Yeah... but unless it's writeups for many of these classes, a list with 3 or 4 dozen lines does not constitute 201 pages. Maybe two pages with a large font and double spacing. Maybe 10 or 12 pages for a couple descritive paragraphs for each. But 201 pages? No, just no.
Back on topic, I like the Dabblers idea of a Nobleman class. I kinda like the Cavalier as a non-religion Paladin, but he seems lackluster. And I think the Chalenge mechanic of PHBIIs Knight was cooler.
The problem with using the Monk as the base for that Maneuver specialist is the Monk's BAB, Saves and HD are wrong. Now, while I am away from my APG, I am almost positive none of the archtypes change those base features.
Which means, if the "class" as suggested were to be made, it would have to be a new class, as even a subclass still retains those stats.
The problem with using the Monk as the base for that Maneuver specialist is the Monk's BAB, Saves and HD are wrong. Now, while I am away from my APG, I am almost positive none of the archtypes change those base features.
The HD, isn't a huge deal, nether is the BAB, which counts as full on a flurry anyhow and for Maneuvers. The monk has all good saves. The Maneuver specialist is just the kind of non mystic monk many people have been asking for for a very long time.
What does it need that the monk can not do other then HD?
|
What does it NEED other than what a monk can provide? I think you have a different picture in you head that I do.
Forcing this to be a monk archetype will pigeon hole this type of fighting style into primarily fighting unarmed, and unarmored. That is just FAR too niche'd and forces players who want to be a true combat specialist to play a squishy, lawful brawler. It is the problem of a square peg and the round hole, you might be able to make it fit with enough banging but the end product will be lackluster and sloppy.
The reason it really needs a new class is because what I have envisioned would have 20 whole levels of its own uniquely balanced class abilities.
While I understand the fear of bloat in pathfinder I think they are far ahead of the game and understand there is no desire, and likely no MARKET for such bloat. That however does not mean that we, the community, need to have such a knee-jerk reaction to the thought of every single new class idea spouting "BLOAT!" WotC released dozens of splat books, each of which had on average about 2-3 new classes in them. Piazo KNOWS that isn't what we want, and the archetype system was created to help deal with that. But it shouldn't also mean that now with the archetype system we should altogether abandon the prospect of a new class or two.
I have no issue with it being a fighter archetype. I would really love to see an unarmed fighter archetype. I just have seen nothing that demands a new class. The monk would be easier, but you could easily do it with a fighter. Armor trainings could be traded for some kind of inherent dodge bonus and so forth. Barbarian would be a great fit as well.
The monk is easier to do what he wanted, better saves, and already has the set up for most of the ablilites. Just missing his full attack and d10, which with a monk only the d10 is really missing for what it would do.
There is just nothing on this one that demands a new class, it simply can be done a few ways with an archtype with ease.
I dont think they need any more core class. With what they have and new Archetypes you can make most characters you want, and with the new archetypes in Ultimate Magic and then all the new ones in Ultimate Combat there should be most.
And then we dont need the 100s of base classes from 3.5
(personally I would rather see more Prestige Classes but I know im one of the few)
You can cut down some of the classes as pure repeats, but still well over a hundred. Way to many. Hell 20 is to many.
And more PRC's are fine as long as they are treated the way they have been and not like 3.5 treated them. They should be fore campaign organizations and such. Not a way to boost your power level over what a core class gains. They should not be pure power ups.
|
|
I will give it to you that the idea COULD be done with an archetype, but I still think that the idea warrants a class to be done properly. For argument sake lets call them a Specialist.
I think about it like this-
A fighter is the best "I power-attack with my +2 Mighty Cleaving Greatsword for massive damage!"
A rogue is the best at "I tumble into place, and sneak attack while proving flanking for the rest of the party!"
A monk is the best at "I'm going to punch a hole in this orc, that wall, and for good measure, tie up the bandits!"
A paladin does the best "I smite thee in the name of all that is good and holy!"
A ranger is best at "Oh, Goblins? Yeah, these are the tracks, they live in a cave, it is likely that they will have a shaman with them. Just let me go in first."
A bard is best at "Hark upon ye'! Thine glory is to ours to claim! Flow forth upon mine command and be heartened!"
A specialist is best at "I push the enemy back into a corner, cut the healer off from the rest of the group, disarm the combatants, and offer tactical support for positioning.
