Two quick thoughts about all these new fangled base classes . . .

[Dannyalcatraz]

First, I've read the Kalevala. Second, do you still not see the problem here? (Hint: In 1st edition, Vainnamoinen was a 12th level cleric, 20th level paladin, 12th level illusionist, and 23rd level bard.

You don't see the problem here?

The Deities & Demigod stats for the Finnish heroes are a kluge.

In 1Ed, every last heroic character from the Kalevala has a minimum of 4 classes, usually including levels in Bard, which in 1Ed required a minimum of 5 and maximum of 8 levels of advancement in Fighter, a minimum of 5 and maximum of 8 levels of Thief and the tutilage of Druids (satisfying all minimum requirements in all of those classes) before getting a single level of Bard- which was a divine (Druidic), not arcane, caster. In fact, it is a class often "not allowed by Dungeon Masters." (1Ed PHB Appendix II, p 117).

And, reading those stat blocks, several of those heroes don't meet the requirements for Bard (Lemminkainen & Ilmarinen for example) despite having levels in the class. Thats all just handwaved away.

How does "Paladin" fit the framework of the Kalevala, which has no real undead or true holy knights...especially when he's going to need those thief levels to qualify for Bard? In 1Ed, taking level in Thief was entirely incompatible with taking levels in Paladin on an alignment basis:

All thieves are neutral or evil, although they can be neutral good (rarely), and of lawful or chaotic nature. Most thieves tend towards evil.

1Ed PHB p 27

"Illusionist?" Most illusion used by heroes in the Kalevala could be reflected with a low-level spell like Disguise Self. The high levels in this class reflect more avoidance of the flashy, big-damage spells of the Wizard list than actual facility with illusions displayed by heroes in the source material.

In 2Ed Player's Option, Vainnamoinen could be summed up in a single-classed PC. In 3.X any one of them would have to be Epic. But we expect this because they're "Heroes."

I was under no illusion that the PC would ever reach Vainnamoinen's (or any other character in the Kalevala) power. I was trying to capture the flavor of such a PC before they reached such epic levels- the hero beginning his journey.

Fourth, you've done nothing to convince me that your concept is actually "a cleric from a Northern warrior culture based on Finno-Russian legend, particularly from the Kalevala." As far as I can tell, you've still got a shopping list instead of a concept.

Then enlighten us- in 3.X, how would you do it? (By that, I mean both build the PC AND describe a PC concept built on a Kalevala-esque heroic archetype.)

I read the Kalevala and some Larousse and Bullfinch books of mythology & legends to find common threads, exploring their heroic archetypes of the region. I then tried to translate that into game terms. The result was a single-class warrior-priest build whose best offensive spell was Bull's Strength. With his magic, he could dispel, he could buff, he could protect...maybe even heal a little- but he couldn't harm an opponent directly.

Mighty warrior? Sure- he could fight, but he didn't have the HP or AC of a true fighter.

Mighty spellcaster? Sure- he could cast high-level spells...that would keep his allies alive or move them from Point A to Point B, but he wasn't smiting anyone with gouts of divine flame from above.

The 3.X Bard is no longer a Druidic caster, but an Arcane one. That changes a lot of spell availability and skills.

The 3.X Ranger has a good spell list, but the class comes with things like Favored Enemy and Animal Companions that don't fit the archetype.

The 3.X Cleric? The Travel and Luck domains are nearly a perfect fit, but the class has Turn Undead (an alien concept to the Kalevala) and many spells that are simply too powerful.

And none of those classes have access to the Abjuration spells that were, IMHO, key to the concept of a PC whose spell list was other-centric. A protector or guardian.

The question was whether all of these highly narrow classes that have been published are really needed to create any concept. I came down on the side that they were not, and that instead the core classes should be more flexible.

We could tell because you joined the thread with subtle points like:

Whereas I think it has more to do with the fact that WotC has to turn out something to protect thier phony baloney jobs. All the 80 or so bases classes and all the PrC's WotC has printed since the PH could be boiled down into about 3 new classes, a few core class variants, and suitable feats.

And implying that if you couldn't do it with the Core, you were somehow a munchkin.

Yet when I point out a PC concept that shouldn't be built with the core classes since that would result in a PC that has the wrong spells and abilities for the archetype, you say I've got a "laundry list" of abilities.

Hmmmmm....

 

[Storm Raven]

(The above comment was with respect to the Knight core class)

I haven't seen one in play yet, the Knight offers a new core class ability (the Knightly Challenge, which itself has been controversial) that seems to be significantly stronger than a feat tree. It would be appropriate for a D20 Modern talent tree.

