"Modding" classes vs multiclassing

[Magius del Cotto]

Well, yeah, any class would work, but for he traditional image of sabers and billowing blouses climbing about on ropes, the Rogue works best, or perhaps the Unfettered.

I'd say that the captain would be an Unfettered (I don't know why, but I always seem to see the Unfettered class as the sort of crazies that would be perfect for a pirate captain), with a 'loyal' crew of rogues and scallywags (maybe a sorceror or two thrown in, just for flavor). While, yes, any class would work in this situation, the rogue is best suited for the pirate crew and an Unfettered is best for the captain.
Just my opinion of course.
[/tangent]
Magius out.

 

[Desdichado]

* Elementalist = Druid (perhaps with a PrC, probably with feats)

Weird. Why druid? Most concepts of the Elementalist make it arcane rather than divine or nature oriented.

* Unfettered = Monk (almost definately with a PrC, and feats)

I think you're mixing terminology. You say the Unfettered should be a monk PrC, but then you say this...

* Swashbuclker = New Class (like a fighter, but opt out on armor and feats for sneak attacks and movement abilities and skill points)

I don't think you understand what the Unfettered is. What you describe here as a Swashbuckler is the Unfettered, almost exactly.

* Urban Ranger = Modified Ranger (switch out some skills, lean to Cha in stead of Wis)

Yep, and Masters of the Wild already did this, almost exactly. Ranger is also a fairly ambiguous concept. I think part of the reason there is so much discussion about the Ranger class is that different people see the Ranger as different things, and the Ranger class as written doesn't have the flexibility to cover all the options. For my money, the Wildlander from Midnight is probably the best alt.ranger I've seen, with a real a la carte approach to class abilities, so you can have all different kinds of "rangers" within the confines of the class itself, thus making tweaking of the class unnecessary.

Robin Hood = Ranger/Bard (he could stirr many people! But he was a keen expert of the forests!)

Sure, why not. Especially 3.5 Ranger with the archery combat path. But what's with all that spell-casting?

* Non-Supernatural Unarmed Fighter = Fighter, with PrC (see, for instance, the 3.5 feat that allows you to up unarmed damage)

Problem is the fighter class is weak at this type of fighting. This is another "hole" if you will in the core classes. Well, that's not exactly true; we do have the monk, but it's a very unsatisfying class to many people because the feel is all wrong. I think Midnight comes to the rescue here again with the Defender class, an a la carte, non-supernatural character that is very reminiscent in many ways of the Chinese folk heroes. Of course, it doesn't necessarily feel Oriental in application, though.

* Knight in Shining Armor = Paladin (he's brave and courageous and has a horse)

I agree; I'm surprised to see this on the list. I can make a perfectly fine KiSH with the paladin, and the fighter is even not that bad at it, especially if you give him a few more class skills (Diplomacy maybe, or Knowledge: Aristocracy, or something like that.)

* Hedge Wizard = Adept (a bit of magic on the side, really)

No, the adept isn't meant to be a PC class, and it works poorly as one, IMO.

* Witch = Modified Druid (less damage, more manipulation, and more animal control....better illusions instead of wild shape)

I can see that. Of course, there are also lots of concepts about what a witch is, so any one approach is unlikely to be the final word.

* Pirate = Any character class, with a certain seaman focus (just need the right skill choices for this, really)

I agree with Tsyr on this one: either a Rogue or an Unfettered with Profession: Sailor is all this needs. Make the cutlass finessable (if it isn't already; I don't recall) and you've got the source material down to a tee.

 

[Tsyr]

I agree; I'm surprised to see this on the list. I can make a perfectly fine KiSH with the paladin, and the fighter is even not that bad at it, especially if you give him a few more class skills (Diplomacy maybe, or Knowledge: Aristocracy, or something like that.)

The Paladin fits a vision of the Knight in Shining Armour, but the Holy Warrior with Healing Hands is only one particular vision. The Black Knight, The Scion of a Noble House, The Loyal Servant of a Lord, and a number of other concepts all fit in the Knight in Shining Armour catagory, but are represented poorly by the Paladin class.

 

[Desdichado]

But not badly represented by the fighter with a certain build in mind in terms of feats. I mean, you are a bit lacking in terms of certain skills associated with a gentry martial class such as the knights were, but that's a minor tweak, really. For that matter, the Samurai class from OA is already partly there too, although the ancestral weapon isn't necessarily a part of any knight concept.

 

[johnsemlak]

D&D doesn't offer more swashbuckling combat options...there is no true option to parry in D&D, for example (at least, not compared to GURPS, which is my point of reference). Dragon did offer some nice options in that regard, though.

Which Dragon issue was that?

 

[Umbran]

But not badly represented by the fighter with a certain build in mind in terms of feats. I mean, you are a bit lacking in terms of certain skills associated with a genry martial class such as the knights were, but that's a minor tweak, really.

Not too difficult to repair with a level or two in Aristocrat...

