Which 3rd ed classes should have been core?

[Visigani]

In the sense that I want all of the core classes in the PHB to be of comparable power level? Yes, I am going for power. Game's called Dungeons & Dragons, not Spellcasters & Sidekicks.

Then address the power imbalance... but the converse is this... what if Wizards were underpowered, what if they were dopey and weak?

Would you remove Wizards from the Players Handbook? How silly would that be?

It's equally silly to remove Paladins, Fighting Men, Rogues and so forth because they are "underpowered". Simply because the game rules don't provide the degree of power you crave doesn't stop any one of those characters from being iconic...

and that's what we SHOULD be looking for here. How "Iconic" is the character role? The Swashbuckler and Scout are arguably far more iconic than the beguiler and hexblade (neither of which have any significant historical/fictional reference).

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

See, I don't think that a "Warblade" is any less iconic than a "Fighter" if you just called him a "Fighter" in the first place, which is essentially what 4e did.

 

[Zireael]

My list is:

Warblade
Crusader
Swordsage
Ranger
Marshal
Knight
Barbarian
Bard
Paladin
Swashbuckler (?)

Druid
Wizard
Sorcerer
Warlock
Warmage
Archivist
Spellthief (?)

Psion
Psychic warrior
Lurk

Anything else that's not a PrC would probably be thrown away. That includes Samurai, Shugenja, Favored Souls etc.

 

[Jimlock]

I would remove:

1) The Monk (Too oriental for my tastes).

2) The Sorcerer (I hate those lazy bast-ards who get spells without studying and without paying their as-ses off).



...and I would bother with balancing out the rest of them 9 classes.


Moreover, I would never bring any of the ToB classes into core. Too complicated to mix with core rules in one book, and IMHO irrelevant in respect to the classic D&D theme.


In two words, we do not need new core classes. What we need is balance.
Hell, I'd even stick to the simple yet classic "Fighter-Wizard-Cleric-Thief" theme if it was well balanced.

 

[steeldragons]

Cleric (Divine caster -Cleric spell list, "deity's domain" powers, any armor and limited weapons)
--Druid ("Natural" caster -Druid spell list, "natural world" powers, soft armor, limited weapons)
--Shaman ("Primal" caster -Shaman spell list spells duplicate Divine and Arcane effects, "spirit world" powers, soft armor, limited weapons)

Fighter (any armor, any weapons, weapon mastery/specialization, combat-based abilities/powers)
--Barbarian ("Primal" flavored marital class, light armor, any weapons, Primal-based abilities/powers +outdoor/tracking/survival skills)
--Paladin (Divine flavored martial class, any armor, any weapons, Divine-based "Paladinic" abilities/powers, no spell-use!)
--Ranger (Nature flavored martial class, any armor, any weapons, bow specialization, Nature-based abilities/powers +outdoor/tracking/survival skills, no spell use!)

Mage (Arcane spell caster -Mage Spell List, no armor, limited weapons)
--Specialist Mage (Arcane caster with increased spell ability in Specialty School, Speciality-based powers, no armor, limited weapons)
--Thaumaturge (Divine-flavored Mage, "dual casting"-access to Divine/Cleric and Arcane/Mage spell effects, ritual casting/specialist, no armor, limited weapons)

Rogue (light armor, any weapon,"Thieves' Abilities"/skills)
--Bard (Nature-flavored Rogue, light armor, any weapon, certain Thieves' Abilities, Bardic Lore, "Nature"-based spell caster -Bardic Spell List combining certain Divine, Druid/Natural and Illusion spell effects)
--Monk (Divine-flavored Rogue, no armor, limited weapons, unarmed combat specialist, certain Thieves' Abilities, Monk abilities/powers)

Well, overshot 11 classes by a titch. But this list (more or less) has served me and my game world setting well for some time now. Just about anything else is all just a matter of mixing and matching access to specific skills, spells or "powers".

An Assassin or Swashbuckler are easily done with expanded Thieves' Ability lists (Poison use, spying, disguise, acrobatics, etc...), but the character's Class is still a "Rogue." Whereas Paladins, Barbarians and Rangers I do think are different enough in flavor and archetype from a "Fighter" to warrant being considered their own Class.

 

[kitcik]

Then address the power imbalance... but the converse is this... what if Wizards were underpowered, what if they were dopey and weak?

Would you remove Wizards from the Players Handbook? How silly would that be?

It's equally silly to remove Paladins, Fighting Men, Rogues and so forth because they are "underpowered". Simply because the game rules don't provide the degree of power you crave doesn't stop any one of those characters from being iconic...

and that's what we SHOULD be looking for here. How "Iconic" is the character role? The Swashbuckler and Scout are arguably far more iconic than the beguiler and hexblade (neither of which have any significant historical/fictional reference).

See, I don't think that a "Warblade" is any less iconic than a "Fighter" if you just called him a "Fighter" in the first place, which is essentially what 4e did.

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.

Fighter is not iconic because it is in the 3.5 PH; Fighter is iconic because Gygax put it into D&D to fill a specific role. 1E Fighter had no bonus feats, no skill points, etc. Whether the "fighter" class in the PH has maneuvers or not does not seem to bear, IMHO, on its "iconicness" - although I do agree that making it Int-based would have an impact (see above).

4E Fighter essentially has maneuvers and yet, with all the complaints about 4E, I haven't seen any called "4E sucks because they dropped the fighter class."

Been there, said that.

 

[Duke Arioch]

Why all the anti-sorcerer attitude? I love the class: something I could never say about wizards. Although the latter are far more powerful, sorcerers have the charisma (pun intended) and appeal the wizards could never match. So they receive a few spells for free (34 not counting cantrips), but wizards have ALL spells known if they dedicate themselves to that, sweet free metamagics, and specializations. Sorcerer, already feat starved, has to spend at least one more feat to be able to apply quickened spell or move the same round they cast metamagicked spell.
Also, for the beginner players who would want to go arcane, sorcerer is far more fun, easy and intuitive than other casters are.

 

[Erekose]

I'd either leave the list as is or at the most merge Wizard and Sorcerer into a single class (Mage?) and add the Warlock as an alternative arcane spellcaster.

 

[nonsi256]

That's a good point. Would need to refluff the class a bit so it is more strength/con based. Could leave all the maneuvers and stances, but replace the (other) class features with fighter bonus feats.

Why would anyone want to replace the Warblade's features with fighter bonus feats ?

 

[Meatboy]

I feel it should have been fighter, mage, thief and cleric. With variant feats or something to give the flavor of the other classes. Because seriously these are pretty much the only core classes everything else is just a spinoff from them.