Insite into Swashbuckler and Hexblade?

[Scotley]

Anyone have any ideas about the nature of the Swashbuckler and Hexblade. My own speculation based on the name alone would suggest the Swashbuckler is a lightly armored fighter type with a better social and acrobatic skill list and maybe a few more points. Hexblade maybe another fighter type (we are talking about the complete warrior book afterall) with the ability to magically enhance weapons, maybe with runes? Can someone on the inside enlighten us a bit?

Scotley

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

My guess is that the Swashbuckler with be very much like the Unfettered from Monte's Arcana Unearthed.

The Hex Blade may be much like the Mage Blade from the same book.

At least, I hope this is the case as both of thsoe are very well done and would be nice to see in standard 3.5 D&D.

 

[Voadam]

My guess is that the Swashbuckler with be very much like the Unfettered from Monte's Arcana Unearthed.

The Hex Blade may be much like the Mage Blade from the same book.

At least, I hope this is the case as both of thsoe are very well done and would be nice to see in standard 3.5 D&D.

I was thinking so too and these are two niches that the core D&D classes don't really cover well (light armored fighter and fighter wizard).

 

[Zaruthustran]

I was thinking so too and these are two niches that the core D&D classes don't really cover well (light armored fighter and fighter wizard).

I wonder if "The Complete Magician" (or whatever the inevitable magic-based class book will be) will have new core classes. Maybe something like a spirit-based caster, or a star-based caster.

Yeah, that's what we need to make D&D popular: Voodoo and astrology!

-z, worried about too many core classes

 

[Mouseferatu]

-z, worried about too many core classes

Why? Alternate core classes, like PrCs, are optional. I don't think anybody's expected to use all of them. But they provide a lot of really cool options, and not everyone has a character concept that meshes with a prestige class.

Frankly, we've got so many PrCs out there, I'd rather see more core classes, and fewer PrCs, presented in future books.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

I think a Swashbuckler and "mageblade" type class are needed. However, I agree that a glut of core classes is a bad thing. The more you introduce, the more the possibilities for game breaking combinations grow. (Assuming a DM allows them all.)

Also, I really don't think we need anymore spellcasting core classes. I mean, we have plenty:

Wizard - Basic Arcane Caster
Specialist Wizards - Basic arcane caster but with a slight twist.
Sorcerer - More spells, less versatility
War Mage - Mobile Artillary

Cleric - Basic Divine Caster with dozens of Domains to pick from
Druid - Divine, nature based, caster
Favored Soul - Cleric's Sorcerer Equivalent
Healer - Cleric variant specializing in healing

Psions - Mind Magic with built in Specialization

Paladin - Divine Caster / Warrior Hybrid
Ranger - Nature Based Divine Caster / Warrior Hybrid
Psychic Warriors - Mind Magic using Warriors
Bard - specialized Rogue/Spellcaster hybrid
Psychic (Rogues?) - Rumored to be a rogue based psychic class in the new psionics book. Not confirmed though as far as I know.

Mystic Theurge - Takes care of the Arcanist/Cleric multiclass problem.
Arcane Trickster - Takes care of the Rogue/Arcanist multiclass problem.
Eldritch Knight - Takes care of the Fighter/Arcanist multiclass problem.

I can sort of see a need for a "Mage blade" character of sorts, though its "iffy" even then with the inclusion of the Eldritch Knight in the new DMG. Regardless, if it is in the Complete Warrior, then I can't see a need for ANY new spellcasting base classes in a later "Complete Spellcasters" book.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Why? Alternate core classes, like PrCs, are optional. I don't think anybody's expected to use all of them. But they provide a lot of really cool options, and not everyone has a character concept that meshes with a prestige class.

Frankly, we've got so many PrCs out there, I'd rather see more core classes, and fewer PrCs, presented in future books.

I suppose it is true that new core classes are optional. I viewed them as, you know, "core." But you're right: they're not in the PHB so technically they are optional.

Here's why I'm worried about Core Class Creep: a multitude of base classes dilutes the entire purpose of a class-based game system. Classes allow players to instantly get an idea of a character's abilities and role. Too many classes, and the abilities and roles become muddled. Too many classes and you may as well have a completely classless system and allow players to simply chose class features and skills. Because, with so many classes, that's exactly what you're doing anyway.

Example:
I want to play a medium-armored character with sneak attack and some spells.

* In D&D 3.5 you could play a rogue / ranger.
* In D&D with Core Class Creep you could play a Stalker, a new core class that has medium armor, sneak attack, and some spells.
* In D&D build-your-own-class you could play a custom class that has medium armor, sneak attack, and some spells.

In my opinion character classes are a vital part of D&D. Take away classes (or flood too many classes; same thing) and D&D doesn't *feel* like D&D any more.

-z

 

[Mouseferatu]

Here's why I'm worried about Core Class Creep: a multitude of base classes dilutes the entire purpose of a class-based game system.

True, if you treat the "non-core" core classes the same as the "core" core classes.

(You know what? That's going to get confusing. For purposes of this discussion, I'm going to use "core" classes to refer to the 11 from the PHB, and "full" classes to refer to 20-level classes from other sources.)

I don't treat core classes and full classes as the same thing. The core classes are still the ones everything is based on/around. I allow full classes in my games under one of two circumstances.

1) The core classes fail to accurately model a player's idea. If someone wants to play a swashbuckler type, you can mimic that with a fighter/rogue combination, but it's not really entirely accurate. In this respect, I use them like kits from 2E, only balanced.

2) The core classes are inappropriate to model the quirks of a specific culture. If playing in a renaissance-era game, a swashbuckler makes more sense than a fighter. If playing in certain sorts of less advanced campaigns, the ancestral speaker from the alternative clerics article in Dragon (see my own horn, see me toot it ) might be better, culturally, than the normal cleric. In these sorts of instances, I use full classes to replace core classes.

In neither instance, as you see, is there a great deal of diluting going on, because the full classes are used to address specific needs, rather than simply diluting the pool, so to speak. Obviously, not everyone uses them this way, and my point isn't that everyone should. Rather, it's that full classes can provide options and opportunities without weakening--or even, in a specific campaign, expanding--the class system.