Post/Author/DateTime	Post
FriendlyBiscuit 12-17-05, 04:14 AM	I cannot think of a character concept that fits the fantasy genre that you couldn't make with the rules as they are. 99% of the ime at least. Saying that you cannot make a bodyguard or an archer or a fire mage or a people-tosser with the existing rules is just ludacris. Unless the class is world specific, which for all those involved is a fact that should be stated from the onset, then it will be held up to some pretty strict scrutiny. I agree with this guy. Within reason*, something that makes sense within the realm of D&D, Eberron, Forgotten Realms, etc., what do you want so badly that you can't accomplish with the material that's already published? (And D&D is primarily combat; that's D&D and not my job to fix. Don't ask for White Wolf RP-focused classes. :P) Me (and hopefully a few other people) will then see what we can do about fixing you up with the material that's already out there. I'll need other people's help because I only have PHB, DMG, CW, CD, CAdv, CArc, ECS, RoE, RoW, RoS, Sandstorm, BoVD, and MM I - III. Important omissions are, say, XPH and MoI, not to mention Heroes of X, BoED, etc etc Within reason: as opposed to UNreasonable, such as a panty-snatcher that gains powerful arcane spellcasting, but only after stealing panties.
Novacat 12-17-05, 09:16 AM	How about a caster class/magic system that doesn't blow chunks? An unarmed martial artist that doesn't belong in an asian B-movie?
Apollo's Lyre 12-17-05, 10:01 AM	How about a caster class/magic system that doesn't blow chunks? An unarmed martial artist that doesn't belong in an asian B-movie? Hey! The monk in my party is at least worthy of being an asian steryotype in a B-movie made right here in the USA!
Elbethamore 12-17-05, 05:10 PM	How about a caster class/magic system that doesn't blow chunks? An unarmed martial artist that doesn't belong in an asian B-movie? It's unfortunate that your experience with monks is limited to the poorly played variety. And as for spellcasting, I was raised on Vancian spellcasting and am quite fond of it. It's like coming home to mom's apple pie. Except for the part where fiery death rains down from the heavens and the corpses of the deceased walk amongst the living. (Although you're not alone or out of line in your criticism of the system, Novacat.) Good post, FriendlyBiscuit.
Tempest Stormwind 12-17-05, 10:43 PM	How about a caster class/magic system that doesn't blow chunks? An unarmed martial artist that doesn't belong in an asian B-movie? 1) Psionics. (http://www.d20srd.org/) Also has the upshot of being a better-balanced system overall. 2) Fighter with Improved Unarmed Strike and other nifty feats that fit the bill. (A feat rogue (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#rogue) could do a better job, in my opinion, because of a few nifty combinations of rogue abilities and the combat feats. Check out what happens when you're flanked and attacked, if you have Defensive Throw (OA), Elusive Target (CW), Improved Trip, and Opportunist. EDIT: Needs Combat Reflexes too, if I recall correctly.) Next? (By the way, I agree wholeheartedly with this thread's thesis. And FriendlyBiscuit, I offer my help. For instance, the crunch of the XPH is all available online for free. See the link I posted above. The only things missing are some stuff that Wizards owns intellectual property to -- Illithids, Gith, Thri-kreen, and Duregar. It doesn't have any of the fluff, but fluff is easily explained, and at worst transmutable -- for instance, see the Truenaming Psionics link in my sig, or Haldrik's now-famous Psionic Viking (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=450916) project.)
FriendlyBiscuit 12-18-05, 05:22 AM	How about a caster class/magic system that doesn't blow chunks? An unarmed martial artist that doesn't belong in an asian B-movie? Spellpoints, from Unearthed Arcana. ------------------------------------ Any combination of Swashbuckler/Fighter/Kensai OR Swashbuckler/Monk/Kensai Enchant your Kensai fists! Use swashbuckler to get Int added to your damage, and Dex applied to your attack rolls! On a side note, Acrobatic Charge is a pretty cool, flavorful ability for unarmed monks. Get great fighter feats! If you go monk, enjoy completely inexplicable unarmed damage dice, especially combined with Kensai. Another fun thing to do, if you want the Monk class but you don't want to be from an "asian b-movie", is to instead style yourself as the Man Who Can Survive Anything. You get some great immunities along with monkhood. If you can become some sort of undead, you'll get some more. There's always the warforged path to immunities, as well. Grab the Major bloodline of a Demon, and enjoy a resistance to almost all sources of evocation damage on top of your many other resistances. Oh, don't forget Paladin! What's more Lawful than a Paladin? Thanks to everyone who offered their help, too. :)
BadCatMan 12-18-05, 05:43 AM	I'd like to see an Intelligence-based arcane casting warrior type, as an arcane counterpart to the Ranger and Paladin. Hexblade is nice, but is Charisma based, and non-good. I'd like to see a good-allowed Charisma based arcane warrior too. 4th level spells, familiar, full BAB, d10 HD, and a few nifty tricks of his own. Forget the divine, forget nature, the arcane is where the real power is at. Sure, I could mix together Fighter and Wizard, and dip into and mix-and-match Eldritch Knight and Spellsword, and grab various feats to make him do stuff beyond being a poor wizard and a poor fighter, but then I'd have to contend with multiclassing restrictions and possible XP penalties, possible prestige class restrictions and prerequisites and thorough planning. Then it might look rather flat and dull and complicated, and I might look (even more) like a powergamer. It'd be much easier to have it premade and focus on something other than the build. I'd also like to see a generic holy warrior class for all religions and alignments, but that would just be a modified Paladin, like those out of UA.
FriendlyBiscuit 12-18-05, 05:52 AM	then I'd have to contend with multiclassing restrictions and possible XP penalties, possible prestige class restrictions and prerequisites and thorough planning. Those difficulties kinda make sense; it's hard to be the varsity quarterback and the state-champion Academic Decathlete all at once. That's my answer off the toppa my head, though, as I head to bed. I, or one of the other kind folks here, may have a better answer for you in the next 24 hours or so.
Elzaban the Ethereal 12-18-05, 06:47 AM	One that's always bugged me is the lack of a versatile shapeshifter that doesn't use spells. Bear Warrior can only do it during rage, and is very limited, while the Shapechanger class still advances spellcasting, even if it doesn't require it. Most of the other good shapeshifting prestige classes depend on already having wild shape, which currently means being a druid.
Jayr 12-18-05, 07:55 AM	Hey, Elzaban the Ethereal, hit me! (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=553840)
arkerpay 12-18-05, 10:23 AM	An outdoorsman class. Lightly armored, mobile, with appropriate skills and flexibility in feat selection. Scout, ranger and barbarian all have abilities that break the paradigm for what I am looking for.
Tempest Stormwind 12-18-05, 12:22 PM	An outdoorsman class. Lightly armored, mobile, with appropriate skills and flexibility in feat selection. Scout, ranger and barbarian all have abilities that break the paradigm for what I am looking for. Then multiclass between them. Scout and ranger between the two of them -- along with entering a specific prestige class -- can undoubtably pull this off. (And if not, then you haven't specified yourself clearly enough.) Jayr: That's a custom class, and against what we're talking about. However, I suggest you guys look at the Shapeshifter (in Oriental Adventures). Chameleon [ANYTHING] 5 / War Shaper 5 / Shapeshifter 10 should be pretty close to the archetype you're thinking about, and very strong to boot. (Note that Changelings qualify for War Shaper -- including the nifty "Grow a natural weapon" ability, which lets you add wings, tentacles, or whatever until the DM says "enough is enough!" -- by virtue of their race alone.) BadCatMan: You speak of a gish (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=307309). Believe me, they aren't powergamey, unless you do some weird stunts to end up with insane caster levels (generally, avoid the ur-priest, sublime chord, or related fast-casting PrCs). They're just very good at what they do. I'm certain you can construct what you look for there (particularily since you only need 4th level spells for this, you're free to focus on your martial side). FriendlyBuscuit: If you have actually used Spell Points in UA and found that they didn't blow chunks, you must have houseruled them. The system is very poorly balanced -- as in, 2e psionics poorly balanced.
heretic888 12-18-05, 01:23 PM	Many non-Western archetypes are poorly represented in D&D without some serious modification to the existing classes. However, that's mostly a cultural thing and somewhat setting specific. Laterz.
Tempest Stormwind 12-18-05, 01:29 PM	Many non-Western archetypes are poorly represented in D&D without some serious modification to the existing classes. However, that's mostly a cultural thing and somewhat setting specific. Laterz. Give me an example. I'll show you how to pull it off.
arkerpay 12-18-05, 02:14 PM	Then multiclass between them. Scout and ranger between the two of them -- along with entering a specific prestige class -- can undoubtably pull this off. (And if not, then you haven't specified yourself clearly enough.) No, I haven't. My outsdoorsman concept would *not* have: animal affinity, animal companion, spell casting, locked-in weapon progressions, favored enemies, rage, damage reduction, skirmish It would have: Track, Endurance, Faster move, Full BAB, tons of skill points, stealth and sensory bonuses, free selection of martial feats Just a tough, outdoorsman that isn't tinselled up with IMO inappropriate or ridiculous abilities.
Tempest Stormwind 12-18-05, 02:27 PM	No, I haven't. My outsdoorsman concept would *not* have: animal affinity, animal companion, spell casting, locked-in weapon progressions, favored enemies, rage, damage reduction, skirmish It would have: Track, Endurance, Faster move, Full BAB, tons of skill points, stealth and sensory bonuses, free selection of martial feats Just a tough, outdoorsman that isn't tinselled up with IMO inappropriate or ridiculous abilities. Then accept the abilities as bonuses. Scout / FIGHTER would be able to provide a good match for you in this case. I wouldn't have gone over 3 levels in ranger anyway (since you said no spellcasting), but that will provide Track and Endurance and full base attack. You'll end up with faster movement, nearly full base attack, lots of skill points, good stealth and sensory bonuses, and a choice of martial feats, along with the general flexibility through character feats. Note that you are providing a list of rules that you want to see in a single class. This is not the intent of this thread: Challenge: Character Concept that needs its own 1-20 base class][quote=FriendlyBuiscuit]Within reason*, something that makes sense within the realm of D&D, Eberron, Forgotten Realms, etc., what do you want so badly that you can't accomplish with the material that's already published? I cannot think of a character concept that fits the fantasy genre that you couldn't make with the rules as they are. 99% of the ime at least. Saying that you cannot make a bodyguard or an archer or a fire mage or a people-tosser with the existing rules is just ludacris. Character concept. Something that makes sense. Bodyguard/archer/fire mage/people-tosser. Note how these are not "I want a class with XYZ abilities at these levels". These are character concepts. Furthermore, your post smacks exactly of FriendlyBiscuit's signature quote, although without the "level-by-level" clause:Building a specialized 20-level class for just your specific type of character smacks of greed, of munchkinism. It seems as if you want to pick and choose the abilities you're gonna get ... so they are perfectly suited to your playing and combat style. Are tough choices and sacrifices too much for you to deal with, even though it's just a game? Do I make myself clear? In your case, your concept is a nonmagical, straightforward martial outdoorsman. With the right feats, an NPC Warrior/Expert could do this. (Remember that feats that come as part of character level are still part of the concept, and wanting the ENTIRE concept to be part of the class is like saying "I want my character handed to me pre-assembled so I can twink with my own feats.")
SmiloDan 12-18-05, 03:06 PM	How about a ritual-based, skill-based magic user system? Kind of like what they do on Buffy? Or when you have a circle of mages chanting to help pull off some kind of big magic. I've tried to make one with my Magician class, but it's a bit unwieldy: Magicians are practitioners of arcane mysteries. Through their knowledge and skills (drawing skills, bo-staff skills, computer hacking skills, hang glider skills), they can cast spells, but it is physically draining to them. Their spellcasting is anything but reliable, but it is very flexible, and a well trained magician can cast any spell. Magicians can be charlatans, street performers, hedge-witches, tribal shamans, scholarly sages, arcane scientists, elemental specialists, and more. Magicians. Base Attack Bonus: +3/4 (as cleric). Good Saving Throws: Will. Hit Dice: 1d6. Class Skills: Bluff (Cha), Concentration (Con), Craft (Int), Decipher Script (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Disguise (Cha), Escape Artist (Dex)*, Handle Animal (Cha), Heal (Wis), Hide (Dex)*, Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge [all skills, taken individually] (Int), Learn Spell (N/A, new skill, see below for details), Listen (Wis), Move Silently (Dex)*, Perform (Cha), Profession (Wis), Search (Int), Sense Motive (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex)*, Speak Language (N/A), Spellcraft (Int), Spot (Wis), Survival (Wis), Use Magic Device (Cha). Skill Points at First Level: (6 + Int modifier) x 4. Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 6 + Int modifier. Magicians are proficient in all Simple Weapons. Magicians are proficient in Light Armor, but not shields. LEVEL ABILITY 1. Witchcraft, Learn Spell. 2. Magic Gift. 3. 4. 5. Magic Gift. 6. 7. 8. Magic Gift. 9. 10. 11. Magic Gift. 12. 13. 14. Magic Gift. 15. 16. 17. Magic Gift. 18. 19. 20. Magic Gift. Witchcraft (Sp). Magicians spontaneously cast arcane spells. Magicians suffer from Arcane Spell Failure when wearing armor or using a shield. A Magician must have an Intelligence score of 10 + the level of the spell he is attempting to cast. The DC to any Saving Throws is 10 + the spell level + the Magician's Charisma modifier. A magician can only cast spells that he has learned through the use of the Learn Spell skill. To cast a spell, a magician must know the spell from the Learn Spell skill. He must then make a Spellcraft check with a DC of 20 + 3 times the spell level. If he succeeds, he successfully casts the spell. The Spellcraft check is a free action. Casting a spell is draining. The magician takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage per level of the spell cast. 0 level spells cause 1d3 points of nonlethal damage. The nonlethal damage from spellcasting can only be recovered with rest and the passage of time. Magicians that are immune to nonlethal damage take lethal damage when casting a spell. No kind of damage reduction can thwart this damage. This damage is also called mana damage. If the magician failed the Spellcraft check, or any Concentration check during casting, the spell fails. The magician can make a Fortitude Save with a DC of 10 + the spell level to take half damage, since failing to cast a spell is less draining than successfully casting a spell. Learn Spell. Learn Spell is a new skill. A magician can only cast a spell that he has learned. For each skill point spent on Learn Spell, the magician learns one spell of any level. In order to learn a spell, a magician must have a minimum number of ranks in a related Knowledge skill. The minimum number of ranks is 2 + 2 per level of the spell. To learn a spell from the Bard spell list, the magician must have ranks in Knowledge (history). To learn a spell from the Cleric spell list, the magician must have ranks in Knowledge (religion). To learn a spell from the Druid spell list, the magician must have ranks in Knowledge (nature). To learn a spell from the Paladin spell list, the magician must have ranks in Knowledge (nobility and royalty). To learn a spell from the Ranger spell list, the magician must have ranks in Knowledge (geography). To learn a spell from the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list, the magician must have ranks in Knowledge (arcana). For example, to learn Cure Minor Wounds, a magician would have to spend 1 skill point in Learn Spell (Cure Minor Wounds) and have a minimum of 2 ranks in Knowledge religion. To learn Wish, a magician would have to spend 1 skill point in Learn Spell (Wish) and have a minimum of 20 ranks in Knowledge (arcana). Magic Gift. As the magician grows in power and skill, he learns additional magical talents. The magician must meet any and all requirements before choosing that Magic Gift. A new Magic Gift can be chosen at levels 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 20. Animal Companion (Ex). Requires 5 ranks in Handle Animal. The magician gains an animal companion as if he were a druid of his magician level. Bardic Knowledge (Ex). Requires: 5 ranks in Knowledge History. The magician gains the Bardic Knowledge ability of a Bard equal to his Magician level. Bardic Music (Sp or Su). Requires: 5 ranks in Perform. The magician gains the Bardic Music ability of a Bard equal to his magician level. Circle Casting (Sp). Requires: 5 ranks in Spellcraft. A magician can use the Aid Another action to assist another magician who also has the Circle Casting Magic Gift. The assistant magician must succeed a Spellcraft check with a DC of 20 + the spell level of the the spell the lead magician is casting. If successful, the assistant magician grants a +2 bonus to the lead magician's check. Detect Magic (Sp). Requires: 5 ranks in Knowledge arcana. The magician can Detect Magic at will. Detect (alignment) (Sp). Requires: 5 ranks in Knowledge religion. The magician can Detect Chaos/Evil/Good/Law at will. A separate Magic Gift must be used to detect each alignment. Elemental Wild Shape (Su). Requires: Wild Shape and 20 ranks in Knowledge the planes. You gain the Elemental Wildshape ability of a druid equal to your magician level. Energy Mage (Sp). Requires 5 ranks in Knowledge (the Planes). Choose one energy type (acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic). You may now use your ranks in Knowledge (the Planes) instead of the normal Knowledge pre-requisites to learn spells of that energy type. For example, normally Flame Strike would require either 12 ranks in Knowledge (religion) or 10 ranks in Knowledge (nature) to spend 1 skill point on Learn Spell to know that spell. A magician with the Energy Mage magic gift can use his ranks in Knowledge (the Planes) instead of the other skills. This allows a magician to specialize in all the spells of a specific energy, regardless of what spell list they are on. This Magic Gift may be chosen multiple times; each time it applies to a different energy type. Energy Resistance (Su). Requires Energy Mage and 8 ranks in Concentration and 8 ranks in Knowledge (the Planes). You gain Resistance equal to your class level against the energy type you chose for your Energy Mage Magic Gift. Familiar (Su). Requires: 5 ranks in Knowledge arcana. The magician gains a familiar as if he were a sorcerer to his magician level. Familiar Companion (Su). Requires 11 ranks in Handle Animal, Knowledge arcana, and Knowledge nature and you must have the ability to have an Animal Companion and the ability to have a Familiar. You give up the ability to have a Familiar. Your Animal Companion gains the Intelligence and Special Abilities of a Familiar of your Magician class level, as listed on pages 52 and 53 of the Players Handbook. Feyblooded (Ex). Requires 8 ranks in Concentration and 8 ranks in Knowledge (nature). You gain Damage Resistance 1/cold iron. Your Damage Resistance increases by 1 for every additional 5 ranks you have in Concentration and Knowledge (nature). Hide in Plain Sight (Su). Requires 20 ranks in Hide. The magican can use the ranger's Hide in Plain Sight special ability in any environment. Lay on Hands (Su). Requires: 5 ranks in Heal. The magician can heal a number of hit points per day equal to his magician levels multiplied by his Charisma modifier. Light Armored Casting (Ex). Requires: 5 ranks in Concentration. The magician does not suffer Arcane Spell Failure for casting spells when wearing Light Armor. He still suffers Arcane Spell Failure for using a Shield or for wearing Medium or Heavy Armor. Luna's Blessing (Su). Requires 5 ranks in Concentration and 5 ranks in Knowledge (nature). You gain Damage Resistance 1/silver. Your Damage Resistance increases by 1 for every additional 5 ranks you have in Concentration and Knowledge (nature). Metamagic. The magician gains a bonus Metamagic Feat. Prepare Spell (Sp). Requires: Ritual and 8 ranks in Concentration and 8 ranks in Spellcraft. The magician can prepare a number of spells equal to her Intelligence bonus. She must spend 1 minute in Ritual to prepare each spell. Preparing a spell allows the magician to cast the spell without having to make the Spellcraft check at the time of casting. Furthermore, she can prepare it with a metamagic feat applied to it, and the casting time is not increased as it is for spontaneously casting spells with metamagic feats. Ritual (Sp). Requires: 5 ranks in Concentration and 5 ranks in Spellcraft. The magician can lower the Spellcraft DC by increasing the casting time of the spell. The DC of the Spellcraft check is reduced by 1 for each extra unit of time that is added to the casting time (minimum of 1 round). The magician must make a Concentration skill check with a DC of 10 + 1 for every extra unit of time to successfully continue casting the spell. In addition, the magician provokes Attacks of Opportunity each round he is casting. Slippery Mind (Ex). Requires: 14 ranks in Concentration. The magician gains the Slippery Mind rogue special ability. Spell Resistance (Su). Requires: 17 ranks in Concentration. The magician gains Spell Resistance equal to 10 + his magician level. A Thousand Faces (Sp). Requires: 17 ranks in Disguise. The magician can use Alter Self at will. Tongue of the Sun and the Moon (Ex). Requires: Ability to speak 17 languages and 17 ranks in Decipher Script. The Magician can speak and read and write all languages. Turn/Rebuke Undead (Su). Requires: 5 ranks in Knowledge religion. The magician can Turn or Rebuke Undead as a cleric equal to half his magician level. If this Magic Gift is chosen twice, the magician can Turn or Rebuke Undead as a cleric equal to his magician level. Unknown Magics (Sp). Requires 5 ranks in Spellcraft. You gain the ability to potentially cast any spell. You can attempt to cast a spell that you do not know through the use of the Learn Spell skill. In order to cast a spell, you must have a character level of equal to double the level of the spell you are attempting to cast. As a free action during spell casting, you must succeed at a Knowledge check related to the spell list of the spell you are attempting to cast. The DC is 20 + 4 times the level of the spell. If you succeed the Knowledge skill check, you may then make a Spellcraft check with a DC of 20 + 4 times the level of the spell, as part of the spell casting. If that is successful, you have successfully cast that spell. Casting a spell using Unknown Magics is particularly draining. It causes 2d6 points of non-lethal damage per level of the spell (1d6 for 0 level spells). The Fortitude Save DC for taking half damage on a failed spell is 20 + the spell level. Wild Empathy (Ex). Requires: 5 ranks in Handle Animal. You gain the Wild Empathy ability of a druid equal to your magician level. Wild Shape (Su). Requires: 8 ranks in Disguise and Knowledge nature. You gain the Wild Shape ability of a druid equal to your magician level.
Tempest Stormwind 12-18-05, 03:12 PM	I think that's also off-topic for this thread. That's a houseruled optional magic system. (Besides, ritual magic is already in the game -- Circle Magic in FRCS comes to mind, as do the ritual casting of epic spells. And suggesting a skills-for-magic system is suggesting a houserule as opposed to showing what's possible with the existing rules. Mind you, in another sense, epic spells are skill based...) In short, everything in this thread should either be: 1) A character concept that (possibly) requires its own 1-20 base class instead of existing material, or 2) stuff from existing rules that attempts to demonstrate how 1) could be expressed with printed material. What you suggest is a response that should fall in type 2, but is a houserule, so it doesn't. If we can stay focused, this thread will accomplish a lot more. (Sorry, SmiloDan, I don't mean to rag on you. It's nothing personal; I just don;t like thread derailments.)
SmiloDan 12-18-05, 04:01 PM	Ok, so you're talking about things that can't be expressed in D&D, like a non-spellcasting gameskeeper (warrior with animal companion), a scholarly warrior (knight with lots of knowledge skills), an arcane knight (soldier with spellcasting), a tactician (someone good at helping others in combat), a non-holy knight (warrior with people skills but no spells or religious code), etc.?
Tempest Stormwind 12-18-05, 04:12 PM	Ok, so you're talking about things that can't be expressed in D&D, like a non-spellcasting gameskeeper (warrior with animal companion)Beastmaster PrC on any martial character. [Exact match] , a scholarly warrior (knight with lots of knowledge skills)Education feat makes them all class skills. Just build the knight you want with that feat at level one. [Exact match], an arcane knight (soldier with spellcasting),I linked the gish thread above. There's a LOT of these. [Exact match] a tactician (someone good at helping others in combat),Marshall matches this precisely [Exact match]. Anyone can also do this with the Aid Another action, and a bard works well in this role, as well. Furthermore, buff spells do this quite nicely. [Partial match] a non-holy knight (warrior with people skills but no spells or religious code)The fighter class (or another warrior-type class). Seriously, that's just an RP application. A fighter is as much of a knight as the paladin is. Either spend cross-class, take the Able Learner feat, or take one level in any social class (even as low as Expert!) to get the required skills up to a certain level. Or, alternately, make the social character you'd like and optimize his performance in combat -- several Snowflake Wardance bards I know of can count for this pretty nicely.[Irrelevant], etc.?I'm still waiting for something that can't be expressed in terms of existing rules. ;) EDIT: Sources: Beastmaster - Complete Adventurer. This book also has the Natural Bond feat, which is sort of like Practiced Spellcaster but for animal companion powers. Education - Forgotten Realms AND Eberron Campaign Settings. Gish types - Countless, really. See the thread I linked. Marshall - Miniatures handbook, also online (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20030906b) Fighter and other martial classes - Core, or in an assortment of other sources. Able Learner feat - Races of Destiny. Snowflake Wardance feat - Frostburn.
mecket 12-18-05, 05:20 PM	Hi I have some characters concepts that really need their own base class: 1-A mage that not need spellbooks(like some arabians mages ho used astrology and mathematic to cast spells) and can cast spells whithout the ´´fire and forget´´ sistem. 2- a unarmed fighter that can fight as well whith punchs than whith his sword (a brawler), and dont get any exotic powers from it(like a monk get). 3-any fighter concept that can act as well like any other in guard duty(spot,listen,search), and are not so dependant of equipament. c
mythSSK 12-18-05, 05:32 PM	Hi I have some characters concepts that really need their own base class: 1-A mage that not need spellbooks(like some arabians mages ho used astrology and mathematic to cast spells) and can cast spells whithout the ´´fire and forget´´ sistem. 2- a unarmed fighter that can fight as well whith punchs than whith his sword (a brawler), and dont get any exotic powers from it(like a monk get). 3-any fighter concept that can act as well like any other in guard duty(spot,listen,search), and are not so dependant of equipament. 1. Psion. Just make him say he's a mage. We won't tell anyone ;) 2. Fighter. Just because he's not a monk doesn't mean he's not good at unarmed combat (with the right feats). 3. Fighter/Rogue or Fighter/Ranger (rogue is better but loses BAB). 'Nuff said. These are fun!
SmiloDan 12-18-05, 05:42 PM	A soldier that can shoot fire out of his eyes. A warrior that can fly without wings or equipment. A soldier that can turn into metal. An unarmed fighter that causes as much damage as an armed fighter but does not have any hocus-pocus. A hero who can take the wounds of others and gain them herself.
arkerpay 12-18-05, 05:52 PM	Then accept the abilities as bonuses. Scout / FIGHTER would be able to provide a good match for you in this case. I wouldn't have gone over 3 levels in ranger anyway (since you said no spellcasting), but that will provide Track and Endurance and full base attack. You'll end up with faster movement, nearly full base attack, lots of skill points, good stealth and sensory bonuses, and a choice of martial feats, along with the general flexibility through character feats. Note that you are providing a list of rules that you want to see in a single class. This is not the intent of this thread: [quote=Thread's Title]Challenge: Character Concept that needs its own 1-20 base class] Character concept. Something that makes sense. Bodyguard/archer/fire mage/people-tosser. Note how these are not "I want a class with XYZ abilities at these levels". These are character concepts. Furthermore, your post smacks exactly of FriendlyBiscuit's signature quote, although without the "level-by-level" clause: Do I make myself clear? In your case, your concept is a nonmagical, straightforward martial outdoorsman. With the right feats, an NPC Warrior/Expert could do this. (Remember that feats that come as part of character level are still part of the concept, and wanting the ENTIRE concept to be part of the class is like saying "I want my character handed to me pre-assembled so I can twink with my own feats.") Sure, you can do it with existing materials but the resultant character will be sub-optimal. The number of skills and abilities will be large, but the proficiency in each will be poor. So do I make myself clear? This type of character needs its own 1-20 base class, because if I were to try to take levels from multiple classes the resultant character would be crap. Outdoorsman base class: lightly armored, self-sufficient, badass.
Wildonion 12-18-05, 06:33 PM	A warrior that can fly without wings or equipment. A soldier that can turn into metal. Get enchanted items or a high level wizard. An unarmed fighter that causes as much damage as an armed fighter but does not have any hocus-pocus. Straight fighter with lots of feats and enchanted gauntlets. A hero who can take the wounds of others and gain them herself. I believe wizards have several spells that work this way.
FriendlyBiscuit 12-18-05, 06:55 PM	No, I haven't. My outsdoorsman concept would *not* have: animal affinity, animal companion, spell casting, locked-in weapon progressions, favored enemies, rage, damage reduction, skirmish It would have: Track, Endurance, Faster move, Full BAB, tons of skill points, stealth and sensory bonuses, free selection of martial feats Just a tough, outdoorsman that isn't tinselled up with IMO inappropriate or ridiculous abilities. Hey, mix Wilderness Rogue (from Unearthed Arcana) with Fighter, and grab some stealth-based Rogue Prestige Classes. Certain Racial Paragons or Bloodlines will get you the sensory bonuses you need.
FriendlyBiscuit 12-18-05, 06:57 PM	Ok, so you're talking about things that can't be expressed in D&D, like a non-spellcasting gameskeeper (warrior with animal companion), a scholarly warrior (knight with lots of knowledge skills), an arcane knight (soldier with spellcasting), a tactician (someone good at helping others in combat), a non-holy knight (warrior with people skills but no spells or religious code), etc.? Warriors who desire animal companions, behold! http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031118a A lot of people don't know about this AWESOME feat. And if anyone can afford to spend a feat, fighters can!
Just another user 12-18-05, 07:36 PM	The fighter class (or another warrior-type class). Seriously, that's just an RP application. A fighter is as much of a knight as the paladin is. Either spend cross-class, take the Able Learner feat, or take one level in any social class (even as low as Expert!) to get the required skills up to a certain level. Or, alternately, make the social character you'd like and optimize his performance in combat -- several Snowflake Wardance bards I know of can count for this pretty nicely. And there is always the option to customize the existing base classes with GM authorization, and it is not a home rule, it is in the PHB pag 110, a social fighter could, on the top of my head, drop Intimidate, or Craft, to take Diplomacy, or renounce to a bonus feat for 2 extra class skill, or many other possibilities.
Noria Merfolk Mage 12-18-05, 08:18 PM	A soldier that can shoot fire out of his eyes. Pyrokineticist PrC from the Expanded Psionics Handbook (available on the SRD) A warrior that can fly without wings or equipment. Elderitch Knight using Fly spell?? A soldier that can turn into metal. Green Star Adept from Complete Arcane An unarmed fighter that causes as much damage as an armed fighter but does not have any hocus-pocus. Start as a monk, then multiclass into fighter before you get "hocus pocus" as you call it. You should have d6/d8 unarmed damage and flurry, so it'll have pretty much the same effect as a 2-weapon fighting build. A hero who can take the wounds of others and gain them herself. Psychic Warrior using the Hostile Empathic Transfer power
Fargren 12-18-05, 08:32 PM	A transmuter, FMA style. Fabricate(specailly the psionic version) ca do it, but is not efficent enough, and does not have all those combat uses. Also, it has a lot other powers/spells that wont fit the concept, but that can be ignored.
heretic888 12-18-05, 10:44 PM	Give me an example. I'll show you how to pull it off. Japanese Igamono of the Sengoku and Edo periods.
Archtyrant Terevoth 12-18-05, 11:45 PM	Something that makes sense. Bodyguard/archer/fire mage/people-tosser. Note how these are not "I want a class with XYZ abilities at these levels". These are character concepts. Furthermore, your post smacks exactly of FriendlyBiscuit's signature quote, although without the "level-by-level" clause: Building a specialized 20-level class for just your specific type of character smacks of greed, of munchkinism. It seems as if you want to pick and choose the abilities you're gonna get ... so they are perfectly suited to your playing and combat style. Are tough choices and sacrifices too much for you to deal with, even though it's just a game? Honestly I can't say I agree much with the signature quote. People are looking to play certain character types and well that's the point of the game, to represent various character concepts and keep them balanced. Asking for stuff like "I don't want spellcasting" or "I'd like to be able to stay in my basic form and not polymorph into a firbolg to be effective" are perfectly reasonable requests and to a degree your character ability set is what makes a character concept. There is a big difference between character concept and strategic role. Healer for instance is a strategic role. "Holy man who heals people" is a concept. You can for instance use a variety of classes to fill a particular role, but they don't always fill a particular concept, because concepts typically do have various restrictions like "I don't want to be a spellcaster" and "I dont' want animal affinity. And players asking for that is ok. It's even on page 175 of the DMG, where the book specifically talks about dropping and replacing abilities that players don't want and modifying classes to better suit what PCs or the DM wants for his world. In fact it's a lot less of a DM headache for PCs just to plan their character with him in advance. It gives PCs what they want and lets the DM rest easier as opposed to worrying about some 6 class min/max monstrosity built from 13 separate splatbooks.