I don't know. looking at it, it seems like it would work just fine converted to a feat tree aimed at characters with BAB requirements and so on.

You're right, having a sufficient number of feat trees to support the fighter would also go a long way towards reducing the number of base classes needed.

On the other hand, neither should be everything be made a feat--each core class should have something to offer that is unique (niche protection) and only available through multiclassing.

Is niche protection that important? If you pare down the classes to a handful, and then give reasonably balanced characters options to select from as they advance, doubling up on abilities will likely be self-defeating anyway. Besides, what stops people from stepping on each other's niche's right now other than not playing the same class? How is avoiding playing the same class any different than taking different character options?

In response to another comment of yours (not quoted), I personally would argue that spellcasting is a special case--the cost of multiclassing is too high compared to the benefit obtained. I am well aware that opinions on this matter vary widely, I have participated in discussions on this in the past, and I hope that this thread doesn't get derailed on this point.

I think that if you want to make the overpowered fighter/caster type combinations of earlier editions, then you are right. if you want to make characters who are good facsimiles of the semi-caster classes that we have had floating around, then I think you are wrong. What are the paladin and ranger other than slighty different versions of a warrior/caster combination? Why do they need to be defined classes rather than simply multiclasses with differing feat choices? really, when you boil characters down, they amount to one of the following three things or some combination thereof: Spellcaster, Warrior, or Skillmonkey.

Where I think 3e missed the boat was when it didn't recognize this and use the robust multiclassing, skill and feat system to take care of all of these combinations and permutations that are represented by the plethora of base classes. Sure, in 1e or 2e, where this sort of system wasn't in place, then there could be a reaon for this, but then you get into the point where you have things like the "Sentinel" class, and the "Bandit" class and the "Huntsman" class and so on, each with some minor schtick that they brought to the table. I say the game should dump this sort of thing and make a small number of base classes customizable to accomplish the same goal.

 

[Sound of Azure]

I am very interested in a discussion on what criteria should be used to draw the line between 'do it by multiclassing' and 'make up a new core class', and on what core classes have really brought something new to the table.

Ben

I'm probably wierd or something, but really.... to me, multiclassing essentially is creating a new base class. A base class that takes mechanics that I like from Class A and B (and maybe C, as well), perhaps with a focused PrCl (maybe two!) and forms them into one whole. In this way, I create the underlying skeleton for the personality I give to each PC I make.

You might see a Monk/Swashbuckler/Samurai/Iaijutsu Master, but I see Saladin, the fastest scimitar of the west desert. He's got the Desert Blade class, and he lives to protect his people, and honour the name of his ancestors.

New classes give me a chance to look at mechanics that I may not have otherwise thought of. Some I don't like, some inspire me, some I'll rave over. Same with most new rules. They all provide opportunities to more closely map what I want my PC to do, though.

And that's good in my book.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You have yet to give a reason why, other than perhaps, you didn't want to write "bard" on your character sheet.

The spell selection is off, the skillset is off (for example Ride, Search & Survival are absent, while there are skills like Appraise and Sleight of Hand on it), and the weapons & armor are off (almost every hero in the Kalevala and Russian myth uses either fairly heavy weapons or a weapon & shield).

In what way is the arcane/divine divide anything but flavor?

The current articulation of it is more explicit than in 1Ed, but you'd have to go back to some of the source material for the old game.

Some of those 1Ed cleric spells came directly from passages of the Bible and were not duplicable by "sorcerers." IOW, there were things that arcane magic simply could not do because they required the power of a divine being to "break" a particular rule of reality with magic.

What makes this anything more difficult than having the character multiclass his bard levels with some ranger levels mixed in?

Some of the protection & animist elemental spells that you'd see in the Finno-Russian archetype would be much less powerful than is typical in those legends because the Bard or Ranger get them later than full casters or are entirely absent from the spell-lists of those classes.

And because of the DC structure of the D20 game, his fewer protective spells would be much, much weaker.

A spellcaster should not be a "mighty warrior" as well.

There are a lot of heroic PCs that would beg to differ.

Essentially, you can't be superlative at everything, and it sounds like that is what you are asking for.

Not at all- this guy is supposed to be a good enough warrior to handle most threats, and his spell selection, while deep, is very narrowly focused.

Essentially, he can dispel a little, protect people, move them around rapidly, and so forth. He's not anywhere near the medic of a core cleric. He's not even on the radar of offensive spellpower. A party depending on him for anti-undead firepower will be VERY sorry. He isn't bringing anyone back from the dead. He isn't getting rid of negative levels or ability damage.

