Which 3rd ed classes should have been core?

[kitcik]

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.

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 ?

To make it more of an "iconic" fighter class. A number of the Warblade's non-maneuver/stance class features (i.e. Battle Clarity, Battle Ardor, Battle Cunning, Battle Skill, and Battle Mastery) are intelligence-based. If you simply replaced these with fighter (or warblade) bonus feats, the class would be much less Int-based.

 

[nonsi256]

To make it more of an "iconic" fighter class. A number of the Warblade's non-maneuver/stance class features (i.e. Battle Clarity, Battle Ardor, Battle Cunning, Battle Skill, and Battle Mastery) are intelligence-based. If you simply replaced these with fighter (or warblade) bonus feats, the class would be much less Int-based.

So just make them Dex based and you're done.
If you don't want the MAD, start with +1 at 1st level and increase at levels 4, 7 10 and so on (+7 at level 19).

 

[kitcik]

To make it more of an "iconic" fighter class. A number of the Warblade's non-maneuver/stance class features (i.e. Battle Clarity, Battle Ardor, Battle Cunning, Battle Skill, and Battle Mastery) are intelligence-based. If you simply replaced these with fighter (or warblade) bonus feats, the class would be much less Int-based.

So just make them Dex based and you're done.
If you don't want the MAD, start with +1 at 1st level and increase at levels 4, 7 10 and so on (+7 at level 19).

The iconic fighter class was Str/Con, not Dex... It's not a matter of MAD, it's a matter of holding to certain sacred truths. Or something.

 

[nonsi256]

The iconic fighter class was Str/Con, not Dex... It's not a matter of MAD, it's a matter of holding to certain sacred truths. Or something.

The iconic Fighter got Fighter Options at name level.
We're way passed that.
I don't know about 'sacred', but the truth is that the core 3e Fighter sucks.
If we're to preserve the Fighter as a class, core won't do (and again - it could be level-based - those bonuses are reasonable and level-based means no abuse).

 

[kitcik]

The iconic Fighter got Fighter Options at name level.
We're way passed that.
I don't know about 'sacred', but the truth is that the core 3e Fighter sucks.
If we're to preserve the Fighter as a class, core won't do (and again - it could be level-based - those bonuses are reasonable and level-based means no abuse).

Not sure why exactly you think we're "way passed" the Str/Con fighter tradition, but you hold so dearly to the warblade Int-based class features from a few years ago. Heck, the warblade isn't even based around those abilities - it is based around the maneuvers and stances.

Why not give the fighter the best of the warblade class, and do something else with the Int-based class features - like changing them to fighter bonus feats, which would allow customizaion in the 3E tradition. This would be better than fighter or warblade.

 

[WarlockLord]

Duskblade
Cleric
Druid
Barbarian
Warblade (renamed "Fighter")
Rogue
Wizard
Ranger
Paladin
Bard
Ninja

I'd also try to get in an assassin base class of some sort. I feel that there's enough demand for a warrior/wizard, necromancer, and assassin.

 

[nonsi256]

Not sure why exactly you think we're "way passed" the Str/Con fighter tradition, but you hold so dearly to the warblade Int-based class features from a few years ago. Heck, the warblade isn't even based around those abilities - it is based around the maneuvers and stances.

Why not give the fighter the best of the warblade class, and do something else with the Int-based class features - like changing them to fighter bonus feats, which would allow customizaion in the 3E tradition. This would be better than fighter or warblade.

I didn't say we're way passed the Str/Con fighter tradition.
I said that as far as D&D goes, for me at least, real D&D started with the boxed sets - and a lot of insights have been accumulated since then.
Yes, the Warblade is so wrapped around the maneuvers system that people tend to disregard the huge bonuses granted by its built in features (I mean, with magical aids you can pump up stats like crazy and the modifier would go to Ref saves, damage, Crit, opposed rolls and AoOs - no way in hell you can top that with 5 feats... and you also gat all those extra skill points).
In my next and absolutely last version of house-rules codex, I'll present my maneuver-less Fighter remake that makes a significant use of this insight. It will be stronger, more versatile and more customizable than ever before.

 

[Buugipopuu]

The Warblade's 'Int to nearly everything' class feature is good, I don't think anyone wants to argue otherwise. The point is that it should not be a feature of the primary fighting man class. Not everyone good as swinging a sword is intelligent, but if Warblade were the main melee class with no modifications, it'd be sending the message that you need to be intelligent to be a melee fighter.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

...Ninja...

could you make a case for the Ninja? I've never found there to be much merit to the class.

 

[Xakk]

If you rename the Warblade the fighter you are pretty much just trading 3rd for fourth, since that's what 4th did for all the classes.
Fighters are iconic because they are the master of the feat, which means they're pretty much a blank class for you to customize for any combat style you choose. The Wizard does this with Spell Selection.
Clerics are a pretty specific class, but it's one you see in pretty much any Rpg out there in some form. Rogue as well to a lesser extent, if your Rpg has any kind of atmosphere they'll be there.
Those are the big four, so WOTC had a duty to do right by them.

Bard's really just a different flavoring for rogue, or a hybrid between the utility of a rogue and that of a wizard.
Sorcerer is exactly what it appears, an alternative to Wizard for arcane spells.
Paladin and Barbarian are pretty much prestige classes in base class form.
Druids and rangers are, as many have argued, different flavors of the same class.

These were added in because they were popular, asked for, and patched up holes in character options. Plus they let players jump more quickly into roles they commonly wanted to play without contriviance.

Monk's pretty solidly original though. Probably why they mesh so well with psionic settings, moreso even than without. Warlocks are a lot like monks, except on the opposite side of the coin. I would have included something like the Warlock in the base classes, except with a little more balance to make the Warlock less rampagingly strong. And this is coming from someone who adores cheese.

Beside that I'd probably swap the Rogue out for the Bard, and rename the class. If you want a minifighter customize your Fighter. And play Halfling.
I'd probably merge the Ranger and Druid and find a happy medium, while emphasizing their incredible versatility being balanced by their focus on being versatile, you know, outside. Paladin and Barbarian get to be prestige classes again, though probably the easiest ones of all time to get into.
The only thing I don't know what to do with is the Sorcerer. An alternative to the Wizard is too obvious to throw out but they're thematically identical. the only option would be to make them more different. Perhaps different ways of casting spells.

All that said, if we were just focused on supplementing the class list instead of tidying it up, I'd have to go with Warlock as a big first candidate, rebalanced of course. Dragon Shamans are mechanically unique as well, though thematically they clash a little with Warlocks. So either them or Marshalls. Other than that everything else pretty much branches off the big four.