Game_Addy 12-19-05, 01:00 AM	Here's one the books dont have: A character who becomes better and better the longer he stays in combat. Sure the barbarian gets a big boost at first, but it's just a mindless rage. How about ther sight of carnage filling him with a lust for more(ahem, anyone who's ever read something like Samurai Deeper, look at him for the general attitude) Michael
Ruhl-Than Sage 12-19-05, 01:11 AM	There is the Combat Intuition feat but that only makes you better the second round, after that you seis to improve.
Tempest Stormwind 12-19-05, 01:26 AM	A transmuter, FMA style. Fabricate(specailly the psionic version) ca do it, but is not efficent enough, and does not have all those combat uses. Also, it has a lot other powers/spells that wont fit the concept, but that can be ignored. Artificer (Eberron CS) comes across nearly perfect for this. Start off by transmuting properties via infusions, and eventually on to full-scale fabrications.A character who becomes better and better the longer he stays in combat. Sure the barbarian gets a big boost at first, but it's just a mindless rage. How about ther sight of carnage filling him with a lust for more(ahem, anyone who's ever read something like Samurai Deeper, look at him for the general attitude)Gladiator, Sword and Fist. Best if there's NPCs around that can cheer him on, but still works. There's also the Races of Eberron kalashtar martial art, which works along the same lines, only defensively (basically, you can continue to defend yourself for a long time, and then get a huge bonus on your first attack after it). A soldier that can shoot fire out of his eyes. A warrior that can fly without wings or equipment. A soldier that can turn into metal. An unarmed fighter that causes as much damage as an armed fighter but does not have any hocus-pocus. A hero who can take the wounds of others and gain them herself.All of these can be matched by virtually any gish. The unarmed fighter can simply be a fighter. If you don't want the multiclassing, take levels in Shou Disciple (Unapproachable East) -- 5 levels gives you 1d10 unarmed damage, flurry (with weapons, if you want), and a few other goodies. The wound-stealing bit is perfectly matched with Empathic Transfer, a psionic power. Sangehirns take this and run with it (they're in the Mind's Eye article) with DR and fast healing. Hi I have some characters concepts that really need their own base class: 1-A mage that not need spellbooks(like some arabians mages ho used astrology and mathematic to cast spells) and can cast spells whithout the ´´fire and forget´´ sistem. 2- a unarmed fighter that can fight as well whith punchs than whith his sword (a brawler), and dont get any exotic powers from it(like a monk get). 3-any fighter concept that can act as well like any other in guard duty(spot,listen,search), and are not so dependant of equipament.The first two of these were answered in my first two posts -- Psionics (in the SRD), and fighters, respectively. As for the third, any ranger or rogue would work. Mix in 1-4 fighter levels to demonstrate the improved combat prowess, but focus on the other classes. (Urban Ranger, in Unearthed Arcana, is a perfect match. Feat Rogue (same book) comes close, too.) Heretic888: I have to admit, I am not as well versed as I thought in the period. Give me a bit of time to research the concepts you provided, and I will show you how they can work within the existing rules (unless you'd care to provide a summary). Preliminary searches only reveal a very weak correlation to ninja (historical, not the fantasy type -- which, if I recall my history correctly, weren't even called that until far later. I forget the exact, proper term, except that it translated into something about stealth [which I think is "shinobi" in Japanese, but I could be wrong].). If you'd care to help a bit with what the concept is, I can respond quicker. Archtyrant Terevoth and I have crossed on other occasions, on other issues. I recognize that he and I will not share views on pretty much anything, particularily DM style, and the mutability of flavor. Any response I deliver to his post will only serve to degenerate this thread into a potential flamewar; I will not let it go to waste. Unless he provides a concept to challenge, or an existing-material build to support/deny a claim, I will not respond to him. (Incidentally, "Holy man who heals" is any good cleric. Choose an appropriate god to reflect this cleric's beliefs. And I do agree with planning out characters in advance -- I just don't think it needs the creation of your own base class to do it.)
Tempest Stormwind 12-19-05, 01:31 AM	Ack, I hate my router....
darklogic 12-19-05, 01:50 AM	[QUOTE=Tempest Stormwind]Then accept the abilities as bonuses. Scout / FIGHTER would be able to provide a good match for you in this case. I wouldn't have gone over 3 levels in ranger anyway (since you said no spellcasting), but that will provide Track and Endurance and full base attack. You'll end up with faster movement, nearly full base attack, lots of skill points, good stealth and sensory bonuses, and a choice of martial feats, along with the general flexibility through character feats. Note that you are providing a list of rules that you want to see in a single class. This is not the intent of this thread: Sure, you can do it with existing materials but the resultant character will be sub-optimal. The number of skills and abilities will be large, but the proficiency in each will be poor. So do I make myself clear? This type of character needs its own 1-20 base class, because if I were to try to take levels from multiple classes the resultant character would be crap. Outdoorsman base class: lightly armored, self-sufficient, badass. Does the Wooodsman from Wheel of Time d20 fit your class idea at all? It's lightly armored, has a full BAB, and has a nice list of nifty abilities without any hint of spellcasting or such fluff. There you go.
SuperThread 12-19-05, 02:03 AM	A noncasting shapeshifter that isn't totally obsoleted by Shapechange would be welcome. EDIT: More precisely, I'd like a level 20 build that a) does not cast spells at any meaningful level, b) has shapechanging as its primary shtick, and c) can do something useful that a Commoner 20 with a ring of continuous Shapechange can't do as well.
Tempest Stormwind 12-19-05, 02:08 AM	A noncasting shapeshifter that isn't totally obsoleted by Shapechange would be welcome. That, I'm afraid, is impossible, since Shapechange is crazy-broken-strong. I'd almost go so far as to say POLYMORPH is crazy-broken-strong (and in many cases, if you try, then it is). Several spells make everything else obsolete. Knock makes Open Lock obsolete. Gate should read "VIOLATE any encounter with a CR up to your party's average level +4" on the summoning aspect. Shapechange is one of those things that is simply too good. Polymorph Any Object... don't get me started. Attempting to get a build that is more powerful than the most powerful effects in the game is kind of crazy. Especially since, as written, the rules CANNOT SUPPORT A SHAPESHIFTER THAT IS NOT MADE OBSOLETE BY SHAPECHANGE -- as every element of shapeshifting is maximized in that spell (many changes, virtually every ability, quick changes and so on). Can you show me a lockpicker that Knock (opens all locks automatically in one action) cannot beat? Divine Minion template with Master of Many Forms levels can come pretty close to what you suggest. Stipulation 3 makes it completely impossible, however, since nothing in the game can beat Shapechange when it comes to shapeshifting (which is kind of like saying no insect can bench-press a washing machine as well as some bodybuilders I know. It simply means they're in different leagues). If Shapechange is banned or altered dramatically, then what I provided above (or even Druid 5 / Master of Many Forms 5 / [Your choice of Nature's Warrior or Warshaper 5]) is pretty much the cream of the crop of the noncasters, and would fit your bill exactly were it not for the third stipulation (which makes it impossible). (This alters a bit if Draconic Polymorph or Polymorph Any Object are in the game. Both are tremendously strong.) However, here's the key. If it's impossible with the rules to beat stipulation 3, which only works because Shapechange is the best of the best of the best, then any homebrew class to do it would in and of itself be overpowering, since it would exceed the already-overpowering Shapechange. You'd have to weaken Shapechange dramatically to pass it and still maintain some semblance of balance -- and if you do that, what I suggested above becomes valid.
darklogic 12-19-05, 02:32 AM	This might sound silly. But I'll give it a shot. There don't seem to be enough socially constructed classes. Non-spellcasting, non-combat oriented classes. Granted, OA has the Courtier, and the Expert from UA can be made more social, but there are some very nifty social functions that I'm not seeing overtly covered. 1. Merchant - granted, there are NPC classes to help take care of this, but in a truly social game you want someone who can out buy and out sell the NPCs and not break a sweat. 2. Artist (fill in blank) - granted, there is the Artisan prestige class in OA, and there are also NPC classes to fill this role again. Same argument as in the case of Merchant, however. My concept for a Taiyu could be covered by this broad category of concepts here, though many would argue that such a profession is not art, and would prefer to see a Geisha in that role instead. I'd agree, but then you'd have to conceed the need for at LEAST two kinds of classes to fill this category. The above two concepts, while I admit the various ways they can be filled, are only filled in a subpar manner without major tweaking of the rules. Simply saying grab XYZ skills to fulfill the concept really seems to be making excuses for the lack of social dynamics inherent in the d20 system, which we must admit is mainly combat oriented. There are some other concepts that I feel are lacking, however. 1. a Sun Tzu Style Tactician, wherin you must not only lead your men effectively, but you must confuse the enemy, and anticipate the enemy general's strategy. The Marshall does not adequately cover this role. I would describe the Marshall as a field commander, not as the general that is making the overall administrative decisions behind the troops as well as anticipating the enemy. Necesary for this concept would be some sort of mechanic for studying the enemy and countering their strategies. 2. Any character concept that deals with Vedic principles of life stages and stage appropriate behavior, removing absolutes in terms of right and wrong in favor of fluidic movement from one life stage to the next. Such a character concept would need extreme adaptability across its career appropriate to the five stages (or more) in its dharma. So yeah, there aren't ANY characters like this in ANY d20 game, whatsoever. 3. An Ascetic character that does not gain martial benefits for his ascetism, but does gain mystical ones, however abstract. i.e. A Bodhistava at high levels, a less grand state of being at lower levels. Note that this concept is incompatable with concept 2 above, as it deals with a linear progression towards a singular ideal of enlightenment. 4. Any form of Non-nordic or non-anglo-saxon based "barbarian" such as those found among native americans. And dodn't tell me to just use the same class, or change just this rule and that. It's obvious that the d20 barbarian has more in common with vikings and nordics than it does olmecs, aztecs, and cherokees any day of the week. And ranger is also innapropriate, as is druid. (Druids, and thus Rangers who draw off the druid spell list, are strictly a European convention.) 5. A non-swashbuckling seafarer, such as a polynesian or a Chinese sailor... you know, the ones that sailed around the world before the Vikings and Columbus were born. 6. A dimwit/child/moron who has the best luck in the multiverse, i.e. any main character of C.S. Lewis or J.R.R. Tolkien who manages to do something that someone else more powerful could have done better.
Yak of Darkness 12-19-05, 03:16 AM	4. Any form of Non-nordic or non-anglo-saxon based "barbarian" such as those found among native americans. And dodn't tell me to just use the same class, or change just this rule and that. It's obvious that the d20 barbarian has more in common with vikings and nordics than it does olmecs, aztecs, and cherokees any day of the week. And ranger is also innapropriate, as is druid. (Druids, and thus Rangers who draw off the druid spell list, are strictly a European convention.)Saying that the ranger class, as a whole, cannot possibly fill a non-European archetype because it has minor spellcasting off of the druid list (and not really, as they have their own list) seems very shortsighted. Either you can say that the "magic" comes from a heightened connection to nature and call it whatever the hell you want, or use a spell-free ranger. Because, at least for this example, the ranger seems to have it all (at least for the "North American Indian barbarian" type . . . I admittedly don't know much about Central/South American myths). Good fighting ability, without tanking in heavy armor? Check. Highly-skilled? Check. Able to skulk about in the wild with little problem? Check. Can relate well with animals? Check (with the added bonus of a special animal companion . . . call it a "representation of your animal spirit guide" if you want). Give him a bow and arrow (or Quick Draw and start throwing tomahawks), and you're set. For what it's worth, I agree with you on the lack of social-type classes (really, any class who doesn't fight all the damn time would be nice). Unfortunately, that's in the nature of D&D as a combat-centric game. It'd be nice to see some variety, though.
Tempest Stormwind 12-19-05, 03:20 AM	Let me explain my background before I tackle Darklogic's post. I'm a physics student with a background in psychology, mathematics, and education. I have an interest in mythology and history, particularily of Europe, but have minimal exposure to Eastern history and philosophy. (If there's a problem in my matchups, it's because of this. I apologise if I offend anyone.) I also firmly believe that cultural trappings can be removed from any well-designed class without issues. You just need to rename enough things and roleplay other things properly. Here we go. This might sound silly. But I'll give it a shot. There don't seem to be enough socially constructed classes. Non-spellcasting, non-combat oriented classes. Granted, OA has the Courtier, and the Expert from UA can be made more social, but there are some very nifty social functions that I'm not seeing overtly covered.The main reason this exists is that -- get this: Dungeons and Dragons characters are fantasy adventurers. In other words, the classes are based around adventuring -- which often means combat and survival over political intrigue. Political intrigue is covered nicely with what some spells and the skill list can do. 1. Merchant - granted, there are NPC classes to help take care of this, but in a truly social game you want someone who can out buy and out sell the NPCs and not break a sweat.High ranks in Profession (Merchant) and Knowlege (Law), along with Bluff and related social skills. Add on feats like Resourceful Buyer -- there's a couple of these in Races of Destiny and other sources, they make buying and selling very efficient overall. One, I can't remember the exact name, gives you 75% instead of 50% back when you sell something, and once per month you can make a very cheap big-ticket purchase (I believe it was in the Player's Guide to Faerun, but I'd have to look it up again). Add on Leadership for an entourage and there you go. There are enough mechanics to support this idea. (I once played a nimblewright spymaster as a guest PC in a friend's game. Its cover identity was that of a merchant. I looked into this pretty intently at the time, and it got to the point where she carried a big Bag of Holding and a cloak that could expand itself into a large merchant's tent on command (and overnight do the Leomund's Secure Shelter trick). The fact that the character in question was actually an infiltration agent is beside the point.) Note that economics are pretty much beaten senseless by the spell system -- Wall of Iron + Fabricate = iron prices fall as everyone has everything made of it all of a sudden, for instance. Or, alternately: Step 1: Buy cow. Step 2: Cast Flesh to Salt. Step 3: Profit! (Cows cost less than an equivalent mass of the trade commodity salt.) 2. Artist (fill in blank) - granted, there is the Artisan prestige class in OA, and there are also NPC classes to fill this role again. Same argument as in the case of Merchant, however.Again, profession (artist) and craft (any physical creation like painting) work well here. I had a Shaper at one point (psion subtype) who described herself as an artist whenever anyone asked what she was. (VERY creative use of Craft (sculpting) and the Astral Construct power... kept a sketchbook of her constant nightmares to inspire them. In one noted BBEG fight, she pulled it out first and sketched the enemy roughly before pulling out the astral constructs.) Really, "artist" is far more diverse than "merchant" and without more details it will have to rely on the skill system. The above two concepts, while I admit the various ways they can be filled, are only filled in a subpar manner without major tweaking of the rules. Simply saying grab XYZ skills to fulfill the concept really seems to be making excuses for the lack of social dynamics inherent in the d20 system, which we must admit is mainly combat oriented.That is because the assumption is that you are playing an adventurer. You are a SPECIAL character, not one of the ordinary rank and file farmers or soldiers. You are a PLAYER CHARACTER, one of the story's HEROES. Now, while I admit it's fully possible to have a character based off of things that do not relate to combat (like the archetypal geisha), they will probably die in combat were that to happen (and in most fantasy adventures, it will happen). At the same time, a regular D&D character can contribute to the victory of the combat (or at least survive it), put on dress clothes, and attend a social function where his social skills show off. There are some other concepts that I feel are lacking, however. 1. a Sun Tzu Style Tactician, wherin you must not only lead your men effectively, but you must confuse the enemy, and anticipate the enemy general's strategy. The Marshall does not adequately cover this role. I would describe the Marshall as a field commander, not as the general that is making the overall administrative decisions behind the troops as well as anticipating the enemy. Necesary for this concept would be some sort of mechanic for studying the enemy and countering their strategies.Why would you need a class for what is, fundamentally, adventure planning? This is RP-related, pure and simple (like making a choice -- "move forces here, or there?" is fundamentally no different than "Do we trust the dragon's words?"). If you insist on a mechanic, note that certain Knowledge skills and Sense Motive can be used in war-related situations -- see Complete Warrior and Heroes of Battle. Heroes of Battle also has a few very good PrCs in this direction. 2. Any character concept that deals with Vedic principles of life stages and stage appropriate behavior, removing absolutes in terms of right and wrong in favor of fluidic movement from one life stage to the next. Such a character concept would need extreme adaptability across its career appropriate to the five stages (or more) in its dharma. So yeah, there aren't ANY characters like this in ANY d20 game, whatsoever.I'm not familiar with the vedic principles at all (hadn't heard the name at all until now, except as a Chrono Trigger sword, and I've played enough video games and studied enough mythology to know that games like that never make up their really cool names). However, I assume it's a philisophical outlook -- which can be expressed again, entirely through roleplaying. 3. An Ascetic character that does not gain martial benefits for his ascetism, but does gain mystical ones, however abstract. i.e. A Bodhistava at high levels, a less grand state of being at lower levels. Note that this concept is incompatable with concept 2 above, as it deals with a linear progression towards a singular ideal of enlightenment.Aesceticism and spiritual strength are again, in my eyes, more of a roleplaying issue. However, here we go with mechanics. While I disagree with the presentation, Vow of Poverty does indeed include a lot of mystical bonuses out of nowhere. Several can be used martially, though, so it's not the best option. At the same time, though, note the Wu Jen. They also gain Taboos, including "cannot own more than she can carry" -- which is very close in a purely physical sense to the abandoning of physical posessions in favor of spiritual benefit (say, Spell Secrets here). Furthermore, as a spellcaster, wu jen can become among the most powerful characters in the game, and among the least item-dependent. I'm convinced that with the right combination of roleplay, this can be matched up. In fact, if you play a non-item-dependent class, such as the psion, it can be matched perfectly JUST through roleplaying. Mechanically, you don't get your strength from your aesceticism, but no one in character needs to know this. (A friend of mine -- the man who introduced me to psionics -- once played a shaper who was very much influenced by Native Americans. He claimed in character that he channeled the spirits of his ancestors and their totem animals, and could grant them the limbs they needed to assist him in his spirit quest. ...Mechanically, this was an Astral Construct power sculpted to look like the animals he wanted, with appropriate ability selections, but you'd only tell if you ignored the roleplay aspect.) (By the way, technically, a Vow of Poverty with a Vow of Nonviolence doesn't gain any martial benefit, because they can never attack and the benefits on attack rolls and whatnot do not come to play. The defenses -- which can be described as reflections on the spiritual strength of the aescetic on the physical world -- would remain.) 4. Any form of Non-nordic or non-anglo-saxon based "barbarian" such as those found among native americans. And dodn't tell me to just use the same class, or change just this rule and that. It's obvious that the d20 barbarian has more in common with vikings and nordics than it does olmecs, aztecs, and cherokees any day of the week. And ranger is also innapropriate, as is druid. (Druids, and thus Rangers who draw off the druid spell list, are strictly a European convention.)Actually, the word "barbarian" itself merely meant someone who didn't speak Greek ("bar" is the term that ancient Greece used where we would nowadays say "blah" -- as in, all those outside our enlightened country can only say "blah blah blah"). But if you want to get into the barbarian, as in the warriors of the Native Americans, ranger matches almost precisely until you get spellcasting (Which is fine for NPCs, since NPCs are almost always below 4th level anyway. Note the Eberron approach to PC/NPC levels.). Scout and Fighter can come close as well. Pure Fighter can't quite match the skills, but it does avoid anything extra tacked on. By the way, equating the Druid (western concept) with the list of spells is fallacious. The Spirit Shaman is drawn far more on Native American and Indian concepts, and it draws on the same list. The Shaman (OA) is remarkably Indian in mechanical approach, and its list is very similar to the Druid's. Thus, if there's a problem with the class, it's not with the spell list -- and thus it doesn't transfer to rangers. RP the spells as blessings of the ancestors and pick thematic spells, and there you go. (You DO have to pick the right spells just as you have to pick the right feats. The fact that not all spells match the concept is irrelevant, for the same reasons that not all potential feats a character could take need to match the concept. It's the feats -- and spells -- that you choose and use that matter.) (Note the above example of the shaper "shaman" that I described. RP can do a lot. Flavor is mutable.) 5. A non-swashbuckling seafarer, such as a polynesian or a Chinese sailor... you know, the ones that sailed around the world before the Vikings and Columbus were born.I don't know a lot about how this would work since I do not know much about the early Chinese nautical life (I DID know about early Chinese sailing, and have spoken with a professor in Vancouver about this, actually... but that dealt mostly with the leaders, not the life at sea). However, yet again, this is subsumed in the skill list. If I knew more about the class, I could pick a better one -- but chances are it'd merely be a warrior or expert with Profession (Sailor) for the NPCs. (PCs would have the same skills, and would probably be diverse in class makeup. Without more information, I can't answer precisely). 6. A dimwit/child/moron who has the best luck in the multiverse, i.e. any main character of C.S. Lewis or J.R.R. Tolkien who manages to do something that someone else more powerful could have done better. Again, this is a matter of assumption or roleplay. A PC is a special character -- they could merely be special because they're in the right place at the right time. I haven't read much of CS Lewis -- only The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, which came accross as FAR too much of a Biblical allegory for me to stomach -- so I can't speak with authority here. On Tolkien, though, his characters were usually heroic and adventurous -- unless you ignore the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales. In the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, most of the cast are adventurers, too -- just not the main characters. They would probably start as NPC classes and multiclass into PC ones along the way (and most of the hobbits could easily fall into the Rogue niche. Hence why D&D, which borrows much from Tolkien, gave halflings the favored class they did.) This is again a matter of roleplay. If you desperately desire mechanics to support this concept, Eberron's Action Points -- only available to PCs or NPCs with the Heroic Spirit feat (which are meant to be rare, recurring characters) -- pretty much match spot on. This fits the bill exactly for Lord of the Rings characters, by the way. I hope this addresses your concerns adequately. Note that a large amount of what you suggest is merely a function of roleplaying, or goes with a different fundamental assumption than D&D uses. If you desperately desire mechanics that match what you think of (note that mechanics are not necessary for the game -- many a session I've gamed in has involved no rolls whatsoever, just RP. And they're fun), then maybe D&D is not for you. This is not a weakness in the rules. The rules make the assumption that you will be playing a fantasy adventurer. If you will not be playing a fantasy adventurer, then the rules are not for you. If I do not want to play a venture capitalist tycoon, then I will not play Monopoly. If I do not want to play a murder suspect, then I will not play Clue. By extension, if I do not want to play a fantasy adventurer, I will not play D&D. I think that, for instance, a philosopher (your example 2, for instance, in the second section) is not a fantasy adventurer. Neither is the artist. On the other hand, an adventurer who is a philosopher (or vice versa through roleplay), or an adventurer/artist, are quite possible -- and are usually handled through the use of skills and roleplay.
Khan the Destroyer 12-19-05, 03:51 AM	Actually, the word "barbarian" itself merely meant someone who didn't speak Greek ("bar" is the term that ancient Greece used where we would nowadays say "blah" -- as in, all those outside our enlightened country can only say "blah blah blah"). Is this commonly accepted as accurate or could there be other translations? I had heard that 'barbarian' meant 'bearded one', under the notion that 'uncivilized' men kept beards.
Tempest Stormwind 12-19-05, 04:05 AM	Is this commonly accepted as accurate or could there be other translations? I had heard that 'barbarian' meant 'bearded one', under the notion that 'uncivilized' men kept beards. I admit I haven't looked exhaustively, but I've heard both ones. The gibberish seems to be the more common of the two, but that doesn't preclude the other meaning as well. It is also possible, for example, that "barbarian" was used originally for the gibberish, and then came to be translated colloquially as an independent word as "bearded one" and later changed meanings. Words do that sometimes. (it's not as clear-cut as "berserker" -- clearly drawn from Norse roots. Sadly.) I'm not a linguist, though etymology is a hobby I study when I get the time. I could be wrong, but I have heard the "bar-bar-bar" version more often. EDIT: Preliminary research confirms the first option: They're independent, and it does indeed come from their language (though it seems I may be a bit off on the origin, since there was apparently a Greek term "barbaros" that meant fundamentally the same thing.). The origin of the beard association (same as the word "barber") is independent, despite the similar sound -- that one comes from barbera (Latin for beard... I'm taking Latin at the moment, actually). Latin is decidely post-Greek. Good to see you on this topic, Khan. It's quite fun, I find -- often people just aren't aware of what the system can do, or stop just short of the full conclusion. You'd probably have a blast here as well. [Aside: I had a guy plop twelve of the jaw-dropping smiley on me when I whipped up an off-the-top-of-my-head-in-forty-minutes low-powered Hurler in a damage contest thread. Maybe my time on the CO boards has desensitized me... ;)]
scienceman47 12-19-05, 04:10 AM	I am currently chewing around an idea for a base class, which is a martial character who uses an ooze that he generates himself for both armor and weapons. The reasoning for a base class is that commoners are often the unwilling subject of experimenters that give rise to the class. Its called the oozemaster in the title post, but the current name is oozebound. And do not mention the oozemaster, which is 3.0 and a spellcasting class. I understand what you are saying biscuit, and too a degree it is valid. Many class concepts fit very well into existing templates. But WoTC makes base classes all the time. Even classes that probably could be approximated. Just seems like people should be able to take a stab at it too, without people saying "If your idea does not fall into these catagories your not trying hard enough".
Tempest Stormwind 12-19-05, 04:13 AM	That sounds a LOT more like a template or a prestige class based off of a template (i.e. an Oozetouched template that is applied to commoners as the result of these experiments, and a PrC that can be entered at any level provided you have the template, or is easier to enter if you have the template. Precedent: Teflammar Shadowlord, UE). It does not sound like a base class, which is meant to describe an archetype. Note that a simple shaper, soulknife, or psychic warrior using things like Call Weaponry, their mind blade, Minor Creation, or Inertial Armor can easily describe what's going on in terms of ooze as well, if you would rather avoid this approach. As for classes that could be approximated: You are totally right. Just because there's a new official base class doesn't mean that it's a required choice either. The Samurai class (for instance) is nothing but a 4-SP fighter with pre-chosen bonus feats. The Swashbuckler is really only three levels long and fills an archetype that rogue/fighter matches. Scout is Ranger/Rogue, really, but somehow manages to retain its own niche. In my opinion, the only worthwhile base classes from the Complete series (i.e. ones I'd allow) were Warlock, Hexblade, Scout, and the Spirit Shaman. These either fill archetypes that are a messy match for core classes, or present interesting mechanical choices for players. I might be swayed into allowing the Spellthief, the Shugenja, or the Wu Jen, though the last one is more likely going to be a varient (i.e. "I'm a wizard, but I use this list instead of the normal one" or "wizards draw from THIS list, sorcerers draw from THAT list").
scienceman47 12-19-05, 04:14 AM	Perhaps there should be a thread that judges such things?
scienceman47 12-19-05, 04:24 AM	Thats the fastest response ever. And you may be right. As for the archtype argument, could not a nature worshipping cleric be a druid? How about if we add a druid prestige class. How about a bard? Isnt that a rogue with perform sing? Maybe a PrC for that too? Ranger, fighter with handle animal and survival. The base classes could all be approximated. Why not?
scienceman47 12-19-05, 04:32 AM	I dont like the hexblade. It should probably be a PrC, but I am not familier with it either, so take the above opinion with the knowledge that it is a surface opinion made purely on the knowledge of its general flavor. And im not much on the spirit shaman either. The scout and warlock do things that no other class does though, I approve. How do you respond so fast?
AngelDust Anderson 12-19-05, 04:40 AM	How about a character that can turn Incorpareal as an immediate action (I think thats the one you can use anytime) in order to avoid attacks. I like defencive clases. -Anderson
arkerpay 12-19-05, 07:56 AM	Does the Wooodsman from Wheel of Time d20 fit your class idea at all? It's lightly armored, has a full BAB, and has a nice list of nifty abilities without any hint of spellcasting or such fluff. There you go. Thank you, Woodsman. Sounds like its on the right track. Is 'Wheel of Time' WoTC? All I have is Core and the Complete books (and Fiend Folio). Now I get the sense 'Complete' doesn't mean what I think it means.