But if you want a guy who can ward off arrows, boost your Str or Dex, give you an AC bonus, dispel a curse, and so forth, scaled up like a full caster, he's your guy.

 

[Storm Raven]

The spell selection is off, the skillset is off (for example Ride, Search & Survival are absent, while there are skills like Appraise and Sleight of Hand on it), and the weapons & armor are off (almost every hero in the Kalevala and Russian myth uses either fairly heavy weapons or a weapon & shield).

The spell selection sounds almost exaclty like what you are looking for. Not much flashy magic. A little healing. Buffing magic. Some defensive spells. All the skills you mention are on the ranger skill list, so multiclass as a ranger. That also gives you the route to heavy weapons, and shields. Your problem is fixed.

The current articulation of it is more explicit than in 1Ed, but you'd have to go back to some of the source material for the old game.

Some of those 1Ed cleric spells came directly from passages of the Bible and were not duplicable by "sorcerers." IOW, there were things that arcane magic simply could not do because they required the power of a divine being to "break" a particular rule of reality with magic.

Oh please. Now you are just harping on meaningless semantics. In 1e you had the wish spell, which could do anything any divine spell could do. Just drawing the inspiration of spells from the Bible doesn't make calling them "divine magic" has any more meaning that simply adding flavor to the text. It has no in-game consequence of any real significance.

Some of the protection & animist elemental spells that you'd see in the Finno-Russian archetype would be much less powerful than is typical in those legends because the Bard or Ranger get them later than full casters or are entirely absent from the spell-lists of those classes.

And? If you want to be a superlative caster be a druid or something. Don't show up and ask to be really good at everything.

And because of the DC structure of the D20 game, his fewer protective spells would be much, much weaker.

What? defensive spells are one area where save DCs crop up the least. Your argument is falling apart as quickly as you type the words you are trying to support it with.

There are a lot of heroic PCs that would beg to differ.

And they are not PCs. They are absurdly high level characters. A 20th level rogue is a "mighty warrior" with no modifications to his base class, as long as you compare him to CR 10 foes. So too would a 15th level rogue/5th level ranger be a "mighty warrior" compared to anyone except for, say a 20th level barbarian. But if you want your caster/inrpirational leader/healer/warrior to be as mighty a warrior as the straight fighters, barbarians, rangers, et al, you are simply being greedy.

Not at all- this guy is supposed to be a good enough warrior to handle most threats, and his spell selection, while deep, is very narrowly focused.

Hmm, just like a bard/ranger.

Essentially, he can dispel a little, protect people, move them around rapidly, and so forth. He's not anywhere near the medic of a core cleric. He's not even on the radar of offensive spellpower. A party depending on him for anti-undead firepower will be VERY sorry. He isn't bringing anyone back from the dead. He isn't getting rid of negative levels or ability damage.

But if you want a guy who can ward off arrows, boost your Str or Dex, give you an AC bonus, dispel a curse, and so forth, scaled up like a full caster, he's your guy.

So, I was right. You want to play a bard with a little ranger thrown in. All you have to do is make the right skill choices, the right spell selections, and you are where you claim you want to be. So far, all you've done is convince me that the people who argue that there is a big need for new base classes to cover untapped areas simply are (a) being greedy, or (b) haven't looked at the multiclassing system enough to notice that their character design are already easily covered by the existing classes.

 

[Slife]

The spell selection is off, the skillset is off (for example Ride, Search & Survival are absent, while there are skills like Appraise and Sleight of Hand on it), and the weapons & armor are off (almost every hero in the Kalevala and Russian myth uses either fairly heavy weapons or a weapon & shield).

Did you consider gestalting? Bard//Ranger seems like a pretty good fit.

 

[Celebrim]

You don't see the problem here?

The Deities & Demigod stats for the Finnish heroes are a kluge.

I'm well aware of that. First edition was even more limited in its class flexibility than 3rd. But you're dodging my point. The Kalevala characters are exceptionally broad generalists. In fact, they are a good deal broader even than you are claiming as I would argue that they demonstrate some pretty flashy attack spells too (like Imprison, for example, I consider that pretty flashy).

In 1Ed, every last heroic character from the Kalevala has a minimum of 4 classes, usually including levels in Bard, which in 1Ed required a minimum of 5 and maximum of 8 levels of advancement in Fighter, a minimum of 5 and maximum of 8 levels of Thief and the tutilage of Druids (satisfying all minimum requirements in all of those classes) before getting a single level of Bard- which was a divine (Druidic), not arcane, caster. In fact, it is a class often "not allowed by Dungeon Masters." (1Ed PHB Appendix II, p 117).

