Another Class [Archive] - Wizards Community

Another Class [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Roman
10-05-04, 04:12 PM Well, the title is not entirely accurate, but I am not sure how to make it better. I basically want to ask you if you think that there is a niche for another D&D core class (or perhaps if not a true core class than a base class?) and if so what focus should such a class have? Is there even potential for another core or base 'class group' (as in Warrior, Priest, Magic User and Skill User)?

Current core classes:

Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer
Wizard

Non-core base classes:

Favored Soul
Healer
Hexblade
Marshal
Psion
Psionic Warrior
Samurai
Shugenja
Sohei
Soulknife
Spirit Shaman
Swashbuckler
Warmage
Wilder
Wu Jen

Eberron core classes:

Artificer
Arrowhen
10-05-04, 04:38 PM I'd like to see a version of the Aristocrat beefed up for PC use.
Also, any other class with Bardic Knowledge. Bardic Knowledge is a great way of slipping hints to your players, but who wants to play a Bard?
UltimateGnome
10-05-04, 05:12 PM i do. Maybe its because i like the charismatic type characters because its nearly the complete opposite of me.
The Shaman
10-05-04, 05:21 PM I'd like to see a version of the Aristocrat beefed up for PC use.
Isn't the noble class from Dragonlance like that?
Arrowhen
10-05-04, 07:05 PM I don't know. I haven't picked up a book with the word "Dragonlance" in the title for like fifteen years.
Kingside_Bishop
10-05-04, 07:31 PM Yes.

I created a witch class that mixes aspects of the druid, wizard, cleric, and bard.

Druid: Nature Sense, Wild Empathy, Wild Shape (avian forms only), A Thousand Faces, Timeless Body, and spells.

Wizard: Spellbook.

Cleric: Animal and Plant domains.

Bard: Spontaneous Casting and Fascination

Poor BAB and good Will saves.
Seeker95
10-05-04, 08:40 PM Room for another class? We already have seven more than there should be:
Fighter Priest Mage Rogue
Thorak
10-05-04, 09:02 PM Room for another class? We already have seven more than there should be:
Fighter Priest Mage Rogue

I'd be willing to go with this, if the other core classes were made into a sort of "1st tier" of Prestige classes, distinct from "2nd tier" PrCs (which is what everything else would be) only in that they are available at character level 2, as opposed to the general minimum of 5 for most PrCs.

Unless you're proposing abandoning all PrCs too. In which case I'll politely disagree, because those 4 classes cannot, as written, cover the various character possibilities. At least, not the ones D&D has had since 1st edition, even.
Roman
10-06-04, 01:17 AM Hmm, perhaps a multi-tiered class system would be best. Several base classes (fighter, priest, rogue, wizard + psionicist + perhaps one or two others if deemed necessary) then advanced classes (terminology borrowed from d20 Modern) such as Paladin, Ranger and so on and then Prestige Classes. This would make it a three tiered class system, but it could be stretched out even more to more tiers, though anything beyond three or four tiers would probably be too confusing.
Seeker95
10-06-04, 08:10 AM Unless you're proposing abandoning all PrCs too. In which case I'll politely disagree, because those 4 classes cannot, as written, cover the various character possibilities.Sure they can. With Feats and Skills expanded to include "character flavor" and a little old-fashioned role-playing, all of the classes can be built.

Druid? It's a cleric of nature.
Ranger? It's a fighter with outdoorsy skills.
Sorcerer? It's a wizard with "eschew spellbook"
Monk? An unarmed fighter.
Paladin? A combat cleric.
Bard? Take your pick and play versatile.
Barbarian? Fighter with an attitude.

So many of the class abilities that make these classes "unique" can easily be turned into Feats. The current class system says that if you want to be a rogue that gets all freaky wild when he gets wounded means you have to take a level of barbarian. Why not just take the Rage Feat as your character build bonus feat at first level. And what about the woodland fighter that can take animal form? Gotta take five levels of druid, be a spellcaster for that whole time, and then work on your character concept of bulding manimal. Why not take wildshape as your core character build bonus feat?

The classes can be "built" on the core four. That's where they came from in the first place.
The Shaman
10-06-04, 08:48 AM So many of the class abilities that make these classes "unique" can easily be turned into Feats.
That's exactly the idea behind generic classes in Unearthed Arcana - except that some of the coolest abilities are left out: no wild shape, no bardic knowledge, no wizard's familiar - too complex for feats according to UA. It's also a bit more work for the GM to put together the lists of feats based on class abilities - that's really the only thing dissuading me from trying generics.