Noria Merfolk Mage 12-19-05, 10:40 AM	Igamono seems simply to mean "Person of the Iga Province/Clan", so it just refers to regular Iga Ninja. Rogue, Ranger, Scout and Ninja all cover this, depending on how realistic/mystical and how combat/sneaky/ambushy you want it. Merchant/Artist: I agree that these are side concepts that should be applied to a normal adventurer, and can easily done to a fair degree on any Rogue or Bard. Alternate takes on artists, like the Shapers mentioned before, or stuff like the Effigy Master, work great too. Sun Tzu: Problem with Sun Tzu is that he works at a army level, while in a D&D game a character is going to be directly dealing with 20 allies and enemies, absolute tops, even in a war setting. Otherwise you're getting into an abstract mass battle campaign, which is not D&D. There are various ways to do an "offensive" Marshall, Cleric with it's Doom spells and the like fits for a start. Ultimately many "battlefield control" builds can be made. One interesting possibility is in the new variant PHB Iron Heroes. The hunter there acts very much like what you're asking for, and while Iron Heroes is a high-power system, it's very much in line with regular D&D characters, and could be adapted fairly easily. Vedic: Ressurectionist/cycles of life kinda guy?? Sounds like a roleplaying hook for a cleric or Druid. Ascetic Mystic: Sorceror, Druid, Psion, hell any spellcaster, if you forgo armor and such. Vow of Poverty does help too. Indian Brave: Ranger. Don't get hung up on names, Druids apply to everywhere. I certainly don't recall European druids having a monopoly on turning into animals and calling down lightning and holy fire. Seafarer: A seafarer class for a game based around exploring dungeons?? I'll stick with my Profession skill, buy my boat, take leadership for a crew and call it that. Lucky guy: A "class" based around being a lucky idiot?? Uh-huh. Rogue is a good fit, with tumbling, uncanny dodge, evasion and stuff, multiclassing into a few other classes can make it stronger. Just pretend for RP purposes you're doing it "accidentally". OozeDude: Very Psychic Warrior, from the Acidic Touch to the creating weapons and armor from Ectoplasm. Turns Incorporeal every time you would get hit: Uh-huh. Play a ninja, and use the damn ready action system, if you're so worries about taking damage. Wheel of Time: Was WotC, a very early-on spin-off of 3.0. Out of print for years, but you can find it.
darklogic 12-19-05, 11:44 AM	In regards to responses to my original post: Regarding Merchand and/or Artist classes: I acknowledge that DnD is about adventuring. Your definition of adventuring seems a bit narrow, however. I have been in a number of tabletop RPGs, some d20 and some not, that are extremely social. Political intrigue, the life of a community, these things can be gripping roleplaying experiences. My idea regarding these classes was not meant to be so much of a comment of "the system as it stands needs these" but a commentary that the DnD products do not seem to cater whatsoever to primarily social players. And by social player, I'm referring to those who desire to get through social enounters on more than just skills and charm person. Regarding the Sun Tzu class: I've seen this done very well in a different RPG tabletop system, and to suggest that a d20 system such as DnD cannot pull it off seems belittling to the scope of the d20 system. I assert that while I admit in the paragraph above that DnD is an adventuring game for the most part, sometimes players want experiences that aren't completely adventure ridden. I for example have not explored a dungeon in over three years. I have however manipulated dynasties, routed armies, and built a name for my character that few if any adventurers could hope to attain. Granted, adventuring works well in any Tolkienesque campaign setting, but not all settings are built this way. And in regards to the assertion that moving your army is as simple as talking to a dragon: I must wholeheartedly but respectfully disagree. While I admit military affairs have a stronger roleplaying undertone than a dungeon crawl, to simply arbitrarily determine them all without a strong system background seems suicidal, as I can assure you that any DM in a military campaign worth his salt has some sort of mechanic that makes one general superior to another, regardless of what RPG system he is using. Regarding the Indian Brave: Upon reviewing the non spell casting Ranger in Complete Warrior, I must agree that this concept is covered. Additionally, the Scout class also can fill this role. Vedic: It would take me an inordinantly long time to explain this one. I will therefore table discussion on this particular idea for another time. Ascetic Mystic: Pardon my lack of a explanation of the idea. What I was originally trying to get across was a monk flavored character, as I have always played in settings were monks, in all of their varieties, at least claimed to be ascetic (and those that aren't are usually evil). The closest in my mind to something along these lines is the Inkyo, but even they get fists you don't want to be touched by. Seafarer: It seems to me that a class such as this is needed on any high sees campaign. Sinbad flavor would be acceptable, as long as it can be tweaked to fit more than one culture and isn't a swashbuckler (i.e. not Pirates of the Carribean). Granted, roles such as this can be filled by some PrCs, such as those in Stormwrack, but I'm not certain that's enough. Let me put it this way, there are many PrCs that allow you to take class features of a class you're not in. I am asserting that the class you're taking features of when taking a seafaring PrC is this one that does not yet exist. Any definition of adventuring that does not include high seas adventure and world exploration is microscopically narrow and in my view, not fun. 'Lucky" Guy: Admittedly, this came across the wrong way. I don't see this as a roleplaying element so much as a story hook or plot device, I just threw this in there for kicks, because I'm annoyed at stories that give underaged or inexperienced persons roles of heroic and epic proportions when there are more experienced adventurers less than five feet away. I was hoping someone else would get the joke. But that's all it was, a joke.
darklogic 12-19-05, 11:57 AM	Tempest Stormwind: I hope this addresses your concerns adequately. Note that a large amount of what you suggest is merely a function of roleplaying, or goes with a different fundamental assumption than D&D uses. If you desperately desire mechanics that match what you think of (note that mechanics are not necessary for the game -- many a session I've gamed in has involved no rolls whatsoever, just RP. And they're fun), then maybe D&D is not for you. This is not a weakness in the rules. The rules make the assumption that you will be playing a fantasy adventurer. If you will not be playing a fantasy adventurer, then the rules are not for you. If I do not want to play a venture capitalist tycoon, then I will not play Monopoly. If I do not want to play a murder suspect, then I will not play Clue. By extension, if I do not want to play a fantasy adventurer, I will not play D&D. Everything in your post I was able to take with a grain of salt until I got to this section. It is apparent that you and I roleplay from completely different premises and likely would not fit well in the same RP group. Please, though, do not even suggest that we don't belong in the same game. I like d20, and I like DnD. I do not agree wholeheartedly with every word and product that they make, but I can't think of any RPG system that I do agree with in such a manner. I do not define d20 and DnD as "just" fantasy role playing. There are many products and many splatbooks that support the view that the system can support other genres of roleplaying, all the way out to sci fi adventuring. to each their own, I say. You, and many others on this board, seem to define adventuring very very narrowly, and for that I am not angry. In fact I find myself baffled that anyone could limit themselves to saying "this is an adventure, but this isn't." The point of adventure is that it's fun to imagine that you're doing it, and that it's exciting, and that it's... well... over the top and out of this world. No, I don't want to roleplay a real estate tycoon a la donald trump. No, I don't want to play Clue, although mystery RPGs are fun. I want to RP though. and there are many styles of RPing and adventuring. Take a look at Heroes of Horror, Call of Cthulu, or Oriental Adventures coupled with the Rokugan setting, and you'll find that there are numerous ways to RP out an adventure. You could have a Horror campaign, where the PCs struggle to remain sane, or be free of taint. You could have a classic dungeon crawl, or be sent out to chart and explore areas of the world no one in your kingdom has been to before. You could have to outwit people in court, and somehow survive in their deadly game of intrigue. You could be on a mission of conquest, or defending your homeland. You could even be in a coliseum built for the amusement of the gods. No matter what, as long as its fun and exciting, who am I to tell you what is or is not an adventure or a DnD campaign for you? And by that same note: Who are you to say the same to me?
heretic888 12-19-05, 12:16 PM	Heretic888: I have to admit, I am not as well versed as I thought in the period. Give me a bit of time to research the concepts you provided, and I will show you how they can work within the existing rules (unless you'd care to provide a summary). Preliminary searches only reveal a very weak correlation to ninja (historical, not the fantasy type -- which, if I recall my history correctly, weren't even called that until far later. I forget the exact, proper term, except that it translated into something about stealth [which I think is "shinobi" in Japanese, but I could be wrong].). If you'd care to help a bit with what the concept is, I can respond quicker. Well, I'll try to give a succinct explanation here. Igamono means, very literally, "men of Iga". It was an honorific term used to refer to the samurai of Iga Province, who were highly skilled in reconaissance, espionage, and commando warfare. They were also mercenaries, selling their skills on a case-by-case basis to the daimyo of other provinces, but maintaining steadfast loyalty and allegiance to Iga Province itself. There are a few historical records pertaining to these individuals that should be mentioned here. The Nochi Kagami, an early 16th century annal of the Ashikaga shogunate reads: "Concerning shinobi-no-mono, they were said to be from Iga and Koga, and went freely into enemy castles in secret. They observed hidden things, and were taken as being friends. Strategists call them kagimono-hiki ['sniffing and listening']." This source also goes on to mention a specific instance in which the Iga men were involved: "Inside the camp at Magari of the shogun Yoshihisa there were shinobi-no-mono whose names were famous throughout the land. When Yoshihisa attacked Rokkaku Takayori, the family of Kawai Aki-no-kami of Iga, who served him at Magari earned considerable merit as shinobi-no-mono in front of the great army of the shogun. Since then successive generations of Iga men have been admired. This is the origin of the fame of the men of Iga." Elsewhere, in the Go Kagami, we read a similar story: "There was a retainer of the family of Kawai Aki-no-kami of Iga, of pre-eminent skill in shinobi, and consequently for generations the name of people from Iga became established. Another tradition grew in Koga." As for descriptions of these individuals in action, we can find some references in the Iran-Ki, which details Oda Nobuo's failed invasion of Iga Province: "The enemy became increasingly careless, including many of the guards outside the castle, and in addition to this from the skilled men of Iga, twenty men who had mastered shinobi-no-jutsu, set fire to various places outside the castle and reconnoitered among the smouldering camp fires. Night after night they made frequent excursions in secret.... over a hundred men were killed and because of this the enemy were placed in fear and trembling." The same source also reads: "[The Iga samurai] were a strong army because it was their native province, and they skillfully appreciated the advantages offered by the terrain. They had established strongpoints, and fired bows and guns, and taking swords and spears fought shoulder to shoulder. They cornered the enemy and cut them down at the entrance to the rocky valleys. The army of Nobuo were so preoccupied with the attack that they lost direction, and the Iga men, hidden in the western shadows on the mountain, overwhelmed them easily. Then it began to rain and they could not see the road. The Iga warriors took the opportunity, and, aware of the others lurking in the mountain raised their warcry. The band of provincial samurai, hearing the signal, quickly gathered from all sides and attacked. The Ise samurai were confused in the gloom and dispersed in all directions. They ran and were cut down in the secluded valley or on the steep rocks. They chased them into the muddy rice fields and surrounded them.... The enemy army collapsed. Some killed each other by mistake. Others committed suicide. It is not known how many thousands were killed." And, also: "[The Iga warriors] took on the attacking force at the Jizo-do, and fought until the sparks flew off them. Both sides raised their warcries as they came together, and fought close at hand. The samurai of the province concealed themselves in various places. The soldiers ran past this group, and then attacked the enemy from the rear. The Ise warriors were greatly surprised by this, finding their return route cut off for them." My own take on how these warriors might appear in D&D is the Shinobi No Bushi (http://www.wizards.com/leaving.asp?url=http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=188379&origin=). Laterz.
heretic888 12-19-05, 12:33 PM	Igamono seems simply to mean "Person of the Iga Province/Clan", so it just refers to regular Iga Ninja. Rogue, Ranger, Scout and Ninja all cover this, depending on how realistic/mystical and how combat/sneaky/ambushy you want it. With the possible exception of the Scout, the aformentioned classes are, in my opinion, rather poor representations of the Igamono. And, ironically enough, the Ninja class itself is the poorest representation of all the classes that were listed. As I stated before, the Shinobi No Bushi (http://www.wizards.com/leaving.asp?url=http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=188379&origin=) is how I see these warriors being portrayed in D&D. Laterz.
Radagast 12-19-05, 12:47 PM	For the "woodsman" type class, a Rogue/Barbarian multi-class sounds about right. No spells, no animal companion, yet a host of skills, including Hide, Move Silently, Survival, etc. The Rage aspect might not make too much sense, but other than that, it sounds like it fits. It could also be a pretty nasty damage-dealer with generally good BAB progression, Rage, and Sneak Attack. The hardest type of character to make in D&D is probably something that uses an entirely different casting system, such as ritual-based magic, magic based on the stars, moon, etc, somebody like Gandalf, Saruman, Sauron, and so on. Most anything can be made in the D&D rules (barring extremely narrow examples), though one may not know about the classes, feats, or prestige classes in question. Perhaps a better question would be: out of the base classes in the core books (and maybe any in the Complete series), what key types of characters are missing?
Game_Addy 12-19-05, 12:54 PM	Gladiator, Sword and Fist. Best if there's NPCs around that can cheer him on, but still works. There's also the Races of Eberron kalashtar martial art, which works along the same lines, only defensively (basically, you can continue to defend yourself for a long time, and then get a huge bonus on your first attack after it). There is the Combat Intuition feat but that only makes you better the second round, after that you seis to improve. Works for me :D Michael
Tempest Stormwind 12-19-05, 01:26 PM	scienceman47: Unearthed Arcana addressed the paladin, bard, and ranger as PrCs. Nature-worshipping cleric is possible within the cleric rules, though they still remain "cleric-like" (domains, armor, and whatnot), while the druid fills a completely different niche (i.e. the spiritual extensions of nature in the sentient races). If a class emerges because of a change in another creature, then that creature must exist first -- in other words, it must have at least one character level already. Thus, it's either a prestige class (unlikely, since that's voluntary) or a template (which is more likely, since it can be applied to anything. It could even scale with HD, if you like). It's also likely to be a template that, if someone wants to pursue and master its abilities, they can take levels in a class to do it. However, since it requires something tangible (template), it must be a PrC, not a base class. (I respond fast by typing what I think, and typing quickly. That is all.) AngelDust Anderson: That is not a character concept, that is a single rule that you'd like to see. And it's already done, by the way -- CV ninja and Psion Uncarnate can both do what you suggest or better. Darklogic, first post: D&D's social rules are enclosed nearly completely in the skills. This is like asking for a skill that is a binary effect, or a base attack bonus that allows a spell to be cast. Social rules are the skills. You may have feats or class features that allow new uses of skills (Deft Strike), enhance their normal use (Quick Reconnoiter), or provide bonuses on them (Negotiator), but that is it. I still fail to see why this requires its own 1-20 base class. There are rules in Complete Warrior, Heroes of Battle, and a few other sources (less so in CW, by the way, but rudiments are there) on conducting large-scale battles, including leading them. This is something ANYONE can do, through RP decisions and skill checks. This does not require a 1-20 base class -- particularily since generals, if I recall history correctly, were made, not born (i.e. "I have no experience whatsoever, as a first-level character, give me command of the legion, sir!" didn't fly). If you demand a class for it, look in Heroes of Battle for a PrC related to this. I admit it is more of a frontline LEGION leader, but a behind-the-scenes Sun-Tzu type is, yet again, doable completely within RP and skill use. It's not like you need a class feature that tells you how to plan a war. I take your disagreement with respect as well. I wish you no ill will, but I have yet to see anything that determines the need for a 1-20 base class based on Sun-Tzu. If anything, you're talking about war rules -- and those do exist if you know where to look (CW, MiniHB, Heroes of Battle). Furthermore, they are CLASS INDEPENDENT (not level-independent, or skill-independent, but definitely independent of class). (I'm still interested in understanding, at least superficially, the vedic. If it would derail this thread too much, and you feel like typing a bit, feel free to PM me.) Aescetic: So you are looking for a character that gets no combat ability whatsoever, but could nonetheless exist in a game where combat is essential to the core assumption? Look up the Vow of Nonviolence and throw it on a monk or inkyo. This also combines well with Vow of Poverty, essentially removing the martial bonuses of that feat. There are also aescetic feats in CV which allow monk to freely multiclass with a particular other class, stacking in their key abilities. (If you decide to do this in a game where aesceticism is common, remove the Exalted tags from those feats. Maintain Sacred Vow as a prerequisite, but change the flavor to swearing to a particular philosophy -- for instance, in Rokugan, the Tao of Shinsei may work.) Seafarer: Call me crazy, but when I took part in a nautical adventure a while ago, we renamed the ranger the "sailor." Ditch the flavor left, right, and center, and look at what you get. I haven't read anything related to Sinbad in years, but it did sound familiar to that. You may need minor tweaks of the sort described in the DMG (to REMOVE stuff, rather than add), but nothing like designing your own custom 1-20 class. I maintain that a good chunk of what makes a sailor a sailor is contained in the skill rules -- Balance, Swim, Use Rope, Survival, and Profession in particular. on the Lucky Guy: I thought it seemed out of place. ;) Darklogic, second post: New settings require new flavor. New flavor requires you to abandon your old preconceptions on the mechanics. Often, they work where they wouldn't seem to. I'm not claiming it's perfect -- hell, the existence of a thread like this sort of proves that, doesn't it? People think there are character concepts that need their own 1-20 base class. I'm merely showing people that their concept exists in the rules already, or that their concept is not actually a base class. If someone does provide a concept that requires a 1-20 base class, I will gladly accept it. And I do agree in general. I should not tell others how to play the game. In fact, you'll note that during this whole thread, I have not said anything like "This exists in the rules and thus you are not allowed to create your own class for it." You are free to do what you wish in the game. However, claiming that your character NEEDS a new base class, that is the fallacy. It may be better done if you create a custom class, yes, but the printed rules already allow for much of what I've seen and heard of. (For instance, a friend of mine once wanted to play a castrati -- a male singer who had been castrated at a young age to preserve the beauty of his singing voice. This is not in the rules as written. His first instinct was to create a new 1-20 class. My first response was to create a first-level-only feat that granted huge bonuses (I forget the number, I think it was +4) on vocal Perform checks, and improved bardic music abilities. A castrated character is in no way restricted to being a singer. Instead, he is free to do whatever he wishes. He WILL have a lovely singing voice, and is likely to excel better as a singer, though... so the feat provides this. He will sing better than just about anyone else. He will make a better bard than an equivalent character without the feat (but with other things). However, does a CLASS represent this, or does a feat do it? This was before UA was printed. If it was afterward, I probably would have made it a character trait, with drawbacks attached to social appeals to hormones or related things.) I am not opposed to new rules, or variants. I am generally opposed to making new base classes, however, since I feel virtually every concept can be expressed using existing material. How accurate an expression depends on the material in question, I'll give you that -- and if it just isn't accurate enough for you, then talk to your DM and design your own class. Just don't say it doesn't exist in the rules, or claim there's a NEED for it in the rules, if it already does exist. Heretic888: Much of what you describe seems to be roleplaying elements rather than mechanical ones. The mechanical requirements that I can see here include Disguise, Bluff, sensory skills, stealth, and martial skill. A scout base with a few levels of Fighter and Rogue can cover this pretty closely. The fact that these three classes have very little in the way of supernatural abilities helps match a historical concept fairly well as well. Looking at your interpretation (which, on its own merit, is actually very nicely done), a single level of Monk would do wonders for the build in question as well (I'm not too sure I understand how you percieve honor in relation to the Lawful alignment, but in the purest sense they aren't related. Law, in this case, reflects dedication and devotion to a particular ideal or discipline). If the alignment conflicts, one -- and only one -- level in the Complete Adventurer ninja isn't too bad a choice either. So, Monk (or CV Ninja) 1 / Rogue 1-4 / Fighter 1 or 2 / Scout X seems to come pretty close to what you have described to me. Remember what I mentioned regarding the Native American braves and ranger spellcasting -- "The fact that not all spells match the concept is irrelevant, for the same reasons that not all potential feats a character could take need to match the concept. It's the feats -- and spells -- that you choose and use that matter." If you time your classes right, you will avoid the XP penalty as well, assuming you're human (and since this is meant to be a historical concept, human is likely going to be the race). I personally think the XP penalty is a legacy of older editions that they didn't want to cut, but that's just me. Additional options worth considering would be levels in Ranger (again, RP the spells differently or use the no-casting variant; Urban Ranger is probably a given here). Bear in mind, though, D&D is fantasy. While I agree that the ninja class doesn't match ninja in all but the most very, very abstract terms, it is nonetheless close to the fantasy vision of the archetype. The DRUID doesn't match the priests and priestessess of the historical druidic traditions in the slightest. Real-world priests could not invoke their god to deliver holy fire on their foes. Anyone claiming to be a magician was either a charlatan or a practical scientist/mathematician. Does this preclude the existence of invisible ninja, spell-casting clerics, shapechanging druids, and arcane wizards in fantasy? By definition, fantasy is something that cannot be real. (Arthur C. Clarke defines it as "Something that couldn't happen, but you wish it would." I think this is the most succinct definition I've ever found.) If you're looking for a historical game -- i.e. no magic -- you have to incorporate variant rules. And that applies to the base classes as well. That's as close as I can get on the description you provided (and avoiding prestige classes, but there are a few of those that might fit better). It may be jaded a bit, but I hope I explained my bias. Radagast: Different spell systems: These already exist, or are purely products of flavor. They are variant rules (Unearthed Arcana alone contains no less than six different systems! ... not all of them have been balanced properly, but they weren't as extensively playtested. Read about them here (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/variantMagic.htm), as they're OGC), alternate official systems (psionics, the warlock, incarnum, etc), or merely flavor (i.e. the Shaper shaman I described above. In the case of an astrologer, their gestures and notes would resemble astrological signs and you claim to manipulate the forces of the cosmos, for instance. Just focus on divinations and you're done.). There's even subsets of existing magic (Circle Magic for rituals, etc). They do not require 1-20 base classes at all. Merely variant rules on magic. By the way, I myself am guilty for creating a 1-20 base class -- I was one of the chief authors of the Society Mind. The goal was a psionic support class that would explore interesting mechanics and deal with the themes of connectionism. Note that this was not a character concept -- the only concept in there was the "connectionism" and "support" things, which a telepath can do quite easily with a bit of roleplay. The desire for new mechanics that no one had yet explored (the worldthought network and the As One powers, for instance) is what motivated me to work on the class. Could we make a psionic support connectionist with existing rules? Yes. This character concept did not require a 1-20 base class. What DID require that class was the desire for new mechanics to explore. This is why I'm leery of posts like this one (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8037613&postcount=50). You are not describing a character concept that requires a 1-20 base class. You are describing mechanics that, in your eyes, require a 1-20 base class. These are fundamentally different things. On an unrelated note, what do people have against multiclassing? It's not the ridiculous process found in earlier editions -- it's meant to be easy to allow you to express concepts not contained in a single class -- like the nonspellcasting outdoorsman. On the outdoorsman, a multiclass Ranger (<4 levels) / Scout / Wilderness Rogue (maybe with one or two levels in Fighter) matches the concept given pretty precisely. I will admit WoT's Outdoorsman fits it better (remember, I said this before -- custom 1-20s are often tailor-made), but I was sticking to WotC products. And within that scope, it is perfectly doable with multiclassing.
Fargren 12-19-05, 03:40 PM	Is this commonly accepted as accurate or could there be other translations? I had heard that 'barbarian' meant 'bearded one', under the notion that 'uncivilized' men kept beards. Barba emans beard in spanish,a nd spanish has a lot of words derived from celtic languages, so it's entirely posible. But I like the Bar Bar option more.
Zilvar 12-19-05, 04:07 PM	On an unrelated note, what do people have against multiclassing? It's not the ridiculous process found in earlier editions -- it's meant to be easy to allow you to express concepts not contained in a single classI would not presume to speak for anyone else, but for me there are a couple of reasons I don't care to look for a multiclass solution to a character concept, but the primary reason is character advancement becomes non-organic when introducing multiple disparate character archetypes. I feel that classes tend to promote a smooth and organic advancement to abilities. The path of advancement for a Scout, or a Rogue, or a Cleric proceed in fairly predictable lines that build up to the culmination of the class. Interspersing levels of other classes into the mix can, and will, interupt the even flow of a class. Trying to incorporate more than two classes makes the process even more awkward-seeming. Certain systemic kludges in the system also contribute to this, the most notable being the first character level...a Ftr1/Rog1 will be a very different character than a Rog1/Ftr1 (with the second having the potential for far more skill points with no loss in class features assuming a good roll for HP at 2nd level). Secondly (and this point is most notably visible in the already-linked gish thread), sometimes a character concept that is to be expressed via multiclassing essentially requires multiple PrC and class-dipping to function without appreciable (and to some, unacceptable) loss in skill, spell, and/or combat functionality. If your described character has 20 different class levels (yes, I'm exaggerating. I do that.) then I'd suggest that it's time to create a base class. At some point you must decide whether X different classes is too many, and whether the idea is better served as a base class. I'm fairly radical. I start thinking about base classes when X is 3 (including PrC's). For you, X might be 99. That's fine for you, but it means that when I see Sorc 6/Ftr2/EK10/Sorc2, I'm probably thinking that the game needs a base class with 17th-level equivalent arcane spellcasting and BAB 16-ish. Third, and least relevent to the thread (but most relevent to my last three characters), some DM's think that excessive multiclassing is the Path to Damnation and Power Gaming. The various CO boards are probably a prime cause of this belief. That said, now to try my hand at your initial challenge. In a current campaign my DM plays with limited Magic/Psionic transparency. There is some overlap, but not much. We are a largely magic-based party and have been encountering a lot more psionic creatures than I'd expected when we started the campaign. Had I known what the campaign was going to entail, I would have worked with my DM to create a psionic version of the bard class. In this case, a multiclass of the two will not work, as it does nothing to address the arcane focus of the existing class...a focus that I could easily do without in this campaign.
BigCat 12-19-05, 06:54 PM	What about a dancer class? I don't believe I've seen one anywhere... A character that uses her dancing ability as her main class skill, similar to a bard and his singing. A dancer would be charisma and dexterity based, and she would excel at performing dance & acrobatic skills. I've seen interpretations where the dancing could invoke magic-like abilities, though that's not a requirement.
Fargren 12-19-05, 07:28 PM	What about a dancer class? I don't believe I've seen one anywhere... A character that uses her dancing ability as her main class skill, similar to a bard and his singing. A dancer would be charisma and dexterity based, and she would excel at performing dance & acrobatic skills. I've seen interpretations where the dancing could invoke magic-like abilities, though that's not a requirement. Please, read the bard. He doesn't need to sing. He just needs to sue a perfomr skill. Like Dance. Any Bard can be absed on dance. Or in jumbling, or even acting, or(why not?) insulting. Wow, an insultinmg bard, that ednigrates it's nemies to give bonuses to his allies. I'm SO going to do that!
Tempest Stormwind 12-19-05, 08:41 PM	I would not presume to speak for anyone else, but for me there are a couple of reasons I don't care to look for a multiclass solution to a character concept, but the primary reason is character advancement becomes non-organic when introducing multiple disparate character archetypes. I feel that classes tend to promote a smooth and organic advancement to abilities. The path of advancement for a Scout, or a Rogue, or a Cleric proceed in fairly predictable lines that build up to the culmination of the class. Interspersing levels of other classes into the mix can, and will, interupt the even flow of a class. Trying to incorporate more than two classes makes the process even more awkward-seeming. Certain systemic kludges in the system also contribute to this, the most notable being the first character level...a Ftr1/Rog1 will be a very different character than a Rog1/Ftr1 (with the second having the potential for far more skill points with no loss in class features assuming a good roll for HP at 2nd level).I can see your argument, but at the same time, there is no difference in class features between a class that provides sneak attack every four levels and a caster level every second, and a rogue/wizard multiclass. The difference lies in numbers -- and that difference all but disappears if you adopt the (far more sensible but harder for basic players to grasp) fractional base attack and save progressions. The only problem that remains mechanically here is the first-level effect on skills. I admit there is no way to alter this as written in the system, but this is not the point of the thread. Secondly (and this point is most notably visible in the already-linked gish thread), sometimes a character concept that is to be expressed via multiclassing essentially requires multiple PrC and class-dipping to function without appreciable (and to some, unacceptable) loss in skill, spell, and/or combat functionality. If your described character has 20 different class levels (yes, I'm exaggerating. I do that.) then I'd suggest that it's time to create a base class. At some point you must decide whether X different classes is too many, and whether the idea is better served as a base class. I'm fairly radical. I start thinking about base classes when X is 3 (including PrC's). For you, X might be 99. That's fine for you, but it means that when I see Sorc 6/Ftr2/EK10/Sorc2, I'm probably thinking that the game needs a base class with 17th-level equivalent arcane spellcasting and BAB 16-ish.This is purely an aesthetic argument. I personally would see more of a problem with a class that had 17/20 spell progression and +16 base attack, since it would violate the general patterns of progression. Let me give you an example instead. Meet Gerin. He's a 14th level character. He describes himself as an arcane dragoon -- spellcasting light mounted cavalry -- specializing in battlefield control techniques and archery. This is a character concept. He would not describe himself as the Sorceror/Fighter/Knight Phantom hodegepodge of classes that he has. (This is for a campaign other than Eberron that uses the Knight Phantom without the attachment to the Aundair army.) I always look at the character as a whole. Flavor is completely mutable. (That would change if the class in question is campaign-specific -- were Gerin in Eberron, he'd undoubtably be a member of the Knights Arcane, for instance, though the rest could remain unchanged.) So long as the class has a place in the concept, I have no problem with anyone using it. However, this is an aesthetic argument. I don't see anything ugly about seven different classes, unless they're being used together for no story reason (i.e. an actual quote from an ex-player I gamed with in 3.0: "I have one level in ranger for the two-weapon fighting." He made no attempt to reflavor it or hide the fact that he was a ranger -- in fact, he hated animals, and yet his character demanded to be respected as a ranger in the druid camp we found, because he had a level in it.). If the classes together form the concept you want, then go with it. (By the way, in defense of the CO boards: most of the famous things we make are BUILDS, not CHARACTERS. They are purely mechanical thought experiments that we do not intend to play -- in a sense, they are us probing the boundary conditions of the game's dynamics, much like theoretical physicists observe where the equations break down. As such, some of the characters you see -- Pun-Pun being the most obvious -- are nothing more than thought games. Assuming they are the results of lowlife munchkins who desire nothing more than absolute power is as fallacious as assuming D&D is a game about schoolgirls.) Third, and least relevent to the thread (but most relevent to my last three characters), some DM's think that excessive multiclassing is the Path to Damnation and Power Gaming. The various CO boards are probably a prime cause of this belief.Actually, the CO boards consider Druid 20 and Artificer 20 to be among the most powerful builds in existence. A core-only druid 20 can usually beat the game senseless at nearly any level regardless of how much extra material the rest of the party is using. That said, now to try my hand at your initial challenge. In a current campaign my DM plays with limited Magic/Psionic transparency. There is some overlap, but not much. We are a largely magic-based party and have been encountering a lot more psionic creatures than I'd expected when we started the campaign. Had I known what the campaign was going to entail, I would have worked with my DM to create a psionic version of the bard class. In this case, a multiclass of the two will not work, as it does nothing to address the arcane focus of the existing class...a focus that I could easily do without in this campaign. Campaign-specific issues require their own variants. For instance, one cannot create a cleric of a cause in Faerun. This is a stipulation of the game. In the case of a world which uses the rules of semitransparency (note that default is that they are completly equivalent), other measures must be taken. Generally, games that do not have complete transparency require a LOT more DM effort -- often in the form of creating psionic equivalents of base material, or base material that deals with psionics -- to even resemble balanced. Now, back on topic, I have STILL not seen a character concept that requires its own new base class to pull off.
heretic888 12-19-05, 08:50 PM	Heretic888: Much of what you describe seems to be roleplaying elements rather than mechanical ones. The mechanical requirements that I can see here include Disguise, Bluff, sensory skills, stealth, and martial skill. A scout base with a few levels of Fighter and Rogue can cover this pretty closely. The fact that these three classes have very little in the way of supernatural abilities helps match a historical concept fairly well as well. Well, to be entirely honest, I left a lot out for the sake of brevity. In particular, I tended to emphasize the sociological and historical aspects of the Igamono --- things that can be easily observed from an "outsider's view" --- while avoiding many of the key principles and concepts found within the Iga martial traditions themselves. I put more emphasis on these in my Shinobi base class, such as kyojitsu tenkan ho (Truth and Falsehood), fudoshin (Immovable Spirit), ken tai ichi jo (Flowing Strike), sakkijutsu (Keen Defense), and so on. Personally, I feel that many of these concepts are very difficult to represent through the system's existing skills, feats, and class features. Looking at your interpretation (which, on its own merit, is actually very nicely done), a single level of Monk would do wonders for the build in question as well (I'm not too sure I understand how you percieve honor in relation to the Lawful alignment, but in the purest sense they aren't related. Law, in this case, reflects dedication and devotion to a particular ideal or discipline). If the alignment conflicts, one -- and only one -- level in the Complete Adventurer ninja isn't too bad a choice either. Well, the alignment restrictions for my Shinobi class are any nonchaotic, nonevil. I think that is a pretty faithful representation of the Igamono's moral philosophy. So, Monk (or CV Ninja) 1 / Rogue 1-4 / Fighter 1 or 2 / Scout X seems to come pretty close to what you have described to me. Personally, if I were to do it with the existing base classes, I would go with something like human Monk 3/Rogue X/Scout X. The recently released Psychic Rogue (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040723b=Psych) is also a viable option here, but I prefer the core Rogue myself. However, as I stated before, I don't feel the aforementioned classes can faithfully represent many of the martial and tactical principles within Iga ninpo traditions. Additional options worth considering would be levels in Ranger (again, RP the spells differently or use the no-casting variant; Urban Ranger is probably a given here). Actually, I hadn't thought of the Urban Ranger (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#rangerVarian tUrbanRanger) but it might also be a good fit with the aforementioned base classes. Especially a non-casting version, such as the Rokugani variant in which you can trade out spell levels for Fighter bonus feats. Bear in mind, though, D&D is fantasy. While I agree that the ninja class doesn't match ninja in all but the most very, very abstract terms, it is nonetheless close to the fantasy vision of the archetype. I personally don't feel the CV Ninja is very close to Japanese fantasy and mythology at all. The DRUID doesn't match the priests and priestessess of the historical druidic traditions in the slightest. Personally, I think the Druid is a fine class (albeit overpowered through the Natural Spell feat), but the name should definately be changed. Real-world priests could not invoke their god to deliver holy fire on their foes. Anyone claiming to be a magician was either a charlatan or a practical scientist/mathematician. Does this preclude the existence of invisible ninja, spell-casting clerics, shapechanging druids, and arcane wizards in fantasy? By definition, fantasy is something that cannot be real. (Arthur C. Clarke defines it as "Something that couldn't happen, but you wish it would." I think this is the most succinct definition I've ever found.) I have no problem with fantasy. If you'll note my Shinobi class, you'll see that many of the class features --- Evasion, Immovable Spirit, Hide In Plain Sight, Ageless Grace --- are rather fantastical in nature If you're looking for a historical game -- i.e. no magic -- you have to incorporate variant rules. And that applies to the base classes as well. I do not agree with this philosophy at all. There is no reason at all we cannot blend history and fantasy in our D&D campaigns, and I have done this several times myself. That's as close as I can get on the description you provided (and avoiding prestige classes, but there are a few of those that might fit better). It may be jaded a bit, but I hope I explained my bias. Yes, I think you explained your position quite well. Laterz.
Silverthumb128 12-19-05, 08:52 PM	Maybe a type of character, a bit like the Animal Lord/Dragon Disciple in a sense, whose abilities are based off of the fighting tactics of monsters? They can use abilities similar to a creature, but without polymorphing into it, or changing type. The Japanese folklore buffs may recognize this as based off of Yoshi-tsune(hyphenated for language filter, it doesn't like those s-bombs), who was trained by the Tengu(like Kenku, but stronger).
heretic888 12-19-05, 08:58 PM	The Japanese folklore buffs may recognize this as based off of Yoshi-tsune(hyphenated for language filter, it doesn't like those s-bombs), who was trained by the Tengu(like Kenku, but stronger). For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure there is a Tengu in Oriental Adventures. Laterz.
