What Archetypes Deserve Classes in a Fantasy Game?

[ES2]

With the six basic classes of d20 Modern its entirely feasable to have just those classes alone, have a bunch of talent trees to represent things like psionic powers, magic powers, martial maneuvers, rogue abilities, inner powers (monkish and rage type stuff), things like that...and not all of them have to be class specific.

Just have the talent trees and feats seperate...so perhaps a martial arts talent tree could be picked up by any of the Strong, Fast and Touch base classes, psionic powers by Charismatic, Dedicated, and Intellectual one (can't remember that name), and so on...having a bunch of advanced and prestige classes just adds to the metagaming and, therefore, ruins the feel of the game for me.

If they did this it would be the best class type system invented, the most versatile, allows for free building of characters over time (no more thinking, I gotta have these three feats, have my bab up to this much, and i have to have a skill or two equal to a certain rank). You could have some talent trees only available of people pick earlier talents (like they already do in d20 Modern), or have a limitation like...a person can only gain access to a magic talent tree if they already have the initial Feat in the d20 Modern game, otherwise they can't gain access to that tree.

 

[S'mon]

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.

I'd say you need 3 classes in a class-based system:

1. A Warrior class (for fighters, barbarians, rangers, fighting monks et al)
2. A Sorceror class (for wizards, spellcasting priests, et al)
3. A non-spellcasting jack of all trades class (for thieves, rogues, merchants, dancing girls, et al)

I think there are far too many classes in D&D. YMMV.

 

[Thanee]

Among others I voted for the first three and other - Those should be combined into a single class (generalist fighter, which can choose any of those paths), and not divided into several this way.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Merlion]

Hmmm...I find it interesting that so many people favor the idea of as few classes as possible. That idea can work, and has lots of merits, but the idea of certain various archtypes having there own classes is a good one as well..and probably the one I'd favor given a choice.
I dont think DnD has to many classes. I think for trying to reflect basic primarily western fantasy, with a dash of other cultures thrown in, it covers the bases. Bard and druid as prestige classes, or not existant at all? Not if your going for western europe...bards and druids were very important there. I'm not of the mind that Bards and Paladins and Rangers and Druids should all be prestige classes. Now Barbarian should probably be like a template or something since that word is very relative...but a "berserker" type class is fine. And the PHB Paladin which must be Sir Galahad or lose his powers could be a prestige class...but the overall concept of a holy knight is not in my mind.
Anyway, aside from what classes a given game should have, I'm looking at what archtypes are suffciently unique and important to deserve there own classes in any given game where that archtype fits. Many of the warrior types (archer swashbuckler tank etc) can be achieved, and even achived well with 1 versatile fighter class, as it is in DnD. However I think some of them can support classes of there own (like the Unfettered and Warmain in Arcana Unearthed).
The Archtype of the Bard is complicated, it has a lot of facets. Music and those who create it are important in all cultures as are historian/lorekeeper types. And often, the two were meshed as was the case with the historical Bard. So I think thats an archtype plenty strong enough to have its own class in an apropriate setting.
Same for the Druid/Shaman/nature priest/animist. Now this one isnt going to fit into all types of settings, and it will depend on which one and your cosmology. But a lot of fantasy and history contains something like this.
The thief/skill user/diplomat is definitly viable and works in almost everything. Like the different warriory types one class can often be any of thease, although there are some times going to be abilities that dont fit into a given concept very well(like sneak attack for a diplomat).
Wizard/sorcerer/witch etc is one with just limitless possbilities. Every fantasy RPG is going to have at least one class like this. Now one class CAN fill the various roles of necromancer, summoner, etc but there are plenty of types and ideas that could be worthy of there own class. AU has the Magister, Witch, and Runethane. I could see Summoner and Necromancer as classes in certain types of games. Also I think the Archtype of the warrior-mage can be deserving of a class such as the AU Mageblade. The issue of trained versus innate magic is very much an issue of setting and how magic works therein.
The ranger/scout/huntsmen is I think a strong enough archtype to deserve its own class and one that many peoples vision of just isnt going to be achieved with a fighter/rogue or rogue/cleric multiclass.
Last the Cleric/Priest/Holy Person. As many of you know, I dont like the DnD Cleric. And, I feel the archtype of the priest is a complicated one. However I feel it is deserving of its own class in many games/settings. Its exact nature and relationship to other classes(especialy others that use magic) is going to depend a lot on the setting and how magic and religion work in it. But I dont think a priest with tons of spells should have good combat abilities as well. Healing magic in most fantasy is avaible to all wielders of magic, not just those whose magic is drawn from religion. So you could have a priest, a white mage, a healing mage...its one of the most varied archtypes, but it is classworthy.
I apologize for the length but this is a subject of great interest to me

 

[Thanee]

I actually prefer no classes at all, but if you have classes then few but very broad and general classes with lots of customization options are best.

Bye
Thanee

 

[AFGNCAAP]

I'd say something along the lines of S'Mon--3 basic, core classes:

* A Feat-intensive class (ala Fighters)
* A Skill-intensive class (ala Rogues)
* A Magic-intensive class (ala Wizards/Clerics/Psions)

To use an old AD&D term, many of the "subclasses," like Paladins, Rangers, Bards, etc., could be handled through multi-classes or prestige classes.

And, the 3 classes mentioned above could be customizable. For example, the Feat-intensive class could spend feats on obtaining all armor proficiencies, shield proficiencies, and simple & martial weapons proficiencies (with an exotic thrown in, if desired). However, a layer may choose to forego the Medium & Heavy armor proficiency feats & take tuff more oriented for a light & quick combatant--Weapon Finesse, Expertise, Dodge, Two-Weapon Fighting (maybe even Improved Unarmed Strike), etc.

