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

[drnuncheon]

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.

I guess what I'm saying is that, if one were going to have a "leader" class, I would rather not have it attached to the knight archetype, or the archer archetype, or even the fighter archetype, because it's really not part of those archetypes. The farther you get from the core of the archetype, the less useful the class is as a core class - this is the reason why a lot of people have problems with the ranger. It's got abilities (ambi, 2wf) that are, if not at odds with the core archetype (woodsman warrior), at least not readily identifiable as part of it.

My beef with a lot of the new core classes is that if the role can be filled by an existing core class, the designer has to make it 'special'. So we get a knight or an archer or a swashbuckler or a mercenary or whatever with a lot of cool abilities, and soon there is no reason to actually play a fighter - even though the fighter was designed to let you be any of those things if that's what you chose. And because of all the 'cool abilities' that the new core classes have, you begin to see power creep.

I'm all for classes that fill archetypes that can't be done well with the existing classes. Some of the stuff in the Path Of books comes to mind - the Outdoorsman from Path of the Sword handles a woodsman-warrior in a non-spellcasting, non-dual-wielding way.

So, to sum up, I think tacking leadership onto a single archetype is a mistake. It annoys people who want to play that archetype without the leadership ability, and it annoys people who want the leadership ability without the baggage of the other archetype. Further, I don't think 'leader' is a strong enough archetype to stand on its own - it needs to be added to something else. Between that, and the necessity of experience to be a good leader, I think it'd be better as a prestige class.

YM(AA)MV

J

 

[hong]

The farther you get from the core of the archetype, the less useful the class is as a core class - this is the reason why a lot of people have problems with the ranger. It's got abilities (ambi, 2wf) that are, if not at odds with the core archetype (woodsman warrior), at least not readily identifiable as part of it.

The ranger's problem (aside from all its _other_ problems) is that its niche is very broad, and every guy and his dog has their own idea of what are the most important elements of that niche. You have rangers with/without TWF, with/without spellcasting, with/without favoured enemies, with/without fighter HD or BAB, even some without Track.

My beef with a lot of the new core classes is that if the role can be filled by an existing core class, the designer has to make it 'special'. So we get a knight or an archer or a swashbuckler or a mercenary or whatever with a lot of cool abilities, and soon there is no reason to actually play a fighter - even though the fighter was designed to let you be any of those things if that's what you chose. And because of all the 'cool abilities' that the new core classes have, you begin to see power creep.

Power creep doesn't have anything to do with it, really. If you didn't have any new classes at all, you still have other avenues by which people can add their own crunchy bits to the game: feats, skills, and spells. The only way you could prevent power creep entirely is to close down expansion completely, and that's not going to happen.

So, to sum up, I think tacking leadership onto a single archetype is a mistake. It annoys people who want to play that archetype without the leadership ability, and it annoys people who want the leadership ability without the baggage of the other archetype.

D00d, you plays a class system, you takes your chances. Also, are you finished demolishing your strawman?

Further, I don't think 'leader' is a strong enough archetype to stand on its own - it needs to be added to something else. Between that, and the necessity of experience to be a good leader, I think it'd be better as a prestige class.

I'd pimp one of those here, but it's late.

 

[drnuncheon]

D00d, you plays a class system, you takes your chances. Also, are you finished demolishing your strawman?

Strawman? You suggested that a 'cavalier' class might be distinct from the fighter class because of leadership abilities. I was responding to that on two counts: one, that avoiding the proliferation of core classes is a good thing when those archetypes are adequately covered, and two, the unsuitability of 'leader' as an archetype for a class. Both of those speak directly to your suggestion. I see no strawman here.

J

 

[hong]

Strawman? You suggested that a 'cavalier' class might be distinct from the fighter class because of leadership abilities.

The "leadership" thing was _one_ of the ways in which a knight might be distinguished from a regular joe fighter. There are other ways in which this might be done. The OA samurai has a privileged place in society, for instance, and this easily carries over to most non-Asian campaigns as well. You could also have specialised mounted combat abilities, if you want to pump up the "guy on a horse" schtick, or things like immunity to fear. Or whatever. If you have a strong concept in mind, then it's not hard to make abilities to reflect that concept in the mechanics.

I was responding to that on two counts: one, that avoiding the proliferation of core classes is a good thing when those archetypes are adequately covered,

Well, it all comes down to how you define "adequately", doesn't it?

and two, the unsuitability of 'leader' as an archetype for a class.

If d20M can have a "charismatic hero", I see no problem in using "guy in charge" as (part of) the basis for as a class.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Commander, Alchemist, Spiritualist

I think D&D could use a core class that had abilities similar to Chainmail/D&D Miniature's "Commander" abilitites. You could call it simply the Commander.

At first I thought such a class would be better as a prestige class, since experience is so often equated with command. But then I thought of our own US military, which allows people to join as officers. Or, heck, your local retail shop with the sign in the window saying "Now hiring: Management Trainees".

The abilities could be similar to the Commander abilities in D&D Minis: giving certain bonuses to troops within 6 sqaures/30 feet.

Examples:
Bonuses to fear saves
Bonuses to missile fire (the commander groups and directs their fire)
Bonuses to Fortitude saves when making long marches.