Zilvar 12-19-05, 09:07 PM	I can see your argument, but at the same time, there is no difference in class features between a class that provides sneak attack every four levels and a caster level every second, and a rogue/wizard multiclass. The difference lies in numbers -- and that difference all but disappears if you adopt the (far more sensible but harder for basic players to grasp) fractional base attack and save progressions.That, however, need not be the only way that such a base class could be built. It is one way, and the most obvious, but not the only way. If I wanted to make such a class, and make it worthwhile, then I would want to try to inject more flavorful abilities, probably at the cost of the spell levels or sneak attack. This is purely an aesthetic argument. I personally would see more of a problem with a class that had 17/20 spell progression and +16 base attack, since it would violate the general patterns of progression. Yes, given that the class breaks the mold, I'd wonder about it as well. I do not, however, see this as purely an aesthetic arguement. Even though I postulated a class that has exactly the same strong points, it should be obvious that wouldn't work, but something similar would. (By the way, in defense of the CO boardsThe CO boards need no defense. I know why they exist and what goes on. If you choose to believe that none of the optimization projects (even the ever-popular Pun Pun) never make it into a game, well, OK. Now, back on topic, I have STILL not seen a character concept that requires its own new base class to pull off.You have. You simply discounted it as not eligible for whatever reason. As you are fond of suggesting the use of optional rules from UA (various class varients and fractional BAB to name two), discounting something as campaign specific because it uses a non-default rule is somewhat hypocritical.
Tempest Stormwind 12-19-05, 09:12 PM	Heretic888: I respect your views, and reiterate my position that a tailor-made class can always fit better than existing material. However, as you have demonstrated (with excellent sources, by the way -- I avoided the psychic rogue since I assumed the same issues with spellcasting would transfer to manifesting), a mix of Monk, Scout, Rogue (or Psyrogue), and Ranger (particularily Urban Ranger) can come close to the historical Igamono that you describe, and can do it with enough power and fantasy prowess to keep up with everyone else. The class is not NECESSARY. (Appreciated, yes. Nicely done, yes. Necessary? No. I personally feel that with a build based on the designs that I laid down and you refined, enough RP can be done to cover the rest. Remember that there is still flexibility in character concept in terms of feats -- and options like Psychic Inquisitor are open if you use the psyrogue approach, along with fantasy options like Up the Walls.) By the way, the fantasy vision of the ninja that I referred to was the Western one. I am a Canadian with no trace of Japanese (or other Eastern) ancestry, and only a recent interest in the culture. I cannot speak for what the Japanese fantasy ninja would be like. (And as for mixing fantasy and history: I meant a historical D&D game that would be set in our world, using the d20 rules with enough restrictions to make it 'real' (no magic, for instance). It would still remain fantasy enough to pull off some interesting tricks, but nothing that would look out of place in, say, a wuxia movie. To use an anime allegory, it'd be Samurai Champloo versus, say, Naruto. My comment was not intended as "If you play in a fantasy world you cannot have historical elements" -- though I can see how you could read it as such. I apologize for the ambiguity.) There is a Tengu in Oriental Adventures, and a separate Kenku in, I think, the MM3. By the way, what exactly do you mean by "abilities similar to a creature"? That could be something purely aesthetic (I had a monk who fought with lots of patience and stealth, with good jumps and grapples, who described everything that he did as 'Mantis Style'), or an application of certain magic spells that grant similar moves. Zilvar, I do not consider, in a game that allows nontransparency effects, a psionic version of existing classes a new base class. I consider it a necessary consequence of the rules. If something exists in magic, then an equivalent -- or approximate equivalent -- should exist in psionics. The existing rules assume that the two are equivalent, so there is no need for duality... but in a nontransparent or semitransparent world, which are variant rules themselves, you require new effects. (Sort of like how a new world where undead aren't powered by negative energy requires alterations to the paladin's Lay on Hands, but on a more dramatic, world-changing scale.) Could you give me an example of what your proposed modification would imply, mechanically?
Fargren 12-19-05, 09:25 PM	You have. You simply discounted it as not eligible for whatever reason. As you are fond of suggesting the use of optional rules from UA (various class varients and fractional BAB to name two), discounting something as campaign specific because it uses a non-default rule is somewhat hypocritical. Since qe are rtying to prove all concepts are doable, I believe it's fair to use rules that favor this, and ignore optional or campaign-dependant rules that hamper it. And what concept is undoable? maybe I missed it, but even the non-adveturing ones cna be done with skills.
Tempest Stormwind 12-19-05, 09:31 PM	Since qe are rtying to prove all concepts are doable, I believe it's fair to use rules that favor this, and ignore optional or campaign-dependant rules that hamper it.Fargren, this holds in all cases EXCEPT where the character is designed with a specific campaign in mind. If I have a Dark Sun game going, and I want to play a shadow-using mage, I am going to use Dark Sun rules, including the ones that may hinder the concept (i.e. the Preserver / Defiler distinction), since that is part of the concept. And what concept is undoable? maybe I missed it, but even the non-adveturing ones cna be done with skills.I'm pretty sure he thought the psionic bard was the one he mentioned. Hpwever, this is a natural consequence of the rules in question (as I explained above), and a variant of an existing class, instead of a custom 1-20 built for a specific concept. I note that people are moving closer and closer to mechanical 'concepts' instead of character concepts. That is not the intention of this thread. Can the existing mechanics cover all proposed new mechanics? No, and no one ever claimed that. Can it cover all character concepts (within its fundamental assumptions)? That is what this thread is attempting to discover. EDIT: I feel the need to link this strip (http://giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=209) to most of you. Miko Miyazaki is a great example of a concept that works great in the core rules. She's a samurai, and is capable fighting with both her katana and wakizashi at the same time. The fact that, mechanically, she is a Monk 2 / Paladin ? with the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword) and Two-Weapon Fighting feat trees is merely how she works in the rules. Some good RP (http://giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=200) and the rest is history.
Thrantar 12-19-05, 09:39 PM	Class reliant solely on mobility and nothing else.
Tempest Stormwind 12-19-05, 09:43 PM	Class reliant solely on mobility and nothing else. Mobility is merely one aspect of the game and you're aware of it -- which I can tell because I read your longer post written here as I was editing in the second link above. This is also a mechanical standpoint, just as I called out in bold above.
Silverthumb128 12-19-05, 10:22 PM	For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure there is a Tengu in Oriental Adventures. Laterz. Yup there is. But I assume that most posters are unfamiliar with the book itself, whereas, Kenku being much more commonly known.
darklogic 12-19-05, 11:52 PM	What about a dancer class? I don't believe I've seen one anywhere... A character that uses her dancing ability as her main class skill, similar to a bard and his singing. A dancer would be charisma and dexterity based, and she would excel at performing dance & acrobatic skills. I've seen interpretations where the dancing could invoke magic-like abilities, though that's not a requirement. Kingdoms of Kalamar has such a class, and it is levels 1-20.
darklogic 12-19-05, 11:56 PM	Class reliant solely on mobility and nothing else. Beyond Stormwind's comment on the idea... what do you mean by "mobility" in this case? Do you mean someone who is fast, who relies on placement in combat? Who can travel long distances? I'm not certain that simply saying "mobility" is enough of a descriptor. If you mean someone who is fast and gets to hit first, for example, you might want to adapt the Aggl'sdai (check my spelling please, I hate the class name) from Wheel of Time d20. Alternatively, if you're wanting someone who is very mobile in combat and enhances the mobility of his comrades... Marshall from Miniatures is a good bet. But until you give a more specific idea on what you mean by mobility I'm not certain I can figure out what fits this concept best.
heretic888 12-20-05, 01:24 AM	Heretic888: I respect your views, and reiterate my position that a tailor-made class can always fit better than existing material. However, as you have demonstrated (with excellent sources, by the way -- I avoided the psychic rogue since I assumed the same issues with spellcasting would transfer to manifesting), a mix of Monk, Scout, Rogue (or Psyrogue), and Ranger (particularily Urban Ranger) can come close to the historical Igamono that you describe, and can do it with enough power and fantasy prowess to keep up with everyone else. The class is not NECESSARY. I disagree. As I stated before, I underemphasized the cultural aspects of the archetype; that is, the intrinsic principles and concepts that underly the Igamono's approach to martial arts and strategy. In my opinion, you are basing your analysis from the point of view of the historical and sociological description that I gave in my earlier post. In other words, you are basing your opinion primarily on the surface image of the archetype, not the actual meat 'n grits that makes up the way they do things. In regards to the martial principles, I personally feel that many of them are poorly represented in existing D&D mechanics. One could argue that kyojitsu tenkan ho can be replicated by maxing out one's ranks in Bluff and Sense Motive, or perhaps even designing a feat that gives a one-time bonus to these skills. However, in several of the other details, there is considerable disagreement between core mechanics and the ninpo concepts. The historical Igamono, for example, generally wore light armor (usually a lightweight version of chainmail) and this assumption is carried over to modern budo traditions that claim Iga ancestry, such as Togakure Ryu, Gyokko Ryu, and Koto Ryu. Yet, the concept of sakkijutsu is that one possesses a keen insight or awareness into the intentions of others that unconsiously enables the ninja to evade unseen or unexpected attacks with greater ease. Thus, the Keen Defense class feature, which can be used while wearing armor or shields with a check penalty no greater than 0. And, when it comes to Flowing Strike, there is absolutely nothing in the existing system to replicate this ability. As before, you get "pretty close" to the Igamono only on the level of surface appearances. By the way, the fantasy vision of the ninja that I referred to was the Western one. I am a Canadian with no trace of Japanese (or other Eastern) ancestry, and only a recent interest in the culture. I cannot speak for what the Japanese fantasy ninja would be like. Ironically enough, the ninja just so happens to be a Japanese phenomenon. ;) And as for mixing fantasy and history: I meant a historical D&D game that would be set in our world, using the d20 rules with enough restrictions to make it 'real' (no magic, for instance). It would still remain fantasy enough to pull off some interesting tricks, but nothing that would look out of place in, say, a wuxia movie. To use an anime allegory, it'd be Samurai Champloo versus, say, Naruto. What you're talking about sounds like d20 Modern and its various supplements, such as d20 Past. Laterz.
Greg_K 12-20-05, 01:55 AM	An outdoorsman class. Lightly armored, mobile, with appropriate skills and flexibility in feat selection. Scout, ranger and barbarian all have abilities that break the paradigm for what I am looking for. What about using the wilderness rogue variant from Unearthed Arcana combined with the rogue option from Unearthed Arcana that receives fighter bonus feats rather than sneak attack?
Tempest Stormwind 12-20-05, 01:57 AM	Heretic888, let me give a quick analogy. Paladins are holy warriors. They gain a variety of unique abilities. They have a code of conduct. Why? To get into the why of things, one has to look into roleplay and flavor. To get into the how of things, one has to get into mechanics. For the paladin, the WHY has to deal with being the living incarnation of justice and goodness in the world, the holy crusader sworn to destroy evil and defend the innocent. The abilities are the granted gifts of their god and church. (In an alternate game, such as the one that Order of the Stick chronicles, some of them are graces of the gods, others are manifestations of the paladin's devotion to their superiors. In still another it may appear as a direct result OF the code of conduct, similar to the reasoning behind Vow of Poverty's effects as a result of aesceticism.) The HOW relates merely to "gains these bonuses at these levels, and loses them under the following conditions." Boring, by comparison, but at the core, that is what the mechanics are. This, not my lack of expertise on the subject of the Igamono, is my reasoning behind my thoughts earlier on your shinobi no bushi being unnecessary (for the record: Hell, I would use that class, both as a player and a DM. I don't know when I'll next sit in the DM seat, given my class schedule -- I'm in my fourth year of university physics -- but I'll likely allow it expressly as an option, and I know at least one of my regular players will love it. He's a sucker for the lone-commando thing). The point is, if you can match the "How," then the "Why" can be filled in as normal. And the "How" can be hit to a very close degree of error -- as in, enough of a degree that the minor variations suggested in the DMG become more than enough to close it to 95% or higher, but that lies beyond the scope of this thread. I have on numerous occasions said that custom-made classes will fit any concept BETTER than those of the base system. However, that is again not the point of this thread, which is -- yet again -- to find a concept that requires its own base class to pull off. Superficially, the 'how' of the igamono can be fit fairly decently -- on your own admission, actually -- with existing material. Custom material -- like your class or even minor modifications to the regular classes, like that suggested in the DMG -- can make it almost perfect, or as perfect as it can be fitted into the d20 system. The 'why' still remains in the grasp of the player, and good roleplay can change the reasoning dramatically. By the way, what did you mean by "the ninja are a Japanese phenominon"? Maybe I'm just tired and you were being goofy by pointing the obvious, but I think there's more too it than that. ;) [On an unrelated note, talking to you has been an education. I've done a bit of reading -- including several of the links in your sig -- and find myself far more informed on the subject at hand. Thank you. I'm still no master, but all things take time.] Aside: Oddly enough, the description you give on the thought behind sakkijutsu can be matched by what you did -- letting monk Wis-to-AC apply through light armor -- or with existing rules, as Uncanny Dodge. You just have to look at it from a different angle. (I'm pretty sure this is why Uncanny Dodge is in your class, too.) However, without the assumption that "My character needs the Wisdom bonus to AC" -- which in the case of the Monk design, was included because they were meant to go unarmored and needed an interesting way to stay competitive with armor-wearing characters -- there is no reason to choose the former over the latter as the representation of that technique. They have very, very similar ramnifications -- in the "how" phase, both mean that you are able to defend yourself in situations that others would be caught by surprise and nigh-defenseless in. And on Flowing Strike: While I admit nothing matches it exactly, there are quite a number of related abilities (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=4584975). My first response when I read it was "Oh, that looks a bit like No Thought [Shiba Protector], only restricted as it should have been." I am fully convinced it is a good, competitive, valid class, and it looks like it'd be both fun and interesting to play. I am not, however, convinced that the Igamono is unplayable without it, and that it absolutely requires its own base class. Which is why I'm continuing to field this thread. (I'm hoping it doesn't get derailed into a discussion on the merits of D&D ninjas and class-based mechanics...) EDIT: Darklogic, did you notice the reply above? Bards -- and other characters with Bardic Music, such as virtuosos -- do not need to sing or play instruments. They merely need to use the Perform skill -- which includes dancing. This, especially when combined with thematic feats (i.e. Snowflake Wardance) would make an excellent foundation for a gypsy character -- or a so-called "dancer." Without the need of its own unique 1-20 class. (After a while, though, you'd probably take levels in the more dance-related classes such as Shadowdancer, Spelldancer, or Dervish, depending on your focus.)
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-20-05, 02:17 AM	The problem, of course, is that many of these examples break the original context of Simon's post. He was talking about Core core classes, and actually against things like the complete series classes. It sort of changes a lot of responces on this thread when you realize this. Now, as for things you still can't do: Competent, non-precision based two-weapon fighter: You should not have to rely on flanking and ambushing to make TWF work. Big Weapon fighter: especially with 3.5 weapon sizing, fighting with big weapons is more furstrating than interesting. A competent Martial Artist without mystic hoo-ha: Someone already said it, but it needs to be said again. With no magic crafting for hands, lowly damage dice to start, and a need for heavy armor (because you won't get monk defense bonus as a fighter), you can't really play thing in DnD as it stands. A beastmaster: Remeber in 3e, when your druid could have a mess of critters? 3.5 killed that, so no more beastmaster concept builds.
Tempest Stormwind 12-20-05, 02:33 AM	The problem, of course, is that many of these examples break the original context of Simon's post. He was talking about Core core classes, and actually against things like the complete series classes. It sort of changes a lot of responces on this thread when you realize this. I agree with this guy. Within reason*, something that makes sense within the realm of D&D, Eberron, Forgotten Realms, etc., what do you want so badly that you can't accomplish with the material that's already published? (And D&D is primarily combat; that's D&D and not my job to fix. Don't ask for White Wolf RP-focused classes. :P) Me (and hopefully a few other people) will then see what we can do about fixing you up with the material that's already out there. I'll need other people's help because I only have PHB, DMG, CW, CD, CAdv, CArc, ECS, RoE, RoW, RoS, Sandstorm, BoVD, and MM I - III. Important omissions are, say, XPH and MoI, not to mention Heroes of X, BoED, etc etc Within reason: as opposed to UNreasonable, such as a panty-snatcher that gains powerful arcane spellcasting, but only after stealing panties. Where in that did it say anything about no-completes? In fact, it lists a LOT of books, and it says "printed material." THIS is the root post of this thread, not Simon's. I've been restricting myself to WotC-only, but others have occasionally pulled in third-party stuff (Rokugan, Wheel of Time, and Kingdoms of Kalamar, for instance). Now, as for things you still can't do: Competent, non-precision based two-weapon fighter: You should not have to rely on flanking and ambushing to make TWF work.This is a mechanical concern, not a concept concern. Please stay focused. Be advised as well about the Second Commandment of Optimization -- with any bonus source of damage (ranging from Favored Enemy to Weapon Specialization to Skirmish to Dervish Dance to Sneak Attack to Insightful Strike), TWF becomes far more favorable. (For instance, Swashbuckler 3 / Fighter 2 / Dervish 10 / Tempest 5 is a benchmark TWF build on the CO boards. +20 base attack, plenty of feats (including the ability to use scimitars as light weapons, and to mix-and-match your TWF weapons and still get the bonuses), lots of attacks, and bonus damage from Insightful Strike and Dervish Dance. This is a viable and optimized build that does not rely on flanking or ambushing.) Big Weapon fighter: especially with 3.5 weapon sizing, fighting with big weapons is more furstrating than interesting.Another mechanical concern. And with Powerful Build or Monkey Grip (note that they do not stack), this becomes far simpler than anything 3.0 had to offer. A competent Martial Artist without mystic hoo-ha: Someone already said it, but it needs to be said again. With no magic crafting for hands, lowly damage dice to start, and a need for heavy armor (because you won't get monk defense bonus as a fighter), you can't really play thing in DnD as it stands.THIS is an adequate concern, but has been adressed multiple times over. Again, fighter as a base. Get levels in Shou Disciple as soon as possible (1d10 unarmed damage, anyone? Flurry - in armor - with martial weapons if necessary? Full base attack?). Additionally, look at the first TWO (and only two) levels in Monk. Nothing there at all (except the Lawful alignment) suggests anything mystic in the least. Finally, there are ways to compensate for the lower defense -- often through Combat Expertise, or gambling ON BEING HIT with things like Karmic Strike or Elusive Target. Note that you can still wear light armor and get along just fine. (By the way, spiked gauntlets can be enhanced. GAUNTLETS can be enhanced. By extension, GLOVES should be able to be enhanced. There's no precedent, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.) A beastmaster: Remeber in 3e, when your druid could have a mess of critters? 3.5 killed that, so no more beastmaster concept builds.The Beastmaster PrC can give you up to four additional animal companions. Each one is also more effective than the critters you could have before. There are other ways as well to get the horde of critters that is not dependent on class -- and quite a few, if I remember correctly. I'll have to dig the thread on this up again. "Still can't do", eh? Some of those were addressed from the start of the first page.
BadCatMan 12-20-05, 02:42 AM	My first double post. :)
BadCatMan 12-20-05, 02:42 AM	BadCatMan: You speak of a gish (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=307309). Believe me, they aren't powergamey, unless you do some weird stunts to end up with insane caster levels (generally, avoid the ur-priest, sublime chord, or related fast-casting PrCs). They're just very good at what they do. I'm certain you can construct what you look for there (particularily since you only need 4th level spells for this, you're free to focus on your martial side). I know about about gishes, and I'm sure I could construct one exactly how I like, especially given that handy thread (thanks!). But if I did, I'd only go ahead and try to work in as many caster levels, and as much BAB as possible, as well as any number of other neat tricks. To be honest, I'd minmax it. A prefabricated gish, ala Hexblade, would certainly keep my urges under control - the aim would then be to make a powerful Hexblade, rather than make a powerful arcane caster and as well as a powerful warrior. Gishes are certainly popular enough - a sure sign that a prefab gish base class is called for, if only for beginner gish players to get a feel for it. I'm starting a new campaign at the moment. I love the ideas of arcane spellcasting, and think that divine is too preachy and nature is too hippy for my tastes. But I'm new to spellcasting, and want to start by playing a limited spellcaster. But if I made a gish, well, see above. Prestige classing is tricky (requiring training) and restricted (no level dips of PrC hopping). Hexblade wasn't allowed (a pity, I had a great idea for it - spinning the class as a ranger of the unnatural). So in the end I went for a dwarf ranger (no chance of hippy there) or a bard (at least a somewhat limited spellcaster).
Greg_K 12-20-05, 02:45 AM	4. Any form of Non-nordic or non-anglo-saxon based "barbarian" such as those found among native americans. And dodn't tell me to just use the same class, or change just this rule and that. It's obvious that the d20 barbarian has more in common with vikings and nordics than it does olmecs, aztecs, and cherokees any day of the week. And ranger is also innapropriate, as is druid. (Druids, and thus Rangers who draw off the druid spell list, are strictly a European convention.). I would start with the barbarian hunter variant in Unearthed Arcana which loses rage for the Ranger's Favored Enemy and Combat Style. Then do the following: 1) replace the favorite Enemy with the Favorite Terrain variant also found in Unearthed Arcana. 2) take a combat style that is appropriate for the culture (or if necessary create a new one, or find one on the class board here or at the house rules section of the ENWorld message boards). 3) Use your feat(s) at first level appropriately -Forest dwellers such as the Iroquois would have Stealthy. -Jungle Pygmies would have stealthy. -Nomads (e.g., those inspired by cultures such as Bedouins, Mongols, Scythians, or Sioux Indians) would have the Nomad Feat, Skill Focus (Ride) or Animal Affinity Savanah Runners would have the Endurance Feat To further tailor the concept 4) Modify the skill list: If your character is based on a culture such as an African pygmy, a Polynesean islander, or based on a coastal people (e.g., the Tlingit of Northwest America), swap out ride for a new skill: Boating which deals with small water craft such as canoes, rafts, and rowing. 5) Alter the weapon proficiencies to be culturally appropriate (note: the use of Unearthed Arcana's weapon groups variant is perfect). Standard cross-cultural weapons include the club, dagger/knife, handaxe, spear. Depending on culture, add from the following: blowguns, bolas, bows and throwing sticks (e.g., boomerang). On occassion there might be another unique weapon such as the obsidian edged wood sword used by the Aztecs (which supposedly could decapitate a horse) * the bow is nearly universal in the real world, but for some reason was never adopted by the Aborigine of Australia.
Tempest Stormwind 12-20-05, 02:49 AM	I know about about gishes, and I'm sure I could construct one exactly how I like, especially given that handy thread (thanks!).No problem. You're welcom.e But if I did, I'd only go ahead and try to work in as many caster levels, and as much BAB as possible, as well as any number of other neat tricks. To be honest, I'd minmax it. A prefabricated gish, ala Hexblade, would certainly keep my urges under control - the aim would then be to make a powerful Hexblade, rather than make a powerful arcane caster and as well as a powerful warrior.I know it's not part of WotC, but quoth the Gaming Manifesto of Guardians of Order: "Munchkinism isn't a problem with the game, it's a problem with the player." You can totally build an effective gish that isn't min/maxed. Warlock would be a good basis for this, and it also limits your options a bit. (An interesting approach would be Warlock entering Knight Phantom in Five Nations. You can get the Phantom Steed prerequisite by being a dragonmarked member of House Orien.) Gishes are certainly popular enough - a sure sign that a prefab gish base class is called for, if only for beginner gish players to get a feel for it.Hexblade and Psychic Warrior are prefab gishes that are great for beginners. The former is more martial/debuff, the latter is more caster/buff. They aren't the most powerful, but that's not the point. I'm starting a new campaign at the moment. I love the ideas of arcane spellcasting, and think that divine is too preachy and nature is too hippy for my tastes. But I'm new to spellcasting, and want to start by playing a limited spellcaster. But if I made a gish, well, see above. Prestige classing is tricky (requiring training) and restricted (no level dips of PrC hopping). Hexblade wasn't allowed (a pity, I had a great idea for it - spinning the class as a ranger of the unnatural). So in the end I went for a dwarf ranger (no chance of hippy there) or a bard (at least a somewhat limited spellcaster). I would HIGHLY recommend the Psychic Warrior as an example. All the rules are free online as part of the SRD (i.e. it's core). They make excellent gishes in and of themselves. Psionics are also more beginner-friendly than Vancian casting and even Spontaneous casting (though you have to learn to ration your power points, which is something any caster needs to learn anyway), so no lost luck there. If you need help, head to the Psionics Board, there's a Psychic Warrior Build Guide and Compendium in the Master Index for you. A simple Psychic Warrior 20 or Psychic Warrior 10 / Psychic Weapon Master 10 would be fine characters, depending on whether or not you want more casting (the first one) or more combat (the second). Think of the Psychic Warrior as a battle-ready martial bard.
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-20-05, 03:00 AM	Where in that did it say anything about no-completes? In fact, it lists a LOT of books, and it says "printed material." THIS is the root post of this thread, not Simon's. I've been restricting myself to WotC-only, but others have occasionally pulled in third-party stuff (Rokugan, Wheel of Time, and Kingdoms of Kalamar, for instance). If you intend to use anything printed or developed, then what's the point of this thread? It proves nothing, especially if you're pulling from third party. Really, if we're pulling from third party, we'll just count my site and *poof* my concerns disappear. Simon was trying to make a point, regardless of if I disagree with him. drawing on everything that's been developed for d20 dillutes the spirit of his orignal idea. I don't think that you really agreed with him at all, in context. IF we're not using my site's stuff for it, then I've go one for you: An airborne fighter who is NOT a Raptorian.
Tempest Stormwind 12-20-05, 03:10 AM	If you intend to use anything printed or developed, then what's the point of this thread? It proves nothing, especially if you're pulling from third party. Really, if we're pulling from third party, we'll just count my site and *poof* my concerns disappear. Simon was trying to make a point, regardless of if I disagree with him. drawing on everything that's been developed for d20 dillutes the spirit of his orignal idea. I don't think that you really agreed with him at all, in context.Actually, I'm opposed in general to many of the base classes in the Complete series, and have voiced my opinions on them before (I even said a few I liked, if you'll recall). Most of my responses here that don't involve prestige classes have been base classes from the PHB and XPH (the "core" as I see it), or variants thereof as listed in Unearthed Arcana. All of my sources are in the SRD. The PrCs are drawn from various sources, I admit, but all are WotC. One or two of my builds do reference classes that I normally despise (like the swashbuckler), but those are exceptions to the rule and are entirely for the sake of optimization rather than development. I cannot speak for others, but I'm trying to be as much of a purist as I can with regards to the base classes. IF we're not using my site's stuff for it, then I've go one for you: An airborne fighter who is NOT a Raptorian. Nearly any gish past level 7 or so. Asking for true flight before level 5 is either a racial thing (and not just the raptorans, there are many level-adjusted races that can fly) or wishful thinking (just like asking for Meteor Swarm or "HADOKEN!" at level 1). At earlier levels, use spells like Jump or Levitate to capture the feeling. At later levels, there are prestige classes (Sharn Skymage is the iconic example, though it is setting-bound) that are based around airborne combat, or others that can easily be ported that way. And if you want to get technical, several types of Lancer are airborne fighters. The fact that they do it through Jump instead of through Fly is entirely beside the point. (You can read the first of many Lancer builds in my sig. The quick summary: The character concept is "Final Fantasy Dragoon". The mechanics that make the lancer powerful are Leap Attack and Multipliers, which are portable to a LOT of different builds. Anything with the mechanics has been dubbed a "Lancer".)
FriendlyBiscuit 12-20-05, 04:09 AM	HOLY CRAP, BATMAN! I came back from a 2 day absence (in CA, on a plane, at work, etc) thinking I'd reply to all the new stuff. I'm going to bow out for now and leave this in the field of those who know far, far more than I do and who can type far, far faster than I can. There's just no way I can type out the responses to each individual idea. I'm just going to throw out a few general comments because, like my last post, I think some people misunderstood my intent. I don't know how often I'll need to remind people of this fact, but I have no problem with people making new classes. It's one of my favorite features on this board! I really like the Blue Mage, the Alchemist, the Amazon, some others... lately I've fell in love with the Warforged Paragon class created by Save-vs-DM. It's neither an incredible new concept, nor is it uber-powerful, but it is polished, it is high quality. The quest for quality is the reason that I post some of the things that sound like lectures and snobbery. I don't want to stop people from posting new classes! I just want them to be worthwhile, something that is worth the time it takes to read it. I apply the same harsh standards to my own material that I do to everyone else. I've thought up quite a few base classes and prestige classes and feats and whatnot to post, but I've only posted 1 or 2 of them. After making something, I ask myself, has this been done before? Very often, the answer is Yes. I can almost always find something in a book, or on the Wizards website that already does what I've been thinking of. Once, they posted a feat two days after I had started thinking about making almost the same thing myself! Then the next big test comes: if someone else wrote this, and I were reading this, would I be impressed? That helps me chop out a few more of my ideas. Just because you have an idea doesn't mean that it's a good one. Just because you have a good idea doesn't mean that you've done it justice. Finally, I check for the same things everyone else does. Is my material generally balanced? Is my material something that a player would even want? Is my material something that a normal character has a reasonable chance of acquiring or learning in a D&D setting? Etc. etc. The Blue Mage may be one of my favorites, but it's not necessary, or even "truly unique". You could be a sorceror or a wizard, and roleplay yourself as a Blue Mage. Restrict yourself to learning spells that you are hit with. Most DMs will be happy to work with a character who actually wants to roleplay something unique, yet without begging for boons and freebies and bonuses galore. For those of you who've seen the alchemist class, it's really awesome. However, you could play a wizard, wu jen, or artificer who only chooses spells or transfusions that would fit in with the flavor of an alchemist. I'm sure you've noticed that most of The Alchemist's "transmutations" are in fact based on spells from published WotC material. Most of the new material presented in the Alchemist class is some sort of Feat, which is far easier to think up and to balance than a new spell/transmutation is. The class itself is a reworked Warlock, and the transmutations are mostly (if not all) reworked spells. Don't get me wrong, I love the class, but if someone wanted to play an Alchemist, they could do it with the material that's already out there. It's not going to match up perfectly with the TV show, because the alchemy you see in the TV show would be "unbalanced" in D&D. There is a call from more than one person for more "social" classes. That is one element, I'll admit, where D&D is lacking. Like I said in my first post, though... THIS IS D&D. This is not White Wolf. D&D is generally not played as LARP, because its tendency towards combat is more like a video game than it is like a text-based or face-to-face ROLEplaying game. That being said, however, there's no reason we can't make D&D work the way we want it to. Some of the material that I haven't thrown out is actually designed to widen a social character's options. Because of my obsession with perfection, it will be some time before I'm ready to post it. There is also a call for slightly different versions of classes. Everyone needs to read through the variant classes in Unearthed Arcana, and then reread it 4 or 5 times. If you don't have the book, you're in luck! It is Open Game Content, so that means AFAIK that people are free to quote it. http://srd.plush.org is going to have a lot of UA material up on the site by some time in February. The stuff in there really opens up your options. You don't have to mix Fighter and Rogue anymore to get a martial character with skillpoints and feat options! A martial rogue variant is in there which trades Sneak Attack for a fighter's feat progression. In exchange for a smaller HD and medium BAB, the fighter keeps their feats and also gets to add all of the interesting rogue abilities, not to mention the skills up the wazoo including the Holy Grail skill: UMD! And there's ever so much more stuff in there, it's just a really amazing book. When DMing, I reference it more than I reference the PHB. Also, for folks who don't want the weak ranger and paladin spellcasting, there are variants for that in Complete Warrior. One final note: I did not create this post because I wanted to say, "You idiots suck! You're all dirty little munchkins with your fancy shmancy little uberclasses!" My intent was more along the lines of, "Hey, guess what? Your class is pretty interesting... but I bet you could do almost the same thing with published material!" Using published material is not better, per se, but I just want to show you that it can be done. I used to be hardcore White Wolf. I thought D&D was worthless, and not a true ROLEplaying game. Well, by the RAW, it honestly is geared more toward roll-playing than role-playing. But guess what? I play D&D now MUCH more than I play Vampires or Werewolf. Why? The insane breadth of material! In Vampires, a Brujah is a Brujah is a Brujah. You can ROLEplay your way out of it, but from a crunchiness perspective, there's not a whole lot of variation available within the "clan" (class) that you've selected. If you stretch the rules too far, your character sucks. In D&D however, if you can think of a character concept, then 96% of the time, there's a way to represent it with rules, numbers, feats, and skillpoints. Some combinations are slightly "underpowered", and others are slightly "overpowered", but with intelligent use of what's available, you can always make your ideas work and still be plenty effective. If you're willing to invest a little time and energy, you should be able to find what you need. If you think up a cool combination, show off your genius and post it on the board! CharOp folks post their cool ideas all the time, and it'd be cool to see character ideas posted around here that were built on a character concept instead of a power concept. "Chaingun trippers" are cool and all, but it sounds rather dry and dull from a character/role point of view. But, if you want to make your own class up, go ahead. It's a lot of fun, and I do it all the time! :D I throw away a lot of them, though. Throwing things away isn't always a bad thing. If you throw out a mediocre idea, you free up your time to work on something even better! PS - I've probably rambled, and I've probably digressed. Believe me, though, it would have been FAR worse if I tried to post all the ideas/responses that I got from reading the replies on here. If anything I said sounds rude, you're probably overanalyzing it. This thread is a challenge, a dare... fun... not an attempt to shut down people I don't agree with. :)
scienceman47 12-20-05, 04:53 AM	you are very cool biscuit and what comes after HOLY CRAP BATMAN is...... THE TOILETS BACKED UP! (Boooooo) :rimshot:
BadCatMan 12-20-05, 07:21 AM	No problem. You're welcom.e I know it's not part of WotC, but quoth the Gaming Manifesto of Guardians of Order: "Munchkinism isn't a problem with the game, it's a problem with the player." You can totally build an effective gish that isn't min/maxed. I find that I tend to try to do too much, leaving little room for something extra to define a character. A pre-fabbed character would leave some room for something extra to define the character (although Rangers tend to need to spend the rest of their feats to fill out their combat styles). I would HIGHLY recommend the Psychic Warrior as an example. Unfortunately, Psionics also weren't in.
