Given the 11 core classes, the "witch" class description in the DMG, and the 3 classes detailed in each of the Complete books ...
I was wondering if there is a strong fantasy archetype that has yet to be detailed as a character class?
If so ... what is it and what shape should it take, conceptually?
Now this is only my opinion, but I think that there's actually too many classes for my tastes. Think about it... You could have three fighters in the same group but they could be totally different in the way they fight, act, and play. It really depends on what the player brings to the table. Do we really need more prestige classes? Again, their not so prestige if every person in the group is playing one.
Example of a REAL prestige class (if it were my way)... Your character could start out as a Cleric. Then after some adventuring he would aquire certain skills and feats and would gradually be called a Paladin, depending on his passed actions. Same thing goes for Fighters, who could become Rangers, or Defenders (if they happen to be dwarves). Do you really need a "Pirate" class, or could you just be a fighter with an interest for feats and skills that pertain to the sea. And if you start robbing merchant ships, people WILL call you a pirate.
What I'm trying to get through is that at first level, most characters should resemble each other, as they were just commoners before, and gradually differentiate themselves as they gain experience.
Am I making any sense?
Ultradan
Given the 11 core classes, the "witch" class description in the DMG, and the 3 classes detailed in each of the Complete books ...
I was wondering if there is a strong fantasy archetype that has yet to be detailed as a character class?
If so ... what is it and what shape should it take, conceptually?
Lets see:
11 Core Classes12 classes in the "Complete" books
4 classes in Expanded Psionics Handbook
3 classes in Magic Incarnum
3 classes in Oriental Adventures (not including reprints)
1 class in the Eberron Campaign Setting
That's a grand total of 34 base classes! And that's just the WoTC published products... Lets not forget the possibility of new classes in the upcoming Complete Psionics! Assuming that there would be three, that would bring the total 37!
So, no, I would say that we're pretty well covered in the classes department! ;)
And if you wanted to include the occational new class occationally presented in Dragon? Oh boy! And we aren't even counting variety classes either!
You are making absolute sense Ultradan! I agree with you. The only difference at first level should be how the character fights. Whether he uses a weapon or magic is about all you really need to know when you frist play a character. The real interesting points of playing come out as he/she progresses in levels.
I like how you progress from Cleric to Paladin and from Fighter to Ranger. It's an interesting thought, I may incorporate that into my gaming group. I'll propose it to them and see what they think!
You are making absolute sense Ultradan! I agree with you. The only difference at first level should be how the character fights. Whether he uses a weapon or magic is about all you really need to know when you frist play a character. The real interesting points of playing come out as he/she progresses in levels.
I like how you progress from Cleric to Paladin and from Fighter to Ranger. It's an interesting thought, I may incorporate that into my gaming group. I'll propose it to them and see what they think!
There's a system for this already.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm
1. Gunslinger ('nuff said)
2. Engineer (I hadn't thought about this in a while, but I like the concept of the Artificer sans magic. Booby traps. Collapsing tunnels. Facility with improv tech/alchemy. Clockwork familiars. Constructs.)
Like I've said before, though, my D&D aesthetic is pretty 19th century.
I also subscribe to the " the more options the better" school. A lot of the fun in a campaign is linking it all together. Just because you have ranks in Ninja, per se, there is no need to prance around in black PJs. I take the classes as abstract skill sets, rather than formal rolls or occupations.
Like I said in the "Anything Wrong" thread:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/dnd/general/anythingWrong
WoTC should just do away with the concept of "character class", convert the various non-standard class feats into regular feats and then have the characters simply accumulate Feats as they progress in experience - the more experience, the more feats you possess...
As in several other gaming systems, the characters would truly be 'customized' and could call themselves any title they wished; this would eliminate a plethora of similar classes published by differing vendors, make the whole class naming debate moot, as well as the entire idea of multiclassing, and allow for near-infinite combinations of feats built around the individual character, not a "class".
