You asked for it, so here it comes. Announcing the sequel to Adventuring Classes: A Fistful of Denarii.
This is an open call for feedback on these class concepts. After I finish up some school stuff in the next few weeks, I'm prepping alpha versions of these classes for playtesting. I would like to know what sounds appealing, what doesn't, and what I may be missing. Particularly I want to know if there are archetypes related to adventuring in a non-dungeoncrawling context, like intrigue or exploration, that are not covered very well by existing options.
The list as it stands now:
BASE CLASSES
Assassin - Hired killer (as a base class; similar concepts have been done, is there a place for another?)
Athlete - Physical challenger, capable of astounding acts
Courtier - Expert of intrigue, wealth, and influence
Emissary - Master negotiator
Jongleur - Master of performance and feats of dexterity
Musketeer - Firearms wielder and skilled
PRESTIGE CLASSES
Sharpshooter - Expert of ranged combat with a talent for stealth
Temptress/Tempter - Uses the art of seduction to gain power over others
Trickster Adept - Fusion of roguish talents with casting talents
War Captain - Specializes in leading and directing others
|
I'm INSANELY excited about this project, and can't wait to see your take on the Assassin... if anyone can knock Wolfgang Baur's version from its spot on my campaign world, it's you!
I'd like to see your take on some spellcasters, truthfully, and possibly a take on the Mongoose Games 3.5 Mercenary class. (A fighting man whose tactics were open-ended enough to mesh with anyone he was hired to work with. They did it by offering open feats slots that could be swapped out when working with or against opponents with different feats... I think you can do wonders with that!)
Yes ---> Assassin - as a base class with spellcasting, PLEASE.
I'm with Stark...can't wait for the this one! Love the first FoD. The entire book is open to my players and they love the variety it gives them. Party's are about 50/50 between FoD and PF Core, so there ya go as far as balance is concerned!
On the Assassin, I was thinking about blending some of the Shadowdancer's abilities and Rogue talents to create a menu-choice driven version of the class, similar to how the Pathfinder Rogue, Barbarian, and Paladin are done. What would you think of that instead of, or an addition to, spellcasting?
Non-spellcasting shapeshifter class.
That's a very interesting idea. Kind of like the Nature's Warrior or Master of Many Forms? I like the idea of using wildshape or something like it as a core ability, but adding talents to be able to do fun and bizarre things.
I'm INSANELY excited about this project, and can't wait to see your take on the Assassin... if anyone can knock Wolfgang Baur's version from its spot on my campaign world, it's you!
I appreciate your confidence. In keeping with what I've done before, I like the idea of being able to build a mostly nonspellcasting Assassin who is not simply a rogue. But I do have some sympathy for the idea of an assassin as the antithesis of the paladin in style. Increasingly over-the-top coup-de-grace abilities don't really cut it for me...
I'd like to see your take on some spellcasters, truthfully,
Well, here's the thing. There have been a lot of sorcerer bloodlines published, and the oracle and cleric have been expanded quite a bit, too. The Incantations rules from UA have been updated to Pathfinder, I think twice, reputedly with great competence. I feel at this point there are lots of really good core options. I don't feel the gaping design space, the way I do for martial or social or skill-oriented characters who can be really and truly competitive for 20 levels.
If I approached that project, I would probably be mainly interested in one of two things. The first thing would be focused casters of an unusual nature (maybe a 20 level Arcane Trickster but less bland?), a couple of mind-blowing prestige classes, and some feats. The Witch is a solid example of something more unusual that can work as a new class. I like the Witch a lot. The other thing would be truly variant casters. Can the powers system from True20 be balanced against normal spellcasting? That's a very interesting question. Is anything from Occult Lore beefy enough to be Pathfinderized? Etc.
Considering the wealth of published material already out there, and the complexity of designing entirely new casting classes, I can say with confidence I won't be doing too much with casters until at least a Few Denarii More, working the kinks out of Adventuring Races, and of course the Conquest of the Universe rulebook.
and possibly a take on the Mongoose Games 3.5 Mercenary class. (A fighting man whose tactics were open-ended enough to mesh with anyone he was hired to work with. They did it by offering open feats slots that could be swapped out when working with or against opponents with different feats... I think you can do wonders with that!)
That sounds interesting, I'll have to check into it. My only qualm there is that if it's too good a writeup, I won't have much work to do. :)
|
|
I just love the concept of the Athlete, which is I believe something I have never seen anywhere in the DnD multiedition multiverse.