Likewise, the Magic-instensive class could feasibly gain other abilities by limiting/focusing spellcasting ability--increased Hit Die, better weapon & armor selection, reduced spellcasting requirements (e.g., praying & having a holy symbol only, meditating ala psionics, or spontaneous spellcasting, instead of needing a spellbook & having components).

The Skill-intensive class could gain abilities by decreasing the base amount of skill points--say reduce from 10 to 8 in order to become a standard "rogue," reduce from 10 to 6 to become a "bard" or ranger-like "scout," etc.

Or, possibly expanding on that, go with a d20 Modern approach to basic/starting classes (expect they could advance all the way to 20th level & beyond, if desired). One core class per ability score:

* Fighters (Strength); d10 HD
* Rogues (Dexterity); d6 HD
* Barbarians (Constitution); d12 HD
* Wizards (Intelligence); d4 HD
* Priests (Wisdom); d8 HD
* Bards or Nobles (Charisma); d8 HD

OR

* Fighters (Strength); d10 HD
* Rogues (Dexterity); d6 HD
* Barbarians (Constitution); d12 HD
* Wizards (Intelligence); d4 HD
* Monks (Wisdom); d8 HD
* Priests (Charisma); d8 HD

The other classes can be PrCs.

Just MHO.

 

[Hackenslash]

Good Poll...

I voted for all the classes apart from the Bard, which I have always felt to be a waste of time for an RPG Class with very limited effectiveness even from way back in 1st edition. And I also did not vote for the Noble due to the fact that any of the other classes could have a Noble Background, so that's more of a roleplaying aspect rather than a class designation. I also voted Other, as I would like to see a Tinker/Technologist type class that is not Modern based but still invents stuff to overcome his adverseries or obsticles in a typical fantasy setting(like the gnomes in Dragonlance) and I would like to see the Musketeer/Gun Powder Specialist with bombs,blunderbusses, flint lock pistols and muskets etc.....Cheers All.

 

[Remathilis]

Hmm... Interesting so far...

This poll came from a comment a friend of mine said, which was "Why isn't there a swashbucker class? Fighter is too knightly for my taste, and I don't want to suffer deluting my BA with rogue." This comment, paired with some rescent dragon UPDATE issues, led me to wonder if the "staple" archetypes really were being filled with D&D, and which COULD stand as thier own class (ranger, barbarian, paladin) and which could be simply folded into another class (necromancer, pirate)

I knew there would be archetypes I forgot such as a tinker/artificier/mechanist or deviding some of the groups in half (druid and shaman? paladin and blackguard?)

The numbers and discussion so far show a definite lean toward less is more, and customized generic classes over flavored specific ones.

Thanks, keep up the discussion.

 

[Merlion]

To use an old AD&D term, many of the "subclasses," like Paladins, Rangers, Bards, etc., could be handled through multi-classes or prestige classes.

See myself, I just dont understand first off all why you would *want* to handle those classes through multiclassing and/or prestige classes. Nextly, I dont think many of them can really be accurately depicted...and more importantly depicted to many people satisfaction, through those means. And lastly, I feel those archtypes are common, important, and strong enough to warrant there own classes.
Looking at DnD specficaly, and me as an example..I love the Bard. But lets say there was no Bard class but I still wanted to do the concept. In standard DnD the closest thing as far as multiclassing would be a Sorcerer/Rogue. That would get me skills, and spells, and a little combat ability. But it wouldnt get me the ability to create effects through music, and nothing like Bardic Knowledge. And I'd end up with things like Sneak Attack and Evasion which dont fit into my bard concept at all. Same with sorcerer spells although thats easier to get around since I get to pick my spells. It wouldnt be a bad substitute, but I dont really understand why there needs to be a substitute...why not just have the class?
A lot of people seem to have a general feeling that a number of archtypes( Bard, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Druid and others) are easily attainble through multiclassing, and seem not to think they are strong, improtant, or unique enough to warrant there own classes. Many just want to see them gone entirely. And if your discussing roleplaying in a braod sense then yes, many of them dont fit (or certainly the DnD versions of them) dont fit into many things. But if we're talking about DND itself, then to me all of those are viable and even neccesary, and I dont feel they can really be attained by multiclassing the existing classes.

 

[Tonguez]

I actually prefer no classes at all, but if you have classes then few but very broad and general classes with lots of customization options are best.

Bye
Thanee

Basic Class

HD 4
Skills 6+int
Feats 10 (used to build character with a Feat & Talents system)

BAb, Defense and Saves are Skills
Skills divided into General (cost 1pt), Expert (2pt) and Combat (3pt)
Class Abilities become Feat Talent Trees

Toughness gives HP +2 (stacks)

Barbarian
1 Toughness +2 (hd 4+2)
2 Toughness +2 (hd 4+4)
3 Toughness +2 (hd 4+6)
4 Basic Rage
5 Speed +10
6 Simple Weapons
7 Martial Weapons
8 Medium Armour
9 Heavy Armour
10 Sheilds

Bard
1 Toughness +2 (HD 4+2)
2 Bardic Music
3 Bardic Music -Countersong (Talent)
4 Bardic Music -Fascinate (Talent)
5 Bardic Music - Inspire Courage +1 (Talent)
6 Bardic Knowledge
7 Arcane Magic
8 Simple Weapons
9 Light Armour
10 Shields


Swashbuckler
1 Toughness +2
2 Toughness +2
3 Sneak attack
4 Speed +10
5 Defense Bonus (Cha)
6 Skill Training (+d4)
7 Simple Weapons
8 Martial Weapons
9 Light Armour
10 Weapon Focus