And so on. It could even work like a verbal, ranged "Aid another" action.

So, that's one core class possibility.

Here's another: Alchemist. D&D doesn't have a core class for non-magical "magic"-makers. I see this class as d6, Wizard BAB, good Ref and Fort saves (with save bonuses vs. Fire, Poison, and Acid), and the ability to brew up non-magical healing, skill, and certain enhancement (keen, flaming) potions as well as mechanical gadgets. Lots of skill points.

Another fantasy archetype missing from 3E is the magic user that gets power from spirits. Current spellcaster draw power from Nature (druid), gods (cleric), music (bard), self (sorceror), and arcane mechanics (wizard). I see a niche for a spirit-based caster who gets power by currying favor. Mechanicaly, this would work similar to the Shaman class in the Deadlands game.

That's it so far. Any other ideas for the new core classes that will appear in the D&D Miniatures Handbook?

-z

 

[Wolfen Priest]

I'd place money on the Archer being a new core class.

Of course, they would need to take out the archery feast associated with the fighter, and probably add a few more special abilities, and then probably take away some armor and weapon proficiencies......

It seems to me that (a.) magic is already almost out of hand in D&D, therefore if they won't tone it down, the least they should do is NOT add any more magic or magic-like classes as core classes, and (b.) fighters are too well-rounded in a way; I think they would be fine as the "ultimate fighting machines" of melee combat alone, and give archers their own thing, so to speak.

Histrically, an armored knight was a far cry from a longbowman. Why not incorporate that distinction into the game?

 

[Green Knight]

New classes and Prestige Classes, huh? Well, bear in mind that the vast majority of Prestige Classes out there AREN'T designed to fulfill roles on the battlefield. There's the Warmaster in S&F, but is there much else? So I can see the need for new Prestige Classes. Like, say, a Prestige Class for Artillerists. Or Skirmishers. Or other specialized troops on the battlefield.

As for new classes, personally I'd like to see the Aristocrat made into a viable PC class. It's necessary for this, to represent the noble lords leading their troops into battle. An Aristocrat wouldn't be much of an adventuring class, but I can see it on the battlefield. So I can see them making it a full-fledged class. Somebody else also pointed out Artificer. Or was it Alchemist? Point is, someone who can make all kinds of weapons of war without resorting to magic. That'd be nice. Probably a couple more classes one can come up with.

And hey, if you're so offended that they'd put some actual new info into this book, then don't buy it. But honestly, I'm getting sick of the bitching. Wah, wah, wah. Wizards is trying to make money. Wah, wah, wah. How dare they want to feed and clothe their children and put them through school? Wah, wah, wah. Geeze. Apparently the only way to satisfy some of you people is if EVERYTHING was done for free, and for the people at WoTC to be forced to live in boxes under the nearest bridge and forage for food from trash cans behind restaurants, with their children running around barefoot in sackcloth.

Besides, the new classes most likely won't be in the main book because they don't fit the standard D&D mold, I.E. going out and adventuring. These're likely classes that are based in military service. How many people, here, play games where you Fighter is a soldier who spends most of the year on guard duty? How exciting a game would that be? Or how many of you have played Aristocrats who spend most of their time administering over your lands, rather than dungeon-delving? I doubt very many. And that's why the new classes won't be in the PHB. Because they're not something your average D&D player would use in a standard D&D game built around adventuring, travelling, and dungeon-delving.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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

Animal empathy. Enough skill points to be competent at caring for your mount and gear as well as training and riding. More specific armor and weapon proficiencies and a progression of mounted combat abilities. A decent reflex save possibly if ride skill alone wasn't sufficient for certain manuvers.

Personlly I think 3rd Ed is stuck in this weird limbo between point based and class based and not so great for either. But certainly, the fighter class will not fit every fighter archetype because its hardwird to be a big slow tough guy...

Kahuna Burger

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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

WOOT!!!!!

oh wait, shouldn't that just be a bard with high tumble?

kahuna burger

 

[drnuncheon]

Animal empathy.

Knights have a pseudomystical connection to animals on the same level as druids and rangers? I'm not buying it. Handle Animal.

Enough skill points to be competent at caring for your mount and gear as well as training and riding.

I guess that depends on what you mean by 'competent'. A first level fighter with average intelligence could have 4 ranks of ride, 2 ranks of handle animal, and 1 rank each of Weaponsmith and Armorsmith. Going up, keep raising Ride and Handle Animal.

That's plenty for an inexperienced character. Its not like he's forging his armor, after all - DCs to care for it or do field repairs are probably in the 5-10 range.

More specific armor and weapon proficiencies and a progression of mounted combat abilities.

Not sure what you mean by the first. The fighter has /all/ of them, except the exotics. If you mean that knights shouldn't have certain weapon profs, well, you're always free to just not use them.

As for the second, that's what feats are for: Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, etc.

A decent reflex save possibly if ride skill alone wasn't sufficient for certain manuvers.

I can't imagine why ride skill wouldn't be what you'd roll to do things on horseback - it adds unnecessary complications. I mean, you don't roll Reflex saves for Tumble or Balance...

J