I think that you could do with an expert on siege (both tactics and engines) for military campaigns. He could have a great expertise on traps (including setting them of course) so as to still be useful in other kind of campaigns.
|
Well a couple of things. I think the Temptress and War Captain both deserve to be base classes, i can kinda see the Captain as a PrC but not the temptress, to me that one screams base class. Like the one from Mongoose or a Companion from Firefly/Serenity.
A fewother idea's would be
a Sword Saint(someone who focuses on a single weapon to master it above all others)
a weapons master, someone who gives up some defense(AC and hp) to be better offensively with weapons.
A investigator, someone that well solves crimes.
A barbarian not sure what to call it, savage warrior maybe. Just a warrior that blends wilderness survival, from a tribe outside of civilization, and doesn't have rage. The current barbarian is fine but to me it seems more like a berserker than a barbarian to me.
If I can think of more later I will post them.
I will say I would like you to stay away from any type of magic like ability or things that is beyond the range of a skilled human can pull off. Unless the class is a partial caster. One of the things I loved about your first book is that they was very much focused on what skilled people could pull off.
Also I am very much looking forward to this.
Well a couple of things. I think the Temptress and War Captain both deserve to be base classes, i can kinda see the Captain as a PrC but not the temptress, to me that one screams base class. Like the one from Mongoose or a Companion from Firefly/Serenity.
I looked at Mongoose's Temptress, and what struck was that at higher levels, the Temptress was increasingly just gaining menu choices from other classes. I think the concept is narrow enough that it's difficult to do an entire base class around. In my mind, the Prestige Class would be a natural fit for a rogue, spy, sorcerer, bard, or the new jongleur.
a Sword Saint(someone who focuses on a single weapon to master it above all others)
a weapons master, someone who gives up some defense(AC and hp) to be better offensively with weapons.
The martial artist was designed with the idea you could do both these concepts. A sword saint is a Martial Artist with Signature Weapon.
A investigator, someone that well solves crimes.
Interesting idea, although I may have trampled on this niche somewhat with the Scholar. It's not a super medievally concept, which makes it harder, too.
A barbarian not sure what to call it, savage warrior maybe. Just a warrior that blends wilderness survival, from a tribe outside of civilization, and doesn't have rage. The current barbarian is fine but to me it seems more like a berserker than a barbarian to me.
What about the Hunter from AFoD? Kinda like that, or is there something missing?
I will say I would like you to stay away from any type of magic like ability or things that is beyond the range of a skilled human can pull off. Unless the class is a partial caster. One of the things I loved about your first book is that they was very much focused on what skilled people could pull off.
My usual philosophy is that before level 10, a class should focus on non-magical abilities. At level 10 and up, I think a little bit about what a really determined or skilled person could pull off in a world of magic. For instance, if I imagine a novel about a spy in a world of magic, I can imagine the narrator informing us that the spy's mental discipline makes them hard to scry. This becomes tricky with something like the Assassin, who would face considerable, and possibly magical, countermeasures. I wouldn't want to make them a magician, per se, but they would have to be credible threats against nobles with magicians on the payroll.
I'm very dubious of the assassin base class; as you noted, it's been done before, even for Pathfinder (Freeport Companion). I don't doubt that you'd do a great job, but I wonder how unique it'd be. Also, while none of the classes in the origina Fistful of Denarii technically fill this niche, several come close (such as the Hunter) so it doesn't seem that necessary.
This is the most likely to be cut, but since emthusiasm was offered, I'm going to take it into the lab and see what I come up with.
How about a character that's adept at influencing groups of people (perhaps larger groups as they level up) without magic or the performance-theme of a bard? You could call it...the Politician!
I'm hoping that the Emissary and the Courtier, between the two of them, will be able to cover this ground. If not, this may be a good spot for a prestige class.
Honestly, what I'd really like to see is a monk that isn't so rigid in its class abilities. Monastic powers should vary widely, so as to better differentiate their physical and spiritual training, rather than having all monks be the same but for their feats. Make them like rogues, with a big list of abilities that they have to pick from (this'd be different from your martial artist in that it's got a focus on mystic powers).