 

[Saeviomagy]

* Elementalist = Druid (perhaps with a PrC, probably with feats)

I'm wondering why wizard or sorceror don't fit here. They seem perfect with the right combination of skills, feats and spells.

* Unfettered = Monk (almost definately with a PrC, and feats)

People always seem to get hung up on the monk using his bare hands, and forget that you can do this... Monk(depending on the supernatural abilities you want or don't want)/rogue/fighter is an interesting multiclass.

* Swashbuclker =

See above

* Urban Ranger = Modified Ranger (switch out some skills, lean to Cha in stead of Wis)

>>Wonders what you mean when you say 'urban ranger'<<
I'd say that a rogue/ranger multiclass works fine. You want someone with social skills who can track and fight - is that right?

* Robin Hood = Ranger/Bard (he could stirr many people! But he was a keen expert of the forests!)

Or just a ranger with a good charisma. Or an aristocrat/bard (which isn't nearly as bad as some people think).

* Non-Supernatural Unarmed Fighter = Fighter, with PrC (see, for instance, the 3.5 feat that allows you to up unarmed damage)

Definately - fighter. Or monk/fighter if you really don't want to wear armour.

* Knight in Shining Armor = Paladin (he's brave and courageous and has a horse)

Or just fighter. He's brave and couragous and can own a horse. Or if you're aiming at the socially adept knight, aristocrat is pretty good (multiclass with fighter for some feats most likely)

* Hedge Wizard = Adept (a bit of magic on the side, really)

Or a cleric/wizard/rogue multiclass.

* Witch = Modified Druid (less damage, more manipulation, and more animal control....better illusions instead of wild shape)

This is really just a choice of spells.

* Pirate = Any character class, with a certain seaman focus (just need the right skill choices for this, really)

You probably want to avoid heavy armour too.

My view: If you're after a character which does something that's IMPOSSIBLE under the current classes, then perhaps it's worth changing, altering or creating a class for you. Offhand I don't think such a concept exists while remaining within the fantasy mileu.

If you just want to avoid suboptimal choices, and feel that a new or modified class is essential, then I very much doubt that you're correct. There's pretty much a class combination for every concept I can imagine. Almost all of them are viable, and if they're not viable in every situation, that's because you've painted yourself into a corner. Like:

"I want to be a non-supernatural martial artist who never uses weapons, but can still penetrate damage resistance without having to rely on simply doing a lot of damage"

Sorry. Not going to happen. If you systematically rule out all the possible mechanics for doing your concept, expect to have that concept translate to something that's unplayable.

 

[Tsyr]

Sorry. Not going to happen. If you systematically rule out all the possible mechanics for doing your concept, expect to have that concept translate to something that's unplayable.

I'm not the one who says non-supernatural. It has to be by default. I just could do without the silly wirefu and super-secret kung fu quivering palm and stuff.

 

[Tessarael]

I think a Swashbuckler class like Unfettered is important. There is no good class or combination of classes in PHB for lightly armored Dex based combatants. Not if you want decent AC while wearing armor (by decent I mean as good as the heavy armor guy). Warmain still exceeds Unfettered's AC of course.

I believe the Swashbuckler in Complete Fighter will serve the same role. I'm kind of hoping for more than 4 skill points/level or slightly more class features, as that is the main thing stopping me from begging my DM to let me take Unfettered instead of Rogue 3/Fighter 4 now.

On a more general note, the need for these cross-classes, and the myriad of prestige classes, really points out that 4E (or Unearthed Arcana?) D&D will need to be more flexible and less class based. Monte did a nice job of making PHB class features feats in Arcana Unearthed, but I'd like to see the system made more generic, and not need this proliferation of various classes.

 

[Desdichado]

My view: If you're after a character which does something that's IMPOSSIBLE under the current classes, then perhaps it's worth changing, altering or creating a class for you. Offhand I don't think such a concept exists while remaining within the fantasy mileu.

If you just want to avoid suboptimal choices, and feel that a new or modified class is essential, then I very much doubt that you're correct. There's pretty much a class combination for every concept I can imagine. Almost all of them are viable, and if they're not viable in every situation, that's because you've painted yourself into a corner.

Let me make sure I understand you correctly -- you think that it's preferable to accept choices that are obviously suboptimal even at first glance, as long as the rules already exist to make that concept?

Not that that's not fine, but that's miles away from a game I'd play. Concept is much more important to me than the rules. The rules are there to facilitate play, if they get in the way, you change them to make them work for you. I'm a far cry from a powergamer who looks for power combos of feats and class abilities, but I want a character that's competent and is going to pull his weight with the other characters. I also want a character that I enjoy playing and that fits the idea for the character I wanted to play.

If I ever go to a game where a GM tells me that the rules as written are more important than my concept, and that I have to accept a suboptimal solution because he's not even going to think about changing anything -- especially for a concept as universal as a swashbuckler -- then that's a game I'm not likely to play in for long.