Each class has its own things it excels at above what others are capable, yes you could fill an archetype that "helps" a monk or fighters role as a combat maneuver specialist but I don't think it would be able to elevate that classes fundamental role to one of control over what they already traditionally do.
This new class would be filling the role of a combat specialist that can be where he needs to be, when he needs to be there. Someone who is best at distracting, disarming, and generally messing with the enemies plans. Think crowd control for non-spellcasters.
Edit: I just don't see why having a few more classes is a bad idea? Nobody want the WotC Bloat, least of all you and I, but that doesn't mean we need to be necessarily contrary to the idea of adding a few to fill in roles that currently don't exist or could use refining. Right?
If not, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.
I disagree. the very thing you are asking for is the very thing Archetypes do.
There may be some concept that calls for a base class, this is clearly not one of them and I have yet to see any in this thread that is not already filled or can not be filled with what we have or with archetypes of what we have.
I'd just like to see an overhaul of the fighter class, usable as a variant like they did with the anti-paladin. Bigger than an archetype, but still not a new class. Preferably something that gains new abilities instead of endless bonus feats.
I'd just like to see an overhaul of the fighter class, usable as a variant like they did with the anti-paladin. Bigger than an archetype, but still not a new class. Preferably something that gains new abilities instead of endless bonus feats.
I believe Paizo is referring to those as sub-classes, and I think they are more likely then a new base class.
|
|
I disagree. the very thing you are asking for is the very thing Archetypes do.
There may be some concept that calls for a base class, this is clearly not one of them and I have yet to see any in this thread that is not already filled or can not be filled with what we have or with archetypes of what we have.
Then show me an archetype that completely changes the play-style of a class and I will admit defeat in this. I can't think of a single one besides MAYBE the Zen Archer, which trades in melee for proficiency with a ranged weapon.
Then show me an archetype that completely changes the play-style of a class and I will admit defeat in this. I can't think of a single one besides MAYBE the Zen Archer, which trades in melee for proficiency with a ranged weapon.
Show me why this is needed? What your asking for is not a new class. Nothing your asking for requires a new class. I am not sure what play style has to do with class. 10 people cane play any base class with different play styles. It simple has nothing to do with needing a new class.
Nothing you listed yet for this new "class" demands a new class at all. No new mechanics that can not be done as is, you are mixing up monk with full BAB and saying ..see new class.
Simply what your asking for in this instance is not grounds for a new class.
|
175 Base classes
No argument about the prestige classes, but I only count around 60 base classes. If we're going to count racial classes, which I wouldn't, you missed Savage Species however.
aristocrat
artificer
barbarian
bard
cleric
commoner
druid
eidolon
eidoloncer
expert
factotum
favored soul
fighter
healer
hexblade
marshal
monk
mystic
ninja
noble
paladin
psion
psychic warrior
ranger
rogue
samurai
scout
shaman
shugenja
sohei
sorcerer
soulknife
spellcaster
spellthief
spirit shaman
swashbuckler
warlock
warmage
warrior
wilder
wizard
wu jen
archivist
dread necromancer
incarnate
soulborn
totemist
binder
shadowcaster
truenamer
ardent
divine mind
lurk
beguiler
dragon shaman
duskblade
knight
crusader
swordsage
warblade
dragonfire adept
|
|
How exactly am I mixing up a monk? I personally don't think they should have unarmed proficiencies at all from the start, it simply doesn't make sense. Going in unarmored is nearly suicide, and he knows it. I would very much like to see it use INT as a base statistic to add to his CMB and so forth. Maybe it is more along the lines of the "College trained fighter" than anything else. Having studied the maneuvers, tricks, and theory of combat he is able to best use them against his enemies. He sacrifices heavier armors, and (more than likely) heavier weapons to strike where he is needed.
You try to do it with a fighter, you start off by taking away ALL class skills other than bonus feats, heavy armor proficiency, and then starting from scratch with bonuses to combat maneuvers.
I would LIKE to see a variety of cool NEW abilities that they could take unique advantage of that no other class would have access to, much like how rogues can do special things with sneak attacks, inquisitors do with teamwork feats, or fighters can do with critical hits. All that is simply TOO MUCH to fit into an archetype and deserves more than a half-assed attempt to retool a class to fit a new role.