That sounds like a sourcebook unto itself. :) It would be at least as expansive as the Scholar. There are two principal reasons I didn't tackle this the first time around. First, I was focusing on non-magical abilities, although a monk would not be too far outside that concept. Second, I would essentially be writing a replacement for the core class, which is outside the scope of what I wanted to accomplish with that book.
IMO, the monk is a strange creature, and if I had written the class myself, I would have thought carefully about how to balance a 3/4 BAB class with no bonuses to hit with a bunch of full BAB classes with bonuses to hit. Encouraging them to take full attacks is not the way I would have gone... :) One writing challenge would be to balance simply expanding the monk class, versus fixing the monk class. I'm not sure a lot of people want me to "fix" a core class, but on the other hand, it would be hard for me to leave the class intact in its core and feel really satisfied with the result.
What do you do with a class with 3/4 BAB, a d8 hit die, that full attacks and performs maneuvers at full BAB? It's a full BAB class in every way except having hit points and making single attacks!
Some of the new base classes make me a bit nervous in terms of their scope. For example, will the musketeer be different enough from the gunslinger? I can appreciate a more down-to-earth gun fighter, but if it's too toned-down, it'll be underpowered. Likewise, you'll need gun rules for this, which makes it rather tricky, since people seem to have different ideas about how those should work.
I'm not keen on the idea of a class that does only one thing, and I think it's worse when that one thing is using an expensive, quirky weapon with quirky, poorly thought-out (IMO) rules that many GMs are reluctant to include in their games anyway. It's a fighter variant... that manages to be even more specialized than the fighter, and in a weird weapon.
This is similar to the Monk situation, but different in that I think the Gunslinger just really doesn't work. If you like the Gunslinger, that's fine, too. I think the Musketeer will still stand up on its own as an alternative. There definitely will be fireaarm rules, but I plan on making the Musketeer fairly agnostic as to what rules you use, in case you want to mix and match with the Gunslinger.
The Temptress and Emissary hopefully won't be based solely around maximizing and expanding on, respectively, Bluff and Diplomacy checks.
Definitely not! Definitely not any more than the Scholar is based solely around the Knowledge skill. I try to avoid the classes that match just one job description, for the most part.
|
|
To reply to your replies, after going back and relooking at the first book.
1) temptress - I see what you mean but I think the current one in Mongoose was a bit too narrow. I was thinking of kinda class with broader focus. I mean beyond the obvious of what they could do. I was more thinking a spelless bard, as far as performances go, with a bit of spy and noble tossed in. If that makes sense, not sure how to explain what I mean exactly.
2) Ok i guess a martial artist is pretty close to what I was talking about for a sword saint. Not exact but close enough.
3) true on both accounts, but what I was actually thinking about was a combination of Sherlock Holmes and Johnny Depps character from Sleepy Hollow. The scholar overlaps with it some yes but not completely and while it is less fantasy than most, keep in mine settings like Zobeck are also popular which are more modern.
4) Yeah the hunter is somewhat like what I had in mind, but the hunter to me at least is more of a spell-less ranger. What I meant was more of how the barbarian is now, with out the rage and instead a bit more skill heavy. Though that could be done with a archetype I suppose.
5) Magic stuff. Yeah I get you point, just there is a lot of magical or partial magic classes already and most 3pp focus on the more magical or supernatural classes. Your first book was very skill focused and i would personally like for the level of magic to be no hire than the first, is what I meant.
4) Yeah the hunter is somewhat like what I had in mind, but the hunter to me at least is more of a spell-less ranger. What I meant was more of how the barbarian is now, with out the rage and instead a bit more skill heavy. Though that could be done with a archetype I suppose.
Hmm. Between the Fighter and the Hunter, I'm having difficulty imagining what offensive capability a non-raging barbarian would have. What do you see a non-raging barbarian doing?
Hm. What do you think of the barbarian from the Conan RPG?
|
|
4) Yeah the hunter is somewhat like what I had in mind, but the hunter to me at least is more of a spell-less ranger. What I meant was more of how the barbarian is now, with out the rage and instead a bit more skill heavy. Though that could be done with a archetype I suppose.
Hmm. Between the Fighter and the Hunter, I'm having difficulty imagining what offensive capability a non-raging barbarian would have. What do you see a non-raging barbarian doing?
Hm. What do you think of the barbarian from the Conan RPG?
The one for the Conan RPG is closer to what I meant yes or was thinking. But to be fair I am rather fond of the Conan RPG so I liked most of the classes with in it.
