Which 3rd ed classes should have been core?

[kitcik]

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

I just roll up a swordsage and write Ninja on my character sheet.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

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

I can't make a case for Assassin and Ninja if there's already a Rogue class-- but a supernatural stealth killer seems like a perfectly viable archetype for a class.

 

[steeldragons]

Choose any of those archetypes and look up their handbook on Brilliant Gameologists (made by optimizers).

Why, exactly, would I want to do that?

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.

Sez you...in 3e? 4e? I dunno, Im guessing so, since that's where pretty much all of the flack comes from....from what I read.

Amazing, we made it through the decades we did without such a problem. Guess we just weren't as smart as you all.

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

Kick in the pants indeed...just not sure you're pointing it in the right direction.
--SD

 

[Xakk]

Warlocks are a bit cheesy by themselves. They compare to spontaneous spellcasters the kind of which spam low level attack spells all day, with the caveat that a Warlock CAN do it all day, and never run out of juice. And whilst a spellcaster requires feats to enhance their attack spell, which still require a power trade, Warlocks just simply hit one invocation with another and boom.
And while some would argue that Warlocks pay for all this with a teenie spell list, you have to remember two things: there are plenty of spellcasters who only regularly use two or three of their spells, and if a 'lock doesn't have an invoke, he gets a leg up on using magic items that do allow him to.

As for mechanical flavor, I see both monks and warlocks as 'inherents', which is to say, they internalize their power more than others. A fighter needs to lay hand to a weapon and shield, a mage to a few words of incantation. A monk just needs to rap on your shoulder or get a running start, and a warlock just points a finger. That's just my POV though.

Also I never called Fighters iconic to Dnd for this reason, but to Rpgs in general. Like steeldragons said, all those styles are Fighter, so making them all possible with one class is kind of expected. It also calls into question the need for other classes overlapping with it, but again, POV.

Gotta remember not to fall into the 4e trap of measuring class effectiveness by combat ability only, and regulating everything outside to 'the skillmonkeys'. That's a habit shared by player and developer that I despise. The most fun I had in 4e was trading trash talk with the villian on three or four separate encounters, only one of which actually ended in combat.

 

[kitcik]

Why, exactly, would I want to do that?

See below.

Sez you...in 3e? 4e? I dunno, Im guessing so, since that's where pretty much all of the flack comes from....from what I read.

I respectfully suggest you relook at the thread title. This is a 3E thread. It sounds like you haven't played much 3E. If that is the case, I suggest you play a few hundred hours of it, then conclude on where the Fighter needs a kick. Or, you could take my reading suggestions to heart.

Amazing, we made it through the decades we did without such a problem. Guess we just weren't as smart as you all.

Again, this is a 3E thread. I am not sure who the "we" is and who the "you all" is - I have played since 1978. I played 1E at Lake Geneva. That doesn't change the fact that the 3E Fighter is not the best class for ANY of the archetypes you named in your prior post.

Kick in the pants indeed...just not sure you're pointing it in the right direction.
--SD

Make sure your head is not where the kick lands... XD

 

[steeldragons]

-snip-

I respectfully suggest you relook at the thread title. This is a 3E thread.

-snip other respectfully presented stuff-

You are absolutely correct. With all of the 5e speculations and class threads and jumping form forum to forum...I think I got a bit "lost".

The night out prior to that last post certainly did not help.

Apologies to everyone. Carry on.

Make sure your head is not where the kick lands... XD

Sure feels like it was this morning. uuuugh.

Sorry again.
--SD

 

[hbnetto]

5 classes

5 classes, 10 builds.

I think we should use a class for each attribute except strength. There should be a Scout (2 bulds: Thief and Ranger, dexterity, animal companion, with sneak attack and returned to ambushes and traps), Barbarian (2 builds: Shifter/Druidic Warden and Berserker, constitution), Sage (2 builds: Bard and Wizard, intelligence based, knowledge and spells), Crusader (2 builds: Paladin and Warlord, strength and wisdom based, heavy armor and shield, healing and and leadership skills) and Sorcerer (2 builds: Warlock Summoner and Elementalist, charisma based, striker and combat spells). All classes depend on dexterity or strength to have a good basic attack when you're done for the reservation of magic and supernatural abilities at low levels.

Magic should not replace hard work and expertise of other classes altogether. Thus, all shine.

 

[kitcik]

5 classes, 10 builds.

I think we should use a class for each attribute except strength. There should be a Scout (2 bulds: Thief and Ranger, dexterity, animal companion, with sneak attack and returned to ambushes and traps), Barbarian (2 builds: Shifter/Druidic Warden and Berserker, constitution), Sage (2 builds: Bard and Wizard, intelligence based, knowledge and spells), Crusader (2 builds: Paladin and Warlord, strength and wisdom based, heavy armor and shield, healing and and leadership skills) and Sorcerer (2 builds: Warlock Summoner and Elementalist, charisma based, striker and combat spells). All classes depend on dexterity or strength to have a good basic attack when you're done for the reservation of magic and supernatural abilities at low levels.

Magic should not replace hard work and expertise of other classes altogether. Thus, all shine.

I like this ability-based concept.
Str: offensive melee type ->> barbarian, warblade variant
Dex: stealth and missile ->> rogue, scout
Con: tank ->> crusader, hmm can't think of anything else good here
Int: arcane --> wizard, sorcerer variant (1 prepared, 1 spontaneous)
Wis: healer, zen --> cleric, unarmed swordsage variant
Cha: face, animal friend --> bard, druid variant