Tempest Stormwind 12-20-05, 11:51 AM	Unfortunately, Psionics also weren't in. They are: 1) Core (in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/)). 2) Better balanced than even CORE magic, let alone the Complete series. 3) Easier to learn for a beginner, and more intuitive than Vancian casting 4) Exactly equivalent to magic under the default rules, meaning no extra DM work needed. 5) Freakin' crazy-awesome cool (personal opinion). If your DM's reasoning to not allow them was "I don't like the flavor" -- remember, flavor is mutable. See the Truenaming Psionics link in my sig. If your DM's reasoning was "they look overpowered" -- Again, links in my sig. Nearly three thousand posts of debate have upheld that they are not. If your DM's reasoning was "I don't want to learn something new" -- link him to the SRD and the New DM/Player's Guide to Psionics in my sig. Honestly, the only reason to not allow them is to restrict the books used in your game (either for simplicity or to keep the powergamers in check). And you can do a far better job keeping your game in check by banning Complete Divine, say, than the XPH. Sorry for the derail. Back on topic now. Still waiting for a concept that as-written rules cannot express. FriendlyBuscuit and others: Some SRD mirrors (http://www.d20srd.org/) already contain Unearthed Arcana content.
Seerow 12-20-05, 11:59 AM	In that case your problem is campaign dependent and not anything to do with the rules as is. I believe that exact problem has been addressed about 3 times in this thread from what I read. Edit: Tempest beats me to it =( That bastard litterally owns these types of things. Not that I hold it against him, he's awesome for that =O Edit2: The reference to links in your sig... for some reason when I click the spoilers tag for frequent links it won't open. Can you PM me a list of links from there for my reference? Thanks.
Tempest Stormwind 12-20-05, 12:09 PM	Edit2: The reference to links in your sig... for some reason when I click the spoilers tag for frequent links it won't open. Can you PM me a list of links from there for my reference? Thanks. That happens sometimes to me as well. Refresh the window. If that doesn't work, try another web browser, or alternately, another page that I've posted on (even my profile). If THAT doesn't work, PM me and I'll edit this with a copy of my sig without the Sblocks.
Seerow 12-20-05, 12:11 PM	Okay, thanks. It worked going from your profile for some reason =O *stops derailing the thread now*
darklogic 12-20-05, 01:47 PM	Wow, I step away from the thread for what? A day? And it jumps around all over the place. Tsk. Tsk. I don't think I have the energy to credit every possible person with their thoughts ideas, but you know what you posted: In regards to further ideas on how to play a native american "barbarian": Props. I hadn't thought of that, but it's perfect. In regards to the bard being a capable dancer and therefore there not being need of a dancer 1-20 class: My reasoning is that if a class exists that can flesh out a concept even better than a current class, or a variation on a class that can fill a concept better, and the purpose of this thread is to prove that material exists to play any concept... then you have to use the variant/other class to play the concept to it's fullest. You may argue all day long that it is not necessary, but ultimately you can argue that character classes themselves are not necessary, and that we should all free form rpg. My point is that yes, many if not all concepts can be played when using or adapting existing material, but concepts can be played better when you broaded to other sources. The Dancer class in Kalamar is actually just another alternative to the Bard class, and I see it as just as viable as any Bard variant in the Unearthed Arcana. Therefore on this point, the dancing based character, I am agreeing with Stormwind, there is existing material that represents this concept. I do however have points of concention: I have stated before that the lack of social mechanics and the continued claim that skills should be enough to cover social mechanics is really just making excuses for DnD being a hack n slash game and not a role playing game. It is admittedly a game primarily about dungeon crawling, treasure hunting, and monster fighting. I find that to be boring. Any process that is infinitely repeatable and has no greater outcome than an increased efficiency at performing that process belongs in a laboratory, not a game. I therefore assert that, in spite of Stormwind's arguments, there are not enough social concepts in DnD. You can argue till your blue in the mouth, and you can assert that skills are enough, and you can assert that adventure isn't about intrigue and so on and so forth. All that you will accomplish however is stating what I consider to be completely invalid arguments. Here is why they are invalid: DnD, and by extension all d20, is primarily an attempt to make a quantifiable rule for virtually any situation. That's why there even is a Diplomacy skill at all. A standard dungeon crawl style session from back in first edition should never see a use of such a skill, but it exists. The point is that in every role playing game I am aware of, there are mechanics for social situations, some limited mechanics and some very detailed, and DnD and d20 are no exception. The fact that combat is far more detailed proves only that d20 was originally designed to be a sort of combat simulating engine. Yet social interractions can be extremely rewarding, even in a DnD based game or setting. And yes, I agree Stormwind that some of the best session I've ever played in had no dice rolled in them whatsoever. But in those sessions mechanics were at least somewhat considered, and no player took an action that they feasably could not do. In such sessions some characters are more socially capable than others, even when not rolling their dice bonuses or whatnot. Without social interraction, the game is a dry hackfest. Therefore more character concepts need to be made playable for the d20 system. I'll give you some examples from a few campaigns I 've run/am still running: In one campaign, there was a social player who, from the very get go, acted as the information supplier, material investor, and also as the self declared boss of the other player characters, who were more combat focussed. The combat focussed characters acted as bodyguards for this player character because she was politically important, wealthier than them, and because she could get them things they never could. This campaign never involved a single dungeon crawl in search for treasure, but instead involved massive amounts of political intrigue, betrayal, war, marriage, and yes it involved epic battles with BBEGs that left everyone shaken and to this day disturbed. And that was what I called 'the prologue' to introduce the characters to each other. That prologue lasted six months. That campaign has been going on for three years and is nowhere near complete. Social plots and social villains, and social character... these things add an enourmous amont of depth and strategy to a game. In any system where there are social taboos and things you just cannot do, the epic battle between good and evil can become mired and complicated, and for campaigns such as mine that is good. Currently in this campaign there are two social build characters with little to no combat ability whatsoever, a very powerful spellcaster, and two warrior types. The play is very balanced, with everyone's style of play being catered to and accounted for. By the way, this campaign is not in a d20 format, because it does not even have rules for a lot of the things I am trying to do. Did you understand that Stormwind? The only reason I'm not using d20 for this campaign, this long project I've had for over three years, is because the mechanics for the character concepts involved, both PC and NPC, simply do not exist. I am currently in the process of making d20 rules for it all, as well as trying to modify the current dice system that we're using, because I'm still not happy with it. Saying that skills for social abilities will cover any and all situations truly just does not cut it, and it never will. Some people in real life have things that skill just doesn't account for, be it looks or fame or some undefinable aspect of their self that carries across and grabs your attention. But whatever that something is d20 as it stands does not have any rules for it. Not one. That is why I hover on these boards and ask my questions, in hopes that one day d20 will have rules for it, or enough supplemental rules can be made to patch up the severe lack. In the meantime, I study d20 and DnD without playing it. That is why, perhaps, it stung when you said that perhaps DnD is not for me, and therefore not for the campaigns that I run. It stung because perhaps it is true, perhaps the fundamental flaw of DnD as a dungeon crawling game will never be able to satisfy my need for truly epic storytelling, which I find to be extremely sad, because it is otherwise an excellent system. I find it has more inherent balance and less munchin possabilities than other systems, and that it makes actions such as anything related to strategy or combat for detailed and more realistic, with the singular exception of the sheer number of hits a person can take from a weapon or spell and still be alive. (I therefore favor the Vitality variant in Unearthed Arcana) So yes, Stormwind, there is a severe lack in terms of playability using current core AND prestige classes for one class type: any social class, whatsoever.
heretic888 12-20-05, 02:39 PM	Heretic888, let me give a quick analogy. Paladins are holy warriors. They gain a variety of unique abilities. They have a code of conduct. Why? To get into the why of things, one has to look into roleplay and flavor. To get into the how of things, one has to get into mechanics. For the paladin, the WHY has to deal with being the living incarnation of justice and goodness in the world, the holy crusader sworn to destroy evil and defend the innocent. The abilities are the granted gifts of their god and church. [....] The HOW relates merely to "gains these bonuses at these levels, and loses them under the following conditions." Boring, by comparison, but at the core, that is what the mechanics are. On this, I would agree with you This, not my lack of expertise on the subject of the Igamono, is my reasoning behind my thoughts earlier on your shinobi no bushi being unnecessary.... The point is, if you can match the "How," then the "Why" can be filled in as normal. And the "How" can be hit to a very close degree of error -- as in, enough of a degree that the minor variations suggested in the DMG become more than enough to close it to 95% or higher, but that lies beyond the scope of this thread. I have on numerous occasions said that custom-made classes will fit any concept BETTER than those of the base system. However, that is again not the point of this thread, which is -- yet again -- to find a concept that requires its own base class to pull off. Superficially, the 'how' of the igamono can be fit fairly decently -- on your own admission, actually -- with existing material. Custom material -- like your class or even minor modifications to the regular classes, like that suggested in the DMG -- can make it almost perfect, or as perfect as it can be fitted into the d20 system. The 'why' still remains in the grasp of the player, and good roleplay can change the reasoning dramatically. As I said before, a human Monk 3/Rogue X/Scout X --- I would be reluctant to include much of the Ninja, Psychic Rogue, or Urban Ranger into this formula --- does a reasonably well job of representing the sociological and historical approach to the Igamono that I gave on my second post of this thread. However, once again, this is only a surface analysis of the archetype. When we get to the level of actual cultural details in regards to principles of martial arts and strategy, the existing material falls somewhat short, in my opinion. for the record: Hell, I would use that class, both as a player and a DM. I don't know when I'll next sit in the DM seat, given my class schedule -- I'm in my fourth year of university physics -- but I'll likely allow it expressly as an option, and I know at least one of my regular players will love it. He's a sucker for the lone-commando thing. I know I haven't said this yet, but thanks for the positive feedback concerning my class. I appreciate it. ;) By the way, what did you mean by "the ninja are a Japanese phenominon"? Maybe I'm just tired and you were being goofy by pointing the obvious, but I think there's more too it than that. ;) I was being silly. :P On an unrelated note, talking to you has been an education. I've done a bit of reading -- including several of the links in your sig -- and find myself far more informed on the subject at hand. Thank you. I'm still no master, but all things take time. No problem. I'm glad you found our conversations to be enriching. Aside: Oddly enough, the description you give on the thought behind sakkijutsu can be matched by what you did -- letting monk Wis-to-AC apply through light armor -- or with existing rules, as Uncanny Dodge. You just have to look at it from a different angle. (I'm pretty sure this is why Uncanny Dodge is in your class, too.) However, without the assumption that "My character needs the Wisdom bonus to AC" -- which in the case of the Monk design, was included because they were meant to go unarmored and needed an interesting way to stay competitive with armor-wearing characters -- there is no reason to choose the former over the latter as the representation of that technique. They have very, very similar ramnifications -- in the "how" phase, both mean that you are able to defend yourself in situations that others would be caught by surprise and nigh-defenseless in. Once again, I disagree. In my opinion, Uncanny Dodge is more like the concept of zanshin than sakkijutsu, although there is clearly room for some overlap. Also, I feel that some form of Wisdom bonus to AC is appropriate to the archetype, as this ability score represents such qualities as insight, situational awareness, mental focus, and so on. At the same time, however, the Igamono did not run around unarmored (unless on, say, an espionage undercover assignment), so I wanted something that could also be applied in very light armor. Therefore, I feel that Keen Defense is a more appropriate representation of this concept than either Uncanny Dodge or the Monk's AC Bonus. And on Flowing Strike: While I admit nothing matches it exactly, there are quite a number of related abilities (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=4584975). My first response when I read it was "Oh, that looks a bit like No Thought [Shiba Protector], only restricted as it should have been." In other words, the concept can't be represented with the existing material. ;) I am fully convinced it is a good, competitive, valid class, and it looks like it'd be both fun and interesting to play. I am not, however, convinced that the Igamono is unplayable without it, and that it absolutely requires its own base class. Which is why I'm continuing to field this thread. On a sociological level, I agree with you. On a cultural level, I disagree. I'm hoping it doesn't get derailed into a discussion on the merits of D&D ninjas and class-based mechanics... Well, if need be, we can always start a new thread devoted exclusively to this subject. ;) Laterz.
arkerpay 12-20-05, 03:07 PM	What about using the wilderness rogue variant from Unearthed Arcana combined with the rogue option from Unearthed Arcana that receives fighter bonus feats rather than sneak attack? I don't have UA so I don't know if that is what I am looking for. Is that 3.5? I have the PHB and the Complete books. I guess Complete isn't 'Complete' after all. Thanks for writing.
duckthatquacks 12-20-05, 03:12 PM	Forgive me if this has ben brought up before (i'm too lazy to read the whole thread), but I don't think that a General (i.e. army commander) class could be accomadated, due to D&D's lack of army-level combat mechanics.
Seerow 12-20-05, 03:45 PM	Dark Logic-Your problem is mechanical, not the classes. You don't need a new CLASS to represent social situations, you need entire new MECHANICS. These are different things, and Stormwind has already said he wasn't going to try to make all mechanics work perfectly. I agree on the sentiment that D20 isn't the perfect system, but the classes are there to cover the concept, it's just the mechanics aren't perfect. Heretic-Your problems still seem to be all role playing. You want something to reflect the deepest core of all that is Igamono? Then give the character the Igamono beliefs and such, and let him make use of the abilities he can get from other classes, in a build similar to what you had. I'm not sure what flowing strike is(I probably missed it in my reading of the thread somewhere), but if there's something that's close enough to be a 95% approximation of it... why not just ask the DM to change that one class ability slightly and call it something else, while keeping the same class as a whole? After all, this is what I gather Tempest's argument to be. New Mechanics can come in regularly, and classes can be modified slightly, but there is no need for entire new classes. Arkerplay: The SRD has everything from UA you need. go to www.d20srd.org and look at the variant classes listed there, that's what he's referring to. Duckthatquacks: Yes, general has been mentioned. Once again, this is a flaw in the D20 mechanics and not anything lacking in the base classes. A fighter or Paladin with high Charisma and leadership could probably do the possition of General just fine.
Yak of Darkness 12-20-05, 04:03 PM	I'm not sure what flowing strike is(I probably missed it in my reading of the thread somewhere), but if there's something that's close enough to be a 95% approximation of it... why not just ask the DM to change that one class ability slightly and call it something else, while keeping the same class as a whole? After all, this is what I gather Tempest's argument to be. New Mechanics can come in regularly, and classes can be modified slightly, but there is no need for entire new classes.A class doesn't work perfectly? Start scouring the splats for variants that might work. And those variants aren't quite what you're looking for? Start changing and renaming the abilities you don't like. At this point, it looks like there is no need for entirely new classes, because (using this view) it's apparently impossible to actually make a new class, short of adding a completely new mechanic (a la the warlock). You can always just say that X campaign book, and X issue of Dragon, and X variant from UA can all add up to make something almost like your "new" class, which is then changed to make it even closer. But at that point, I'd say it's better to just make your own class with what you want, instead attempting to scan every bit of WotC material in existence to try to piece together something that comes close to being what you wanted. Sure you can make an approximation of a whole lot of archetypes using every bit of the d20 system, but at some point it stops being worth the effort to find the "official" take on your idea and just make your own. It cuts down on the book weight/expense, if nothing else.
heretic888 12-20-05, 04:09 PM	Heretic-Your problems still seem to be all role playing. You want something to reflect the deepest core of all that is Igamono? Then give the character the Igamono beliefs and such, and let him make use of the abilities he can get from other classes, in a build similar to what you had. Actually, if you'll bother to read my posts, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not sure what flowing strike is(I probably missed it in my reading of the thread somewhere), but if there's something that's close enough to be a 95% approximation of it... why not just ask the DM to change that one class ability slightly and call it something else, while keeping the same class as a whole? Once again, read my previous posts. It's obvious you're just randomly stitching together bits and pieces of the conversation Tempest and I have been having, completely disregarding context, and constructing a fallacious Strawman Argument. Laterz.
Seerow 12-20-05, 04:10 PM	Well if you want to save on book weight/expense, we're back to saying "let's just play a freeform RPG instead" The idea is these books and sources do exist, so why not use them?
Nephlite 12-20-05, 04:11 PM	Try to mimic these if there is no need for them. Most of all no Prc. You must use Base class even Complete ones okay. Character Concepts: Pugilist Doing reliable damage with guantlets (not spiked) or unarmed with out relying on grappling. Full Bab and ability to wear all armor. No prc. Good Hps. (D12 would be nice but no lower than d8) Unarmed Damage to improve. None of the mysticallism of Monk like Evasion, Slow fall, Flurry/lawful requirement. I made my Pugilist with these ideas. If you can imitate them please show how. Fencer Character Concept: No prc. Light armored and decent skills (4 + like barb). full bab and good hps. bonuses to Ac if enemy uses power attack or fights defensively against you. Uncanny Dodge (to represent the reacting to danger before senses normally allow). Bonuses to intimidate from insulting enemy (like in most movies with fencers). I called the last one Denigrating Banter. Bodyguard Character Concept: Np prc. High hps, all armor, weapons good selection. Ability to take a blow for allies (actively not just hope enemy will aim for you instead of ally). Bonuses to AC when defending an ally. Bonuses to fear since you bravely take the hits. Your determination allows him to shrug off magical effects that would otherwise harm him such as mettle ability. Fighter fails at being able to actively take overs blows: he can only passively do that. Fantasy Samuria Character Concept (I care not for historical): No Prc. Uses Chi to boost self/abilities. Full Bab, all armor, diasho devotion (which is to say a focus on a weapon) Ability from Chi to shealth weapon as a free action. Being able to make an extra move action due to Chi. Tinker Character Concept: (I'm fighting for World of Warcraft RPG here lol) No Prc. Able to build devices that are non-magical and perform functions that are useful without magic. (alchemy still requires magic to create items which is stupid really) Able to learn how to Craft these technological items faster a certain number of times/week. Able to evade the explosion caused by some devices blowing up. Balanced creation for Technology items. Only the Tinker can do that. And lastly: WildShaping non-divine class: Character Concept No Prc. Able to Wild Shape from level 1. Still limited in number/day but when you get more is more spread out. Druid was too bunched up. Not sure about animal Companion, but not neccesary. No restrictions on metal armor. (I think that was there because he can cast and use Wild Shape). Possibly d10 hps or full bab, but probably d10 hps. No alignment/flavor restrictions restrictions.
Seerow 12-20-05, 04:19 PM	Heretic: Okay, so I haven't gone in and studied this stuff as Tempest apparently did after becoming enticed by the idea, and I'm judging by what it sounds like as Im reading this. Too much there for me to follow -everything-, so Ill let you continue your previous discussion. Nephlite: Why would you discount PrCs, when everything you want there is a specialization of something? Such specializations are what PrCs were MADE for. Even so, your fencer concept at least looks like it could be accomplished with some mix of Fighter, Rogue, and Swashbuckler, with feats like Elusive Target
Thrantar 12-20-05, 04:41 PM	Character Concepts: Character reliant solely on mobility, forsaking spellcasting, combat prowness and HP in the search for ever increasing land speed and something to do with it
Yak of Darkness 12-20-05, 04:49 PM	Well if you want to save on book weight/expense, we're back to saying "let's just play a freeform RPG instead" The idea is these books and sources do exist, so why not use them?Maybe because there's actually some area between, "Must use all WotC books, modules, and web pages," and "Freeform, diceless anarchy." I play D&D because I find it fun. My friends and I enjoy the system. We make constant use of the Core, the XPH, and the Complete series. We'll occasionally throw in some bit from another splat, too, so we're not exactly book-allergic. But what this thread seems to be turning out to be is more of an admonishment to people who don't have the money/time/patience to comb through every tiny speck of WotC-printed material . . . and, really, nobody should have that much of any of those three (and if you do have that much money, please mail me some). All that crazy side material is great for people who happen to have run across it, and for people who are looking for the "official" X, it might be just what they need. I, for example, use the extra dinosaurs from Dragon 318 in my game . . . it's useful for me because I both like dinos, and I'm crap at making new monsters. If, however, I wanted to make a Dino Wrangler PrC, I'd be better off just doing it myself instead of trying to Frankenstein together a bastardized form of what I want, that I then have to change anyway, as I might not actually have the needed books for that, and I'm passably good at class construction. Or, shorter: "Use what you want/need from the books, but don't be afraid to make your own stuff, too."
diphycue 12-20-05, 05:03 PM	I think a major problem people are having is that they're thinking what would be the "best" or "most powerful" way to do their concept not CAN it be done. You could make almost any concept with just the three generic classes from UA. They may not be as powerful as their counterparts, but they are just as RPable. Heck, you don't even need the Warlock class to make a Warlock concept character...just a sorcerer who gets his power from fiends, and selects powers to represent that. Keep in mind, this board isn't whether or not there's a class that can do exactly everything you want, it's is there a CONCEPT that can't be expressed.
Noria Merfolk Mage 12-20-05, 05:03 PM	Nephlite, you're trying to move the goalposts. Not only are you focusing exclusively on mechanics, which has already been said isn't the point, but you're inserting various stipulations to make it even more difficult to make any headways on your "concepts". It's clear to me you're trying to Strawman the thread down, in order to claim some kind of kudos. A Character Concept is not a rule, it's an idea that seeks rules to make it happen. Now will people please listen to Tempest and stop trying to "trick" the thread??
heretic888 12-20-05, 06:42 PM	Heretic: Okay, so I haven't gone in and studied this stuff as Tempest apparently did after becoming enticed by the idea, and I'm judging by what it sounds like as Im reading this. Too much there for me to follow -everything-, so Ill let you continue your previous discussion. No worries, Seerow. I was probably a bit too snappish in my previous post, so I apologize for any perceived offense on my part. That definately was not my intention. In case you're interested, what Tempest and I were discussing was my Shinobi No Bushi (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=188379) base class and some of its class features, such as Flowing Strike. In my opinion, many of the martial and tactical principles represented by the class are rather poorly represented with existing D&D material. Laterz.
Tempest Stormwind 12-20-05, 08:49 PM	Nephlite: you derail the thread with mechanical shopping lists. I address this above. I will show you the existing material that matches the CONCEPTS you titled your lists with: Pugilist: Fighter in light armor. Take levels in Shou Disciple eventually, or Reaping Mauler, if you desire (note that Reaping Mauler is suboptimal until Clever Wrestling recieves errata). Fencer: Fighter/Rogue if core-only, swashbuckler if Completes are allowed. Duelist PrC in time. Bodyguard: Any martial class. Take the Goad feat and Improved Combat Expertise (the former is a "Here, here, hit me! HIT ME!" effect, the latter lets you improve your Combat Expertise up the wazoo). Eventual levels in Devoted Defender (Deflect Attack) or Knight Protector (I forget the name, but it lets you defend nearby targets) can cover the rest. Fantasy Samuria Character Concept: See the previous page for the example of Miko Miyazaki. Levels in Psychic Warrior can add more fantastic approaches. Note that psionics can easily, EASILY be reflavored for chi. Tinker: Anyone with an advanced craft skill (likely Clockwork) and knowledge of alchemy, along with the Disable Device skill. Artificers fit the bill pretty exactly and do magic as well. WildShaping non-divine class: This is FAR more mechanical than all the others. However, a changeling wildshape ranger (see d20srd.org for information on variant classes) fits the concept precisely (if not the mechanics, but I never claimed it would be an exact match.) Darklogic: Seerow covered my rebuttal points pretty nicely. You demand social classes. There ARE social classes. You demand more-accurately-represented social constructs. Social concepts are covered by the skill system. If the skill system is inadequate, then d20 will not suffice for the kind of game you are covering. (I mentioned this earlier, remember? With Monopoly and Clue?) On the General character: As multiple D&D sources -- particularily Complete Warrior and Heroes of Battle, but also the very DUNGEONMASTER'S GUIDE -- indicate, the general of an army can be anyone. It's entirely a roleplaying thing (though Heroes of Battle helps a LOT when adjucating large combat, as does, to some extent, the miniatures rules!). There are some classes (Marshall) and prestige classes (Legendary Commander) that take the general concept and merge it with the adventurers that D&D uses as characters, as well. Heretic888: I feel that flavor is completely mutable. This means that cultural trappings can, in 90% or more of the cases, be handled through appropriate roleplay. (There are a few classes, such as the druid or the warlock, that are so mechanically-matched to their (diverse) archetypes that this becomes almost impossible, but you get the idea). Remember what I said about tailored classes? OF COURSE they will fit better. They were tailor made for the project. However, they do not need to exist for any concept you have shown me, even the Igamono. (I'm in a rush, I won't bother with proper italicization throughout this response.) Here's an exercise to see what I mean. I will, in turn, accept a similar counterproposal that you will design to help me understand your reasoning. Build a character inspired by the Igamono using existing classes in the Core + XPH + Complete + Unearthed Arcana environment (D&D website allowed, if you want). Now, dump EVERYTHING related to flavor in those classes, looking only at the nuts and bolts. Try to map the concepts you see in your Igamono concept into the mechanics. Don't go on assumptions -- for instance, I bet that if we were to post your exact quote on the reasoning behind "Wis-to-AC" in, say, the Video Games forum (just to choose a forum experienced in mapping such concepts to mechanics), they would be equally, if not MORE, likely to choose Uncanny Dodge to represent it. I think you'd be suprised exactly how close the build can become. I don't pretend that it will reach 100% -- in fact, I'll eat my hat if it does. However, I do think it comes sufficiently close that the remainder -- notably REASONING behind the discipline -- can be handled via roleplay. If you feel it cannot, then we simply have different standards on what is required. I feel that if you can match something to, say, 85% or higher (just arbitrary here, it's usually a case-by-case thing), then you don't NEED a base class to get the concept (though it would undoubtably make it more accurate). If it falls between, say, 70% and 85%, then the remainder can be covered using custom feats or minor class swapping (i.e. "Okay, you've multiclassed out of Monk (i.e. no more monk EVER), and you have Fighter levels. I'll let Wis-To-AC work in light armor if you drop the armor proficiencies you've gained from Fighter, and you take a rogue level soon."). If it falls below that 70%, then I concede we may need a base class. Nothing yet in my experience has ever fallen below 80%, and that was on my first attempt at an FF character concept in D&D. A later retry at the same concept hit it nearly 100% -- see the Lancer in my sig for the final outcome. (By the way, you're also being nitpicky on Flowing Strike. Just because no other class has the exact ability you wrote doesn't mean it isn't in the system. THis is the same position on classes in general, actually! In fact, anything that added your Wisdom bonus to your damage comes close enough for me. It wouldn't kick in at level 1, in all likelyhood, but at the level it did kick in, it'd be appropriate. I think that if there WAS a first-level Wis-to-Damage ability it would look nearly identical to Flowing Strike, since it is appropriate for characters of 1st level.) Character Concepts: Character reliant solely on mobility, forsaking spellcasting, combat prowness and HP in the search for ever increasing land speed and something to do with it Surprisingly, a Scout / Elocator (needs at least one manifesting level before that -- and there IS a manifesting type dedicated entirely to movement, the Nomad!) matches this concept pretty spot on. Scout in in Complete Adventurer, Elocator is in the XPH and SRD. (Note that it requires combat prowess and manifesting ability to enter, but doesn't advance either at a rate to make them powerful enough. At the same time, it is the undisputed king of mobility.) For the record, the Complete classes that I DO like and support are, once again, Scout, Warlock, Hexblade, and Spirit Shaman. I may be tempted to allow Shugenja, or Wu Jen as a wizard variant. If I use another one (like Swashbuckler), then I am either explicitly calling it out as a "this may work for you" or am citing it as an optimization project (like the afforementioned non-precision-based two-weapon fighter). If you extend to noncore, noncomplete classes, I may be tempted to allow the Artificer (with a few nerfs), the Marshall and the Psychic Rogue. MAYBE, if I become more familiar with the material, the Dread Necromancer as well. Other than that, though? Probably not. Now, if people would please listen for a moment. Mechanical wishlists are not what this thread is about. This thread is about character concepts that apparently require their own 1-20 base class to pull off instead of existing rules. Claiming that no base class has ability X, Y, and Z, and thus you need a new one, is a mechanical statement, and not a concept. If you have a wishlist for your character, go over to the CO boards for a very powerful Christmas gift. Keep it out of this thread.
Noria Merfolk Mage 12-20-05, 08:57 PM	:clap:
arkerpay 12-20-05, 08:59 PM	Now, if people would please listen for a moment. Mechanical wishlists are not what this thread is about. This thread is about character concepts that apparently require their own 1-20 base class to pull off instead of existing rules. Claiming that no base class has ability X, Y, and Z, and thus you need a new one, is a mechanical statement, and not a concept. Friendly Biscuit started this thread, not you. You are entitled to your opinion, but not in size 7 red font. If FB thinks we're way off track, let him admonish us. And I still say, that a character concept that must be cobbled together out of three or more classes, existing rules or not, is sub-optimal and crap.
Seerow 12-20-05, 09:02 PM	Yak: Maybe I was a bit strong in saying freeform. But have you considered a point-buy system for classes rather than using the D&D system? GURPs I hear is exactly the sort of thing that would work for this. I'm personally more familliar with Shadowrun, which works similarly but on a D6 system. But if you want every concept to have a class that fits it perfectly... just do away with classes altogether and let a player chose exactly what ability he wants. And actually.. this could apply to everyone in this thread who wants entirely new characters for every concept. I think the game might be better off on a buy system than as it is currently, as it would likely be harder for unbalanced characters to come up (Or at least everyone would be similarly unbalanced...) Edit: Friendly Biscuit started this thread, not you. You are entitled to your opinion, but not in size 7 red font. If FB thinks we're way off track, let him admonish us. And I still say, that a character concept that must be cobbled together out of three or more classes, existing rules or not, is sub-optimal and crap. Friendly Biscuit also said he was leaving said arguments in the capable hands of Stormwind. While that doesn't necessarily mean he has the power to tell people what to or what not to do, he is in fact forcibly reminding people to stay within the confines of the thread. After all, he has said the same thing several times, and it was apparently glossed over by many people who didn't want to read everything, and brought up the same question again. A huge red bold font will catch such people's attention, and stop them before they post something stupid.
