What classes haven't been done yet?

[Greg K]

Wow, OA was released fairly soon after 3.0e was released, so I find that crazy it took you 5ish years to find a new class that you found worthy. Any "big offenders"? Just curious, is all

Have you looked over many of the base classes put out by WotC between than and now? Which ones are you familiar with?

If that sounds confrontational, or defensive, it's not. Just thought I'd add that, due to the 'tone' in a fair whack of threads right here and now.

Right. *phew*

Mini handbook:
-Marshall: I really dislike the whole Aura thing
-Favored Soul: I like that it is a spontaneous caster. I dislike that it is built to become an angelic like being (wings, energy resistance, damage resistance).
-Healer: I like the idea of divine casters with more specialised spell lists. However, building in the Unicorn Companion as a class feature is lame.

Complete Adventurer
- Ninja: the least said the better.
-Scout: I wanted to like this class, but skirmish is not what I picture for a scout. I'll just use the wilderness rogue, or maybe the sneak attack scout variant from Class Acts.
-Spellthief; Steal Spell by sneak attack. IMO, lame.


Complete Arcane:
-Warlock: Wow, build the flavor of that doesn't run out of slots around the flavor of a demonic heritage. If I want to do away with slots, I'll use spell points. If I want spell casters that will blast away all day, I'll play M&M or some other superhero game.

-War Mage: I like the idea of classes for specialized arcane casters. I just don't care for making them spontaneous casters or building in armor use into the class features (that is what feats are for)

-Wu Jen: I would prefer an elementalist class build around the four elements not the five elements from Taoism (unless I am running an Asian Themed Campaign)

Complete Divine:
-favored soul: see above.

-Spirit Shaman: The Shaman is a needed archetype, imo. This class, imo, just fall completely short when compared to GR's Shaman class which is more flexible (as a base class should be- again my opinion).

-Shugenja: honestly, I don't recall why I did not like this class. I would have rather had the OA Shaman reprinted and a little flavor change.

Complete Warrior:
-Hexblade: First, the same complaint that I have with the Paladin and Ranger- having to wait several levels before gaining spells. Second, for a base class, I want a more flexible arcane/warrior hybrid along the lines of the Battle Sorcerer (UA) or Myrmidon (AEG's Mercenaries). Third, just the general features, bab, hd, just didn't seem appropriate for a class that spends time training on magic and martial prowess- I think that the Battle Mage and Myrmidon got it right.

-Samurai: They already had the OA Samurai, yet they gave us this piece of garbage.

-Swashbuckler: A needed archetype. However, without looking at the class again, I couldn't tell you what I disliked about it. I will, however, allow it to be used in my campaign until I find a better take.

PHB2:
-Beguiler: other than the designers building in some minor class abilities that I think should have been done with feat selection, I like it.

-Duskblade: I like that the class starts with the ability to cast spells. However, as with the hexblade, I want more flexability in a arcane caster/warrior hybrid-channeling through a weapon should, imo, be a feat and a class that focuses on the channel ability as its main focus should be a PrC. Then, it shares my complaint with the hexblade regarding BAB and HD.

-Dragon Shaman: First, why do we need this class? Second, its another dragon race or class with a breath weapon. Whoopee.

-Knight: Another needed archetype. However, I want more customability. The abilities are too over focused on one take of a knight and many of the class abilities could have been feats that fit mutiple warrior archetypes or already are feats (i.e. the ability that duplicates goad) so why not just give the knight a bonus feat instead and put the feat on the list.

Heroes of Horror:
-Archivist: I like the idea of a scholar class. I just don't like the class abilities or that the the class is a divine caster uses a spell book. Might have been cool using incantations.

-Dread Necromancer: Necromancer specialist class is cool. One that focuses on becoming a lich should, imo, be a PrC.

Expanded Psionics Handbook: Psion, Psychic Warrior. Ok, my dislike comes down to the lists of powers and the mechanics. I like spell points for sorcery, but for handling powers of the mind, I prefer skill and feat mechanics like Star Wars or Green Ronin's Psychic's Handbook and like the Psychic's Handbook's more traditional focus on mental powers.

Tome of Battle: Ok. I just dislike the whole maneuver system and the list of maneuvers. Naturally, this dislike carries over to the classes.

Magic of Incarum: I hated the fluff so much that it ruined the classes for me. Reworked fluff and I might the idea of handling ki powers, but not much else.

Tome of Magic: Binder, Shadow Mage, True Namer: Really, without looking at the book , I can't tell you why I didn't like any of the classes I just remember reading the book in the store and something about each just didn't grab me which is a shame, because I thought the concepts were interesting.

 

[Tetsubo]

To my mind: A true Archer, a Martial Artist and a Shapeshifter class (one that starts at 1st level and has many, many forms as it progresses...).

 

[Andor]

I see a lot of calls for an archer class. I'm curious, how would an archer base class differ from a fighter, scout, ranger, psiwarrior or some PrC or Multiclassed build achievable with the current rules?

