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

[hong]

[Cavalier]

God, I hope not.

What does this class need that a Fighter can't cover?

It fills the "leader" niche that fighters can't really handle well, due to lack of skill points, no dedicated abilities, etc. It would be like the samurai in OA, I guess. At least, that's how I would make a cavalier class.


Hong "you may have seen it already" Ooi

 

[drnuncheon]

It fills the "leader" niche that fighters can't really handle well, due to lack of skill points, no dedicated abilities, etc. It would be like the samurai in OA, I guess. At least, that's how I would make a cavalier class.

I'd buy that if there was actually a Leadership skill in the game, but since there's only a feat...and fighters get more feats than anyone else...

Anyway, why should the ability to lead people be part of a core class? Couldn't one have a great leader who was a paladin or a wizard or whatever?

For that matter, isn't it a position of prestige?

J
Prestige. I've heard that word before...

 

[hong]

I'd buy that if there was actually a Leadership skill in the game, but since there's only a feat...and fighters get more feats than anyone else...

But Leadership isn't a fighter bonus feat. And that feat is orthogonal to the schtick anyway. For examples of what I'm talking about, look at the Charismatic Hero in d20M, or the Akodo champion PrC in OA, or even some of the bard abilities.

Anyway, why should the ability to lead people be part of a core class? Couldn't one have a great leader who was a paladin or a wizard or whatever?

Sure. In fact, the flavour text for pals mentions how they're often leaders of adventuring groups or somesuch. The pal brings with it a bunch of semi-religious baggage and alignment/behaviour restrictions, though, that may not always be appropriate for the campaign.

Personally, I'd just dump the paladin class.

 

[drnuncheon]

But Leadership isn't a fighter bonus feat.

No, but fighters are more likely to take it than anyone else simply because they get so many bonus feats that they can use their regular feats for other stuff.

Sure. In fact, the flavour text for pals mentions how they're often leaders of adventuring groups or somesuch. The pal brings with it a bunch of semi-religious baggage and alignment/behaviour restrictions, though, that may not always be appropriate for the campaign.

I guess I was being too subtle. I wasn't suggesting that the paladin had the 'leader' schtick, I was suggesting that it was a schtick that is a) not necessarily tied to a certain class and b) not really a schtick for beginning characters, thus making it a perfect example of a good choice for a Prestige Class. Probably 5 levels, so it doesn't cripple your main class advancement - you're still a wizard/paladin/fighter/pimpdaddy/whatever, you just happen to have leadership abilities too.

J

 

[hong]

I guess I was being too subtle. I wasn't suggesting that the paladin had the 'leader' schtick, I was suggesting that it was a schtick that is a) not necessarily tied to a certain class and b) not really a schtick for beginning characters, thus making it a perfect example of a good choice for a Prestige Class. Probably 5 levels, so it doesn't cripple your main class advancement - you're still a wizard/paladin/fighter/pimpdaddy/whatever, you just happen to have leadership abilities too.

I'm not talking about a leader in a _social_ sense. I'm talking about a leader in terms of the _adventuring group_. Anyone can take Leadership and set up their own castle, wizard's tower, cavalry troop, or whatever. I'm talking about someone who, in the dungeon, plays a role akin to party spokesman, tactician, coordinator, or whatever else it is that a leader might do.

Now there are issues to do with how players generally don't like being ordered around, but I'm not talking about that either. For example, the bard's inspire courage ability (which the Akodo champion also gets) is something that could fit in perfectly well with the whole "captain" thing. Similarly, some sort of bonus to init rolls might also be reasonable.

 

[drnuncheon]

I'm not talking about a leader in a _social_ sense. I'm talking about a leader in terms of the _adventuring group_. Anyone can take Leadership and set up their own castle, wizard's tower, cavalry troop, or whatever. I'm talking about someone who, in the dungeon, plays a role akin to party spokesman, tactician, coordinator, or whatever else it is that a leader might do.

Now I think we're getting farther and farther away from the archetype of the cavalier, though. The cavalier archetype isn't the "dungeon adventuring leader" - which I think is still a viable option for a PrC, mind you. The cavalier archetype is "knight in shining armor", which is handled nicely by the fighter class. Making it the 'leader character' only makes slightly more sense than tacking those abilities onto, say, an archer class (because Robin Hood was a leader and an archer, you see, and so was the guy from the D&D cartoon).