Tempest Stormwind 12-20-05, 09:08 PM	Friendly Biscuit started this thread, not you. You are entitled to your opinion, but not in size 7 red font. If FB thinks we're way off track, let him admonish us. He's already bowed out, and you'll notice his original post dealt with concepts. I addressed this on the first post of this type way back on page 1. And I still say, that a character concept that must be cobbled together out of three or more classes, existing rules or not, is sub-optimal and crap.You're speaking to one of the CO boards' regular optimizers here. Sub-optimal will not be a factor if built properly. While the character may not be the most powerful in the game, that is an issue with the system instead of the character (i.e. spellcasters tend to outshine nonspellcasters at high levels, no matter the build. A high-level, core-only druid can wipe the floor with every other class, even in noncore environments, with the possible exception of a noncore artificer, wizard, cleric, or very optimized psion). However, the remainder is purely subjective, and you are entitled to your opinion as well. However, taking an off-topic post to say it is what I have the most issue with. The reason I busted out the size seven red font is to get people's attention -- you may notice I wasn't the only one complaining about the same thing I describe. Now, unless you have a concept that you feel cannot be accomplished in the existing rules, or you have a specific issue with one or more of the existing attempts, please do not attempt to derail this thread. Some of us find it worthwhile. EDIT: Yak of Darkness, I missed your last post, sorry. In the context of your hypothetical Dino Wrangler, note that there's no conflict between that concept and this thread. This thread would oppose it if and only if you argued that the dino wrangler was an impossible concept in the existing rules and/or required its own unique 1-20 base class to pull off. It's not -- a ranger can accomplish pretty much anything that a dino-wrangler may require as a character concept, and there actually is a feat called Dinosaur Wrangler in Races of Eberron (I kid you not. It was designed with Talenta halflings in mind. There's a partner feat called Dinosaur Hunter as well). Designing your own PrC to futher explore the areas that a dino wrangler may wrangle dinos in is not anathemic to this thread at all.
arkerpay 12-20-05, 09:52 PM	Stormwind, You know everything there is to know about this game. You must own and have memorized every book and take advantage of every rule variant and dangling participle in feature descriptions. You have the ability (I am sure of it now) to use the existing printed material to match any posters character concept. And you obviously take great joy in demonstrating that knowledge base to every single person unwise enough to post what they consider to be a valid character concept. I, however, do not have the depth in this particular knowledge base and will not spend the money to own every book, nor invest the time to memorize everything there is to know about this GAME. Now, I am not trying to derail the thread or rain on your parade. I am merely exerting my right to express an idea. This thread is about character concepts that need a base class. An argument that careful class selections and feat selections will achieve it does not help a player with a first level character. That first level character will be a rogue, or a ranger, or a fighter and will not have a set of nifty optimized abilities for levels to come. Complaints about people listing wish lists of abilities is also unfair. A character concept is going to manifest itself in the GAME as a list of abilities. It is an easy way for a semi-experienced gamer to express what their character concept is about. I am not going to re-read the entire thread, so please answer this Stormwind. Has any poster actually proposed a character concept that meets your criteria for needing a base class that can't be achieved using existing rules? arkerpay
Nephlite 12-20-05, 09:54 PM	Nephlite: you derail the thread with mechanical shopping lists. I address this above. I will show you the existing material that matches the CONCEPTS you titled your lists with: Derail? Nope, I am fully in belief that curent system has no class that accompass my ideals. And by using Prc you prove me right. Pugilist: Fighter in light armor. Take levels in Shou Disciple eventually, or Reaping Mauler, if you desire (note that Reaping Mauler is suboptimal until Clever Wrestling recieves errata). Again Prc, null and void. Fencer: Fighter/Rogue if core-only, swashbuckler if Completes are allowed. Duelist PrC in time. Duelist has no armor allowed; I said light armor. Again Prc, so null and void. Rogue? Maybe for skill points, but I said nothing about Evasion or sneak attack (why you adding extra stuff?) Swashbuckler might work but few level past 3 there. Still no mechanical ability to get better defense when enemy lowers hit by combat expertise or PA. That is a character concept even if mechanics required. Bodyguard: Any martial class. Take the Goad feat and Improved Combat Expertise (the former is a "Here, here, hit me! HIT ME!" effect, the latter lets you improve your Combat Expertise up the wazoo). Eventual levels in Devoted Defender (Deflect Attack) or Knight Protector (I forget the name, but it lets you defend nearby targets) can cover the rest. Devoted Defender no longer exist since it is 3.0 from Sword and Fist. Improved Combat Expertise only works after you attack in a round not before. Tinker: Anyone with an advanced craft skill (likely Clockwork) and knowledge of alchemy, along with the Disable Device skill. Artificers fit the bill pretty exactly and do magic as well. As I said no magic. You failed again: Able to build devices that are non-magical and perform functions that are useful without magic. (alchemy still requires magic to create items which is stupid really) What about no magic did you not understand? WildShaping non-divine class: This is FAR more mechanical than all the others. However, a changeling wildshape ranger (see d20srd.org for information on variant classes) fits the concept precisely (if not the mechanics, but I never claimed it would be an exact match.) Exactly won't work so this class needs to be created. (By the way, you're also being nitpicky on Flowing Strike. Just because no other class has the exact ability you wrote doesn't mean it isn't in the system. THis is the same position on classes in general, actually! In fact, anything that added your Wisdom bonus to your damage comes close enough for me. It wouldn't kick in at level 1, in all likelyhood, but at the level it did kick in, it'd be appropriate. I think that if there WAS a first-level Wis-to-Damage ability it would look nearly identical to Flowing Strike, since it is appropriate for characters of 1st level.) You are being kinda nitpicky about it though. This thread is about character concepts that apparently require their own 1-20 base class to pull off instead of existing rules. Claiming that no base class has ability X, Y, and Z, and thus you need a new one, is a mechanical statement, and not a concept. If you have a wishlist for your character, go over to the CO boards for a very powerful Christmas gift. Keep it out of this thread. Explain what in your woprds a cgharacter concept is than. If you defined the terms it wouldn't be confused.
angellis_ater 12-20-05, 10:16 PM	To those still interested in the basics of this thread, ie finding a class which isn't creatable by what already exists, I have a challenge: 1. A class which focuses on changing the body into a weapon, for defense and flavor. Primarily a fighting type (although it doesn't need full BAB). 2. Doesn't depend on psionics/magic (ie non-dispellable effects) (otherwise a PsyWar or Egoist would do). Is there some viable use of Core Classes/PrC who would satisfy this? I personally think this would be an awesome class and in my mind it would thematically be built around the Warshaper with influences from the Monk. (Hmmm, a Shifter Monk into Warshaper might work, but the problem is the RACE becomes a necessity).
Nephlite 12-20-05, 10:29 PM	To those still interested in the basics of this thread, ie finding a class which isn't creatable by what already exists, I have a challenge: 1. A class which focuses on changing the body into a weapon, for defense and flavor. Primarily a fighting type (although it doesn't need full BAB). 2. Doesn't depend on psionics/magic (ie non-dispellable effects) (otherwise a PsyWar or Egoist would do). Is there some viable use of Core Classes/PrC who would satisfy this? I personally think this would be an awesome class and in my mind it would thematically be built around the Warshaper with influences from the Monk. (Hmmm, a Shifter Monk into Warshaper might work, but the problem is the RACE becomes a necessity). When you say changing the body do you mean like turning your hand into a spear/sword or like wild shape type changing into another form? Soulknife fits the offense part: the visual of the mindblade can be anything from a rubber chicken to lightsaber (for Star Wars fans). In Ebberon, the Soulknife can with a feat made a shield with mindblade...
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-20-05, 10:38 PM	I still don't see the point of this thread. Yes, you can use your fifty thousand books to cobble together a rough version of a given concept. But if you create a new class, you can make one that: a) follows the spirit of the concept I want to be a shapeshifter, but I have to also be a spellcasting, tree snarfer. b) Does it competently I can fight with two weapons, but my expensive combat training really isn't apperent. I hit things less ofen and for less damage than the cleric! c) Does it economically Ah, I after eight hours of scouring my collection of 3e books, my character concept is complete. I sure hope the Dm allows me to use all five books! d) lets you play your concept from low levels. I may not look like a martial artist now, but once I pick up a bunch of feats, join this organization and then join this *other* organization, I'll... well I still won't seem much like a martial artist, but I'll be a tiny bit closer than I am now!
Greg_K 12-20-05, 10:54 PM	A class doesn't work perfectly? Start scouring the splats for variants that might work. . And don't just limit yourself to just WOTC products. Take advantage of the d20 licensce. There are several 3rd party companies including Fantasy Flight Games, Green Ronin, Malhavoc and even Mongoose (although their early 3.0 products do have some balance issues) that produce very good supplements. Another product to look at is AEG's Mercenaries which has some work from Mike Mearls Here is a link to a preview (http://www.alderac.com/d20/mercenary_classes.pdf) of AEG's Mercenaries. The preview includes the Myrmidon, a fighter/wizard base class by Mike Mearls
Tempest Stormwind 12-20-05, 11:04 PM	I am not going to re-read the entire thread, so please answer this Stormwind. Has any poster actually proposed a character concept that meets your criteria for needing a base class that can't be achieved using existing rules? I'll ignore your ad-hominem attack and move on to answering your question. So far, no, no one has. That is why I keep defending this point on this thread. As soon as I see one that truly cannot be achieved using existing material, I will back down. Explain what in your woprds a cgharacter concept is than. If you defined the terms it wouldn't be confused.A character concept would be what sort of character you wish to play, in general terms. It would be the type of brief description you would use if you were a first-time player to the game, completely unfamiliar with game mechanics, but with familiarity of the game environment (i.e. a general knowledge of fantasy). A few samples. "Oracle with the ability to reach into people's minds." "A powerful sorceress, who can blow things up or fool people with illusions." "The crusading, broody knight." "A ." "My character heals very, very, very fast." "A bodyguard. I need to be able to take a lot of damage." "[i]Igamono. I'd prefer it to be as close to historical igamono as possible, within the scope of this game." "." "I want to play a character like [insert well-known character here]!" This is in an open gameworld as a simple example. World-specific ones also work, like: "An honored member of the Knights Arcane." "A Red Wizard with ambitions to be a zulkir." "The youngest person to ever become a Fifth Circle archmage!" World-specific concepts also limit others. For instance, it is difficult to map samurai or ninja-type concepts to Eberron, except in general senses. However, the general ideas behind those two simplified concepts (the honorable, cultured swordsman and the skilled stealthy warrior) can be used. They just wouldn't use terms like [i]bushido or ninpo, because the flavor attached to the original concepts simply has to be stripped from them for them to fit the world -- and that feels weird, since the flavor originated on Earth. Too bad you're not gaming on Earth, then. These are all somewhat dependent on level, which is the one system-sweeping trend in D&D (i.e. a character cannot be a Red Mage zulkir at level 1, so a concept of "I want to be Zulkir!" is inappropriate for a first-level game. This also holds if their concept is something like "A werewolf" due to the power level we work with), but some settings deal with that (i.e. in Eberron, merely having a PC class makes you special. The first-level Fighter character might honestly have been the champion of his division, the second-level one bearing a rank of Major or similar). Basically, if you could explain it as a CHARACTER, instead of as a collection of rules unique to a given game, it is a character concept. If you could explain it to someone not familiar with the game in question, or even games in general, it is a character concept. (Note that world-specific concepts assume that the listener has some world familiarity.) If it is a shopping-list unique to the game in question, it is not a "character concept" but a mechanical one, and in many cases, I have said that existing rules cannot match these. I hope this explains what I mean with a bit more clarity. (By the way, Nephlite, the official stance on 3.5 is "if it hasn't been updated, it can still be used." The existence of 3.5 does not invalidate 3.0, except in the case of when there are newer rules on the subject (such as updated versions of feats, or new classifications -- even old unupdated Shapechangers now have other types, and the Shapechanger subtype, for instance).) Angelis_Ater: While this is not my official answer, technically, this is what the monk does. Simply RP the mechanical results of the class. A friend and I were joking along these lines before, about how the monk might look in a game inspired by abberrations, and we determined that the increased damage could be the result of the fingers turning to stone and growing spikey, the speed could come from the legs growing longer and looser, Flurry literally resulting from extra tentacles (that need a surge of adrenaline like that provided in a combat round to function), and so on. We were inspired to this by the Fang of Lolth prestige class, with its own list of cosmetic changes (several of which were mirrored nicely in the mechanics, such as the faceted eyes). Now, as for an official answer, there is a fallacy in your two conditions. Without magic or psionics in any way, shape, or form (including spinoffs like Incarnum), one needs a mechanism to change shape. No amount of training will let a human change shape (a magical effect -- at the very least, supernatural), without magic being involved. As such, one requires another method to pull this off -- such as the afforementioned shifters or changelings. (Their shapechanging is extraordinary because it relates to their racial physiology.) Furthermore, given the way the game is balanced, it requires powerful things -- like shapechanging -- to enter later in the game, such as at level 5 (with Wild Shape on the druid, the only core example of an explicitly shapeshifting class). As such, if there were a hypothetical base class that allows shapechanging into weaponry, it would involve a delay to balance it with the game itself. (Even the Doppelganger monster class in Races of Destiny does this. You get your change shape things at... I forget. At least level 3, the same level Alter Self is available to wizards.) And here's an interesting tidbit. Changelings can qualify for War Shaper with a LOT of class options at level 4. And it's not dispellable, since Minor Change Shape isn't dispellable. As such your concept does not require a base class to pull off in the existing rules. Now, don't get me wrong, such a class would undoubtably be insanely cool. I would love to see whatever comes out of your efforts, should you decide to make it. Oh, and just because I can't resist, here's a sample first-level ability that may be up your alley. Transmute Arm (Su) As a move action, a formshaper can transform his arm into a weapon, fusing his fingers into a supersharp blade. The blade is statistically identical to a short sword of a size appropriate for the formshaper. For instance, a Medium formshaper's arm becomes a blade that is treated as a light weapon, and the blade deals 1d6 points of damage (crit 19-20/×2). The formshaper gains the usual benefits to his attack roll and damage roll from a high Strength bonus. The armblade can be broken (it has hardness 10 and 10 hit points); doing so causes the arm to revert to its original shape, but does not prevent the formshaper from transmuting his arm on the following round. As a free action, a formshaper can restore his arm to its original form. If the formshaper is subject to any attack that would make him drop his weapon (such as a successful disarm attempt), the arm reverts to normal instinctively. An armblade bypasses damage reduction as if it were a magic weapon. A formshaper can use feats such as Power Attack or Combat Expertise in conjunction with the armblade just as if it were a normal weapon. He can also choose armblade for feats requiring a specific weapon choice, such as Weapon Specialization. Effects that upgrade weapons can be used on an armblade. The formshaper may transmute his arm into stronger, sharper blades as he gains levels. At 4th level and every four levels thereafter, the armblade gains a cumulative +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls (+2 at 8th level, +3 at 12th level, +4 at 16th level, and +5 at 20th level). Even in places where supernatural abilities do not normally function (such as within an antimagic field), a formshaper can attempt to sustain his transmutation by making a DC 20 Will save. On a successful save, the formshaper's arm maintains its transmuted form for a number of rounds equal to his class level before he needs to check again. On an unsuccessful attempt, the arm reverts to normal. As a move action on his turn, the formshaper can attempt a new Will save to tranmute his arm anyway while he remains within the effect. Due to the intimate nature of such a weapon, a formshaper gains the Weapon Focus feat for free at first level, relating to the use of his transmuted armblade, even though he does not meet the prerequisites. Additionally, the process of learning the transmutation tends to open the mind to similar supernatural behaviours. The formshaper gains the Wild Talent feat for free, which allows him to select psionic feats if he would not otherwise be able to. Does that sound up your alley? That's the soulknife's Mind Blade, with the appropriate flavor. The soulknife relies on magic about as much as a monk does. Vaalingrade Ashland: We are attempting to cover all of your issues. A) This is kind of the whole point of the thread. A shapeshifter needn't be a druid, and a druid needn't be a tree-hugger. B) Your example cites a weakness with the d20 system but your argument makes the assumption that you ARE using d20. In the case of a two-weapon fighter, the example should probably be "I want to fight with two weapons, and do it better than most other two-weapon fighters." (By the way, as a student of weapon arts, I can tell you from personal experience that it is always harder to use two weapons than one if you are attacking with both. Whether D&D represents this accurately enough for me is beside the point.) C) This is an aesthetic argument. Remember, I have said on many occasions that a tailor-made class will fit your concept better. Whether it is NECESSARY is the issue here. In terms of economy, this says that an uneconomical solution may accomplish the same thing adequately, and thus an economic solution is not NECESSARY, except in terms of economy and precision. D) And if your concept isn't compatible with low-level play? "I want to play a werewolf" won't work at first-level, for instance (barring Savage Progressions). Additionally, recall that flavor is mutable. In the case of the (presumably nonmonk) martial artist, recall that prestige classes do not require an organization or anything else, merely the DM's permission. (The reason I included Shou Disciple was an optimization trick, not a requirement of the character.) You, yourself, have demonstrated here that you are not grasping the point of the thread. Greg_K: On a personal level, I agree with you here. I also would agree with the general desire to create custom material yourself. However, for the point of this thread, what we are trying to find is a concept that the D&D system -- in other words, WotC products -- cannot adequately express without its own custom base class.
angellis_ater 12-20-05, 11:18 PM	When you say changing the body do you mean like turning your hand into a spear/sword or like wild shape type changing into another form? Yes, that's a possibility but I had more of a "natural weapons" in mind with claws, bites, tentacles and the like. A Soulknife could be partially on the way, but I was thinking of more changes not just weaponry. Ie maybe wings or gaining DR/Natural Armor if speaking in game mechanics.
Tempest Stormwind 12-20-05, 11:25 PM	Yes, that's a possibility but I had more of a "natural weapons" in mind with claws, bites, tentacles and the like. A Soulknife could be partially on the way, but I was thinking of more changes not just weaponry. Ie maybe wings or gaining DR/Natural Armor if speaking in game mechanics. See my post above, plus this addendum. Note that the idea of a character that does this is very, very much like a shifter in general. If the race becomes critically important to the character, then use something with the Aspect of Nature wildshape variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/classFeatureVariants.htm#wildShapeVarian tAspectOfNature) (note that a lot of classes, including Ranger, can get Wild Shape under UA's variant rules), along with warshaper levels. The concept only requires a base class if you insist on the mechanical requirements of "no prestige classes" -- and I mentioned mechanical arguments earlier. (This line is for Nephlite, more so than everyone else.) By the way, I should also add that I just found something that I think I should make perfectly clear. I believe wholeheartedly in this statement.Basically, new base classes are not necessary, but that doesn't mean they are bad. Having a CD Player, Tape Deck, and MP3 player in your car isn't necessary, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily worse than just having the radio. Options are, almost always, a good thing.I simply am arguing that they are not necessary for the concepts that have been presented. I am not implying that they are bad.
angellis_ater 12-20-05, 11:31 PM	Angelis_Ater: While this is not my official answer, technically, this is what the monk does. Simply RP the mechanical results of the class. A friend and I were joking along these lines before, about how the monk might look in a game inspired by abberrations, and we determined that the increased damage could be the result of the fingers turning to stone and growing spikey, the speed could come from the legs growing longer and looser, Flurry literally resulting from extra tentacles (that need a surge of adrenaline like that provided in a combat round to function), and so on. We were inspired to this by the Fang of Lolth prestige class, with its own list of cosmetic changes (several of which were mirrored nicely in the mechanics, such as the faceted eyes). Of all the solutions, this was the simplest and easiest, also fullfilling most of what had envisioned except for some funky WarShaper stuff. Now, as for an official answer, there is a fallacy in your two conditions. Without magic or psionics in any way, shape, or form (including spinoffs like Incarnum), one needs a mechanism to change shape. No amount of training will let a human change shape (a magical effect -- at the very least, supernatural), without magic being involved. As such, one requires another method to pull this off -- such as the afforementioned shifters or changelings. (Their shapechanging is extraordinary because it relates to their racial physiology.) Allow me to explain, I do not care if the explanation is magical/psychic, but I do not want it to be simply powers/spells that create this effect, it should be an intrinsic part of the character, like the Soulknife's mindblade. So I don't mind if it is based in psionics/magic, I was just referring to spells/powers. Furthermore, given the way the game is balanced, it requires powerful things -- like shapechanging -- to enter later in the game, such as at level 5 (with Wild Shape on the druid, the only core example of an explicitly shapeshifting class). As such, if there were a hypothetical base class that allows shapechanging into weaponry, it would involve a delay to balance it with the game itself. (Even the Doppelganger monster class in Races of Destiny does this. You get your change shape things at... I forget. At least level 3, the same level Alter Self is available to wizards.) And here's an interesting tidbit. Changelings can qualify for War Shaper with a LOT of class options at level 4. And it's not dispellable, since Minor Change Shape isn't dispellable. As such your concept does not require a base class to pull off in the existing rules. Well, I would have to disagree with you. How does it not require a base class (ignoring the excellent Monk-suggestion above since it wasn't your official answer)? A Druid -> Warshaper utilizes magic and Changelings are a racial prerequisite that are seperated from the classes. But if we ignore that the Druid utilizes magic we might be coming closer. Don't know if I should push this thread any further considering that some people seem pretty upset. Now, don't get me wrong, such a class would undoubtably be insanely cool. I would love to see whatever comes out of your efforts, should you decide to make it. Oh, and just because I can't resist, here's a sample first-level ability that may be up your alley. That's the soulknife's Mind Blade, with the appropriate flavor. The soulknife relies on magic about as much as a monk does. I'll do my best if you gimme a promise you'll give me some well thought through feedback on it. Deal? Yeah, I caught the Soulknife ability immediatly, perhaps a Monk/Soulknife with Flowing Blade Feat and some gregarious cosmetics will "create" this Formshaper Base Class.
angellis_ater 12-20-05, 11:34 PM	See my post above, plus this addendum. Note that the idea of a character that does this is very, very much like a shifter in general. If the race becomes critically important to the character, then use something with the Aspect of Nature wildshape variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/classFeatureVariants.htm#wildShapeVarian tAspectOfNature) (note that a lot of classes, including Ranger, can get Wild Shape under UA's variant rules), along with warshaper levels. The concept only requires a base class if you insist on the mechanical requirements of "no prestige classes" -- and I mentioned mechanical arguments earlier. (This line is for Nephlite, more so than everyone else.) Cross-posting eachother to death! ;-) I should point out that I have nothing against PrC's for doing this, I was just having a problem envisioning how it would be done without powers/spells and not being dependent on race.
Tempest Stormwind 12-20-05, 11:45 PM	Ack, you know what happened to me? I failed my Practice What You Preach check by 5 or more. I frequently said earlier in this thread that RP can cover a LOT of ground. I'd just been so wrapped up lately in finding mechanical expressions for what needed to be used that I lost sight of that lofty state of mind, and insisted on finding a mechanical approach. (By the way, Wild Shape is independent of druid's spellcasting, and is easily swapped to Ranger under UA suggestions (swap the three Combat Styles for Wild Shape progression). When combined with the usual noncasting Ranger modification (i.e. a bonus feat at any point where a new spell level would become available) and the Aspect of Nature variant (also linked), it seems to be a bit more dramatic (and slightly higher-minimum-level) expression of the same sort of thing. This is reinforced if you take Wild feats, which you now qualify for.) And you have my word: If I miss the class' development (since I really don't frequent the Class board), PM me and I'll give feedback upon completion.
EDekar 12-20-05, 11:46 PM	Rare as I post, I'd love input on an idea I've been trying to work out that might manage that 1% (but I doubt it, knowing you lot!). What about a Soulmancer? A mage or similar type that deals exclusively in raw souls, using them for power, offense, defense, whatever. I have this image in my mind of a rugged fighter type with a slightly glowing gauntlet created entirely by drawing the souls out of his environment. Closest I can think of would be a radically flavour altered Soulknife or something. Anything else that might fit the bill?
Tempest Stormwind 12-21-05, 12:11 AM	Rare as I post, I'd love input on an idea I've been trying to work out that might manage that 1% (but I doubt it, knowing you lot!). What about a Soulmancer? A mage or similar type that deals exclusively in raw souls, using them for power, offense, defense, whatever. I have this image in my mind of a rugged fighter type with a slightly glowing gauntlet created entirely by drawing the souls out of his environment. Closest I can think of would be a radically flavour altered Soulknife or something. Anything else that might fit the bill? You just described Incarnum perfectly. As in, absolutely perfectly. We're talking natural 20 perfect here. See the new Magic of Incarnum book. It was previewed fairly interestingly on the D&D website. I suggest you take a look at the first peek we got (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20050805a) to hear about the flavor.
EDekar 12-21-05, 12:22 AM	Awww crud. More reason to deal with Eberron while I have no money. ::cries:: Thanks, I'll take a look at that! ::thinks:: I really can't think of anything else. I was going to say someone who deals in congress with angels, but it's relatively easy to summon celestials and focus the character on it. Oh well, good luck with the thread and here's to proving that tons of custom core classes are completely unnecessary. PrC's are good and provide the focus of intent that people want.
Greg_K 12-21-05, 02:08 AM	On an unrelated note, what do people have against multiclassing? It's not the ridiculous process found in earlier editions -- it's meant to be easy to allow you to express concepts not contained in a single class -- like the nonspellcasting outdoorsman. On the outdoorsman, a multiclass Ranger (<4 levels) / Scout / Wilderness Rogue (maybe with one or two levels in Fighter) matches the concept given pretty precisely. I will admit WoT's Outdoorsman fits it better (remember, I said this before -- custom 1-20s are often tailor-made), but I was sticking to WotC products. And within that scope, it is perfectly doable with multiclassing. I think you answered this correctly in an earlier post. The rules might handle a concept, but the solution might not be the most accurate or efficient as a base class. This is generally my view of multiclassing. IMO, multiclassing is generally fine to represent someone dabbling outside their early training or switching classes after play has begun. However, I do not consider it the best solution if someone's character concept represents a legitimate archetype that is either a "hybrid" that can represent formalized training (e.g., warrior mage (fighter/wizard), templar (fighter/cleric), theurge (cleric/wizard), swashbuckler (fighter/rogue) ) or cannot be done by a simple class variant. The multiclassing rules, for instance, unduly penalize a fighter/cleric built to represent a templar or fighter/wizard build to represent a warrior mage. Assuming equal focus on both classes, both multiclass builds should definitely acquire spells at half the rate of a dedicated cleric or wizard. However, the caster level should not be penalized for spells known. Bards, Paladins, and Rangers all have a caster level equal to their class level, but a character using a multiclass to represent an archetype such as Templar or Warrior Mage, assuming equal focus on both classes, has a caster level equal to half his character thus penalizing the player, because his concept was not an official core class or a base class that has appeared in a supplement.
darklogic 12-21-05, 02:40 AM	Wow, sorry for derailing your thread by "asking for machanics that are not in the current rules." Instead of saying that this thread is about finding character concepts that the current system can satisfy without someone needing to create a new base class for it, and therefore create new mechanics, why not simply state that every concept that you feel is within the spirit of DnD has been made and has been covered, and end the discussion and stop the rest of us from thinking you want to engage in a rational discussion? A new concept that absolutely cannot be played by any version of any other base class and a combination of one or more prestige classes is a concept that the rules as they exist simply do not cover. Your statement that the rules as they stand can cover any kind of character concept suggests that it is possible to create any kind of character concept whatsoever. Yet the moment I state that there are not adequate mechanics for a particular type of character, you mark my commentary as irrelevant and you also belittle my ideas and thoughts with assinine references to board games and use extremely large text, which by the way is like citing the Nazi philosophy argument... which if you don't know what that is, that's a philosophical slang term for when someone exits rational discussion and is no longer actually talking about what they say they are talking about. So stop derailing your own thread and revelling in superiority of your knowledge of a game that, based on your defense of it, is extremely flawed and juvenile. I do not interpret the game to be that way, but your version apparently is. You go on further to state that world specific or setting specific ideas are extremely limiting. I'm not aware of a single character, in all existence or imagination, that does not exist in a setting and therefore a world. Your statement about cultural concepts being difficult to translate is therefore extremely redundant and short sighted. Furthermore, you must admit that every aspect of DnD is not just one world and setting, but a basic system that is meant to be able to be carried over into any, thus the use of many fictional human legends from multiple cultures and myths. Getting back onto the spirit of the thread, try your hand at making character progressions, using existing base classes and prestige classes from WotC book, at these character concepts, which I will admit up front are setting specific to different worlds. I hope you are a well read individual and have a breadth of knowledge of various forms of popular culture, because I didn't make any of these up. These are from various fiction sources that I like. I'd like to see a level 1-20 progression on what you think these would look like, but please expect me to poke holes in them as visciously as you have swept aside my concerns for the lack of social mechanics and thus the capacity for social classes. Concepts: From Frank Herbert 1. Bene Geserit Sister 2. Bene Geserit Reverend Mother 3. Bene Geserit Bashar 4. Tleilaxu Facedancer 5. Tleilaxu Ghola 6. Tleilaxu Master 7. Mentat 8. Suk Doctor 9. Idmagist 10. Spacing Guild, Navigator From Anne McCafrey 1. Master Harper 2. Crystal Singer From Melanie Rawn 1. Sunrunner From J.R.R. Tolkien 1. Wormtongue 2. Saruman 3. Gandalf C.S. Lewis 1. The White Witch 2. Prince Caspian 3. And three or more characters from The Silent Planet 4. Skrewtape 5. Father Christmas Alexandre Dumas 1. Edmond Dantes From Germanic and European Folk Tales: 1. Baron Munchausen and his band of followers, each of them 2. The characters from The Tale of Seven Brothers 3. Baba Yaga 4. The Green Knight From Comic Books: 1. Superman 2. The X-men 3. Apocalypse 4. Witchblade Carrier, Any 5. Spiderman 6. Batman 7. The Incredible Hulk Television/Movies or Video: 1. Tau from Mysterious Cities of Gold 2. D, Vampire Hunter D 3. Data, Spock, Quark, and 'The Doctor' from Star Trek 4. a Jedi, using DnD mechanics 5. Karla, Record of Lodoss War 6. Captain Teletha Testarosa, Full Metal Panic 7. Taiki, Twelve Kingdoms 8. En-Ou, Twelve Kingdoms Video Games: 1. Sephiroth, Final fantasy Seven 2. Raziel, Legacy of Kain 3. Dante, Devil May Cry Series 4. Shinobi, Shinobi 5. Rygar, both versions 6. Mario 7. Gau, Final Fantasy Six 8. Kain, Final Fantasy Four Actual Historical Figures: 1. Ghengis Khan 2. Cleopatra 3. Minamoto Musashi 4. Leonardo Da Vinci 5. Napoleon Bonaparte 6. Sidharta Gautama 7. Alexander Hamilton 8. Emperor Chin 9. Jesus of Nazareth 10. Mahatma Ghandi 11. Guru Nanak 12. Mohamad 13. Sacagawea
diphycue 12-21-05, 02:50 AM	The thing is that most of concept is role playing NOT mechanics. I agree that many concepts need new mechanics to work properly, but that doesn't mean they can't be made with any of the current classes. There should be a restriction, for people who don't own or don't want to use other books, that to make a workable character of whomever's concept you can only use material from the SRD...therefore no Eberron, Forgotten Realms, or most of the stuff other than PHB, DMG, MM, XPH... Also, just because a character can't do EVERYTHING conceptual at first level is no reason to say it doesn't have a workable mechanic. Even a basic fighter can't do all fightery stuff at first level. No character is fully into its concept at first level...part of the fun of the game is watching your character grow from a POS to something Epic.
Seerow 12-21-05, 02:59 AM	Darklogic, just stop. You're being unreasonable and stubborn. The things you ask for aren't a part of what this thread was made for, and your attacking Tempest for pointing this out to you is asenine. Honestly, the concepts you gave earlier were valid concepts, but you can't give a character concept and then restrict it mechanically (ie no multiclassing into a prestige class at all), because this thread was made for using ALL material, not the material you decide you want to give. Putting such restrictions on it is the easy way to "win" this argument if you don't stop it, because I can say "I want to play an archmage who can burn spellslots for Arcane Fire without a prestige class" you just can't do it, and the reason isn't because the system is flawed, it's because your demands are unreasonable. As for your 50 or so characters from the last post, I don't know if you gave that many just out of spite or if you actually expect someone to make progressions for all of those, but Im going to say I for one am to lazy to look up who half of them are, let alone what abilities they're likely to have. Hrm... just for fun, if anybody has read the books by Raymond E Feist, I want to see a progression that would make a good Nakor. The only suitable things I can think of bring him clear into epic levels. If you don't know the character, I'd rather not explain, this is just for anyone who might happen to be familliar with him. He's too much of an enigma to explain otherwise.
diphycue 12-21-05, 03:07 AM	Most of the ones listed are VERY easy, conceptually...Several are NPC classes, the others...well just because a cleric calls herself a Bene Geserit, that doesn't mean she's not still a cleric...and all the abilities are functional. "Immunity" to drugs just by willing it could be a silent neutralize poison. Their martial arts are just feat selection, possibly multiclassing...and so on for all the abilities.
