Which 3rd ed classes should have been core?

[Buugipopuu]

See title. Say WotC went insane and decided to reprint the PHB, but with different base classes. If you were to replace the 11 base classes in the SRD with a similarly size list of official base classes, which ones would make for the best game? Ignore any practicality issues that would arise from trying to, say, support Psionics, Manoeuvres, Soulmelds and Vestiges in the same book.

 

[the Jester]

None of the other classes are even close to as iconic as the PH list. I'd leave it as is unless I was building a list for an exotic campaign setting or something.

Actually, I could maybe see swapping out the paladin (in favor of a prestige class version) with a warlord-type (marshal in 3e?).

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

I'd replace Sorcerer with Warlock, Beguiler, Warmage and Dread Necromancer.

Replace Fighter, Monk and Paladin with Warblade, Swordsage and Crusader respectively. This might still require it's own book to contain all the mechanics.

Replace Rogue with Factotum.

I'd keep Bard, Barbarian, Cleric, Druid and Wizard.

I'd do away with the Ranger.

I'd add Marshal.

I like Psionics, but they would still need a seperate book.

That's my 2 copper.

EDIT: Healer, Duskblade, Archivist, Dragon Shaman, Dragonfire Adept, Incarnate, Totemist, Binder, Scout, Swashbuckler, Shugenja, Wu Jen and the NPC classes would all exist as options in other source books.

Favored souls, Hexblades, Knights, Ninjas, Samurai, Shamans, Spirit Shamans, Spelltheives, True Namers and Shadow Casters would all go away.

Not sure where I stand on the Sohei.

Did I miss anything?

 

[kitcik]

I would basically ditch crappy melee classes like Fighter, Paladin and Monk for Warblade, Crusader and Unarmed Swordsage, respectively. I would also ditch Ranger, as it should be a druid / melee class PrC which advances BAB and druid abilities.

Wizard
Sorcerer
Bard

Cleric
Druid

Warblade
Barbarian
Crusader

Rogue
Unarmed Swordsage

EDIT: @RUMBLETiGER and I are pretty close on this list, and I would have to agree with replacing rogue with factotum except that you lose sneak attack, which is iconic.

 

[Jacob Marley]

I think [MENTION=1210]the Jester[/MENTION] got it right. The current core 11 are pretty gosh darn iconic and would probably result in some angry players if any were not included. That said, I really hate monks and would prefer ANYTHING to them.

 

[the Jester]

IF the game is going to have a base assassin class (and if it's going to have that many classes it probably should), it should also be in the PH. I don't see what you'd swap for it though- maybe monk, but that's a toss-up to me (I think as many players dislike assassins as dislike monk, but that's just my guess).

 

[kitcik]

I think @the Jester got it right. The current core 11 are pretty gosh darn iconic and would probably result in some angry players if any were not included. That said, I really hate monks and would prefer ANYTHING to them.

I don't think anyone can argue that each of those classes have changed dramatically from their first inclusion in D&D to 3.5E.

So, while the names and general functions of the classes may be iconic, their class features per 3.5 are not.

So, just make a class called "Fighter" which has the Warblade abilities, a class called "Monk" with the Unarmed Swordsage abilities, "Paladin" with the Crusader abilities, etc.

 

[Buugipopuu]

I don't think Warblade can totally sub for Fighter. They're similar, but Warblades go off Int, and it shouldn't really be the cast that the 'standard' beatstick class should need high Int to use all of its class features. All the Int-based stuff on Warblade would need to be moved into an Alternate Class Feature and something more generic put in its place.

 

[Jacob Marley]

I don't think anyone can argue that each of those classes have changed dramatically from their first inclusion in D&D to 3.5E.

So, while the names and general functions of the classes may be iconic, their class features per 3.5 are not.

So, just make a class called "Fighter" which has the Warblade abilities, a class called "Monk" with the Unarmed Swordsage abilities, "Paladin" with the Crusader abilities, etc.

Sure, assuming those classes never existed in the first place, then you could get away with making the mechanics of the "fighter" actually be the mechanics of the warblade.

The problem is, the fighter already exists. And the OP's question was about a reprint of the PHB 1. Given the OP's hypothetical situation, I don't think you could make those sort of changes to the PHB without angering a significant portion of the fan base. (See [MENTION=6674931]Jimlock[/MENTION]'s poll from last May as an example.)

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

EDIT: @RUMBLETiGER and I are pretty close on this list, and I would have to agree with replacing rogue with factotum except that you lose sneak attack, which is iconic.

The Factotum entry reads, in part,
"Cunning Strike (Ex)...starting at 4th level, you spend 1 inspiration point to gain 1d6 points fo sneak attack damage..."
Yup, got it.
Anything Rogue can do, Factotum can do better (up to 3d6 at level 4). Just, well, maybe not as often (Which therefore might not be better).
But should qualify for any PrC's with Sneak Attack as a requirement.