I do agree with your basic premise, except I would say rangers = rogues with outdoorsy skills. That's the one change in 3.5 that I really liked - getting away from Aragorn at last. Now if they'd just drop the spellcasting as well...
Seeker95
10-06-04, 12:46 PM I do agree with your basic premise, except I would say rangers = rogues with outdoorsy skills.That's the beauty of a pure class system.

Fighter + Outdoor Skills = "ranger"
Priest + Outdoor Skills = "druid"
Wizard + Outdoor Skills = "?" (lots of images come to mind)
Rogue + Outdoor Skills = "scout"

Add the Rage Feat to any of those and get a new twist.

Now you've got me jonesin' to flesh it out. I've been suggesting it for long enough. I might as well just do it. Thanks for the kick in the pants. :D
The Shaman
10-06-04, 01:47 PM Now you've got me jonesin' to flesh it out. I've been suggesting it for long enough. I might as well just do it. Thanks for the kick in the pants. :D
Always happy to introduce my foot to someone's behind!

:mymy:

Wait...that sounds really bad...

When I was working on this, the thing that bugged me is that rage, bardic knowledge, and so on were left out as feats or abilities for generic characters - some of the niftiest crunchy bits disappeared.

Now there are a couple of ways to deal with this:
(1) introduce the Bard prestige class, Paladin prestige class, and Ranger prestige class, as described in US, plus a Barbarian or Berserker prestige class - of course, this somewhat defeats the purpose of going to generic classes in the first place.
(2) introduce stuff like bardic knowledge, bardic music, rage as "character creation" feats that can only be taken at 1st level - if concerned about balance issues, then make them take two feat slots. That doesn't work for me either - I think a better approach is to figure out a way to make these abilities feat-based, though that might mean a loss of power to avoid creating unbalanced feats.

I also figured I would need an expanded abilities list beyond what was printed in [UA[/i]. It seemed like a bit of daunting task to take on alone, but perhaps starting a thread about it on the "Unearthed Arcana and Houserules" board might get some worthwhile input and reduce the workload...?
Sulaco
10-06-04, 02:04 PM I am of the opinion that there are too many core classes as it is. I'd like to see the following as the only core classes (each based around a core stat):

• Fighter (STR)
• Rogue (DEX)
• Barbarian (CON)
• Wizard (INT)
• Cleric (WIS)
• Sorcerer (CHA)