Dark Voivode 12-21-05, 03:11 AM	I've thought about this long and hard while I was reading through five pages of Tempest and a few others telling everyone that a concept doesn't deal with mechanics while quoting mechanics to achieve a concept and have to say that I'm thoroughly confused now. See, a character concept is a rather broad term for a Roleplaying scenario. It has absolutely nothing to do with mechanics. At all. It's an ideal and not an idea. There is a distinct difference. By defining character concept in such a broad, sweeping generalization, you've managed to make yourself right no matter what. The problem is, this can also be applied to the "examples" you yourself have placed on the block before us (I site only the generalized ones as I know little to nothing about the Forgotten Realms system or any other specialized system). A few samples. "Oracle with the ability to reach into people's minds." "A powerful sorceress, who can blow things up or fool people with illusions." "The crusading, broody knight." "A [insert race here]." "My character heals very, very, very fast." "A bodyguard. I need to be able to take a lot of damage." "Igamono. I'd prefer it to be as close to historical igamono as possible, within the scope of this game." "[insert long backstory/fiction piece here]." "I want to play a character like [insert well-known character here]!" Now, I'm just going to go down the list here, I'll stop when I get bored. 1) This is a mechanical limitation, and therefore cannot be addressed, according to your own guidelines. 2) You've just described any female, full arcane caster in the books. If you mean can only blow things up or fool people with illusions, well then, you've just violated your mechanical limitation. Again. 3) Now this is a concept. However, considering this is purely an RP concept, there's no need for a 20 lvl class covering brooding and crusading. This proves you right by technicality. 4) This is not a class-based distinction, which proves you right once again... Unless you're using the Savage Species rules, in which case, there's a whole buttload of classes that don't exist and that would prove you entirely wrong. 5) This is a mechanical limitation and violates the no mechanics rule you seem insistent upon cramming down everyone's throat. 6) This describes any fighter-type character out there. It's not a valid concept anyway, as you have a mechanical limitation since he has to be able to take lots of damage. 7)This wasn't the concept. The concept was to be Igamono, not to be as close to it as possible. So this is a winner in my book. You never proved that the WotC material could achieve this, only a close approximation. 8) I'm not sure I understand this one. You've been presented with this in the form of the Igamono (which I realize is non-fiction, but still illustrates the point). 9) Once again, most of this is RP and not necessary of a class structure. If you're asking for the abilitiles of whomever, then it violates the mechanical limitation and is invalid as a concept. Okay, I think I see the problem here. You think the term character concept and class concept are interchangable. They're not. A character concept is how you RP your character. A class concept is based entirely in the mechanics of how a class progresses. They're two totally separate issues here. If I'm wrong in all of this, I'm deeply sorry. As I said at the beginning, this thread has confused rather than enlightened me the more I read. I thought a shapeshifter that had nothing to do with spellcasting and a Tinker which likewise had nothing to do with spellcasting were great class concepts. I'd like to see those myself. Again, if I've offended anyone or completely missed the point here, I humbly apologize. I have nothing but respect for most of the people on this thread and these boards (the rest I don't know) and I mean no offense.
scienceman47 12-21-05, 04:15 AM	I give you the solution Incarnate, before MoI came out. This is to prove that theoretically, there could be a class that requires whole new mechanics, without actually creating one. Well actually, a cleric with domains that match alignment particularly well might be able to pull it off. But not too well.
FriendlyBiscuit 12-21-05, 07:30 AM	I give you the solution Incarnate, before MoI came out.Hmmm... interesting. A winner is you? For the most part, there are folks here saying pretty much what I would say if I had the time, WPM, and knowledge base to do so. I wish I'd laid out a few premises in my first post though. Lessee... Character Concept: A general idea for what you want to do with your character. Laser beam eyes was one great example, as were the stereotypical tribal Native American concepts. Maybe you want to be able to do everything that The Human Torch could do. (from the Fantastic Four) Well obviously, you can't get this at level 1, and probably not at level 4 or 5 either. Flight at level 1 is rare, and this keeps things balanced (theoretically) and is the way things should be. For most fun character concepts, expect to gain the abilities you need for your concept from feats, PrCs, and spells/powers as you gain levels. Why does a "character concept" get replied to with mechanical answers? We're trying to show how most ideas can be covered within the current rules and other limitations of D&D. We can't show that unless we reference said rules, classes, feats etc. If you're posing a character concept, imagine you're a D&D player with middlin' experience and savvy, and there's a character you'd like to play, and you can't find an easy way to set it up. If you're answering one of these posts, imagine you're a kind-hearted DM who wants to give your player everything they ask for, without overpowering them. Imagine that you know the rulebooks and splatbooks very well, but you don't have the time or energy to make something up for the player on the spot, so you dig into your brain for a way to give the player something 80% accurate or better. Why are some people so adamant about your character concept being an idea, as opposed to a laundry list of special features? Well, near and dear to many of our hearts, there is a Character Optimization board that helps you fill your Christmas wishlists. If you want to have a specific combination of abilities, or a specific kind of combatant, they can hook you up. My 2nd post here seems to have been glossed over (it's on page 3 if you're interested, I put a lot of time into it :)); this isn't a quest to turn D&D into free-form RP nor am I telling everyone to pack up their nifty classes and prestige classes and go home. I'm just trying to improve the quality of these homebrew classes and PrCs by helping people see how flexible the available material already is. Armed with that information, someone working on a class can do a better job of making their class truly unique, better at filling its niche, and worth taking even though the published material can kinda already do the same thing. And remember folks, it's just a challenge/game/dare! Have fun, and try not to stab your fellow inmates! :D Edit: Almost forgot! When I mentioned what books I had, and what notable exceptions there were, that wasn't a limitation on you all. I freely encourage all published material. Grabbing freely-available SRD/UA stuff is preferred, barring that 3.5 is preferred, barring that go nuts!
Zilvar 12-21-05, 08:39 AM	(Deleted)
Zilvar 12-21-05, 08:56 AM	The thing is that most of concept is role playing NOT mechanics. I agree that many concepts need new mechanics to work properly, but that doesn't mean they can't be made with any of the current classes. And the minute you modify a core class by switching abilities in a fashion that isn't represented by any printed material, you've created a new base class. Congrats.
Noria Merfolk Mage 12-21-05, 09:01 AM	Darklogic, the problem isn't that you're asking for new mechanics, it's that you're asking for new mechanics when there already are mechanics for what you're talking. However, in your mind the existing mechanics aren't good enough, so you're demanding Tempest and the rest make new mechanics to better fit your invisible criteria. As for your examples, I don't know them all, but I'll answer the ones I do know. If the mechanics aren't "good enough" for you, please feel free to go back to the system you were using for your campaign. Then you can use the energy you're wasting ranting about the flawed d20 system into making your campaign better. From J.R.R. Tolkien 1. Wormtongue 2. Saruman 3. Gandalf 1: Rogue. Or did you miss him sneak attacking Saruman at the end of the story?? 2/3: There are many theories bandied around about what the Wizard's of Middle-earth are. I quite like the one where they're Unique Outsiders. If you don't like that, I'm sure you can build mid-level sorcerors that have similar skill sets. C.S. Lewis 1. The White Witch 5. Father Christmas Having seen the film and read the books, I'd be highly tempted to call her a rogue/fighter, to represent her two-weapon fighting, social skills, and Use Magic Device (Wand of Flesh to Ice). Her miscallaneous skills, like sacrifice magic and the Word of Deep Magic, sound like various Book of Vile Darkness rules (Perform: Sacrifice and the Dark Speech). This is discounting any mitigating factors, like the fact she was present at the creation of the Plane and could have got unique power over Narnia. From Comic Books: 1. Superman 2. The X-men 3. Apocalypse 4. Witchblade Carrier, Any 5. Spiderman 6. Batman 7. The Incredible Hulk 1: Sure, I'll just go through the Mega-epic Hyper-level handbook for all the level 100 feats, and whip up a Kryptonian race... :rolleyes: If you want a strong guy who flies and shoots lasers out of his eyes, I'd look to the Enlightened Fist prestige class, to combine monk and sorceror powers, and then simply ramp up the levels to the "right" amount. 2: Well sure, I have nothign to do for the next 3 months, of course I'll stat up all 382 X-men :rolleyes: 3: Sorceror 20 could easily have most of his powers in some form or other. Shapechange covers a lot of stuff. 4: Pointless: ALL the powers come direct from the artifact, it doesn't matter who the woman is wearing it. If you want to replicate the abilites without the blade, I'd look at Psychic Warrior, and the Various Claw powers. 5: monk/scout/sorceror, for skills, some unarmed skills, fast movement, and a few important low-level spells like Spider Climb, Web and Bull's Strength. 6: Monk 20/Rogue 20/Vigilante 10 is the best way to represent the Comics "on par with Superman" batman IMO. If you want ot tone it down to normal levels, feel free. 7: Frenzied Berserker. You could make a case for a flavor-altered Bear Warrior with levels of Warshaper on top of that. Television/Movies or Video: 3. Data, Spock, Quark, and 'The Doctor' from Star Trek 4. a Jedi, using DnD mechanics 3: Data would be a Nomblewright (MM2) Expert. Spock an expert/monk (nerve pinch). Quark can just be a rogue. and the Doctor can be an intelligent Deck of Illusions, with ranks in Heal. 4: Psychic Warrior is a real good fit IMO. Any mix of psionics and Fighting skill can pull it off really. Video Games: 1. Sephiroth, Final fantasy Seven 2. Raziel, Legacy of Kain 4. Shinobi, Shinobi 6. Mario 7. Gau, Final Fantasy Six 8. Kain, Final Fantasy Four 1: Original Sephiroth is a Elderitch Knight with Monkey Grip, simple as that. Safer Sephiroth is a monster, not a class, and definitely not a usable character concept. 2: Vampire Monk with Soul Eater PrC from BoVD. 4: Psychic Rogue, with Up the Walls feat for one. I don't know him too well, what does that build miss? 6: Jumping really good and kicking stuff are his only real skills, apart from plumbing: Expert/monk?? 7: Haven't played FF6, but I understand he runs away with a group animals, comes back and can turn into them. Wildshape Ranger looks a good fit. Actual Historical Figures Actually these are really easy, since they have no special mechanics to worry about: They're ust humans. A mix of Fighter, rogue, Noble, Expert and other NPC classes will work fine.
BadCatMan 12-21-05, 10:26 AM	I'd like to see an all round Adventurer base class, just for the hell of it: part-time fighter, part-time skill-monkey, and part time spellcaster. Of course, this would just be a multiclassed fighter/rogue/spellcaster. Suggesting superheroes probably doesn't help: they all just have templates slapped on, and Superman seems to be a humanoid Pun-Pun. Nor does it help to suggest characters from modern fiction, or science fiction or anime - these are all covered by other d20 systems: D20 Modern and others, BESM, and all the others. In the context of D&D, magical fantasy is the setting. Okay, I could suggest a character impossible within D&D rules, but I'm sorta breaking my above suggestion (its occasionally magical fantasy, occasionally hard SF). The Doctor. AKA Doctor Who, if anyone here is familiar with the series. Leaving aside all the Time Lord related stuff, like regeneration, which is racial, I can't think of anything in D&D to describe him. Expert/Psion/Artificer doesn't really seem to cut it, despite how a big a fan I am. I'll be quiet now.
Noria Merfolk Mage 12-21-05, 11:43 AM	The Doctor is a strange one, because he never really fights anyone. He thinks his way out of everything, uses very little force, waiting and waiting until everything is set up for a technical solution. This is a difficult one to mesh with the battle-heavy system in D&D. I'd certainly consider Rogue and Artificer to be big parts of it, and put the rest down to roleplaying. I saw a very interesting article in Dragon a while ago, giving play tips for the pacifist rogue. I'd imagine the Doctor would act a lot like that.
clarkvalentine 12-21-05, 12:10 PM	Edit: As an intro, I'm a Dragonlance fan, and I think some of the base classes it provides can fill some common D&D base class gaps in a nice non-setting-specific way. A heroic level skill monkey - as the fighter is to the warriror, this class would be to the expert. (Edit: Dragonlance provides this with its Master class.) (I'm breaking the thesis here a bit) A character centered around interaction with other characters that isn't a bard (bards must non-lawful, bards cast spells). A heroic level aristocrat. (Edit: Dragonlance provides this with its Noble class.) A spontaneous divine caster. (Might already be done - does favored soul cast spontaneously?) (Edit: Dragonlance provides this with its Mystic class.) Here's one I have yet to see addressed well: A witch - basically a druid that doesn't shapeshift. I love the idea of a druid, but I hate shapeshifting. (Edit: Dragonlance doesn't really provide this. ;) )
Greg_K 12-21-05, 12:47 PM	Here's one I have yet to see addressed well: A witch - basically a druid that doesn't shapeshift. I love the idea of a druid, but I hate shapeshifting. (Edit: Dragonlance doesn't really provide this. ;) ) Check out both the Shaman's Handbook (5/5 rating at EnWorld) and the Witch's Handbook (4/5 rating at EnWorld) by Green Ronin. The books were originally designed for 3.0, but a small list of alterations necessary to bring them up to 3.5 are available for free at the Green Ronin website. If those don't work for you, check out both Encyclopedia Divine: Shamans (5/5 rating at EnWorld) and The Quintessential Witch (5/5 rating at EnWorld) both of which are put out by Mongoose Publishing.
clarkvalentine 12-21-05, 01:05 PM	Check out both the Shaman's Handbook (5/5 rating at EnWorld) and the Witch's Handbook (4/5 rating at EnWorld) by Green Ronin. The books were originally designed for 3.0, but a small list of alterations necessary to bring them up to 3.5 are available for free at the Green Ronin website. Sounds nice. Green Ronin's work is generally pretty impressive, so I'll take a look.
Noria Merfolk Mage 12-21-05, 01:10 PM	Technically, Dragonlance is a WotC product (I think they loan the lisence out to Wies and Hickman's company, but it's still their product), so all those classes are technically WotC core classes. Still, they can be done with other classes too. There's the Favored Soul and the Spirit Shaman that act as your spontaneous divine casters (Spirit Shaman is also a Druid without shapeshifting BTW. You can also use UA to swap Wildshape for something else). The Noble can be done with a rogue, or other classes with the correct skill set (Heres an idea: a Bard using Perform: Acting to sound more important). As for skill monkey: Theres the Rogue variant with feats instead of sneak attack, and the Human Paragon which gives you a bunch of extra class skills. There's also PrCs, like the Exemplar from Complete Adventurer, and the Chameleon from Races of Destiny.
Seerow 12-21-05, 01:15 PM	I'd like to see an all round Adventurer base class, just for the hell of it: part-time fighter, part-time skill-monkey, and part time spellcaster. Of course, this would just be a multiclassed fighter/rogue/spellcaster You mean a bard?
clarkvalentine 12-21-05, 01:25 PM	Technically, Dragonlance is a WotC product (I think they loan the lisence out to Wies and Hickman's company, but it's still their product), so all those classes are technically WotC core classes. Right. The license has been leased to Sovereign Press, which is Margaret Weis's company. The basic campaign setting book for 3.5 was written collaboratively between WoTC and Sovereign Press, and published by WOTC. Subsequent sourcebooks have been purely Sov Press products. Still, they can be done with other classes too. There's the Favored Soul and the Spirit Shaman that act as your spontaneous divine casters (Spirit Shaman is also a Druid without shapeshifting BTW. You can also use UA to swap Wildshape for something else). I thought favored soul might fit the bill, but couldn't recall. Spirit Shaman sounds interesting, too - where is it published? The Noble can be done with a rogue, or other classes with the correct skill set (Heres an idea: a Bard using Perform: Acting to sound more important). Hm. Not really the fit that I'd personally go for, but the Noble is in the DLCS (which is a WoTC product). It's directly inspired by the Star Wars d20 Noble class, and has interesting "call in favor" and inspirational abilities while being a servicable, if unexciting, combatant. As for skill monkey: Theres the Rogue variant with feats instead of sneak attack, and the Human Paragon which gives you a bunch of extra class skills. Rogues are great, I love 'em - but they just seem so dungeoneering or adventuring centric (not a knock, the game is kind of centered around that after all) what with all the evasion and trapfinding and such abilities. I'm a little biased, though, I'm a huge fan of DL's Master class. Good options, all, though. Proves that there's just about every base covered, it seems, and most bases covered more than once.
Noria Merfolk Mage 12-21-05, 01:42 PM	Favored Soul and Spirit Shaman are both in Complete Divine.
SlagMortar 12-21-05, 04:09 PM	Concept: A warrior who is adept at guessing the tactics of his opponents. Early in his career (1st level): A young, naive warrior. This is perfectly fulfilled by level 1 Fighter. Late in his career (20th level): A veteran warrior who is able to anticipate the tactics of his enemies with uncanny accuracy such as: - If I charge them they will surround me. - If I charge them they will fall back, but it will only be pretend. They actually have an ambushed planned. - This particular enemy likes to use disarm tactics, without actually ever having seen that enemy in combat.
diphycue 12-21-05, 04:14 PM	Isn't most of that covered by the combat usage of Sense Motive?
SlagMortar 12-21-05, 04:25 PM	I think that would be a very liberal interpretation of sense motive. I would like a character that can determine what his opponent's tactics will be. Also, he could determine weaknesses and immunities of his enemies by observing the opponent's reactions to it's surroundings. That is the concept. To help communicate the idea, here are some mechanics that I think would accurrately reflect what I am thinking. It is not a laundry list of abilities, but it helps to have a common set of standards to communicate: Take the standard fighter. Strip out the bonus feats. Give him bardic knowledge, but call it intuition. Give him some mechanic that allows him to anticipate tactics, i.e. this dragon will use fly-by-attacks and it's breath weapon, that one prefers to hover and full attack. As far as I know, this mechanic does not exist.
diphycue 12-21-05, 04:43 PM	That's a really good concept. Whether or not it can't be done is debatable, but it would be done better with its own class. Then again, a lot of concepts could use their own class, even if they don't NEED their own class. I know there are some feats that give some combat knowledge, tactics and what-not. Prestige classes exist, I know...but whether they do all of that, I'm not sure.
Noria Merfolk Mage 12-21-05, 05:05 PM	I think a lot of that is covered in various feats from Complete Warrior and complete Adventurer.
darklogic 12-21-05, 06:16 PM	1. I'm letting most of this matter drop. 2. I am hoping this will be my last post to a pointless thread. 3. Someone after I posted pointed out that character concept and class concept are completely sepearate. After thinking it over, I believe that this is correct and that this is the source of frustration of people within the d20 system who find it has shortcomings, and people do actually hope for mechanics to represent the abilities and skills of a character. It can't however. Perhaps no RPG can, but d20 most certainly among them all absolutely just can't. Especially with individuals safeguarding it against dangerous new ideas like new base classes or social roleplaying. 4. I still stick to my assertion that any character concept that cannot be acurate represented by some combination of clas and prestige class in d20 is something for which d20 does not have mechanics to satisfy. On this I remain certain, and believe it is a valid point to the thread in spite of arguments to the contrary. 5. On the making of my bajillion and one character concepts from works of fiction: I realize that it is pointless to argue about these because I am not the original author of these characters and therefore do not have the authority to tell any of you what they truly can and cannot do. 6. On the making of Historical Figures as character concepts: The attempt made to sweepingly justify a simple build for all of these characters is blatantly Incorrect. As real individuals, their abilities are, granted, historically more readily and objectively quantifiable than those of fictional characters, and therefore arbitralily constructing them without actually looking up who they are is a flawed premise for building them. I am willing to bet you didn't even look at the list of people involved to see who they were. If you seriously try to build these people, I promise you you will stir up dissent because you will find people who are severely dissatisfied with seeing these people built in a d20 method at all, let alone how you yourself choose to build them. Four of these individuals are founders of major religions. One of them is the most renowned warrior in all of human history and is recorded, historically, as the most capable swordsman ever and was never struck by an opponent's blade because no oppoenent could ever scathe him in the least, regardless of how well trained they were or how taxing their fighting method was. Two more are extremely great conquerors and statesman, able to woo the hearts of nations and change the destiny of their home countries with long term ramifications on world politics for centuries to come, even to this day. These factors and more show that there are dynamics about people that just cannot be put down on paper, or placed into a roleplaying system that is more obsessed with balance and simplicity than it is accuracy. For clarification I must agree that many many concepts for characters in fact do not require their own base class. At most many of them need a new prestige class. However, there are many concept that require such a drastic difference in mechanical representation that they cannot recognizably be placed in an existing version of the currently accepted base classes. 7. On stating that my assertions regarding the behavior of other posters for belittling my views are assinine: I disagree. Upon reviewing my words in a state of calm and reviewing the posts that incited my anger in the first place, I find myself completely justified to feel anger and pity towards those who do not have the perspective of an open mind beyond the defense of a juvenile method of roll playing, and a complete lack of respect for the 'open liscense' creative process fostered by the endeavre of the d20 system. I have every right and every obligation to feel indignant and insulted by any attack upon my words or intentions by individuals who claim that my words do not mean what they in fact do. The fact that I am formulating my arguments based on reason and method in spite of the fact that my fellow posters use extremely inarticulate "shouting" to get their point across and then it is I that is told to stop my "attack"s is extremely telling of the maturity level of my fellow posters. Please learn to examine your own behavior, especially when talking to an adult.
scienceman47 12-21-05, 06:21 PM	Let me see if I understand. This post is not about proving or disproving the idea that unique base classes could be neccessary, but in fact exists to provide a resource for people who want to determine if their character concept could not be easier to approximate with existing written material. I believe I was thrown off by the word "Challenge". Obviously I need to increase my reading comprehention. Alternatly, I just felt like arguing. Disco bandit. Now that you bring images of KoL to mind maka me a disco bandit class. It will be awesome. Coiffo from perfect hair forever. Now we are not only making bad anime classes, but bad spoofs of bad anime classes. Planar like druid - A druid that channels the planes.
Noria Merfolk Mage 12-21-05, 07:02 PM	One of them is the most renowned warrior in all of human history and is recorded, historically, as the most capable swordsman ever and was never struck by an opponent's blade because no oppoenent could ever scathe him in the least, regardless of how well trained they were or how taxing their fighting method was. Two more are extremely great conquerors and statesman, able to woo the hearts of nations and change the destiny of their home countries with long term ramifications on world politics for centuries to come, even to this day. I find it interesting that you use rhetoric like this to argue against the realism of the system. a roleplaying system that is more obsessed with balance and simplicity than it is accuracy. There, I'm afraid, is the crux of our disagreement. Simplicity and accuracy are impossible to simulate in the same system to the same degree, and balance has got nothing to to do with either, merely being an expression of our competitive human nature. If you want accuracy, you're not going to get it in D&D, as its a system designed, not to simulate accuracy, but to create a simple enjoyable game experience. By all means, stick with the RPG system you're happy with, and continue running your realistic campaign. We will continue with our silly game, and the internet will be free of our pointless argument.
Noria Merfolk Mage 12-21-05, 07:13 PM	Disco Bandit: Again, Perform dance on a bard achieves the right mechanical effect. The rest is a matter of sowing sequins into your cloak of charisma, and a few ranks in Craft: Afro. Planar druid: Planar Handbook substitution levels??
ragingmaro 12-21-05, 07:18 PM	I admit that I have not read through this whole thread. The parts that I have read of Tempest Stormwind finding ideas how to make any type of character have been very interesting. However, I have another suggestions for a 1-20 base class. An arcane warrior. I would be greatly interested in some sort of Arcane equivalent of the Psychic warrior. EDIT: woops, there (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#sorcererVari antBattleSorcerer) it is.... :doh: (Battle Sorceror) and isn't the Arcane Solunum or whatever along these lines?
Greg_K 12-21-05, 09:45 PM	DarkLogic, The problem is not d20 as a whole. Part of the problem are the DND classes released by WOTC several of which are either not flexible and are not meant to accurately represent any traditional fantasy archetype other than those of DND. Unearthed Arcana's variant classes go part way towards solving the problem. Furthermore, there are several d20 products made specifically for DND by third party companies that provide new base classes which represnt more traditional archtypes (e.g, the shaman, the witch, the noble). Another part of the problem is that some of your concepts are not fantasy archetypes, but sci-fi or superhero. As others have said, those scifi and superhero can be done in DND, just most likely not satsifactory via templates,etc. This is not to say that some 3.X designers have not drawn inspiration from comic books for some of thier concepts. However DND is not a universal RPG. Therefore, it is a little unfair to attack it for not readilly delivering sci-fi or superhero concepts. For such concepts, you are most likely to find support in other d20 games such as d20 Modern (and its supplements)or Mutants and Masterminds which are designed to handle concepts outside the fantasy genre.
Tempest Stormwind 12-21-05, 10:28 PM	Hot damn, I leave for work, and this thing explodes. I'm exhausted (for the record, I work with kids, usually elementary-school-aged, in large groups. It's nearly Christmas. I am but one man. THIS is what a failed fortitude save feels like...), so I'll handle a generalized response rather than the tailored ones that I know you guys deserve. A large, large, LARGE number of the concepts I have seen listed since my last post fall in one of the following four categories. 1) Easily accomplished with published variants, such as racial substitution levels, the planar substitution levels, the UA class variants, templates, and so on. 2) Already described in the rules, but since it isn't as drop-dead explicit as you're describing it, it goes unnoticed. (Case in point: Kain, in FF4. See the lancer in my sig, which I've been talking about for pages.) The fighter-with-combat-knowledge is a product of experience (likely; he kept notes of what he fought and made liberal use of the Knowledge and Sense Motive skills), for instance. (To attain the "Uncanny" bit you may need certain feats or apply the combat uses of Sense Motive (Heroes of Battle and Sword and Fist cover this). Finally, read what Knowledge can provide -- common or default tactics are among the things one can learn from the use of this skill.) 3) Completely in the providence of roleplay. (While not a complete build, I maintain that the historical figures simply had amazingly high ability scores (Gandhi), were higher-level than their compatriots (Musashi), or both (Khan, probably). Another potential explanation would be that the majority of us are NPC classes -- consider the case of Musashi if he was the only true Fighter in a region full of warriors, for instance (this is only in the broadest sense, as he certainly was not a straight-classed fighter). Neither of these is dependent at all on the exact expressions in d20 which, if any exist, will vary based on the creators' personal biases towards these guys.) 4) Falling out of the D&D archetype -- Superman, in a game based around fantasy adventurers? Those that do not require more custom approaches. For the record, Noria Merfolk Mage speaks many of the things I would have spoken, and I fully agree with Greg_K's last post. (This is not a bow-out. I'm still around. I'll be back later this evening.)
