are alternate classes needed? In a way, yes. Not because they fill some nitche that a player might want to play, but because they keep things fresh. The brand-new classes in AU made me feel like I was reading the PHB again for the first time, marveling at all the cool things the classes could do, and realing at the number of possibilities. Alterante core classes are needed because they make things freash again, not because they fill some literary nitche.

Having said that, I am still happy to see some of these archtypes covered, such as the Swashbuckler type, I just don't tink that covering these nitches is the main point of alternate core classes.

 

[gariig]

The greatest thing about AU is...I can see myself taking 20 levels of almost ever class. Most every class in D&D you hear..take levels until you get to a PrC and get out!! Wizard you give up a few feats and familiar progression, Sorcerer familiar progression, cleric turning undead, etc. I like it!

Gariig

 

[Corinthi]

Well, the fighter levels are generally pretty optional; it depends how many feats you want. But if you don't want to multiclass, well tough. What if taking a feat fits your concept? If WotC introduced some swashbuckling-related feat, would you complain about that? Why would you complain about not using an option? And really, who wouldn't want to multiclass? Is there something wrong about multiclassing?

Speaking only for myself, I dislike the way unrestricted multiclassing affects the noncasting classes. I'm constantly seeing 'builds' involving upwards of 5 classes cherry picking abilities to be more capable than single classed character. I also have serious issues with a number of the ill conceived and poorly balanced 'options' Wizards and other 3rd party providers have poured into the system.

One glaring example is Holy Liberator. I appreciate the concept, but the implementation is very poor. I've only seen the prestige class used as a three level prestige classed designed to make non casters immune to all charm and compulsion spells.

So as a consumer, player, and DM, I have to evaluate all supplements brought before me and decide what I like and don't like.

This doesn't mean that I don't like more options. By all means, pour out all you like. It just means that I reserve the right to pick and choose what I like. I like the new core classes from Arcana Unearthed.

Did I need new core classes? Of course not. Do I like them and will I use them? Sure.

Hammerhead, I feel that I'm using your own logic in this post. The new core classes are simply more options to be used or not as a group sees fit. It's a bit foolish to argue how they are or are not needed. They're not needed anymore than any other option in D&D, but the game is a richer environment with them than without them.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Okay, I just feel a need to say something about this semi-pointless arguement. New classes are not absolutely needed, we COULD get along with the base classes, multiclassing, and Prcs, but thats not the point, the point is they are fun, especially when they totally replace the base classes. When I strated reading AU, I had a flurry of ideas about what classes to play, suddenly playing the straight up combat guy seemed fun again, playing a spell-slinger felt just as fun and mysterious as when I started playing D&D, and seeing all these new classes gave me that feeling of wonder that is so hard to recapture after your first few games. I could just play a very specialized fighter instead of a Unfettered, or a wizard in place of a Magistar, a druid in place of a Greenbond, but it was fun to have an all new set of classes to work with. Are these classes better then the core classes? Not nessecarily, its mostly a matter of taste. Are alternate classes needed? In a way, yes. Not because they fill some nitche that a player might want to play, but because they keep things fresh. The brand-new classes in AU made me feel like I was reading the PHB again for the first time, marveling at all the cool things the classes could do, and realing at the number of possibilities. Alterante core classes are needed because they make things freash again, not because they fill some literary nitche.

Having said that, I am still happy to see some of these archtypes covered, such as the Swashbuckler type, I just don't tink that covering these nitches is the main point of alternate core classes.

That is exactly how I feel about AU!

Mustrum Ridcully