M
I'm with you on the Gunslinger class, Kyle. I played a Shadow Mage in FR once who used two smokepowder pistols after running out of spells. Very stylized, very cool, and the most innefficient use of feats for a Wizard ever. But he was sure fun to play, though.
|
Like I said in the "Anything Wrong" thread:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/dnd/general/anythingWrong
WoTC should just do away with the concept of "character class", convert the various non-standard class feats into regular feats and then have the characters simply accumulate Feats as they progress in experience - the more experience, the more feats you possess...
As in several other gaming systems, the characters would truly be 'customized' and could call themselves any title they wished; this would eliminate a plethora of similar classes published by differing vendors, make the whole class naming debate moot, as well as the entire idea of multiclassing, and allow for near-infinite combinations of feats built around the individual character, not a "class".
M
Couldnt agree more. I would also like to add that wizards should only follow one school of magic sooo lets develop each of the schools of magic. Time of the "jack-of-all-trades" wizards should be ended. One school of magic only. This would make wizards have their unique strengths and weaknesses amongst each other. Would be fun and allow variety, desires and goals. My 2 cents.
Thoth-Amon the Atlantean Mindflayerian
WoTC should just do away with the concept of "character class", convert the various non-standard class feats into regular feats and then have the characters simply accumulate Feats as they progress in experience - the more experience, the more feats you possess...
While I have enjoyed classless RPGs in the past, I don't think WoTC should do away with classes. Classless RPG's have a tendency of becoming generic, easily min/maxed, and hard to identify with. Gurps is a fine example of this phenomenon; sure, you can play a flying superhero who fights gun wielding Elven Cthulhu Cultist with two ancient katanas in space, but why would you want to? Classes give focus to a game through implied setting, by making characters easily identifiable, and providing sources of inspiration for character creation. Even more importantly, it has served D&D very well for the last 30 years, and seems to be continuing to do so. Why fix what isn't broke?
I would also like to add that wizards should only follow one school of magic sooo lets develop each of the schools of magic. Time of the "jack-of-all-trades" wizards should be ended. One school of magic only. This would make wizards have their unique strengths and weaknesses amongst each other.
You could accomplish that by making all wizards required to be specialists. :)
|
|
Addendum: Their should be a yogi class. Those of us that chose isolation to perfect the soul<feel free to insert your own term>. Cool abilities that could be developed: immunity to cold or heat, astral projection, shape change, levitation and flying, and the list goes on. There is an actual list of spiritual gifts one can attain when following this discipline--very cool. Something to think about. My 2 cents.
Thoth-Amon the Atlantean Mindflayerian
You are making absolute sense Ultradan! I agree with you. The only difference at first level should be how the character fights. Whether he uses a weapon or magic is about all you really need to know when you frist play a character. The real interesting points of playing come out as he/she progresses in levels.
I like how you progress from Cleric to Paladin and from Fighter to Ranger. It's an interesting thought, I may incorporate that into my gaming group. I'll propose it to them and see what they think!There's a system for this already.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm
Those classes seem a little too basic to me. I would like a little more structure, if just to give my players or myself an idea of where a character is coming from and going to.
I like the idea of backing off on initial specialized roles. I like the idea of people starting out as fighters, and, if they prove themselves good and noble they can become paladins, though I would probably open this up a bit. Paladin would be a prestige class (and by prestige class I mean a culture specific organization, not an enhanced skill set - that's what cross class skills,multi-classing and role-playing are supposed to cover). Fighters of a certain bent might have the easiest time becoming paladins, but the right sort of cleric might have a pretty easy time of it.
Likewise rogues, fighters, and maybe druids (and scouts?) might aim a character towards joining the the rangers prestige class (the College of the Woodwardens or something.
The trick of this is to figure out what classes are "basic" and which can (or should) be set up as prestige classes and that would seem to depend on exactly how things work in a particular campaign world....
For example, maybe you have to show innate magic and gain some control over it (sorcerer) before formal instruction will help you at all (wizard as a prestige class). But that says something very definite about how you want magic to work in your campaign.
