New base classes for D&D coming--what could they be?

[Starman]

Unrelated note: Wizard should be a prestige class because in all the fantasy literature I've read, before you become a book-loving Wizard first you've got to have "the Gift". Or "The Spark". Or "The Shine". Or whatever term is used to describe natural magic talent. Therefore, before you can learn to codify magic (ie, practice book-learnin' Wizardy) you've got to first have innate magical ability (ie, sorcery). That's why I think Wizard should be a prestige class.

Why not just require a feat called "The Gift" or something to be able to cast magic?

Starman

 

[drnuncheon]

There are a ton of possibilities. Look at all the core classes in d20 products.

I think a lot of the ones you mention really ought to fall under one of the main core classes. I'd rather see fewer core classes and more customization done with feats - in my mind, that was one of the best things about 3e.

A new core class should be something that you just plain can't do with the existing ones. What the heck is 'the knight' but a walking example of the 'fighter' archetype? You've got ride skills, you've got mounted combat, you're good to go. There's no need for a special class.

J

 

[Ranger REG]

I mean, wow. New base classes. I wonder what they'll be?

That would be my first question. My second question would be:

Why won't these new base classes be included in the D&D Revised Core Rulebooks (i.e., Player's Handbook)?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Why not just require a feat called "The Gift" or something to be able to cast magic?

That's what I did.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Re: Re: New base classes for D&D coming--what could they be?

Why won't these new base classes be included in the D&D Revised Core Rulebooks (i.e., Player's Handbook)?

Because then you wouldn't have to pay another $29.95 to have them. Silly.

 

[Mercule]

Therefore, before you can learn to codify magic (ie, practice book-learnin' Wizardy) you've got to first have innate magical ability (ie, sorcery). That's why I think Wizard should be a prestige class.

I've always hated the idea that mages were somehow "special". Magic should be something that anyone who knows the words/gestures can do. As much as I dislike the fire-and-forget system in D&D, that's one positive thing about it (especially with the 3E multiclassing rules).

Even better would be if there was a way to learn a single spell without having to take a level of wizard. A skill, feat, or something similar.

 

[Eternalknight]

A couple that I can think of that would work in a miniatures game would be Commander and Skirmisher.

 

[Coldiron]

Psion? Psychic Warrior?

 

[Zaruthustran]

Why not just require a feat called "The Gift" or something to be able to cast magic?

Starman

You could, but then Fighters could cast magic at 1st level. Which is an even bigger departure from 3rd Edition.

I think that there needs to be a core class that can cast arcane magic, and be definition a core class should have zero pre-reqs. In my opinion, the core class for arcane magic-user should be sorceror, and wizard (a class that acquires access to powerful magic through careful practice and study) should be a prestige class for non-Chaotic arcane casters.

As for the new Core classes in 3E... man, I dunno.

 

[Ferret]

Had it not been for the prestige class bit I would have been inclined to think it meant types instead of classes.