Archetypes already strip away the trainings. This would be normal and fairly easy to do. Many of the archetypes now give those classes archetypes ability no one else has or can get.
If you want more skill points, you go with a ranger or cavalier archetypes. It simple is easy to do and in no way calls for a new class. Nothing you have said so far is over the top with what have already been done except more skills, which just means it is not a fighter archetype.
Okay you know what, i am so sick and tired of hearing about archetypes, i don't care about archetypes, archetypes have nothing to do with this thread if you like archetypes that's fine but i don't care about them and i never wanted to talk about them, i posted in my first post that i didn't even want archetypes to come up in this thread.
how about you show me a little respect and leave them out of this thread, if you want to talk about how there should be no more new base classes or how they are not needed and how archetypes will do just fine go start your own thread.
i suggest everyone who wishes to talk about new base class ideas for the Ultimate combat book just ignore any post talking about archetypes.
I'm sorry i don't mean to be harsh or attack anyone but you have hijacked this thread to try and stop any constructive conversations about new classes
|
No argument about the prestige classes, but I only count around 60 base classes. If we're going to count racial classes, which I wouldn't, you missed Savage Species however.
I saw that there were a lot of repeats and racial classes and stuff, but I wasn't bored enough to cull through them to get a proper count. Apparently you were. :P
But hell, let's pretend that the base classes weren't bloated beyond belief (even 60 is FAR too many). 782 Prestige classes. Think that over. That's utterly ridiculous. It's beyond the insane.
And you know what? You mentioned missing Savage Species....I don't think EITHER of those lists are actually fully complete. That's just scary.
|
|
Okay you know what, i am so sick and tired of hearing about archetypes, i don't care about archetypes, archetypes have nothing to do with this thread if you like archetypes that's fine but i don't care about them and i never wanted to talk about them, i posted in my first post that i didn't even want archetypes to come up in this thread.
how about you show me a little respect and leave them out of this thread, if you want to talk about how there should be no more new base classes or how they are not needed and how archetypes will do just fine go start your own thread.
i suggest everyone who wishes to talk about new base class ideas for the Ultimate combat book just ignore any post talking about archetypes.
I'm sorry i don't mean to be harsh or attack anyone but you have hijacked this thread to try and stop any constructive conversations about new classes
Translation: Don't post in my thread unless it's to agree with me and tell me how right I am.
That ain't how message-boards work. At least any worth reading. If all subsequent posts were just to pat you on the head and tell you how smart your original post was, there wouldn't be any real point for replies other than to stroke your ego.
Okay you know what, i am so sick and tired of hearing about archetypes, i don't care about archetypes, archetypes have nothing to do with this thread if you like archetypes that's fine but i don't care about them and i never wanted to talk about them, i posted in my first post that i didn't even want archetypes to come up in this thread.
Well then you are out of luck, because since the APG came on the scene archetypes are a staple of Pathfinder. It's a way of cutting down on the number of base classes by giving each class thematic options for alternative development. If you can make an archetype (a variation in an existing class) for a class, then you don't need a new base class. If you insist on base classes instead of archetypes you will rapidly get seriously bad class bloat.
Put simply, the game has changed: trying to discuss new base classes without discussing archetypes is now about as easy as discussing magic without mentioning spells.
|
|
But hell, let's pretend that the base classes weren't bloated beyond belief (even 60 is FAR too many). 782 Prestige classes. Think that over. That's utterly ridiculous. It's beyond the insane.
And you know what? You mentioned missing Savage Species....I don't think EITHER of those lists are actually fully complete. That's just scary.
Nah, explosively formed penetrators are scary. :P
I honestly don't see how it's ridiculous and insane. Even counting hyperbole, I don't use those words for things like this.
More than we need? Maybe. More than you want? Obviously. More than other people want? Maybe not.
Maybe two pages with a large font and double spacing. Maybe 10 or 12 pages for a couple descritive paragraphs for each.Haven't seen a similar listing for prestige classes, which is where 3.X's bloat REALLY kicked it.
Okay. Challenge accepted.
Copied the whole listand transfered to word, from "Class Source Page Description" to wu jen, AKA the last entry on the list. Font size 14. 10pt spacement after paragraph and each entry as one paragraph. For instance:"wilderness rogue UA 56 A variant rogue who prefers to put her skills to use in the great outdoors."