1. Gunslinger ('nuff said)
2. Engineer (I hadn't thought about this in a while, but I like the concept of the Artificer sans magic. Booby traps. Collapsing tunnels. Facility with improv tech/alchemy. Clockwork familiars. Constructs.)Like I've said before, though, my D&D aesthetic is pretty 19th century.
I also subscribe to the " the more options the better" school. A lot of the fun in a campaign is linking it all together. Just because you have ranks in Ninja, per se, there is no need to prance around in black PJs. I take the classes as abstract skill sets, rather than formal rolls or occupations.
I agree about the Engineer. No current base class seems to address this concept. I know from personal experience expert doesn't cut it.
Gunslinger sounds like a great prestige class in a world with fighters and guns (like kensai make a great prestige class in a world with fighters and katanas)
1. Gunslinger ('nuff said)
See d20 Modern, Advanced Classes section.
I like the idea of backing off on initial specialized roles. I like the idea of people starting out as fighters, and, if they prove themselves good and noble they can become paladins, though I would probably open this up a bit. Paladin would be a prestige class (and by prestige class I mean a culture specific organization, not an enhanced skill set - that's what cross class skills,multi-classing and role-playing are supposed to cover). Fighters of a certain bent might have the easiest time becoming paladins, but the right sort of cleric might have a pretty easy time of it.
See Unearthed Arcana. They have prestige classes covering the ranger, paladin and bard, for the so inclined.
WaterdhavianFlapjack
What I'm trying to get through is that at first level, most characters should resemble each other, as they were just commoners before, and gradually differentiate themselves as they gain experience.
Am I making any sense?
Ultradan
I am totally onboard with everything you just said. I wonder if Monte Cooke's game system is similar to how you describe your idea....
I've been thinking about this for awhile and all i can come up with is this. You start off with the 4 archetypes Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard. You could then branch out to Paladin, Monk, Ranger, Druid, Swashbuckler, Xexblade, whatever. Those would be 'Advanced Classes'. Presitge classes would then be campaign-specific stuff.
Ofcourse some of the classes would need to be changed for this to work with but the goal would be that they could start being an advanced class at level 6 and a prestige one at 10th earliest. So to get a nature person you'd go Cleric5/Druid5/Shaper10 as an example.
Classes are what make D&D different from other RPGs so they should definitley keep that aspect of it but turning it into a 3-tier system would work wonders i think. And each of the 4 base ones would be different enough (they would need alot of changing though).
I run a pretty homebrew game though so i realize not everyone likes to mess with the RAW that much. But i do, so whatever ;)
PS: Just thought i'd mention how each of the classes would basically work:
Cleric: You'd choose 2 domains as normal, but the power you get from them would be lesser, normal and greater. Say if you took Plant and Animal as your Domains then you're already a basic Druid but then at level 6 you could take a level of Druid. Or you could go for the Good and Lawful domains and set yourself up for Paladin (although you don't NEED certain domains for either)
Fighter: Like it is now, loads of bonus feats and maybe a few more Fighter-only feats too. This should be the ONLY base class with full BAB too.
Rogue: Like it is now but has tons of skill points and start giving some selectable Rogue abilities at level 1. Some should be sneaky, con-artist type and others on the 'Swashbuckling' sort of type.
Wizard: Cast spells, has familiar, but you NEED to specialize. This one wouldn't need to prepare spells, you'd just know them and cast with points like a Psion does (Cleric casts same btw). The specialization wouldn't restrict other spells though, just make one school of magic more potent for you.
Now for Advanced:
Paladin: Clerics and Fighters are the people who'd enter this one. Give some smiting, special mount, some other abilities and you're set! No spellcasting though, if you want that take Cleric.
Druid: Shape-shifitng, special abilities, etc. This would merge the Druid and Ranger classes but with now spells! (If you want spells, again take cleric). Mainly for nature-based Clerics, Fighters or Rogues.