Yeah I am not sure what to replace rage with either. But to be fair if I was good at that sort of thing I would likely be doing 3pp products myself or trying to work for a company. Since I suck at it, i just express myself to 3pp on what I would like and hope someone thinks of something to fit what I want. :)
On the Assassin, I was thinking about blending some of the Shadowdancer's abilities and Rogue talents to create a menu-choice driven version of the class, similar to how the Pathfinder Rogue, Barbarian, and Paladin are done. What would you think of that instead of, or an addition to, spellcasting?
That sounds perfect, if you ask me. I love menus.
And I have to second TOZ's request for a good shape-shifting base class sans spells.
|
|
I appreciate your confidence. In keeping with what I've done before, I like the idea of being able to build a mostly nonspellcasting Assassin who is not simply a rogue. But I do have some sympathy for the idea of an assassin as the antithesis of the paladin in style. Increasingly over-the-top coup-de-grace abilities don't really cut it for me...
I agree wholeheartedly here. Emphasis on stealth and style should be major for an assassin. Ideally, you should want a class that could be specialized as a deadly ninja, master sniper, cunning poisoner, master of booby-trapped items, or commando raider. So, yeah, there's a challenge, but, after Fistful of Denarii, I have faith in your ability to make it work.
and possibly a take on the Mongoose Games 3.5 Mercenary class. (A fighting man whose tactics were open-ended enough to mesh with anyone he was hired to work with. They did it by offering open feats slots that could be swapped out when working with or against opponents with different feats... I think you can do wonders with that!)
That sounds interesting, I'll have to check into it. My only qualm there is that if it's too good a writeup, I won't have much work to do. :)
It's a far cry from Pathfinder compatible, and could definitely benefit from the updating to add that Tripod twist to it. I really hope you choose to revise it. (For the record, the original is in the Power Classes line.)
I'm very dubious of the assassin base class; as you noted, it's been done before, even for Pathfinder (Freeport Companion).
Agreed...but, how often was it done WELL. I am hoping for someone to finally bring out the Assassin as it should have always been done. I hold that same hope for the Monk...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No Archetypes for the classes introduced in A Fistful of Denarii?
Well, I never say never. It's something to think about after I have the new classes fleshed out plus new feats to support the classes.
I'm so glad to see that there's gonna be more from you - looking forward to forking over my money to you.
Well, if you like giving me money, and you like space opera, you might also want to take a look at my Kickstarter for Conquest of the Universe. ;)
|
|
Steampunk Mad Scientist Inventor Guy!
One part of his abilities could be a mechanoid sidekick, which could use a system similar to the Summoner's eidolon evolution pool.
And some sort of death ray.
Yes! While Adamant's Artificer and 0one's Urbanist both do this archetype fairly well, they do it from more of a spellcaster variant standpoint, which, while workable, leaves room for other interpretations... especially in the post-Summoner and Alchemist world.
Another thing that has occured to me: some classic Indian classes, like the Yogi or the Fakir could be super fun. Basically, Monks that don't have the unarmed attack, but some other fun supernatural goodness. To my knowledge, that's a well that no other party has visited for Pathfinder, and precious few visited even in 3rd Edition.
Another concept I'd like? Raider... a rogue/barbarian mashup, sort of like the Corsair, but with rages and rage powers replacing some of the sneak attack stuff.
I'm WAYYYY too excited for this product... I can't wait!
4) Yeah the hunter is somewhat like what I had in mind, but the hunter to me at least is more of a spell-less ranger. What I meant was more of how the barbarian is now, with out the rage and instead a bit more skill heavy. Though that could be done with a archetype I suppose.
Hmm. Between the Fighter and the Hunter, I'm having difficulty imagining what offensive capability a non-raging barbarian would have. What do you see a non-raging barbarian doing?
Hm. What do you think of the barbarian from the Conan RPG?
I was thinking of a more savage class - something that perhaps wears no armour but gets natural armour, that perhaps boosts Str and Dex rather than Con, perhaps with strikes based on wild animals - Wolf strike, Tiger strike, which might trip or grapple.
Maybe even some supernatural powers - strength of a bear, eyes of a hawk speed of a puma (to quote an eighties cartoon that escapes me)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is also a concept that I came across in the series "the Storm light archive" by Brian Sanderson - the Shard wielder
These are warrior who summon a super natural blade with special powers (similar to brilliant energy- cutting through/ignoring armour). The blade can also cut stone etc.