Still 11 pages. Nowhere near 201. Maybe if you do the same with the PrC list. Would require much more psicosis than I have.
Also: Bullseye! Exactly what I said even with all the duplicates!
@Dabbler: I agree that archetypes can help reduce base class bloating but, while you and I can say "no that could be an archetype, how about this concept?" (Like you did when you presented the nobleman idea), and some, like KnightErrantJR, can have a cool headed intelectual debate and listen to other opinions and be polite in the whole thing, this thread has been invaded by a couple people who are of the opinion "NO NEW CLASSES!!1!1 NEVER!!1! AND PrCs ARE SATANSPAWN11!1!!! EVERYTHING CAN BE DONE WITH ARCHETYPES!!!!!11!!!!1!1!1!" And when they come the threads always degenerate into an argument.(For those curious: a debate involves reason, logic and facts; an argument involves hurt egos, stuborness and eventually name-calling)
@northbrb: Golbacz, seeker, and Kthulhu are in a thread about the possibility of new classes, so northbrb, if you read this, my advice to you, and what I'm going to do after I finish this post, is to get out off this thread and forget about it. The thread is gone to the trolls. They'll probably think they won because "if I hammer the same point and ignore what they say until they are too tired or angry to talk to me it means they don't have an argument, so I win" is the troll mentality. It is a fallacy, but I rather they have their 'victory' than subject myself to a flamewar.
|
Crap, I wanted to link the Candlekeep 3.5 Base Class index (which clocks in at 201 page) but it was taken down at WotC request *sigh*.
Still, my argument is not about the amount of classes. It's about being hit with a 201-page document with a list of classes to choose from. It's a killer for anybody who isn't really obsessive about the game.
Honestly I can see it being 200 pages long with ease. Look how much page count was used for just the base 11, it would be much larger with 60+ class.
And I agree with Dabbler. You simply can not start a pathfinder "what base classes do we want" thread and then discount archetypes. As they are a very real part of pathfinder that puts a massive roadblock up for new base classes.
If you want to justify a new base class then tell us how can this not be done in any manner as an archetype. There might be somethings out there that really can not be done as archetypes, but most of the "base" classes people bring up are just written as base classes just because. Not because they are justified as one.
I'd just like to point out that, being the kind and generous soul that I am, I went ahead and made a thread whose sole purpose is to debate whether or not there needs to be any new base classes or not.
so Seeker, Gorbacz, etc, why don't you come enlighten us over yonder.
<points down>
Stuff.
The problem with the Cavalier is that the class tries to fill the roles of the Marshal, the Knight and the Mounted Rider, all at the same time. If you happen to be only interested in one or two of those roles, then the class is not for you. So, I'll agree with you on the fact that this class is very restrictive. What if I want to play a Dwarven "Tactician" in a underground adventure? The Cavalier is hardly a viable option. So yes, we either need a handful of Cavalier's Archetypes or a new base class.
By the way, even if I speak a lot of Archetypes, I'm not against the presence of a new base class in Ultimate Combat. What I don't like is requests for a specific and restrictive base classes that can only be played in one way, like a "Duelist" (obviously a Dex-based character), a "Mounted Fighter" (100% useless in a campaing focused on indoor exploration), etc. That's what the Archetypes and Prestige Classes are for anyway: they turn a general base class into a very specific concept. If you create a base class based on a very specific concept from the start, then there is no room left for adding Archetypes or versatility to that base class.
As a side note, I don't see how the Ranger (Skirmisher Archetype) with the Archery Combat Style can't be the "Hun/Mongol Mounted Rider" that you're looking for. In fact, I think that it is the only base class that could make this concept viable. You reduce your opponents mobility with Hobbling Attack or Tangling Attack and you keep away from them with the help of your mount's superior speed. :)
By the way, even if I speak a lot of Archetypes, I'm not against the presence of a new base class in Ultimate Combat. What I don't like is requests for a specific and restrictive base classes that can only be played in one way, like a "Duelist" (obviously a Dex-based character), a "Mounted Fighter" (100% useless in a campaing focused on indoor exploration), etc. That's what the Archetypes and Prestige Classes are for anyway: they turn a general base class into a very specific concept. If you create a base class based on a very specific concept from the start, then there is no room left for adding Archetypes or versatility to that base class.
I'm with you there, whatever we come up with has to be more generic than that, or at least has to have flexibility to become several different things.