Monk: Mainly fighters specialized in fisty-cuffs, the Monk would be focused on the martial-arts aspect. All about inner-self and contemplation. For ki-stuff you'd take a PrC.
Bard: Mainly for Rogues and Wizards the Bard would be all about music, support and some thievery too.
Sorceror: Not sure of the name but this takes specialization to the next level. You'd pick one specialization and 2 secondary schools and the rest would be unusable. This is for someone who REALLY wants to focus on just one aspect of casting.
And the PrCs would be made by the DM mostly. So hopefully you can see the trend that very few people do what the other can do, like the Druid doesn't cast spells since if you want more spells just stay nature-Cleric. If someone can see a gaping hole in this system tell me since i am making my own RPG and am basing it around this concept.
EDIT: Alot of my ideas come from Monte Cook's Iron Heroes which from what i've seen is a great book (only seen the perviews on his site) but it does get rid of magic mostly so if you have any magic fans you might onoly be able to use some of the books ideas (which are sometimes truly inspired btw). But I think at level 1 they should be different since i hate in MMORPGs how you start off just like everyone else. The system i propose means that everyone can be different at first level since the classes would be alot more 'open' than the ones in the PHB. Like a Cleric isn't always a good, heavy armor weraing clubber. The Domain aspect really helps them be different (similar to a Wizard's specializing almost). I got the idea from the WotC boards of having 'advanced' domains. You pick two and both start at lesser. At level 5 or 6 you'd then get to pick one to become normal level and at level 10 or 11 one would become normal and the other greater.
I like the idea of backing off on initial specialized roles. I like the idea of people starting out as fighters, and, if they prove themselves good and noble they can become paladins, though I would probably open this up a bit. Paladin would be a prestige class (and by prestige class I mean a culture specific organization, not an enhanced skill set - that's what cross class skills,multi-classing and role-playing are supposed to cover). Fighters of a certain bent might have the easiest time becoming paladins, but the right sort of cleric might have a pretty easy time of it.
See Unearthed Arcana. They have prestige classes covering the ranger, paladin and bard, for the so inclined.
WaterdhavianFlapjack
The Unearthed Arcana 15 level prestige Paladins and Ranger didn't really grab me. I like my prestige classes to fit in the usual guidelines: usually 10 levels, can't be in one until post 5th etc.
I also like there to be something MORE than mere mechanics to one as well. If paladin becomes a prestige class then its not just called "Paladin." The prestige class becomes "the Faring Guard of Vlarnadad" or some such.
The "ultrabasic" classes in Unearthed Arcana left me cold for the same reason. Too little crunchy story stuff.
Wizard: Cast spells, has familiar, but you NEED to specialize. This one wouldn't need to prepare spells, you'd just know them and cast with points like a Psion does (Cleric casts same btw). The specialization wouldn't restrict other spells...
I see arcane spellcasters the opposite way. Sorcerers are demonstrating the innate gift. You need to show that and get some control over it (say 5 levels worth) THEN you get the nifty specialized prestige class with the prepared spells
The "ultrabasic" classes in Unearthed Arcana left me cold for
the same reason. Too little crunchy story stuff.
What do you mean by ultrabasic. I know there are the 4 generic classes, but the Paladin, Ranger, and Bard classes aren't that generic.
WaterdhavianFlapjack
This thread bears on my developing campaign. I am torn both ways: stripping down the number of basic classes and removing the more specialized ones to appropriate (developed) prestige classes OR adding to the 11 core classes, bringing it up to something like 15 (without, sadly, a gadgeteer).
The first way has the beauty of initial simplicity, but will take some substantial investment in turning 20 levels of paladin into 10 levels of paladin substitute prestige class (which is actually probably the easiest one, at least the blackguard is there as a model).
The second way is a lot less work. I will just sponge off the "Complete..." books, with some tinkering to the Favored One (like a new name, but I do like the idea of a class where the deity chooses representatives as opposed to the self-nomination of the cleric class) and, maybe, a re-look at the Aristocrat to see what, if anything, needs to be done to make it an attractive option.