Nephlite 12-21-05, 10:39 PM	Concept: A warrior who is adept at guessing the tactics of his opponents. Early in his career (1st level): A young, naive warrior. This is perfectly fulfilled by level 1 Fighter. Late in his career (20th level): A veteran warrior who is able to anticipate the tactics of his enemies with uncanny accuracy such as: - If I charge them they will surround me. - If I charge them they will fall back, but it will only be pretend. They actually have an ambushed planned. - This particular enemy likes to use disarm tactics, without actually ever having seen that enemy in combat. It is impossible (in my opinion) to know how someone acts without seeing how they act. Now scrying lets you see them before they know about it, but you see have to see them do it. After seeing there are feats/skill uses in Complete Adventurer. However, I have another suggestions for a 1-20 base class. An arcane warrior. I would be greatly interested in some sort of Arcane equivalent of the Psychic warrior. I'll show you my version. You can always use a feat if you want heavy armor. I made the spell list using core only so feel free to add more from splat-books that fits him. He uses self-buffing, other buff, a few touch spells, and status healing. I gave him Arcane Favor (a arcane version of non-errata Divine Favor hehe). Arcane Warrior Alignment : Any Hit Die : d8. Class Skills The arcane warrior’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Climb (Str), Concentration (Con), Craft (Int), Jump (Str), Knowledge (arcana) (Int), Profession (Wis), Spellcraft (Int), Sense Motive (Wis), Swim (Str). Skill Points at 1st Level : (2 + Int modifier) x4. Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 2 + Int modifier Table: The Arcane Warrior ––—— Spells per Day ——–— Level Base Attack Bonus Fort Save Ref Save Will Save Special 0 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 1st +0 +0 +0 +2 Bonus Feat, spells 2 0 — — 2nd +1 +0 +0 +3 3 0 — — — —— 3rd +2 +1 +1 +3 3 1 — — — —— 4th +3 +1 +1 +4 Bonus Feat 3 2 0 — ——— 5th +3 +1 +1 +4 3 3 1 — — —— 6th +4 +2 +2 +5 3 3 2 0 — —— 7th +5 +2 +2 +5 3 3 2 0 — —— 8th +6/+1 +2 +2 +6 Bonus Feat 3 3 3 1 ——— 9th +6/+1 +3 +3 +6 3 3 3 2 0 —— 10th +7/+2 +3 +3 +7 3 3 3 2 0 —— 11th +8/+3 +3 +3 +7 3 3 3 3 1 —— 12th +9/+4 +4 +4 +8 Bonus Feat 3 3 3 3 2 0 - 13th +9/+4 +4 +4 +8 3 3 3 3 2 0— 14th +10/+5 +4 +4 +9 3 4 3 3 3 31— 15th +11/+6/+1 +5 +5 +9 4 4 3 3 3 2 0 16th +12/+7/+2 +5 +5 +10 Bonus Feat 4 4 4 3 3 2 0 17th +12/+7/+2 +5 +5 +10 4 4 4 4 3 3 1 18th +13/+8/+3 +6 +6 +11 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 19th +14/+9/+4 +6 +6 +11 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 20th +15/+10/+5 +6 +6 +12 Bonus Feat 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ————— Spells Known ——— Level 0 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 1st 3 1 — — — — — 2nd 4 2 — — — — — 3rd 5 3 1 — — — — 4th 6 3 2 — — — — 5th 6 4 3 — — — — 6th 6 4 3 1 — — — 7th 6 4 4 2 — — — 8th 6 4 4 3 — — — 9th 6 4 4 3 1 — — 10th 6 4 4 4 2 — — 11th 6 4 4 4 3 — — 12th 6 4 4 4 3 1 — 13th 6 4 4 4 4 2 — 14th 6 4 4 4 4 3 — 15th 6 4 4 4 4 3 1 16th 6 5 4 4 4 4 2 17th 6 5 5 4 4 4 3 18th 6 5 5 5 4 4 3 19th 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 20th 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 Class Features: Weapon and Armor Proficiency : A arcane warrior is proficient with all simple weapons and martial weapons. They are also proficient with light and medium armor as well as shields (except tower shields). Due to the way that arcane warriors cast and train: they can cast in any armor without spell failure. However, like any other arcane spellcaster, an arcane wearing using a shield incurs a chance of arcane spell failure if the spell in question has a somatic component (most do). A multiclass arcane warrior still incurs the normal arcane spell failure chance for arcane spells received from other classes. Spells: A arcane warrior casts arcane spells, which are drawn from the arcane warrior list. He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time. To learn or cast a spell, an arcane warrior must have a Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a arcane warrior’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the arcane warrior’s Charisma modifier. Like other spell-casters, a bard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. His base daily spell allotment is given on Table: The Arcane Warrior. In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Intelligence score. When Table: Arcane Warrior Spells Known indicates that the arcane warrior gets 0 spells per day of a given spell level, he gains only the bonus spells he would be entitled to based on his intelligence score for that spell level. The arcane warrior’s selection of spells is extremely limited. A arcane warrior begins play knowing 3 0-level spells and 1 first level spell of your choice. At most new arcane warrior levels, he gains one or more new spells, as indicated on Table: Arcane Warrior Spells Known. (Unlike spells per day, the number of spells a bard knows is not affected by his intelligence score; the numbers on Table: Arcane Warrior Spells Known are fixed.) Bonus Feats: At 1st level, an arcane warrior gets a bonus feat in addition to the feat that any 1st level character gets and the bonus feat granted to a human character. The arcane warrior gains an additional bonus feat at 4th level and every 4 levels thereafter (8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th). These bonus feats must be drawn from the feats noted as fighter bonus feats, metamagic, or item creation feats. The arcane warrior must still meet all prerequisites for the bonus feat, including ability score and base attack bonus minimums as well as class requirements. A arcane warrior cannot choose feats that specifically require levels in the fighter class unless he is a multiclass character with the requisite levels in the fighter class. These bonus feats are in addition to the feats that a character of any class gains every three levels. A arcane warrior is not limited to his bonus feats when choosing these other feats. Arcane Warrior SPELLS 0-LEVEL Arcane Warrior SPELLS (CANTRIPS) Dancing Lights: Creates torches or other lights. Daze: Humanoid creature of 4 HD or less loses next action. Detect Magic: Detects spells and magic items within 60 ft. Detect Poison: Detects poison in one creature or small object. Flare: Dazzles one creature (–1 on attack rolls). Ghost Sound: Figment sounds. Know Direction: You discern north. Light: Object shines like a torch. Mage Hand: 5-pound telekinesis. Mending: Makes minor repairs on an object. Message: Whispered conversation at distance. Open/Close: Opens or closes small or light things. Prestidigitation: Performs minor tricks. Read Magic: Read scrolls and spellbooks. Resistance: Subject gains +1 on saving throws. Touch of Fatigue: Touch attack fatigues target. 1ST-LEVEL Arcane Warrior SPELLS Alarm: Wards an area for 2 hours/level. Charm Person: Makes one person your friend. Chill Touch: One touch/level deals 1d6 damage and possibly 1 Str damage. Comprehend Languages: You understand all spoken and written languages. Detect Secret Doors: Reveals hidden doors within 60 ft. Disguise Self: Changes your appearance. Endure Elements: Exist comfortably in hot or cold environments. Enlarge Person: Humanoid creature doubles in size. Expeditious Retreat: Your speed increases by 30 ft. Feather Fall: Objects or creatures fall slowly. Grease: Makes 10-ft. square or one object slippery. Identify M: Determines properties of magic item. Jump: Subject gets bonus on Jump checks. Magic Weapon: Weapon gains +1 bonus. Mount: Summons riding horse for 2 hours/level. Protection from Chaos/Evil/Good/Law: +2 to AC and saves, counter mind control, hedge out elementals and outsiders. Reduce Person: Humanoid creature halves in size. Remove Fear: Suppresses fear or gives +4 on saves against fear for one subject + one per four levels. Shield: Invisible disc gives +4 to AC, blocks magic missiles. Shocking Grasp: Touch delivers 1d6/level electricity damage (max 5d6) True Strike: +20 on your next attack roll. Undetectable Alignment: Conceals alignment for 24 hours. Unseen Servant: Invisible force obeys your commands. 2ND-LEVEL Arcane Warrior SPELLS Alter Self: Assume form of a similar creature. Arcanic Favor: You gain +1 per three levels on attack and damage rolls. Blur: Attacks miss subject 20% of the time. Bear's Endurance: Subject gains +4 to Con for 1 min./level. Bull's Strength: Subject gains +4 to Str for 1 min./level. Cat's Grace: Subject gains +4 to Dex for 1 min./level. Continual Flame M: Makes a permanent, heatless torch. Darkvision: See 60 ft. in total darkness. Daze Monster: Living creature of 6 HD or less loses next action. Delay Poison: Stops poison from harming subject for 1 hour/ level. Detect Thoughts: Allows “listening” to surface thoughts. Eagle's Splendor: Subject gains +4 to Cha for 1 min./level. False Life: Gain 1d10 temporary hp +1/level (max +10). Flame Blade: Touch attack deals 1d8 +1/two levels damage. Fox's Cunning: Subject gains +4 to Int for 1 min./level. Glitterdust: Blinds creatures, outlines invisible creatures. Heroism: Gives +2 on attack rolls, saves, skill checks. Invisibility: Subject is invisible for 1 min./level or until it attacks.). Mirror Image: Creates decoy duplicates of you (1d4 +1 per three levels, max 8). Owl's Wisdom: Subject gains +4 to Wis for 1 min./level. Protection from Arrows: Subject immune to most ranged attacks. Pyrotechnics: Turns fire into blinding light or choking smoke. Rage: Gives +2 to Str and Con, +1 on Will saves, –2 to AC. Resist Energy: Ignores first 10 (or more) points of damage/attack from specified energy type. See Invisibility: Reveals invisible creatures or objects. Silence: Negates sound in 20-ft. radius. Shield Other: You take half of subject's damage. Spider Climb: Grants ability to walk on walls and ceilings. Summon Swarm: Summons swarm of bats, rats, or spiders. Tongues: Speak any language. Touch of Idiocy: Subject takes 1d6 points of Int, Wis, and Cha damage. 3RD-LEVEL Arcane Warrior SPELLS Blink: You randomly vanish and reappear for 1 round/level. Crushing Despair: Subjects take –2 on attack rolls, damage rolls, saves, and checks. Dispel Magic: Cancels magical spells and effects. Displacement: Attacks miss subject 50%. Good Hope: Subjects gain +2 on attack rolls, damage rolls, saves, and checks. Haste: One creature/level moves faster, +1 on attack rolls, AC, and Reflex saves. Invisibility Sphere:Makes everyone within 10 ft. invisible. Keen Edge: Doubles normal weapon's threat range. Magic Circle against Chaos/Evil/Good/Law: As protection spells, but 10-ft. radius and 10 min./level. Magic Weapon, Greater: +1/four levels (max +5). Protection from Energy: Absorb 12 points/level of damage from one kind of energy. Remove Curse: Frees object or person from curse. Slow: One subject/level takes only one action/round, –1 to AC, reflex saves, and attack rolls. Vampiric Touch: Touch deals 1d6/two levels damage; caster gains damage as hp. 4TH-LEVEL Arcane Warrior SPELLS Break Enchantment: Frees subjects from enchantments, alterations, curses, and petrification. Dimension Door: Teleports you short distance. Disrupting Weapon: Melee weapon destroys undead. Fire Shield: Creatures attacking you take fire damage; you're protected from heat or cold. Freedom of Movement: Subject moves normally despite impediments. Globe of Invulnerability, Lesser: Stops 1st- through 3rd-level spell effects Invisibility, Greater: As invisibility, but subject can attack and stay invisible. Modify Memory: Changes 5 minutes of subject's memories. Neutralize Poison: Immunizes subject against poison, detoxifies venom in or on subject. Shadow Conjuration: Mimics conjuring below 4th level, but only 20% real. Stoneskin: Ignore 10 points of damage per attack. Shadow Conjuration: Mimics conjuration below 4th level, but only 20% real. Enlarge Person, Mass: Enlarges several creatures.. Reduce Person, Mass: Reduces several creatures. 5TH-LEVEL Arcane Warrior SPELLS Animate Objects: Objects attack your foes. Break Enchantment: Frees subjects from enchantments, alterations, curses, and petrification. Dispel Magic, Greater: As dispel magic, but +20 on check. False Vision M: Fools scrying with an illusion. Heroism, Greater: Gives +4 bonus on attack rolls, saves, skill checks; immunity to fear; temporary hp. Hold Monster: As hold person, but any creature. Interposing Hand: Hand provides cover against one opponent. Mislead: Turns you invisible and creates illusory double. Seeming: Changes appearance of one person per two levels. Shadow Evocation: Mimics evocation of lower than 5th level, but only 20% real. 6TH-LEVEL Arcane Warrior SPELLS Antimagic Field: Negates magic within 10 ft Bear's Endurance, Mass: As bear's endurance, affects one subject/level. Bull's Strength, Mass: As bull's strength, affects one subject/ level Cat's Grace, Mass: As cat's grace, affects one subject/level. Eagle's Splendor, Mass: As eagle's splendor, affects one subject/level. Find the Path: Shows most direct way to a location. Fox's Cunning, Mass: As fox's cunning, affects one subject/level. Globe of Invulnerability: As lesser globe of invulnerability, plus 4th-level spell effects Heroes' Feast: Food for one creature/level cures and grants combat bonuses. Mind Blank: Subject is immune to mental/emotional magic and scrying. Project Image: Illusory double can talk and cast spells. Veil: Changes appearance of group of creatures. I apologize for interrupting thread :D
SlagMortar 12-21-05, 10:55 PM	The fighter-with-combat-knowledge is a product of experience (likely; he kept notes of what he fought and made liberal use of the Knowledge and Sense Motive skills), for instance. (To attain the "Uncanny" bit you may need certain feats or apply the combat uses of Sense Motive (Heroes of Battle and Sword and Fist cover this). Finally, read what Knowledge can provide -- common or default tactics are among the things one can learn from the use of this skill.) My concept is not a meticulous notes taker, it is someone who just knows. Perhaps it is latent sorcerous powers that only manifest themselves in divination like abilities about an opponent's combat styles. It is not experience with a given type of opponent, but an ability to generalize at an instinctive, even mystical, level what his opponent will do. To build the character as you describe, I would need: - a high Sense Motive - high ranks in all Knowledge skills - a high intelligence - several feats - high skill in combat. By this I mean that I would expect him to be at least a fighter with no feats. What combination of classes give these things? I see this mechanically translated as approximately Full base attack and d10 hit points, 6 or 8 skill points per level to spend on Knowledge skills and Sense Motive, and Sense Motive and all Knowledge skills as class skills. It is impossible (in my opinion) to know how someone acts without seeing how they act. Now scrying lets you see them before they know about it, but you see have to see them do it. Call it an Ex ability. Or even a SU. It is also impossible to recover from near death overnight or transform into a giant. True Strike give a brief glimpse into the future so it is possible in standard D&D to see into the future. In fact it is a first level spell. And my concept does not require that he is right every time. There can be an opposed roll, a DC to meet, whatever.
Tempest Stormwind 12-21-05, 11:06 PM	Call it an Ex ability. Or even a SU. It is also impossible to recover from near death overnight or transform into a giant. True Strike give a brief glimpse into the future so it is possible in standard D&D to see into the future. In fact it is a first level spell. And my concept does not require that he is right every time. There can be an opposed roll, a DC to meet, whatever. This is where the crux of the problem lies. The description of True Strike, other related combat divinations, and several psionic powers which seem similar, is (in all senses except for the tactics) essentially identical to the concept that you have provided, and they manifest simply as bonuses on rolls in the game mechanics. Boring, I know, but that's how it works. (By the way, the "notes" thing was an example. He could just develop an intuitive talent for it as a direct function of his experience. Would a 20th level fighter realistically fall for simple tactical gambits, such as a poorly-executed fake opening? No, and that's expressed in the rules as a higher attack bonus, which is a direct function of his experience. He doesn't just go "Oh, that was goblin number 14, now I'm better at stuff.") This leaves the tactical knowledge as your one remaining hurtle. As I said, Knowledge can pull it off reasonably well (And as I said on page 1, a simple feat -- Education -- makes them all class skills. A formal childhood education may not be out of character for this design. If it is, then simply reflavor it -- his intuition extends to other patterns, like those learnable through academic sources), and Sense Motive can cover the rest (there are feats in Complete Adventurer, and alternate uses in the war books, that would suit your goal pretty much spot-on).
SlagMortar 12-21-05, 11:25 PM	D&D does not wrap all tactics into a bonus or penalty to a die roll. If this were true, there would be no tripping, no feinting, no flanking, no disarming, no battlefield control spells. They would all just provide a bonus to the "did I win the combat" die roll. D&D abstracts the one-on-one fighting for the most part to the die roll, but leaves the many against many tactics solely to the players. Would a 20th level fighter realistically fall for simple tactical gambits, such as a poorly-executed fake opening? Would a fighter apply his BAB to his Sense Motive roll in this case? No. It is not a Feint as defined in D&D. The fighter has no mechanical ability that would affect this. You keep mentioning lots of feats and skills. What class or combinatino of classes grants the sufficient skill points and feats while maintaining a decent amount of fighting ability?
darklogic 12-21-05, 11:32 PM	There, I'm afraid, is the crux of our disagreement. Simplicity and accuracy are impossible to simulate in the same system to the same degree, and balance has got nothing to to do with either, merely being an expression of our competitive human nature. If you want accuracy, you're not going to get it in D&D, as its a system designed, not to simulate accuracy, but to create a simple enjoyable game experience. By all means, stick with the RPG system you're happy with, and continue running your realistic campaign. We will continue with our silly game, and the internet will be free of our pointless argument. On this I believe we will need to agree to disagree. And in that I do hope that the 'argument' will end. I hope I did not come across as overtly hostile, but I am afraid that my opinions are of a divergent nature than your own. Hope there are no hard feelings. 2) Already described in the rules, but since it isn't as drop-dead explicit as you're describing it, it goes unnoticed. (Case in point: Kain, in FF4. See the lancer in my sig, which I've been talking about for pages.) The fighter-with-combat-knowledge is a product of experience (likely; he kept notes of what he fought and made liberal use of the Knowledge and Sense Motive skills), for instance. (To attain the "Uncanny" bit you may need certain feats or apply the combat uses of Sense Motive (Heroes of Battle and Sword and Fist cover this). Finally, read what Knowledge can provide -- common or default tactics are among the things one can learn from the use of this skill.) I tend to actually disgree with most Kain builds I see. Including your lancer. Sorry, but I've played Kain in multiple RPG systems, and I would feel cheated if I used your build for his stats in d20. 3) Completely in the providence of roleplay. (While not a complete build, I maintain that the historical figures simply had amazingly high ability scores (Gandhi), were higher-level than their compatriots (Musashi), or both (Khan, probably). Another potential explanation would be that the majority of us are NPC classes -- consider the case of Musashi if he was the only true Fighter in a region full of warriors, for instance (this is only in the broadest sense, as he certainly was not a straight-classed fighter). Neither of these is dependent at all on the exact expressions in d20 which, if any exist, will vary based on the creators' personal biases towards these guys.) I find the higher level theory to be an acceptable, one, and will bow out on this portion of the argument on the basis that you have indeed found a mechanic that can illustrate the clear superiority of a character: a much higher level. And your point of personal biases is also extremely valid. Especially on the point of the founders of religions when built by players who follow said religions. 4) Falling out of the D&D archetype -- Superman, in a game based around fantasy adventurers? Yes. I do understand your defense of an abstract archetype, but I truly am expecting you to stick to the guns on the main point of this thread, to prove to me that existing d20 material can be used to build any character concept. The only method that I find acceptable for that to prove your point is to find a way to successfully portray a character of a very non DnD archetype using existing DnD mechanics, showing that the cultural and sociological references of the DnD setting to not infringe on the capacity of the d20 system to encompass any imaginable thing a player might concievably wish to play. As we cannot agree on social archetypes and etc. I feel forced to carry the argument outside the realm of DnD entirely in order to maintain a modum of rational discussion. To throw the question back at you yourself, Stormwind, are you saying that there truly is no character concept that you cannot find a way to represent using existing DnD material? I assert that that is an extremely bold statement, and that it is also very vague. As has been illustrated by myself and other posters, there is a seperation of class and character concepts to consider, and there is also the considerations that you yourself assert regarding the limitations of what is an acceptable DnD archetype. If you were to rephrase the statement into this, I believe that it would end these pointless arguments: "I can prove that no new base class concepts are required as every class concept that fits within the DnD paradigm can be covered by an existing or a variation of an existing DnD base class, coupled with one or more PrCs." If you said that, I believe that we would all have to agree with you. I would in fact be the first to agree with you, as every new class within the DnD mold is truly nothing more than a revision or alternative version of a class that has already been made. Your postulation as it currently stands, however, invites crtitique, debate, and confusion. So please clarify what this thread is really meant to be about. DarkLogic, The problem is not d20 as a whole. Part of the problem are the DND classes released by WOTC several of which are either not flexible and are not meant to accurately represent any traditional fantasy archetype other than those of DND. Unearthed Arcana's variant classes go part way towards solving the problem. Furthermore, there are several d20 products made specifically for DND by third party companies that provide new base classes which represnt more traditional archtypes (e.g, the shaman, the witch, the noble). Please forgive my use of language, as I apparently have been quite unclear. I did not mean to make it sound like d20 itself was the problem, but that in fact I and the other posters are each playing very different d20 from each other, and I do not like the sound of theirs. I hope to clear this up by the end of the post. Another part of the problem is that some of your concepts are not fantasy archetypes, but sci-fi or superhero. As others have said, those scifi and superhero can be done in DND, just most likely not satsifactory via templates,etc. This is not to say that some 3.X designers have not drawn inspiration from comic books for some of thier concepts. However DND is not a universal RPG. Therefore, it is a little unfair to attack it for not readilly delivering sci-fi or superhero concepts. For such concepts, you are most likely to find support in other d20 games such as d20 Modern (and its supplements)or Mutants and Masterminds which are designed to handle concepts outside the fantasy genre. It is not necessarily the DND system I attack, but the assertion that no new base classes are necessary to play a new and different character concept. This premise I strongly attack. i do acknowledge that DnD is not a universal system, and I admit I do not like universal systems, as they seem quite bland or otherwise awkward. I do however think it is a terrible fallacy to assume that everyone who plays DnD plays like everyone else who plays DnD. Re-addressing an old point: Please note that the rest of this post has nothing to do at all with the main point of this thread. I admitted previously to playing a different and more accurate RPG system for the specific setting that I am currently playing in. It has some problems of its own, so the requests by some to have me go back to the RPG and leave them alone are going to go unheard. This other system has no sense of balance or pacing, and no truly discernable level system to make a campaign last over truly significant lengths of time. I am writing new rules and implementing them every week to every month to fix errors in the printing by the production company, whose customer support is not actually all that helpful. What attracts me to the d20 system is its capacity for flexibility and its numerous sources of information on how to customize the system for the needs of almost any RPG setting. That is exactly what I need without making a generic. So I am learning just about everything I can about the system as a whole, studying it to see if it can be used to solve my problem. I saw this thread and its statement against new classes as one that seemed initially elitist towards a specific type of DnD player. I now find the stement, rather than elitist, to simply be mistated and misinformed. I will continue to work towards a solution for my problem, and will continue to test d20 to see if it indeed is that solution. My players deserve that I try. If my investment into the books turns out to be for nothing, then at least I can say that I tried. I am hessitant to give up on DnD and d20 thought because once I do, I have only one option left, and that is to build a totally new RPG from scratch.
Tempest Stormwind 12-22-05, 12:22 AM	I don't have a lot of time right now (freakin' holiday season and tons of wrapping), and I PROMISE I'll take the time later to answer this the way it deserves to be answered. Slagmortar: My statement meant that the idea of "a very experienced, nearly epic warrior" would not be one to fall for something like me merely lowering my sword ("absence of blade" is the fencing term translated to English, but I know it exists in other disciplines too. It's one of the simplest invitations in fencing to encourage the opponent to try to hit you in a predictable manner, opening up other areas in an equally predictable manner.). This is not a feint (though an argument could be made for this specific example to be one, I admit). As for your issue on skills, give me a bit on that one. I have an idea in mind, but it'll take a while to type. DarkLogic: There's a LOT of material in your post that I will address, but I cannot address it all right now. What I do need to say is that I think I see where you're coming from, all in all. I admit I'm rather linearly-minded, and very mathematical; getting myself to think outside this niche and accept other viewpoints is challenging. On the Superman thing: I wasn't saying it's impossible. Just that it's not the way the game was meant to be played. Most of the superheroes can be approximated with sufficiently higher levels than their surroundings with a lot of variants and templates -- Batman, for instance, is a very high level (30 or so) fighter//artificer gestalt (possibly Monk/fighter // artificer, or Monk/Fighter // Rogue, or NINJA depending on the source you follow; in my limited readings on the guy he's kind of... diverse... between sources), while Superman is very, very, very high level (my guess is about 60) character with the Paragon template (as a start; there's plenty more to his character than that. The Kryptonite weakness, by the way, along with other ones, is an extension of some of the variant campaign ideas and flaws in Unearthed Arcana). Most of the X-Men can be approximated very closely by psionic classes, usually wilders or psychic warriors. (I'll do something more formal soon. This is, admittedly, very half-*** since I'm in a rush) I have to dash now. I'll do a proper response soon. I apologise for the haste.
Greg_K 12-22-05, 12:22 AM	I do however think it is a terrible fallacy to assume that everyone who plays DnD plays like everyone else who plays DnD. I definitely agree that not everyone plays DND the same. In another thread, located elsewhere on the boards, it was asked what you don't want in your game. I answered, the druid (which was removed in favor of Green Ronin's Shaman), the alchemical equipment, riding dogs, the new "fantasy" weapons introduced in 3e, several official supplements, and of those officials not banned outright, most of the material from the other supplements including most PrCs. Then when someone mentioned that I had skipped the core rules, I mentioned some I have made some changes to the core rules including changes to some classes, removing some spells and reintroducing some concepts from 2e (e.g., specialty priests and the non-school based 2e specialist wizards). Lets just say a couple of people had problems with how my friends and I play DND which is trying to capture the flavor of previous editions while using the improved core mechanics of 3.x.
Greg_K 12-22-05, 01:21 AM	I do understand your defense of an abstract archetype, but I truly am expecting you to stick to the guns on the main point of this thread, to prove to me that existing d20 material can be used to build any character concept. The only method that I find acceptable for that to prove your point is to find a way to successfully portray a character of a very non DnD archetype using existing DnD mechanics, showing that the cultural and sociological references of the DnD setting to not infringe on the capacity of the d20 system to encompass any imaginable thing a player might concievably wish to play. As we cannot agree on social archetypes and etc. I feel forced to carry the argument outside the realm of DnD entirely in order to maintain a modum of rational discussion. DarkLogic, I agree with the argument you are trying to make. My problem is with your choice of terminology. You are using the terms DND and D20 as if they are the same thing, but they are not. DND is a subset of D20, but the opposite is not true. There are plenty of d20 games that are not DND compatible, at least not without a lot of work. Some of these d20 games do espionage (e.g., Spycraft 1e), some do fantasy (e.g., Rokugan and Swashbuckling Adventures), some are science fiction (e.g., Star Wars). There are even superhero games (e.g., Silver Age Sentinels). And I am not even including both d20 Modern and OGL products as they are different licenses, but still d20 based.
James Wildspell 12-22-05, 02:32 AM	You keep mentioning lots of feats and skills. What class or combinatinon of classes grants the sufficient skill points and feats while maintaining a decent amount of fighting ability? Just to anwser this specific question, a Ranger/Fighter build would work. :cool:
darklogic 12-22-05, 03:43 AM	I agree with the argument you are trying to make. My problem is with your choice of terminology. You are using the terms DND and D20 as if they are the same thing, but they are not. DND is a subset of D20, but the opposite is not true. There are plenty of d20 games that are not DND compatible, at least not without a lot of work. Some of these d20 games do espionage (e.g., Spycraft 1e), some do fantasy (e.g., Rokugan and Swashbuckling Adventures), some are science fiction (e.g., Star Wars). There are even superhero games (e.g., Silver Age Sentinels). And I am not even including both d20 Modern and OGL products as they are different licenses, but still d20 based. I'm sorry that my terminology is so confusing. since the settings I play in are so specific and unique, I draw inspiration from numerous sources. I guess I am used to referring to the system as a whole as d20 or as DnD, but you are correct DnD is just a subset within the overall rules. I was not aware that d20 modern was under a separate liscence, however. And I wasn't even aware at all of the existence of Silver Sentinels.
Just another user 12-22-05, 04:20 AM	Actually Superman is a 1st level commoner (possibly expert), it is only that have a race with a very, very, very high ECL. :)
Noria Merfolk Mage 12-22-05, 11:56 AM	Actually Superman is a 1st level commoner (possibly expert), it is only that have a race with a very, very, very high ECL. :) If you assume a Kryptonian race to handle all the powers, then actually he'd be Feat Rogue/Inquisitive (UA and Eberron CS respectively), to best represent his Reporter status.
Noria Merfolk Mage 12-22-05, 02:34 PM	How to make "Predicto-warrior": This conversation about the warrior whos knows all his opponent's moves is going on a while, and I'm not happy with this vague mumbling about nebulous feats. Here, I splurge as much as I can onto the page and then wait for someone to tell me it's not enough/right/what they meant. PHB: Uncanny Dodge: Barbarians and Rogue can "predict" ambushes and sneak attacks. Favored Enemy: Rangers know their favored enemie's tactics like the backs of their hands, giving skill and damage bonuses. Bardic Knowledge: Roll to know the common tactics of famous foes. Monks: Wisdom to AC, seemingly because of some kind of semi-mystical "combat awareness". Also evasion. True Strike: Automatically know where someone will be in 6 seconds. Skills: Sense Motive already been mentioned, ask your DM to use the "hunch" use of the skill to get an idea of the enemies plan. Also, Knowledge: History covers common battle tactics, and different knowledges allow checks on the cultures, lifestyles and tactics of various types of creatures. Spot and Listen would be recommended. Feats: Alertness, Improved Initiative (to act before opponent), Blindfight (can always find your opponent), Combat Reflexes (instinctively take advantage of foes' mistakes), Dodge (Observing one foe improves one's reaction against his attacks), Precise Shot (Foes in melee seem to walk into your arrows). Psionics: Psychic Warrior 3, with: Precognition, DefensiveA: Gain +1 insight bonus to AC and saving throws. Precognition, OffensiveA: Gain +1 insight bonus on your attack rolls. Prescience, OffensiveA: Gain +2 insight bonus on your damage rolls. (All augmentable, for extra bonuses). You still have +2 BAB and d8 Hitdice Feats: The Psionic Weapon/Deep Impact and similar feats let you slip blows past your opponent's armor effortlessly, using psionic insight. Complete Warrior: Swashbuckler: Uses intelligence to damage foes, and better at dodging. Mindspy: Literally read your opponents mind Feats: Close-quarters Fighting (Pre-empt grapples), Eyes in the Back of your head (prevent foes outflanking you), Hold the Line (Pre-empt any charge attacks), Instantaneous Rage (Power up as soon as you see your opponent, even if taken by surprise), Karmic Strike (Pre-empt any attack that hits you (!)), Elusive Target (Negate Power attacks, Trip foes trying to AOO you, and make foes hit each other) Heroes of Battle: Veteran Knowledge feat (Gives your army a strategic advantage), Dread commando PrC (great skill at ambush, including team initiave bonus) Complete Adventurer: Shadowmind PrC (Based around reading minds and becoming invisible to your foes) Streetfighter PrC (Uncanny Dodge and Always Ready class features) Sense Motive expanded use: Assess Opponent, and related Combat Intuition feat (This is very much the closest to what you've been talking about) Other Feats: Deft Oppurtunist, Expert Tactition (AoOs make foes vunerable), Quick Recconoiter (sic) (Keep abreast of what's happening). Miniatures Handbook: Tactical Soldier PrC (Lots of relevant abilities) Feats: Foe Specialist (Improved Sneak Attack against one foe), Sidestep (follow up on AoOs). Magic of Incarnum: I'm not going into detail, but basically the whole book is lousy with "insight bonuses" to pretty much everything. That sound kinda like what you're talking about. In no way is that an exhaustive list, I really just skimmed the books. So question isn't really can you make a predicto-warrior, it's how you want to do it.
Just another user 12-22-05, 03:19 PM	If you assume a Kryptonian race to handle all the powers, then actually he'd be Feat Rogue/Inquisitive (UA and Eberron CS respectively), to best represent his Reporter status. Why? Kryptonian race would give huge bonuses in all the stats (except, maybe, charisma), this mean he is extra good in every skill, plus with Super speed he could take 20 practically always. He can be the best reporter in metropolis even at 1st level.
Fargren 12-22-05, 04:13 PM	plus with Super speed he could take 20 practically always. Wxcwpt thw ones were failing mhas repercusions(sp?), wich is most of the skills he would use for being a reporter. Also, why would he have bonus wis or int?
SlagMortar 12-22-05, 04:42 PM	Thanks for the research Noria. I'm still not convinced that a viable build can be created for the "Predicto-warrior". It looks like there are a lot of abilities related to what I am thinking. However, packaging them into a single character in a way that remains viable and true to the concept for all 20 levels seems very unlikely. I do not have most of the books mentioned so can't look up a lot of the PrCs/Feats listed. Dipping into multiple classes while trying to keep all Knowledge skill and Sense Motive maxed out, and a decent amount of straight fighting ability seems unlikely to work. I'm still not sure that it would give all the abilities. For example, which feat/skill/ability would let the Predicto-warrior say, "Don't cast fireball on him. He cast Protection from Fire just before the battle." This is an ability that I would like the Predicto-warrior to have. It could be a limited power, say, 3 times per day at level 20th level.
Noria Merfolk Mage 12-22-05, 05:19 PM	It looks like there are a lot of abilities related to what I am thinking. However, packaging them into a single character in a way that remains viable and true to the concept for all 20 levels seems very unlikely. I do not have most of the books mentioned so can't look up a lot of the PrCs/Feats listed. You don't need to take them all, just as many as you feel are appropriate. Most of them aren't exactly what you asked for anyway, but can be with a flavour switch. Dipping into multiple classes while trying to keep all Knowledge skill and Sense Motive maxed out, and a decent amount of straight fighting ability seems unlikely to work. I'm still not sure that it would give all the abilities. It might not be optimised, but you certainly have the ammunition to try and make it work. Worst case is you have a Ranger/Fighter/Rogue with your feats a little off. And you don't have to keep the skills at max, unless your DM is trying to out-skill you. Hitting DC 20 regularly should be enough by the rules I see. For example, which feat/skill/ability would let the Predicto-warrior say, "Don't cast fireball on him. He cast Protection from Fire just before the battle." This is an ability that I would like the Predicto-warrior to have. It could be a limited power, say, 3 times per day at level 20th level. Well, to be honest, the Fireball caster should know already, either because he saw the spell being cast and identifies it with spellcraft, or because he can see the abjuration aura with Detect magic. A single level in a spellcaster or psionic class will give Predicto similar abilities, plus other goodies which we've harped on about before.
SlagMortar 12-22-05, 05:46 PM	At 20th level, this character would not only be "not optimized", but it would not be viable. There are enough people that question whether a straight fighter is viable. Knowledge checks are DC 10+monster's hitdice to remember one useful bit of information. Since useful knowledge about strengths, weaknesses, and strategies are the pinnacle feature of the class, the character should usually know more than one "useful bit". A cloud giant (CR 11) would be DC 27 to know one piece of information. The Protection from Energy has a 10min/level duration so could very easily be cast before combat by an opponent. Detect Magic would tell you that they have an Abjuration cast, but not which one. Greater Arcane Sight provides the necessary information, but is a 7th level spell.
Noria Merfolk Mage 12-22-05, 06:23 PM	Depends on how much you go into it, and how you synergise. You ask the CO boards, they might be able to make something of it. At the worst you can make the "Combat Reflexes Monkey", a common and respected reach fighter build, and then modify it slightly. One thing I will say is that this is that the idea of the predicting warrior is primarily defensive rather than offensive (excepting the Spiked Chain Karmic Strike dude I mentioned above), so while you might not exactly be dishing it out, you will be hard to pin down. It's also kinda DM and party dependent: If your DM never lets the party prepare before a fight and refuses to let the Knowledge and Sense Motive skills correctly, or the group are a bunch of chaotic stupid run-in-heedless types, then yeah, the character idea is kinda gimped. But in the right group, with the right DM, it could be a nice build. (BTW, I would definitely consider a "Gish" type, Spellcaster/Warrior build on this one. A few levels of spellcasting can add so much. Recommendations are Wizard/Fighter, Wizard/Rogue, or Psychic Warrior)
heretic888 12-23-05, 10:29 PM	A character concept would be what sort of character you wish to play, in general terms. It would be the type of brief description you would use if you were a first-time player to the game, completely unfamiliar with game mechanics, but with familiarity of the game environment (i.e. a general knowledge of fantasy). Ah, I clearly misunderstood your context, then. It seems I was confusing character concept with character archetype in our previous discussion about the Igamono. The former embodies a vague or abstract character role, whereas the latter embodies a somewhat established set of skills, features, or abilities. My bad. Laterz.