J

 

[hong]

Now I think we're getting farther and farther away from the archetype of the cavalier, though. The cavalier archetype isn't the "dungeon adventuring leader" - which I think is still a viable option for a PrC, mind you. The cavalier archetype is "knight in shining armor", which is handled nicely by the fighter class.

The cavalier's archetype is whatever the cavalier's designer wants it to be, nu? Some might even say that the cavalier's archetype is "guy on a horse", eg whoever made the PrC in S&F.

Making it the 'leader character' only makes slightly more sense than tacking those abilities onto, say, an archer class (because Robin Hood was a leader and an archer, you see, and so was the guy from the D&D cartoon).

Funny you should mention the archer, because one of the first variant classes that appeared in Dragon was the archer (and the archer-ranger). In fact, these classes also make an appearance in Ambient's _Three Arrows for the King_ pdf, recently released.

There's no doubt that the schticks mentioned can be handled by the fighter class. A lot of them have to do with roleplaying, and how the group handles relationships between the PCs anyway. However, I think there's no reason not to make a new class in D&D, if the niche it fills is sufficiently distinctive, it fits into most campaigns, and there's enough player demand for it.

In d20M, classes are little more than collections of special abilities and feats, packaged for convenience. There's nothing particularly distinctive about a "fast hero" or "strong hero". This is counter to the situation in D&D, where classes also have a strong identity. For example, a barbarian is basically just a really meaty fighter with one special "rage" ability. Why make a barb a separate class, then? Possibly because (issues of nostalgia aside) the niche a barb fills is one that appeals to enough players to merit its creation. In flavour terms, there's more meaning attached to being able to call your character a "barbarian", as opposed to a "fighter" who just happens to have a rage ability.

Yes, in-game there's no reason why a fighter with a rage feat couldn't also call himself a barbarian, but it's all about drawing players into the setting. If the rules can provide a mechanism for doing that, then it's all good, I say.

Similarly for the paladin, or knight, or cavalier, or whatever else you want your "knight in shining armour" or "leader of fighting men" to be. There's no reason why a knight couldn't be represented as a straight fighter, if all you want is an uncomplicated ruleset. However, the niche it fills is sufficiently distinctive, and one that appeals to enough people, that I think it's worth creating a class just for it.

 

[drnuncheon]

Funny you should mention the archer, because one of the first variant classes that appeared in Dragon was the archer (and the archer-ranger). In fact, these classes also make an appearance in Ambient's _Three Arrows for the King_ pdf, recently released.

...and you'll notice that none of them (to the bestof my knowledge, anyway) had/have enhanced leadership abilities, which was what was under discussion.

Sure, archer is an archetype. Knight is an archetype. I think they fit fine under fighter, but that's not really the point - the point was that 'leader' is not really an archetype, it's something that's added to an archetype - thus it doesn't really call for its own core class.

J

 

[hong]

...and you'll notice that none of them (to the bestof my knowledge, anyway) had/have enhanced leadership abilities, which was what was under discussion.

The point is that just because there is a niche that can be handled by a generalist class like the fighter, doesn't mean that you can't also make up a more specialised class for that niche. Archers can be fighters. They can also have their own class.

Sure, archer is an archetype. Knight is an archetype. I think they fit fine under fighter, but that's not really the point - the point was that 'leader' is not really an archetype, it's something that's added to an archetype - thus it doesn't really call for its own core class.

Being a "leader" can be something that a fighter can do, yes, if you mean in terms of player interaction and whatnot. With a feat, they can also be a leader in in-game terms, and have their own little castle or whatnot. However, a fighter (or cleric, or anything except a bard) doesn't have a lot of skills or abilities that _specifically_ have to do with being a leader. They can fight, and that's about it. If there was enough demand for it, I could certainly envision creating a class that _had_ specific skills to fill this role. Just look at the charismatic hero as an example of this.

In any case, though, as you say yourself, the knight is an archetype. That's the point I'm making. The whole thing with the "leader" role was just an example of what such a knight might contribute to an adventuring party, beyond just bashing monsters with a sword or getting up the thief's nose.

 

[Aeolius]

Another class of old that has been overlooked...could it possibly be.... the JESTER?!?