Everything else would be an "advanced" class or prestige class.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Roman 10-05-04, 04:12 PM	Well, the title is not entirely accurate, but I am not sure how to make it better. I basically want to ask you if you think that there is a niche for another D&D core class (or perhaps if not a true core class than a base class?) and if so what focus should such a class have? Is there even potential for another core or base 'class group' (as in Warrior, Priest, Magic User and Skill User)? Current core classes: Barbarian Bard Cleric Druid Fighter Monk Paladin Ranger Rogue Sorcerer Wizard Non-core base classes: Favored Soul Healer Hexblade Marshal Psion Psionic Warrior Samurai Shugenja Sohei Soulknife Spirit Shaman Swashbuckler Warmage Wilder Wu Jen Eberron core classes: Artificer
Arrowhen 10-05-04, 04:38 PM	I'd like to see a version of the Aristocrat beefed up for PC use. Also, any other class with Bardic Knowledge. Bardic Knowledge is a great way of slipping hints to your players, but who wants to play a Bard?
UltimateGnome 10-05-04, 05:12 PM	i do. Maybe its because i like the charismatic type characters because its nearly the complete opposite of me.
The Shaman 10-05-04, 05:21 PM	I'd like to see a version of the Aristocrat beefed up for PC use. Isn't the noble class from Dragonlance like that?
Arrowhen 10-05-04, 07:05 PM	I don't know. I haven't picked up a book with the word "Dragonlance" in the title for like fifteen years.
Kingside_Bishop 10-05-04, 07:31 PM	Yes. I created a witch class that mixes aspects of the druid, wizard, cleric, and bard. Druid: Nature Sense, Wild Empathy, Wild Shape (avian forms only), A Thousand Faces, Timeless Body, and spells. Wizard: Spellbook. Cleric: Animal and Plant domains. Bard: Spontaneous Casting and Fascination Poor BAB and good Will saves.
Seeker95 10-05-04, 08:40 PM	Room for another class? We already have seven more than there should be: Fighter Priest Mage Rogue
Thorak 10-05-04, 09:02 PM	Room for another class? We already have seven more than there should be: Fighter Priest Mage Rogue I'd be willing to go with this, if the other core classes were made into a sort of "1st tier" of Prestige classes, distinct from "2nd tier" PrCs (which is what everything else would be) only in that they are available at character level 2, as opposed to the general minimum of 5 for most PrCs. Unless you're proposing abandoning all PrCs too. In which case I'll politely disagree, because those 4 classes cannot, as written, cover the various character possibilities. At least, not the ones D&D has had since 1st edition, even.
Roman 10-06-04, 01:17 AM	Hmm, perhaps a multi-tiered class system would be best. Several base classes (fighter, priest, rogue, wizard + psionicist + perhaps one or two others if deemed necessary) then advanced classes (terminology borrowed from d20 Modern) such as Paladin, Ranger and so on and then Prestige Classes. This would make it a three tiered class system, but it could be stretched out even more to more tiers, though anything beyond three or four tiers would probably be too confusing.
Seeker95 10-06-04, 08:10 AM	Unless you're proposing abandoning all PrCs too. In which case I'll politely disagree, because those 4 classes cannot, as written, cover the various character possibilities.Sure they can. With Feats and Skills expanded to include "character flavor" and a little old-fashioned role-playing, all of the classes can be built. Druid? It's a cleric of nature. Ranger? It's a fighter with outdoorsy skills. Sorcerer? It's a wizard with "eschew spellbook" Monk? An unarmed fighter. Paladin? A combat cleric. Bard? Take your pick and play versatile. Barbarian? Fighter with an attitude. So many of the class abilities that make these classes "unique" can easily be turned into Feats. The current class system says that if you want to be a rogue that gets all freaky wild when he gets wounded means you have to take a level of barbarian. Why not just take the Rage Feat as your character build bonus feat at first level. And what about the woodland fighter that can take animal form? Gotta take five levels of druid, be a spellcaster for that whole time, and then work on your character concept of bulding manimal. Why not take wildshape as your core character build bonus feat? The classes can be "built" on the core four. That's where they came from in the first place.
The Shaman 10-06-04, 08:48 AM	So many of the class abilities that make these classes "unique" can easily be turned into Feats. That's exactly the idea behind generic classes in Unearthed Arcana - except that some of the coolest abilities are left out: no wild shape, no bardic knowledge, no wizard's familiar - too complex for feats according to UA. It's also a bit more work for the GM to put together the lists of feats based on class abilities - that's really the only thing dissuading me from trying generics. I do agree with your basic premise, except I would say rangers = rogues with outdoorsy skills. That's the one change in 3.5 that I really liked - getting away from Aragorn at last. Now if they'd just drop the spellcasting as well...
Seeker95 10-06-04, 12:46 PM	I do agree with your basic premise, except I would say rangers = rogues with outdoorsy skills.That's the beauty of a pure class system. Fighter + Outdoor Skills = "ranger" Priest + Outdoor Skills = "druid" Wizard + Outdoor Skills = "?" (lots of images come to mind) Rogue + Outdoor Skills = "scout" Add the Rage Feat to any of those and get a new twist. Now you've got me jonesin' to flesh it out. I've been suggesting it for long enough. I might as well just do it. Thanks for the kick in the pants. :D
The Shaman 10-06-04, 01:47 PM	Now you've got me jonesin' to flesh it out. I've been suggesting it for long enough. I might as well just do it. Thanks for the kick in the pants. :D Always happy to introduce my foot to someone's behind! :mymy: Wait...that sounds really bad... When I was working on this, the thing that bugged me is that rage, bardic knowledge, and so on were left out as feats or abilities for generic characters - some of the niftiest crunchy bits disappeared. Now there are a couple of ways to deal with this: (1) introduce the Bard prestige class, Paladin prestige class, and Ranger prestige class, as described in US, plus a Barbarian or Berserker prestige class - of course, this somewhat defeats the purpose of going to generic classes in the first place. (2) introduce stuff like bardic knowledge, bardic music, rage as "character creation" feats that can only be taken at 1st level - if concerned about balance issues, then make them take two feat slots. That doesn't work for me either - I think a better approach is to figure out a way to make these abilities feat-based, though that might mean a loss of power to avoid creating unbalanced feats. I also figured I would need an expanded abilities list beyond what was printed in [UA[/i]. It seemed like a bit of daunting task to take on alone, but perhaps starting a thread about it on the "Unearthed Arcana and Houserules" board might get some worthwhile input and reduce the workload...?
Sulaco 10-06-04, 02:04 PM	I am of the opinion that there are too many core classes as it is. I'd like to see the following as the only core classes (each based around a core stat): • Fighter (STR) • Rogue (DEX) • Barbarian (CON) • Wizard (INT) • Cleric (WIS) • Sorcerer (CHA) Everything else would be an "advanced" class or prestige class.