They split into two sorts -
1) A sort of armour bonded sort who also have shard plate - full plate that gives bonuses to strength and dexterity, with short term boosts to huge bonuses (like catching a claw of a colossal creature, or jumping a chasm).
this armour is also immune to brilliant energy by-passing.
2) A sort of assassin type who can bind themselves to other surfaces - walls and ceilings, enabling running on walls, causing items to fall to them or on others.
You win a blade by defeating the existing wielder.
This might suit a prestige class
|
Yes! While Adamant's Artificer and 0one's Urbanist both do this archetype fairly well, they do it from more of a spellcaster variant standpoint, which, while workable, leaves room for other interpretations... especially in the post-Summoner and Alchemist world.!Steampunk Mad Scientist Inventor Guy!
One part of his abilities could be a mechanoid sidekick, which could use a system similar to the Summoner's eidolon evolution pool.
And some sort of death ray.
Exactly. I'd like to see this guy to be 100% functional in dead magic areas. Not a spellcaster who makes his magic look akin to technology, a guy who actually uses technology.
What about:
Puppetmaster a class that has a contruct(s) that he can add new powers to every level.
An Indiana Jones/Tomb Raider type.
A Bandit/Robinhood type.
|
Non-spellcasting shapeshifter class.
I would like to see this as well. 3/4 BAB, no magic, and a very heavy focus on shapeshifting. I'm imagining a druid without spellcasting or animal companion (and maybe even a lot of the nature-y things ripped out, too) but who has more powerful wild shapes. It would be nice if they could become larger forms than what a druid currently can. Also, if the nature-y aspect was ripped out, allow Giant Form / Form of the Dragon. Possibly can turn into swarms, aberrations, other creature types, too?
What about a separate class that has "shifter" points that they could spend as a swift action to shapeshift different parts of their body?
-The enemy has a reach weapon? Extend your arm.
-Someone is open for a charge? Grow a rhino horn.
-Low on HP? Grow armor plates.
You guys are great. I'm having some inklings how to enhance some of the concepts I'm working on, and if I can get it to work, the shapeshifter is a go.
Booyah. :)
Completely offtopic, RJ, but as a publisher, do you get away with writing off your gaming purchases tax-wise as "business research"? :)
I wish! But I believe under current rules, any business-related expense has to be 100% for business purposes with any other purpose merely incidental. As it is now, my publishing biz is not my fulltime job, so I report it as hobby income in order to avoid having to file quarterlies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see an adventuring Merchant class. The concept shows up in a couple of Old School Renaissance products, but not in a d20 source.
I got a question: Are you going to add new options to your already existing classes from A Fistful of Denarii? Like new Resplendant Powers for the Knight, new Scholar Secrets, etc.? Also, I'd like to see a few more options for the Hunter; for instance, everyone's familiar with the concept of the Hunter and his hunting dog. The ability to have an animal companion as an option would fit perfectly with the Hunter.
Anyway, I love FoD and I'm looking forward to your next class book. I'd love to see your take on the Assassin.
I'd like to see an adventuring Merchant class. The concept shows up in a couple of Old School Renaissance products, but not in a d20 source.
A d20 3.5 product, Player's Guide to Blackmoor, has a Merchant class.
Admittedly, it's not Pathfinder, but if you're anxious, there's one there that you can play. (DM allowing, of course)
I appreciate your confidence. In keeping with what I've done before, I like the idea of being able to build a mostly nonspellcasting Assassin who is not simply a rogue. But I do have some sympathy for the idea of an assassin as the antithesis of the paladin in style. Increasingly over-the-top coup-de-grace abilities don't really cut it for me...I agree wholeheartedly here. Emphasis on stealth and style should be major for an assassin. Ideally, you should want a class that could be specialized as a deadly ninja, master sniper, cunning poisoner, master of booby-trapped items, or commando raider. So, yeah, there's a challenge, but, after Fistful of Denarii, I have faith in your ability to make it work.
I agree with this, too. Personally, I don't like magic abilities being part of the Ninja class; Available as an option is good, but Ninja shouldn't necessitate supernatural abilities. Abilities that LOOK supernatural, yes, but they should be an option.
Incidentally, there is a Rite Publishing book out there called "Kusa of the Jade Oath" that does a fairly good take on the Ninja.