Thank Kirth, not me. I just help out here and there.
You can totally thank me for pimping it to everyone tho. ;)
What is this monk you speak of?
By the way, even if I speak a lot of Archetypes, I'm not against the presence of a new base class in Ultimate Combat. What I don't like is requests for a specific and restrictive base classes that can only be played in one way, like a "Duelist" (obviously a Dex-based character), a "Mounted Fighter" (100% useless in a campaing focused on indoor exploration), etc. That's what the Archetypes and Prestige Classes are for anyway: they turn a general base class into a very specific concept. If you create a base class based on a very specific concept from the start, then there is no room left for adding Archetypes or versatility to that base class.I'm with you there, whatever we come up with has to be more generic than that, or at least has to have flexibility to become several different things.
Thanks, and just like you said, Archetypes are part of the game now, so if we want to have a thoughtful discusion about a new base class, we can't just ignore the alternative that the Archetypes represent, no matter what is the OP's opinion on the subject. I want a new base class, but I also want to talk about Archetypes, because I want the be sure that the new base class concept can't be covered by an Archetype. You can fit 2 Archetypes in a single page while a new base class will take at least 3 full pages, so the new base class better needs to be something really unique or it just won't be worth the space.
By the way, I don't think that calling people trolls just because they don't share your opinion is very thoughtful...
|
|
@northbrb: Golbacz, seeker, and Kthulhu are in a thread about the possibility of new classes, so northbrb, if you read this, my advice to you, and what I'm going to do after I finish this post, is to get out off this thread and forget about it. The thread is gone to the trolls.
So I'm a troll for saying that a new base class shouldn't be put into a book just because a similar book had a new base class? And for pointing out that small variations on larger class concepts would best be achieved with archtypes instead of creating a new "fighter, but with added X" class.
Hell, if they had started the game out with the concept of archtypes already existing, I doubt we'd have several of the base classes we have now, and the number of prestige classes would probably have been cut in at least half.
Hell, if they had started the game out with the concept of archtypes already existing, I doubt we'd have several of the base classes we have now, and the number of prestige classes would probably have been cut in at least half.
Total agreement. If and when we get a pathfinder 2e I am willing to bet some of the base classes we have now will be rolled into archetypes/sub classes of other classes.
Total agreement. If and when we get a pathfinder 2e I am willing to bet some of the base classes we have now will be rolled into archetypes/sub classes of other classes.
Hell, if they had started the game out with the concept of archtypes already existing, I doubt we'd have several of the base classes we have now, and the number of prestige classes would probably have been cut in at least half.
May that day be long in coming! In the meantime, we can all have fun with the game as is.
I wouldn't mind seeing a few new base classes over the next few years, but not one every few months. Such a rate of output could, if it were desired, be handled with archetypes and prestige classes, but overall I think people who desire such vast options are content with 3.5, importing 3.5 into Pathfinder, or playing 4e.
A maneuver specialist would be cool, yet it's true that Fighters and Monks have this covered to some degree.
A few things I'd like to see:
Maneuver combat style for the Ranger
Maneuver archetype for the Fighter
Maneuver-oriented prestige class (Reaping Mauler style)
I would hope Ultimate Combat will do at least one of these, or if not, at the very least add some new maneuver feats that the existing classes can add to their repertoire (I'd consider the latter more likely, but I would imagine there'd be enough room for some of the former).
However, I didn't say any of that to derail OP's topic, just to preface my own opinions. If there were a maneuver-based class, I wouldn't want it to be limited to this. For example, Wizards don't just use 9-level spellcasting, they also have favored school powers, arcane bonds, a full and ability-synergistic knowledge base, and overall the best magic item crafting in the game.
If there were a maneuver expert, therefore, I would expect them to have several notable class features on top of that, otherwise I do think they'd wind up being archetypes instead. What those features are, I can't say. There's a reason Paizo are professional game designers and I'm not, so it'd still be up to them to flesh out this maneuver class.
Another thing to consider about the maneuver expert is that nearly every class has flavor and social theme to it (even if these are generally open-ended). I'm not sure if the maneuver expert would be able to work one of these out, short of "similar to fighter". Hence why I think it would by merged with some other class features which would help give it setting relevance, for example, calling it a Master, and making it some kind of Int or Wis-based team leader/general (contrast to the more common Cha leaders in the game). If Paizo didn't feel confident they could come up with iconic flavor, they wouldn't go through with it.