I'm honestly at a loss to think of what class features you think a dedicated archer would have that these classes lack.


That having been said, I'll add to the call for a shapeshifting class that isn't a druid. A Totemist comes close, but isn't quite there.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Greg K, I see now what you mean! Well, that was indeed comprehensive.

-Wu Jen: I would prefer an elementalist class build around the four elements not the five elements from Taoism (unless I am running an Asian Themed Campaign)

Hm, well here. . .

-Shugenja: honestly, I don't recall why I did not like this class. I would have rather had the OA Shaman reprinted and a little flavor change.

. . . is one. It's basically an Elementalist (of Air, Fire, Earth and Water). It is a 'divine' caster, but to me that is acceptable in terms of flavour. YMMV.

Tome of Magic: Binder, Shadow Mage, True Namer: Really, without looking at the book , I can't tell you why I didn't like any of the classes I just remember reading the book in the store and something about each just didn't grab me which is a shame, because I thought the concepts were interesting.

IMO, these are some of the better base classes to have been published by WotC in recent times. But I am not about to argue the point (it's down to preference) or try to sell you the thing.


Other than the minor points above, I am complete agreement with your assessments. For what it's worth. Though, to be fair to the writers of Magic of Incarnum, I haven't given that a thorough reading yet.

It's a shame that so many essentially good concepts have gone to waste. Hence, my saying previously that publishers should "bring them on", so long as they are done well.

 

[molonel]

Of course, it's hard to be a good pirate when a skill like Profession isnt on your class list. I'm looking at you Fighter.

Yeah, it's an easy fix, but you're still technically looking at an alternate class feature.

As a DM, if I had a player come to me with a character concept of a pirate who was a Fighter, I would slap Profession on his skill list so fast his or her head would spin.

 

[Torm]

What I'd really like to see is a few base classes that require some sort of extreme luck or very special (and EARNED) allowance from the DM in order to play at all. For two examples:

The Paladin - the DM I first played a Paladin under made players roll percentile dice at his first character creation. You either rolled a 99 or a 100, or you could NEVER play a Paladin. EVER. And if you ever "fell" as a Paladin, that was it, as well. Admittedly, this might sound a little nuts to some people, but for those of us (and by us, I mean ME ) fortunate enough to actually get to play one, it was something SPECIAL.

The Princess - the princess who goes against her parents wishes and/or has something happen to her parents that leaves her with no choice and thus goes adventuring is a staple of fantasy. Some might argue that this character could be played using existing classes, and that is true, but a Princess is going to start with sufficient benefits without a separate class to be balanced all on her own - wealth and special powers that come from her beauty, purity, and nobility. (Examples - healing tears or kisses, charismatic command and diplomacy, rare righteous attacks that always count as surprise because no one expects that from a Princess.) Since princesses are not commoners, they should be uncommon - and also require either a special roll or, possibly, an extremely well-written backstory that the DM judges to be USEFUL to him, in order for a player to play one.

Also, someone mentioned "a real witch". For my two cents as a REAL WORLD witch, I find that, within the framework of the existing 3.5 mechanics, I'm fairly pleased with the one given as an example for making a new class in the DMG. Admittedly, a better job COULD be done, but not MUCH better without coming up with an entirely new magic system that would frankly probably be too complex for many players and DMs, AND not without giving some actual justification to people who suggest that playing D&D can lead to involvement with the occult.

 

[karmatech]

A non-spellcasting, adventuring scholar (i.e. Daniel Jackson of Stargate).

Check out the "Adventuring Scholar" prestige class from Privateer Press (I think you can download it, otherwise it's in the back of their Monsternomicon)

One of my favourite classes, and highly compatible with Eberron as well!

 

[Stalker0]

I don't get all the hankering for archers...what do you need in an archer class that you can't get from a combination of fighter/rogue/ranger/or scout?

 

[Nifft]

what do you need in an archer class that you can't get from a combination of fighter/rogue/ranger/or scout?

Legolas.

-- N

 

[interwyrm]

I'd like to see specialist arcane classes for the remaining schools of magic.

Other than that, I'd like to see classes with a cultural predisposition stripped of that. Wu Jen, Spirit Shaman, Shugenja, Monk, Ninja, Samurai, some of the disciplines in Bo9S.

Also, I'd like to see there NEVER be alignment restrictions or roleplaying restrictions on class abilities. Mechanical restrictions like the ones the Knight class faces are fine. The paladin is not.

There should be crunch, and there should be fluff. The player should be the one to make the fluff.

Any kind of 'weird ability' like dragon breath, wings, scales, whatever should be a feat or prestige class ability.


My only other thing is that skills right now are a problem. The best way to get them also involves getting sneak attack... which is kind of... incongruous. I'd like to see sneak attack as part of an assassin class rather than as part of a thief class.

Basically, I don't see a need for a lot of new classes, but I want some to be revised, and others that are redundant to just be eliminated.