Originally, the Hunter did not receive hunter's bond because I thought of them as a lone interloper type. However, that rationale doesn't make sense to me anymore, and hunter's bond (as a ranger) is back. This allows either the faithful hunting dog or simply the ability to organize a posse/hunting party. This is reflected in the updated file (which you can download if you have previously purchased the product). What else would you like to see? As realized, the class is not really designed around customizability. Rather, it's focused around combining several powerful abilities in lieu of spellcasting as a Ranger does. I think feat choices helps distinguish, say, a spear-wielding boar hunter from an elven sniper, but if there's more you'd like to see, tell me about it.
I don't have anything planned as far as expanding the Denarii classes. In fact, I as much as possible I like to keep the books modular and usable separately. However, it's something I would definitely consider. A few Resplendent Powers or Scholar Secrets wouldn't take up a lot of word count. What kinds of things do you feel are missing?
I glanced at the Blackmoor Merchant, and man, that's everything I don't want in a Merchant class. It's a 3e snoozefest that brings little to the table in an adventuring context, barely more than an Expert.
I'm not planning on stepping on the toes of the Ninja or any third party options, but "ninja" is a pretty obvious assassin archetype that will be addressed.
I didn't know that FoD was being updated; I was using a print-out version I got from Lulu.com back in 2010. I withdraw my request.
Other good companions for a Hunter would be a hawk ( to locate prey - or enemies - at a distance ) or a horse ( for long journeys ); something like the Knight's Signature Mount feat, except not limited to a mount. ;)
I got the latest FoD yesterday. It's great. I can't wait for your next class book.
Incidentally, are you ever going to send an updated FoD to Lulu.com? The website says it's still the one from back in 2010.
I certainly intend to, but preparing documents for print is kind of a PITA. For one thing, I don't like the "slap a cover on it" approach that results in no Table of Contents and misnumbered pages. I should probably unlist it until I get around to that.
Paladins of the remaining 7 alignments.
20 level assassin with no spellcasting.
Sohei base class from 3.0 Oriental Adventures
Classes based on concepts from India as opposed to just Western and Oriental cultures.
There's a poster here on the message boards named Master Arminas. Hit this guy up and pay him handsomely. He does great work.
I'm working on a Lawful Evil Anti-Paladin class ( known as a Knight of
Tyranny for those who prefer CE Anti-Paladins). Admittedly, any Paladin of any of the remaining alignments will have a lot in common with the first two ( indeed, the Anti-Paladin from APG feels like an "opposite Paladin". This one has Chokehold as a free feat and a bonus Cruelty.
I've felt for a while that Lawful Evil would be a better pick for the alignment of an Anti-Paladin as Lawful feels more "Knightly" and a strong, organized evil seems better as an arch-enemy to the Paladin than a Chaotic. Anyhow, I'm working on a number of classes to put out when I finish them.
RJ Grady said he's working on an Assassin class and, if he follows the formula for A Fistful of Denarii, it probably won't have spellcasting. I hope it does more damage with a sneak attack than the Green Ronin one does; somehow, it just doesn't seem right that a class centered around killing does less than an equivelent rogue of the same level does with a
Sneak Attack.
RJ Grady, have you considered adding Devastating Strike and Improved Devastating Strike to the Hunter ( ala Ultimate Combat ) as available bonus feats? They fit right in with his persona.
Also, what about the ability to half the movement of an opponent hit with a Sneak Attack? If the first Sneak Attack doesn't kill them, make it easier for the second to!
Have you got Knacks of Nature, by SGG? A lot of these options would fit perfectly with a Hunter, who is much like a Ranger anyway. The ability to trade in, say, a feat for the ability to gain his Favored Enemies bonus to all humanoids makes for a great advantage.
To reply to your replies, after going back and relooking at the first book.
1) temptress - I see what you mean but I think the current one in Mongoose was a bit too narrow. I was thinking of kinda class with broader focus. I mean beyond the obvious of what they could do. I was more thinking a spelless bard, as far as performances go, with a bit of spy and noble tossed in. If that makes sense, not sure how to explain what I mean exactly.
2) Ok i guess a martial artist is pretty close to what I was talking about for a sword saint. Not exact but close enough.
Do you mean a Kensai? I think that, whatever happens concerning the Kensai as a base class, it should also be available as a Prestige Class. Indeed, the first Kensai was originally a Samurai, and became a Kensai . . .