What classes are other people out there using? How well have the "new" classes from the "Complete..." books worked out where they have been used?
The "ultrabasic" classes in Unearthed Arcana left me cold for
the same reason. Too little crunchy story stuff.
What do you mean by ultrabasic. I know there are the 4 generic classes, but the Paladin, Ranger, and Bard classes aren't that generic.
WaterdhavianFlapjack
I was (inaccurately) addressing the Generic Classes at the end of that chapter in Unearthed Arcana. I was speaking to some of the previous posts about stripping down the character classes either altogether or to the absolute basics (which those Generic Classes, pretty much are).
I think classes, as a concept, work. Legendary/mythic/ fictional archetypes are a great idea in a game like D&D. The generic classes are too generic. No story to them.
I see arcane spellcasters the opposite way. Sorcerers are demonstrating the innate gift. You need to show that and get some control over it (say 5 levels worth) THEN you get the nifty specialized prestige class with the prepared spells
Oh yeah i plan on both being spontaneous casters and getting rid of the whole notion of 'prepared' casting. Maybe some sort of PrC or something but really i just don't like them and think that replacing Wizzes with Sorcs in mechanics would work better.
But i shouldn't have hijacked the thread like that i guess so... well it's posted here now so if you have any other comments post them here i guess. Sorry for that though :(
With all the books and everything containing different core classes and prestige classes, why should it matter if there are so many. the group I'm playing with, all except one play a character straight from the player's handbook. we only use the other books for feats, spells, and other similar things unless a prestige class or two is just what we want for our characters
for example, right now i'm playing a dwarven fighter. I took up the stonelord prestige class (from complete warrior) because it allowed me to go through my idea of what I wanted to do with my character (which was to have a dwarven fighter that was attuned with the earth allowing him to summon an earth elemental and to have other abilities related to the earth)
hey it worked since we were fighting two elder huge earth elementals, one of which I killed instanly by casting stoneshape on the bridge he was on dropping him over a thousand feet down (we were in the mountains exploring a dwarven complex)
hey it worked since we were fighting two elder huge earth elementals, one of which I killed instanly by casting stoneshape on the bridge he was on dropping him over a thousand feet down (we were in the mountains exploring a dwarven complex)
20d6 killed an elder huge earth elemental?
Defeated maybe. But probably not killed.
Unless you use alternate rules about bigger creatures taking more falling damage. In which case, yeah, he's definitely dead. : )
For starters, "witch" should be a standard class. It's a stronger and more universal mythological archetype than most of the standard classes. I think it's not in the standard game for the same reason demons and devils were renamed in 2nd edition (socio-cultural pressures).
Having said that, I think the cause of this confusion and disagreement is that dnd3 is walking the fence between a class-based system, and a point-based skill/feat system.
On one hand, you could eliminate classes completely, and buy everything from a feat tree as you level (a la Mutants and Masterminds, or so I've heard). Problem being, this creates a barrier to entry for new players who don't know how to construct an effective character.
On the other hand, you could eliminate feats, and have most or all abilities come from your class (a la 1st/2nd edition). Problem is, that's not very flexible and can get old for experienced players.
By walking the fence, D&D gets the best of both worlds, and Wizards and the d20 publishers have a wide range of territory to cover.
|
|
I would also like to add that wizards should only follow one school of magic sooo lets develop each of the schools of magic. Time of the "jack-of-all-trades" wizards should be ended. One school of magic only. This would make wizards have their unique strengths and weaknesses amongst each other.You could accomplish that by making all wizards required to be specialists. :)
Oh, i do. I just was making the point that that should be the status quo. My 2 cents.