All of this that you are complaining about was an attempt to give the Bardic character the generality you are complaining is lacking in any single class.

In fact, I'm increasingly convinced that if you played a bard as if his spells had a divine origin - which is purely a matter of flavor - and did just a little multi-classing (maybe) that you could capture the whole 'Finnish' hero thing with no real problem.

While I'm on the subject, the divine/arcane spell division is entirely Judeo-Christian in origin. I can't think of any other tradition which draws such a sharp divide between theurgy and goetia, between the miraculous and the eldritch. It's only a matter of Western culture that we percieve divine magic and arcane magic as being two distinctly different things. For all practical purposes, its just a freakin' label. There is no reason why your bard can't get his spells in part from a divine source and the mechanics work out entirely the same.

How does "Paladin" fit the framework of the Kalevala, which has no real undead or true holy knights...

No undead that are mentioned. You've no real need to worry about whether if undead had showed up, how the finnish heroes would have dealt with them. And if you think a Paladin needs to be a Holy Knight roaming around in high Medieval armor, then I suggest you're even more stuck in extraneous culture and flavor than the 1st edition writers were.

In 2Ed Player's Option, Vainnamoinen could be summed up in a single-classed PC.

At what cost though. There is a price to be paid for having any given shopping list summable in a single class.

I was under no illusion that the PC would ever reach Vainnamoinen's (or any other character in the Kalevala) power. I was trying to capture the flavor of such a PC before they reached such epic levels- the hero beginning his journey.

Raw power is not the only issue here. The problem is the breadth of the class means that there is a good chance that its not balanced versus most other classes of a given level. It's not at all clear to me that you can make the drawbacks match the abundant advantages of a mix and match fighter/cleric/bard/ranger. I'm inclined to think that you should just be playing a bard. The class was invented after all to capture the flavor of the characters you are inspired by.

(By that, I mean both build the PC AND describe a PC concept built on a Kalevala-esque heroic archetype.)

Play a bard. Or maybe a Ranger. Or maybe take my first level in bard, my second in cleric, and then build up from there to something between a Bard 15/Cleric 5 and a Bard 19/Cleric 1.

Then I'd play it with the flavor of the Kalevala and constrain my own spell choices to those which conveyed the flavor I was looking for.

The 3.X Bard is no longer a Druidic caster, but an Arcane one. That changes a lot of spell availability and skills.

Somewhat. I'd argue that the D&D druid has morphed away from its roots even more than the Bard has, but that's another conversation.

The 3.X Ranger has a good spell list, but the class comes with things like Favored Enemy and Animal Companions that don't fit the archetype.

I've alot of problems with the Ranger. Again, its another archetype that's taken on a life of its own that has almost nothing to do with its roots (trying to play Aragorn, whose class is probably much better captured by Paladin than any editions 'ranger').

As for cleric's not having access to Abjuration spells, I'm not sure what you are smoking. As for the complaints that you need shield, protection from arrows, explosive runes, dimensional anchor and so forth on your spell list to capture the flavor of a finnish shaman, I'm totally unsympathetic to that. You keep saying this that or the other doesn't fit the archetype, but basically that's just your opinion. As best as I can tell, the 'real' Vainnamoinen was a straight up Shaman, and GR's Shaman would do nicely. But so would a Bard. Or a Cleric. Or a Ranger. Or some combination. The flavor of the abilities is what you make of them.

 

[fuindordm]

Is niche protection that important? If you pare down the classes to a handful, and then give reasonably balanced characters options to select from as they advance, doubling up on abilities will likely be self-defeating anyway. Besides, what stops people from stepping on each other's niche's right now other than not playing the same class? How is avoiding playing the same class any different than taking different character options?

I agree that there is no big difference between these two approaches. D20 Modern works quite well, and I'm sure that the Warrior/Expert/Adept classes from UA work equally well.

The rest is personal preference; I enjoy having a somewhat larger set (between 10 and 20) of base classes, each of which offers some interesting and flavorful abilities in addition to relatively bland feats and talents.

I think that if you want to make the overpowered fighter/caster type combinations of earlier editions, then you are right. if you want to make characters who are good facsimiles of the semi-caster classes that we have had floating around, then I think you are wrong. [\quote]

I don't think the first edition multiclassed casters were drastically overpowered--just a bit overpowered. Remember that fighters and magic-users, at least, lost significant advantages (most notably weapon and school specialization) over their single-classed counterparts. And while the limited spell lists of rangers and paladins are mildly useful, I have never found them to take on an important role in how these characters are played--their spells could really go away entirely without much affecting the player.

