Which 3rd ed classes should have been core?

[RUMBLETiGER]

Warlocks are a lot like monks

How?

except on the opposite side of the coin.

Whut?

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.

Rampagingly strong? How?

 

[Buugipopuu]

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.

Only if you reprinted Warblade 11 times with different fluff. Encounter powers aren't inherently bad. It's having every class rely on them that's the problem.

 

[nonsi256]

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.

I would expect a class with such a declaration to allow me to make a Juggernaut/Daredevil/Martial Artist/Sharpshooter/Battlefield Commander/Kensai and more – all more or less of equal level of power.
No core fighter ever made that possible.

Sorcerer is exactly what it appears, an alternative to Wizard for arcane spells.

Too similar to the Wizard to justify a separate base class.

Paladin and Barbarian are pretty much prestige classes in base class form.

I would make the Barb an optional Fighter build.

Monk's pretty solidly original though.

Not really. One of the earliest incarnations of the Monk was OD&D’s Mystic, introduced as a concept NPC in the 1985 “Master” (4th, black) boxed set and later reinvented in the 1992 Rules Cyclopedia.

Warlocks are a lot like monks, except on the opposite side of the coin.

I don’t see how.

I would have included something like the Warlock in the base classes

Actually, a Sorcerer-Warlock mesh could be a nice core class.

except with a little more balance to make the Warlock less rampagingly strong.

You haven’t really played one, have you?

Beside that I'd probably swap the Rogue out for the Bard, and rename the class.

Bad idea.
A spell-less skillmonkey is too iconic to pass up.

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.

Now that’s a really good idea.

Dragon Shamans are mechanically unique as well, though thematically they clash a little with Warlocks. So either them or Marshalls.

That was one messy inclusion. These classes radically differ from one another.
Dragon ____ (whatever) class is not unique enough in role and aint worth the time investment unless it eventually embodies all 3 Dragonborn of Bahamut’s draconic aspects in a useful manner (the breath weapon aspect is just too weak).

 

[kitcik]

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.

Huh? Fighters are iconic because Gygax put them in originally. And he never played with feats.

Nothing is iconic because of the way it was treated in 3E (although that could have added to it), so let's get off that schtick.

 

[steeldragons]

I don't get the "Fighter hate"...or is it "Fighter sucks" I have seen and read about over and over on these threads.

You want to have a sword and shield, and get up in everyone's face...you're a Fighter.

You want to have a spear and short bow to strike from reach/range...you're a Fighter.

You want to be a dual-wielding hand-axe dude...ok, fine, once upon a time you needed to be a Ranger for 2-weapon fighting, but in this day and age...you're a Fighter. And even then, a ranger is/was just a sub-class of Fighter.

You want to be a grizzled veteran with a heavy crossbow who is past putting himself in harm's way...you're a Fighter.

You want to wear a fur bikini and carry a battle axe....you're a Fighter. You can be a Barbarian...but you don't have to be.

You want to wear plate and carry a shield with a broad sword, acting as "defense" more than "offense"....yes, you are a Fighter. Unless you want to include the "religious" element to your character in which case, we'll call you "Paladin"...or not if you don't want (a character can have a religious bent without all out "devotion" and "godly intervention").

A soldier, a knight, a lightly-armored heavily-armed mercenary, an archer, a swordsman/axeman/spearman, a monster-hunter, a treasure-hunter...you're a Fighter.

It is, by far, the most adaptable/customizable class concept of any...open to a multitude of archetypes that do not require individual "classes" for every incarnation! Second, I would say, is the rogue (thief)...as one of the two base non-caster classes should be.

They are the "I'm doin' it on my own" class...no magic...no godly powers...no "shady street or underworld skills"...just my own ability (Strength!) and training and determination. I'm a FIGHTER!

Is the disapproval just cuz "Fighter" sounds too "lame" or too "old skool" compared to "Warblade" or "Slayer" or "Super-damage Dude"?

I am curious.
--SD

 

[Visigani]

As ive said before.. There are really just two types of characters in d&d.. The supernatural man and the extraordinary man.

Fighters and rogues are the iconic extraordinary men. And thats part of the reason for the hate.

 

[kinem]

Duskblade (or similar magical warrior) is the most important class for the core rules. Could use a better name though, like mageblade or arcane warrior. (Or warcane )

Also include:
Fighter (Barbarian/Ranger as variants)
Healer (could be cleric (druid as variant but as more of a nature priest, no wildshape) but would be better to have nonreligious options for healing)
Sorcerer/Warlock/Psion (could combine them; magic from mind/soul)
Wizard/Witch/Alchemist (magic from textbooks and eye of newt)
Rogue (Expert/Bard as variants?)

 

[steeldragons]

As ive said before.. There are really just two types of characters in d&d.. The supernatural man and the extraordinary man.

Fighters and rogues are the iconic extraordinary men. And thats part of the reason for the hate.

Curious distinctions...not saying they are inaccurate.

So being "extraordinary" is simply "not good enough"?

Interesting.
--SD

 

[kitcik]

You want to have a sword and shield, and get up in everyone's face...you're a Fighter.

You want to have a spear and short bow to strike from reach/range...you're a Fighter.

You want to be a dual-wielding hand-axe dude...ok, fine, once upon a time you needed to be a Ranger for 2-weapon fighting, but in this day and age...you're a Fighter. And even then, a ranger is/was just a sub-class of Fighter.

You want to be a grizzled veteran with a heavy crossbow who is past putting himself in harm's way...you're a Fighter.

You want to wear a fur bikini and carry a battle axe....you're a Fighter. You can be a Barbarian...but you don't have to be.

You want to wear plate and carry a shield with a broad sword, acting as "defense" more than "offense"....yes, you are a Fighter. Unless you want to include the "religious" element to your character in which case, we'll call you "Paladin"...or not if you don't want (a character can have a religious bent without all out "devotion" and "godly intervention").

A soldier, a knight, a lightly-armored heavily-armed mercenary, an archer, a swordsman/axeman/spearman, a monster-hunter, a treasure-hunter...you're a Fighter.

Choose any of those archetypes and look up their handbook on Brilliant Gameologists (made by optimizers). None will have more than a two level dip in the "Fighter" class and most will have none. A high level cleric is a better fighter than the fighter and has kickass spells to boot. The problem with the Fighter class is that it is subpar at doing the things it's supposed to do and does not have the flexibility to do anything else.

It worked in 1E, but with all the customization available in 3E, it needs a kick in the pants.

 

[WarlockLord]

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

Ninjas are cool and people want to write "ninja" on their character sheet.