Anyway, I would personally love a martial shapeshifting or bloodline-based class, one with supernatural but not overtly spell-based abilities. Imagine taking the model of the Sorcerer bloodlines, adding full BAB, subtracting spellcasting entirely (or going 4th level), and adjusting from there. Characters developing natural weapons, immunities, unique attacks or physical properties, bonus feats, etc., but not having to go gish/heavily multi-classing to do it.
Surely these kinds of abilities aren't inappropriate or game-breaking, since the Sorcerer gets them, and a Sorcerer archetype which says "change HD, BAB and remove spellcasting" might be too overarching, inapplicable, and rife for exploits, so a new class seems more sensible to me. Besides, a class like this would probably reduce a lot of people's desires to play overpowered creatures as PCs, as they'd get access to more unique abilities which draw them to those creatures in the first place. It'd fit something of a genuine niche and isn't easily replicated by existing classes. Plus, a Sorcerer/Shifter prestige class would be as sensible as the Dragon Disciple and the Rage Prophet, if they wanted to go in that direction with it.
Okay... late in the game, but still...
Something I'd like to see, though it might get a wee bit complex and/or complicated, but still...
A weapon Master.
He's dedicated to one weapon and one weapon only, but at this he excels.
There would be different bonuses depending whether it was a slashing, bludgeoning, or piercing weapon.
There would be different bonus whether it was a light, one handed or two handed weapon.
Add different moves, special attacks and what not to your liking.
Bonus to resist disarm and sunder and such.
This is just a few thoughts off the top of my head.
And remember: Smile! It's christmas! ;)
I'd like to see a mage killer. A fighter that is designed to work w/out magic, gains bonuses against magic wielding foes (ala Occult Slayer prc) and gains the ability to resist magic. Perhaps gains additional abilities by destroying magical items (ala Forsaker prc).
A weapon Master.
He's dedicated to one weapon and one weapon only, but at this he excels.There would be different bonuses depending whether it was a slashing, bludgeoning, or piercing weapon.
There would be different bonus whether it was a light, one handed or two handed weapon.
Add different moves, special attacks and what not to your liking.
Bonus to resist disarm and sunder and such.
It's not quite as involved as you've described, but specifically, it does have the bonuses against disarm and sunder. Special moves would have been fun. Perhaps some things similar to the Equipment Trick feat?
And remember: Smile! It's christmas! ;)
I lose all my class abilities for 24 hours if I celebrate Christmas in any way. I hope others can enjoy themselves, though.
the only way you can really develop a unique base class is first coming up with the class idea and then expand on what the class should do, this will never happen if from the start you say "nope that could be an archetype" you never give the class a chance to build to something unique unless you discuss what it should be able to do.
i totally agree it should be something that no other class does and it should offer something new but if you never get past the thought that it should just be an archetype it will never be more than that. i can imagine just about any concept being truly unique that can offer something completely new that isn't pigeon holed onto one possible build, these ideas just need to be given a chance and not killed by people who cant imagine beyond the posted concept.
In other words a base class for the sole reason of being a base class, not based off need or any concept.
|
|
the only way you can really develop a unique base class is first coming up with the class idea and then expand on what the class should do, this will never happen if from the start you say "nope that could be an archetype" you never give the class a chance to build to something unique unless you discuss what it should be able to do.
+1
Also, repeatedly shouting an opinoion doesn't make it any more true, valid, widespread, it is simply a rudimentary form of trolling.
@SOSL
No, the development of a full class ensures that the idea will get its own full weight of development and would end up as something altogether new an unique. Not to mention that extra space allows for so much more development and definition of a concept, it gives you more options, than an archetype. An archetype is at BEST 2 pages long.
the only way you can really develop a unique base class is first coming up with the class idea and then expand on what the class should do, this will never happen if from the start you say "nope that could be an archetype" you never give the class a chance to build to something unique unless you discuss what it should be able to do.+1
Also, repeatedly shouting an opinoion doesn't make it any more true, valid, widespread, it is simply a rudimentary form of trolling.
it also prevents any constructive conversation
One of these days I'm going to run a campaign where the players build their own base class around their characters.
There are systems for this. M&M works really well for this. I have not got to read the warlock and warrior book but that might fit your needs well.