What I would like to see for a "semicaster" supporting the fighter/wizard concept is a core class similar to the bard but with a more martial focus and an extensive spell list. Their maximum spell level should be one or two behind that of a single-class caster, probably peaking at 7th level spells, and they should get significantly fewer spells per day. That's still a darn sight better than the 10/10 fighter/wizard peaking at 5th level spells, yet not I think overpowered when compared to the rest of the party.

I cited the mage blade earlier as a good example of this. They have a medium BAB but their weapon of choice automatically grows more magical as they advance in level, and they have some interesting class abilities that let them use their melee attacks on magically defended opponents.

And yes, I'm well aware of the Arcane Knight, Spellsword, Fighter 5/Wizard 15, and other options for doing this within the system. I just personally think that the semicaster archetype should be playable and enjoyable from level 1, and that it feels better to me than a wizard taking time off to train in weapons and armor before getting back to magic, or vice versa. (I also think that it should be playable in armor, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.)

I also want more core classes because I think multiclassing should be the exception, rather than the rule.

Ben

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Did you consider gestalting?

Gestalting is an optional rule that is not allowed.

The spell selection sounds almost exaclty like what you are looking for. Not much flashy magic. A little healing. Buffing magic. Some defensive spells.

Not quite- NO flash, a little healing & buffing, and, except for the Travel & Luck domain spells, nearly everything above 3rd level was a defensive spell.

If you want to be a superlative caster be a druid or something. Don't show up and ask to be really good at everything.

1) He wasn't a superlative caster with the exception of Travel, Luck and protective spells.

2) Druid has a whole host of issues that don't belong, such as shapechanging & animal companion.

So, I was right. You want to play a bard with a little ranger thrown in. All you have to do is make the right skill choices, the right spell selections, and you are where you claim you want to be. So far, all you've done is convince me that the people who argue that there is a big need for new base classes to cover untapped areas simply are (a) being greedy, or (b) haven't looked at the multiclassing system enough to notice that their character design are already easily covered by the existing classes.

1) The core set of spells for this PC- protective spells- are almost entirely absent from the spell-lists of those 2 classes.

2) Excising the stuff from the core classes that is alien to the core concept would not be allowed in any campaign this PC would have been run in.

All of this that you are complaining about was an attempt to give the Bardic character the generality you are complaining is lacking in any single class.

No, I'm pointing out that:

1) Even then, creating a PC based on these archetypes required optional rules which may not be used by all DMs, and

2) The Kalevala PCs didn't even follow the rules as written (see the next lines of that post).

if you think a Paladin needs to be a Holy Knight roaming around in high Medieval armor

Despite the class' obvious inspiration in legendary characters like Lancelot DuLac, Roland and Jean D'Arc, I have no such illusions.

But consider the powers & trappings of the class: anti-undead powers, laying on hands- what about that (in any edition) fits the heroes of the Kalevala? Better they be LG Rangers or Fighters! They chose to make the PCs better vs Undead instead of staying true to the source material.

As for cleric's not having access to Abjuration spells, I'm not sure what you are smoking.

If you look at the 2Ed Abjuration and Cleric vs the 3Ed Abjuration and Cleric spell lists, you'll see that those lists are different.

(I'm not in front of my books at this moment- I'll post some of the changes later. OTOH, I'll see if I can find the original PC so you can get a better feel for what was and what wasn't on his spell list.)

Re: my request for your version of the build-

Play a bard. Or maybe a Ranger. Or maybe take my first level in bard, my second in cleric, and then build up from there to something between a Bard 15/Cleric 5 and a Bard 19/Cleric 1.

Then I'd play it with the flavor of the Kalevala and constrain my own spell choices to those which conveyed the flavor I was looking for.

So, when the party asks you to Turn Undead, you just refuse to?

And on the flip side, you don't have much of that animist talking to the "spirits of the 4 winds" or "the spirit of the road" stuff.

Long & short- its a concept that is ill-suited to 3.X Core RAW. Most of the counter suggestions seem to involve HRs or DM tweeks.

 

[Aus_Snow]

What I would like to see for a "semicaster" supporting the fighter/wizard concept is a core class similar to the bard but with a more martial focus and an extensive spell list. Their maximum spell level should be one or two behind that of a single-class caster, probably peaking at 7th level spells, and they should get significantly fewer spells per day.

Mageblade, in Arcane Evolved, from Malhavoc Press.