What classes haven't been done yet?

[Greg K]

1) A non-oriental 3.5 Shaman, no "Spirit" Shaman, just a regular old Shaman.

Green Ronin's "Shaman's Handbook" and Mongoose's Encyclopaedia Divine:Shamans

 

[Nightfall]

Greg,

True but much like the Holy Warrior, it's not been updated to 3.5. I mean it shouldn't be nearly that hard but *shrugs* considering the additional spells and stuff added to core, you know.

Dire,

I'd go for a reworked samurai that's not a dual wielder.


Drogy,

Yeah but it doesn't sneak attack! Or use divine feats to power said sneak attacks!

 

[Nifft]

Magical Girl? (though Warlock + Arcane Familiar comes close)

Drunken Panda Warrior?

Psychic Penguin Demon-Ninja?

That's all I can think of.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Greg K]

Greg,

True but much like the Holy Warrior, it's not been updated to 3.5. I mean it shouldn't be nearly that hard but *shrugs* considering the additional spells and stuff added to core, you know. !

Green Ronin has Steve Kenson's changes to update the book to 3.5 for free on their site. The changes are minimal and only take a page or two.

 

[Sound of Azure]

Magical Girl? (though Warlock + Arcane Familiar comes close)

Drunken Panda Warrior?

Psychic Penguin Demon-Ninja?

That's all I can think of.

Cheers, -- N

You evidently haven't seen BESM d20 then. Lucky devil...

 

[Nightfall]

Greg,

I must have missed that. Still I think if they (Green Ronin) ever get around to doing an Advanced Master Class book, I'd love to see that make the cut, along with Holy Warrior, Unholy Warrior, Witch, and probably Avatar. Not sure about the ones in Advanced Player's manual...

 

[Nyaricus]

I think it is interesting that the gaming community seems to have turned on PrCs. At first they were the coolest thing about 3.x, with only feats giving them any competition. The whole point was that some things were so nuanced, or specialized, or such a hybrid of two existing ideas, that a PrC was the best way to achieve it. And I for one agreed.

I would hardly say that the gaming community has turned on PrCs; personally I am not only a big advocate for the base classes I put forward (and am infact working on various versions of for my games) but I'm also a huge fan of PrCs.

However, allow me to adress the rest of your statement about base classes and PrCs before I get ahead of myself

Now, everyone wants a base class for everything. An archer that ISN'T a fighter? A specialized unarmed combatant ('cause that can't possibly be done with monk and/or fighter)? Ever more specialized casters? Combos of classes that already exist?

The WotC website has a listing of all the PrCs: there are currently 745 (granted, a couple are duplicates). Apparently you guys will not be happy until there are over 700 base classes too.

Every suggestion made here--every one--is possible under the rules as they currently stand. The only difference is that you have to work toward them.

Herein lies the problem: while you can, absolutely, without a doubt make almost any character concept you wish with the rules as stands, Prestigue Classes are frankly abused nowadays with the mindset you put forth as a solution to the proliferation of base classes.

Allow me to explain: PrCs, IMHO, should be special classes which fill a special niche in the game. They should be pretigous (sp?), highly focused and advanced verions of base classes, not simply vessels for a player to make the exact character he wants.

On the other hand, with base classes, there should be enough of them to properly cover any basic character concept out there, and currently there are a few missing (of need work on) as you and we can see, in the opinion of the respondants to this thread (barring yourself, of course).

My point is that there are several concepts which could use an evisioning in D&D that we have not yet seen (or, say, in the case of an Assassin/Cut-throat base class, have not seen for an edition and a half ). And while I do say that with the 70 or so base classes that we are at right now with only WotC products, we are more than well served, there are still a few ones which I, and other feel a need to see published - and likely WotC is listening to us, if on a small scale (my apollogy for throwing names around, but Cam Banks for example is a 3.5e DragonLance writer, who has posted in this very thread).

I wouldn't mind seeing new base classes. Emphasis on NEW. Stuff like we saw in Incarnum, or Tome of Magic, or even the Warlock. New. Different. Stuff I couldn't have asked for because I had never thought of them until my first read through.

Absolutely! There were plenty of great ideas in those books, and WotC really flexed their creative muscles with them and helped stretch the boundaries of 3.xe once again - which was great. This is a good thing, to be sure, and I think that we can expect that trend to continue in future products.

From the responses I have read, you guys just want to see more slight variations on the same tired ideas that are 30 years old. Bleah.

... which are based upon steriotypes and archetypes hundreds if not thousands of years old. You are really streching a thin point using that arguement, in my opinion.

cheers,
--N

P.S. Vyvyan Basterd, I'll take a peak at your class there. I used to be a regular in HR, and I have a pretty firm grasp fo the rules, so I'd be delighted to take a peek

 

[Nightfall]

Ny,

Just curious...and maybe it's just me, but don't you think GR should update and maybe revise Holy Warrior to be more on par with Unholy Warrior?

 

[Nyaricus]

Ny,

Just curious...and maybe it's just me, but don't you think GR should update and maybe revise Holy Warrior to be more on par with Unholy Warrior?

Which product is that in again?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I am also a big fan of variations in the actual base classes, sorta like the 2ed kits. I say if someone wants to be pirate, then by all means... be a pirate-wizard starting at first level. Why make them wait for certain BAB, Feats, etc. or worse yet, take minor dips into other classes just for a certain ability or two - all to qualify for some PRC that should be thematically available to a first level character.

Your wizard CAN be a pirate at 1st level with the right choice of feats, skills and later possible multiclassing. He just can't be a Dread Pirate until he accomplishes certain goals in the form of PrC prereqs.

It seems like some people want their characters to have everything at first level, not having to work towards a more powerful character. You aren't going to be a notorious Dread Pirate at first level, nor can you begin the game as powerful as your favorite anime character. This is why I was NOT a big fan of 2E kits, I think 3E has taken a better step towards the same idea with PrC. I think the name should be changed to Advanced Classes to distinguish the fact that they are no longer thought of by the game designers as prestigous, just as higher-level options. YMMV.