What Archetypes Deserve Classes in a Fantasy Game?

[Remathilis]

This is a hypothetical d20 fantasy game. Like AU, it uses new classes, but which archetypes need filling and which can be left out?

Vote and state your opinions.

 

[Azlan]

I think you only need four core classes, and everything else should be offshoots on those four.

Fighter
Rogue
Cleric
Wizard

A character could stick with one of these four core classes throughout his entire career. However, most characters would "dual-class". When dual-classing, one of those classes would be the character's primary class, and the other, his secondary class. When listing the two classes, the primary would be listed first, followed by the secondary. Examples of dual-class level progression would be...

1st: 1/0, 2nd: 1/1, 3rd: 2/1, 4th: 2/2, 5th: 3/2, 6th: 4/2, 7th: 4/3, 8th: 5/3, 9th: 6/3, etc.

A few characters would "multi-class", having as many as three classes. When listing the three classes, the primary would be listed first, followed by the secondary, and then by the tertiary. Examples of multi-class level progression would be...

1st: 1/0/0, 2nd: 1/1/0, 3rd: 1/1/1, 4th: 2/1/1, 5th: 2/2/1, 6th: 3/2/1, 7th: 4/2/1, 8th: 4/2/2, 9th: 4/3/2, etc.

Examples of dual-classed or multi-classed characters...

Paladin (Fighter/Cleric)
Ranger (Rogue/Cleric or Rogue/Cleric/Fighter)
Swashbuckler (Fighter/Rogue)
Archer (Fighter/Rogue)
Scout (Rogue/Fighter)
Assassin (Rogue/Fighter)
Bard (Wizard/Rogue or Rogue/Wizard)
Necromancer (Cleric/Wizard)
Monk (Fighter/Rogue)

Whatever combinations of feats a character takes would further define that character. So, while an archer, a monk, and a swashbuckler would all be fighter/rogues, the archer would have feats that augment his ability with bows and with maneuvers while wearing medium armor; the monk would have feats that augment his abilities with unarmed attacks and with fighting without wearing any armor; and the swashbuckler would have feats that augment his ability with dueling swords and with maneuvers while wearing light armor.

And finally, whatever combinations of skills (and spells, if applicable) a character takes would even further define that character.

 

[Gellion]

A Tinker, that does not use magic.

 

[Jack Daniel]

In my campaign, I have sixteen classes: bard, berserker, cleric, fighter, monk, ninja, noble, paladin, psion, psychic warrior, ranger, rogue, sorcerer, technologist, witch, and wizard.

 

[Gellion]

In my campaign, I have sixteen classes: bard, berserker, cleric, fighter, monk, ninja, noble, paladin, psion, psychic warrior, ranger, rogue, sorcerer, technologist, witch, and wizard.

Could you perhaps post the Technologist?

Please?

 

[d4]

all IMO of course.

The knight/tank, swashbuckler, and archer archetypes can all be handled fine by one fighter class that has a lot of versatility in terms of combat abilities. like, for example, the 3e/3.5e Fighter.

the ranger/wilderness warrior is suitably different enough to deserve its own class.

the barbarian/primal warrior could be done as a ranger/fighter multi-class. berserker should be a prestige class.

rogue/scout is a good archetype. skillaholic should perhaps be a separate archetype, since the two concepts may not always be related.

bard/entertainer should be a prestige class if it's even really needed.

arcane spellcaster needs to be a class. the distinction between the "academic" mage and the "innate" mage doesn't necessarily need to be made, though. these could easily fall under the same class if it allowed a little versatility.

healer and holy person/priest are both good archetypes. they don't necessarily need to go together, though (much like the scout and the skill guy).

holy knight? multi-class fighter/cleric or prestige class.
nature priest? multi-class cleric/ranger or prestige class.
assassin? see rogue/scout.

monk? not much call for it in standard pseudo-European fantasy. in a more Asian setting, this would be a good archetype.

aristocrat? don't really need a separate class, IMO. a couple of feats and the right skills can cover this.

necromancer? wizard or cleric.
psionic? wizard.
summoner? wizard.
pirate? fighter, ranger, or rogue with the right skills (Swim, for starters).

 

[Zerakon]

This is a hypothetical d20 fantasy game. Like AU, it uses new classes, but which archetypes need filling and which can be left out?

Vote and state your opinions.

Like most polls I see here on enworld, I'm not voting for this one, because there's too little information presented to make sense of. If I were to vote and give answers, it would totally depend on the sub-genre, style, flavor, etc. of the hypothetical game.

For instance, if you are making a game on the high seas where faraway kingdoms are trying to colonize a strange magical world and gave me a 500-word synopsis, I might have enough information to pick, say, Pirate and Druid and Ranger and Monk.

Lacking more details, I'll have to pass. But I felt compelled to reply so as to encourage people to give more detail when creating polls. I really like the concept of polls, just not vague ones.

-- Zerakon the Game Mage

 

[Ferret]

My other is the Holy man/priest/cleric. I also forgot to go with the Tank one. Silly me.

 

[takyris]

Here's the thing -- I don't think that many of those require classes, but possibly it's because I'm coming at it from a different perspective. Not to thump my chest about d20Modern any more, but I think that those are archetypes that work better. They're archetypes of the Game Engine. From THAT, you can create people who fit into any ROLEPLAYING archetype.

I'd rather be able to have:

A guy who's a smash-em-up front-line warrior (Strong/Tough)
An archer or swashbuckler (Strong/Fast)
A dedicated knight-protector and watchful bodyguard (Strong/Tough)
A master tactician and trickery expert (Strong/Smart)
A general who fights and intimidates or inspires others (Strong/Charismatic)

Maybe I'm just headed toward that place where I'd rather just use the rules for the rules stuff and pick my own roleplaying decisions. I don't mean that as a dig. Time was I loved rangers and paladins, even though I knew that they could have been effectively made with fighter/rogue/druids and fighter/clerics.

So in a new system, I'd rather have few classes but have them be very flexible -- each one should occupy one rules-specific niche. Best general attacker, best at defense, best skill user, best at magic (maybe with a split for divine or arcane). You can split "skill user" a few ways, too -- Dex-based skills, Int-based skills, Wis-based skills, Cha-based skills.

I dunno. Probably too different from what you're asking.

 

[Corinth]

This is a hypothetical d20 fantasy game. Like AU, it uses new classes, but which archetypes need filling and which can be left out?

Vote and state your opinions.

If I were to do such a thing, I'd cut down on the number of classes and instead import the concept of Talents (and their Feat-like trees) from d20 Modern to handle what would otherwise require a great many classes to handle. The few basic classes would be very broad, relying upon Talent & Feat selection to provide character distinction; the prestige classes would very specialized and equally specific to specific groups. (i.e. all Assassins would be tied to a specific Assassin sect, etc.)