Thoth-Amon the Atlantean Mindflayerian
Lets see:
11 Core Classes
12 classes in the "Complete" books
4 classes in Expanded Psionics Handbook
3 classes in Magic Incarnum
3 classes in Oriental Adventures (not including reprints)
1 class in the Eberron Campaign Setting
You forgot the Marshall and healer from Miniature's handook, and the Eidolon and Eidoloncer from Ghostwalk. Complete psionic is almost certainly going to have new classes, and IIRC so will Heroes of Horror. Remember in the 3.0 DMG where it said "The base classes are versatile enough that you shouldn't find a need to make new classes."?
Now this is only my opinion, but I think that there's actually too many classes for my tastes. Think about it... You could have three fighters in the same group but they could be totally different in the way they fight, act, and play. It really depends on what the player brings to the table. Do we really need more prestige classes? Again, their not so prestige if every person in the group is playing one.
Example of a REAL prestige class (if it were my way)... Your character could start out as a Cleric. Then after some adventuring he would aquire certain skills and feats and would gradually be called a Paladin, depending on his passed actions. Same thing goes for Fighters, who could become Rangers, or Defenders (if they happen to be dwarves). Do you really need a "Pirate" class, or could you just be a fighter with an interest for feats and skills that pertain to the sea. And if you start robbing merchant ships, people WILL call you a pirate.
What I'm trying to get through is that at first level, most characters should resemble each other, as they were just commoners before, and gradually differentiate themselves as they gain experience.
Am I making any sense?
Ultradan
It makes sense to me. Actually Wotc is one step ahead of you. Check out Unearthed Arcana. They have a "prestige" paladin, ranger, and bard. They even have variant paladins and rangers that don't cast spells at all. I've found that book invaluable in getting just that right feel for my characters.
Monte's Iron Heroes takes a step in the right direction in allowing more maleability in your characters. I'd like to see a classless system myself (similar to mutants and masterminds as a previous poster mentioned). Some in my group argue that if you take the classes away you totally change the feel of d&d. That may be true but I may like the new feel better than the old.
gunsnammo
I think that between the core classes and the plethora of prestige classes out there that if you can't find a character who can represent nearly ever facet of the fantasy genre then you probably aren't looking hard enough. Besides, if you do think something is missing then come up with your own class/prestige. That's what D&D is about...adaptation. If you don't like something, change it to suit your game group. My problem is that with all the variety I keep coming back to the vanilla....Fighter, haha. I ask you, what's better than beating the heck outta something in melee combat?
|
I think that the core classes in the PHB are more than enough. While all the extra ones may look like fun, are they really any different? Yes the mechanics change but so what? A ranger/rogue fills the same role as a scout. An Evil sorceer can easily be called a witch or worlock. you can easily have three or four fighters in a party that between class, race and feat choices will be completely different. If you want specialized wizards, use them. There is also something to be said for personallity and alignment.
I do think the paladin would be more appropriate as a prestige class and that the Monk just doesn't fit with a European style setting (fantasy or not) . Personally, I would drop the monk and add the psionicist.
the Monk just doesn't fit with a European style setting (fantasy or not) . Personally, I would drop the monk and add the psionicist.
While visiting Europe, I don't actually recall seeing a lot of glowing-eyed, bald-headed people - but hey, Chernobyl's not too far away.
While we are on the subject of the quasi-euro feel of the fantasy role-playing experience, what the heck is up with the druid? No metal unless it's bent? Ah ha, a +2 safty pin, I'm good. So druids, and slanty-eyed monks (because if he's got slant eyes he knows kung-fu), but no witches? I guess druids where more macho. Still I think its about as funny as plate mail on priests (actual "monks" in some cases), or bards who can play a tuba, triangle or half-filled crytal glasses in such away as to help people climb better.
That guy's got talent,
GGG
I was wondering if there is a strong fantasy archetype that has yet to be detailed as a character class?
Yes, a real bard, and witches (see Dragon #114 I beleive). Also druids and clerics seem more like a niche when compared to actual history, so if you where going to
mimic history you might consider these prestige classes and use the cloistered cleric (Unearthed Arcana), spirit shaman (Complete Divine) as standard. Likewise paladins and maybe rangers could/should be prestige classes.GGG