Missing base class concepts (link?)

[Nellisir]

A "differently" focused rogue -- the mandatory sneak attack progression slants them towards combat; alternatives would be nice.

A scholar class.

Some kind of "noble/warrior".

A devout fighter, a la the OA sohei.

 

[Drowbane]

I'd like to see a write up of Warlock that like the artificer makes no distinction between Arcane and Divine magic. I think that was an oversight.

I'm of the opinion that we need fewer Base Classes... but more options to go with those Base Classes. For example: Wizard is one class. However there are 8 schools. Using the UA Variants we end up with 8 distinct wizard classes.

Also there are alot of PrCs that could be reduced to "high-powered" feats. Such as the Assassin. Death Attack and Poison Use could easily become Rogue feats. Nothing else the Assassin PrC gives is really relevant. In addition, there are alot of PrC abilities that should be Feats or Combat Options. Like the Devoted Defender's "Harm's Way". What Paladin wouldn't try to throw himself into "Harm's Way" to save an innocent?

Make sense? Or am I dreaming...

 

[Greg K]

So, you want a base calls for all possible mutli class combos? You don't like multi classing.

I don't like multiclassing under 3.0 or 3.5 under most circumstances. As for base classes, I would have about 20 that focus on standard common fantasy archetypes including archetypes that combine multiple classes and then include variants of the classes similar to the UA class variants.

 

[Greg K]

So, if you want a fighter/mage that character is not going to be as good casting spells as a staight wizard and not as good at fighting as a straight fighter. But people don't want that, they want a wizard/fighter that is basically gestalt.

Nope. I expect the character to be a weaker fighter than the fighter and a weaker spell caster (in terms of spells known and highest spell level that is castable). However, I expect the character to fall between the two in terms of BAB, hp and yet cast the spells he knows as well as a wizard of his level (excluding the use of metamagic). I also expect the character to have a consistant set of class skills from level to level.

 

[Greg K]

So you want a Base class like the Paladin for Fighter/Mage... without halfassing it?

Actually I would start both (and rangers) with 0 level spells at first level

 

[Crothian]

Nope. I expect the character to be a weaker fighter than the fighter and a weaker spell caster (in terms of spells known and highest spell level that is castable). However, I expect the character to fall between the two in terms of BAB, hp and yet cast the spells he knows as well as a wizard of his level (excluding the use of metamagic). I also expect the character to have a consistant set of class skills from level to level.

Look at every two levels as a gain opf one and you have that. Level gain has little in game defintion it is a meta game concpet. So, just see the level as one wizard and one fighter and you are set.

But as you said you don't like multi class, so this conversaiton is pointless. When you dismiss the answer of course all that remains is to make things up.

 

[Greg K]

Look at every two levels as a gain opf one and you have that. Level gain has little in game defintion it is a meta game concpet. So, just see the level as one wizard and one fighter and you are set.

Except that the character still picks up abiliites that does not necessarily fit the concept and pays cross class for certain skills at one level and not at another. Its an inelegant solution in my opinion

Now, creating a class build that has a set BAB and save progression, a consistant set of class skills from level to level, eliminates inappropriate class features and then doing the bonus feats, spell acquisition, sneak attack etc. as you describe I have no problem with although I might make some small tweaks based on the character concept

 

[Staffan]

Some concepts are going to be stronger then others. So, if you want a fighter/mage that character is not going to be as good casting spells as a staight wizard and not as good at fighting as a straight fighter. But people don't want that, they want a wizard/fighter that is basically gestalt.

I don't want a 10th level "battlemage" (for want of a better word) to be the equal of a 10th level fighter and a 10th level wizard. I'm looking more for something like 7th level in each, possibly with a more limited spell list. Perhaps use the bard's spellcasting progression as a starting point, and exchanging the bardic music, skills, and bardic knowledge for d8 HD and a more combat-worthy spell list.

I haven't yet seen it in action, but the mageblade from Arcana Unearthed is something along the lines of what I'm looking for. Mageblades get 7th level spells (at 19th or 20th level, depending on stats), d8 HD, 3/4 BAB, bonus feats every 5 levels, a free magic weapon, a spell list that's more limited than AE's version of the wizard, and can cast in armor when wielding their chosen weapon. I have considered converting it to D&D - shouldn't really be too much trouble, but I haven't gotten around to doing it yet.

 

[tetsujin28]

That's what mutli [sic] classing and prestige classes are for.

Also the Warmage from Complete Arcane. Gets light armour prof. and ignores arcane spell failure in it, prof. with all simple weapons, d6 HD. Gets medium armour prof. and the ability to ignore it later. Not a bad compromise.

 

[delericho]

I think I would prefer fewer base classes, but with a wider range of options for each. An Archer class, for instance, is rather a narrow concept which, IMO, would be better emulated with the Fighter class (or the Scout, or the Ranger). This, of course, requires that the Fighter class be customisable to lose the heavy armour, and pick up some mobility options, but that's easy done through feats.

Likewise, I'd rather see the specialist wizards made more distinctive and flavourful than see the addition of a Necromancer base class. (Or, remove specialists entirely, and allow more customisation of the base Wizard and Sorcerer classes, through feats or character trees like those in d20 Modern).

I think there is a niche for a Mageblade-type class. I'm surprised that such a thing doesn't exist already.

Finally, I think it's time to kill the sacred cow of the base class Paladin, much as I like the class, like paladins, and dislike prestige classes. But I dislike alignment restrictions on base classes rather more (and also limiting cultural assumptions on base classes - so no Samurai class for me, thanks), and I really don't like the notion of non-LG paladins. (That's just personal bias, but it's my personal bias, so I'm entitled )