Which Class Is Missing From 3.5?

[Scorponok]

Do you think 3.5 has enough classes, i.e. all the bases are covered, or is there a class you think is missing from the game?

[DeTess]

Are you talking about the whole of 3.5 (all first-party books), or only the PHB?

Edit: in case of the former, yes, all bases have been covered, given that there are well over a 100 base classes and PRC's. In case of the latter, I'd say there's an arcane magic/fighter archetype missing, as well as an arcane magic/rogue archetype. Both of these are introduced in PHB II.

[Celestia]

Where's the Waldo class?

[Gildedragon]

A decent skill-based caster
Theurging various subsystems like Soulbinding, Incarnum, ToB, Invocation Users...
Ranged Martial Initiator

[Karl Aegis]

If you took all the classes that were basically: "You're a ninja, Hagrid!" "No, you're not, Hagrid." "I know, Hagrid." and merged them into a single class you could probably get something interesting.

[Ellrin]

There could have been a wider variety of ToB-based classes--ranged, gish-in-a-can, skilled, berserker, etc.

I feel like there should have been a class more focused on skills. Something sort of aling the lines of the Truenamer, but without being a frigging Truenamer. I started work a long time ago on homebrew for a mostly mundane class that really relied on the skills system for its entire schtick in and out of combat. It would have had different options based on all the different skills, and could focus more and more on specific skills to increase its abilities, but I didn't get very far because there are so many skills.

[DeAnno]

I agree Physical Ranged Initiator definitely stands out as a neglected niche. You can kind of fake it with Scout and a lot of various BS, or using some sort of gish with Whirling Blade, or with Bloodstorm Blade, but none of those is quite the same.

[GilesTheCleric]

Do you mean just base classes, or are you including prestige classes?

[Zanos]

A decent skill-based caster
As a mechanical niche, maybe. As a fluff niche, wizards and archivists fill that role fairly well.

Truenamer really isn't as bad as people make it out to be either, it just assumes that you're actually using sources to boost your truenaming check beyond ranks and intelligence. So Skill Focus, Silver Tongue amulets, and such.

[Celestia]

As a mechanical niche, maybe. As a fluff niche, wizards and archivists fill that role fairly well.

Truenamer really isn't as bad as people make it out to be either, it just assumes that you're actually using sources to boost your truenaming check beyond ranks and intelligence. So Skill Focus, Silver Tongue amulets, and such.
Yes it is. Boosting your Truespeak check into the stratosphere helps with the Law of Resistance, but it does nothing against the much worse Law of Sequence. Also, one should not be forced to spend a significant portion of one's build resources just so to be able to use one's class features competently. That's simply terrible design.

[Zanos]

Yes it is. Boosting your Truespeak check into the stratosphere helps with the Law of Resistance, but it does nothing against the much worse Law of Sequence. Also, one should not be forced to spend a significant portion of one's build resources just so to be able to use one's class features competently. That's simply terrible design.
Like how melee and ranged characters don't spend money on magic weapons and select feats to use them better, and how wizards don't spend money on spells and select feats to make their spells stronger? I suppose you could argue that it's bad design that a barbarian or fighter has to spend money on a flight item to hit some baddies with their sticks at all, but truenamer isn't any worse than that.

[Inevitability]

I've always liked the idea of a 'terraformer' class, or something similar, which fights by altering the environment rather than directly attacking foes. The out-of-combat potential is similarly huge.

Fluff its powers as a spell-less variant of druid magic or something.

[rel]

A divine wizard.

That is:
- low hit dice
- half BAB.
- Int based or good skill progression.
- bookish set of skills
- uses a spell book and learns spells like a wizard
- draws spells from one or more divine spell lists. probably with a restriction on self only spells to really make the character feel like a bookish back line type rather than CoDzilla.
- a few magic themed class features like spellcasting bonus feats.

Importantly, the class would have no spontaneous healing, no turn undead, no domains, no alignment restrictions, none of the cleric stuff.

It should be very clearly a character that uses knowledge and understanding of the world rather than faith to tap divine power.

Because currently the archetypal classes are Connan, Grey Mouser, Elric and Van Hellsing. One of these things is not like the others.

[Lorddenorstrus]

A divine wizard.

That is:
- low hit dice
- half BAB.
- Int based or good skill progression.
- bookish set of skills
- uses a spell book and learns spells like a wizard
- draws spells from one or more divine spell lists. probably with a restriction on self only spells to really make the character feel like a bookish back line type rather than CoDzilla.
- a few magic themed class features like spellcasting bonus feats.

Importantly, the class would have no spontaneous healing, no turn undead, no domains, no alignment restrictions, none of the cleric stuff.

It should be very clearly a character that uses knowledge and understanding of the world rather than faith to tap divine power.

Because currently the archetypal classes are Connan, Grey Mouser, Elric and Van Hellsing. One of these things is not like the others.

So.. the archivist.

[Remuko]

Mystic Theurge as a base class.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Yes it is. Boosting your Truespeak check into the stratosphere helps with the Law of Resistance, but it does nothing against the much worse Law of Sequence. Also, one should not be forced to spend a significant portion of one's build resources just so to be able to use one's class features competently. That's simply terrible design.

The Law of Sequence can be bypassed by using the heighten rule.

Honestly I just wish we had truenamer, but better. I wish it did not require solid mastery to function at all; I wish it's utterances scaled at all; I wish it's editing were not godawful so that a bunch of utterances were good due to them not working properly. I wanted a full system for the concept of true naming and got it; I wanted skill based casting and got it. The problem is that "it" is just a mess. I want a truenamer that is not a mess.

[rel]

So.. the archivist.

archivist is actually most of the way there. It just needs some refluffing so the class features use the word 'darkness' less, a restriction on self buffing and a ticket to core where it can replace the cleric.

[Scorponok]

...sorry for the lack of clarity in the op, but I meant all of 3.5, including prestige classes.

[Esprit15]

archivist is actually most of the way there. It just needs some refluffing so the class features use the word 'darkness' less, a restriction on self buffing and a ticket to core where it can replace the cleric.

So... change the word dark to obscure. As for buffs, I don't see the issue with buffing one's self over the party. If you want to out-barbarian the barbarian, rather than make the barbarian more barbarian than most barbarians, go be a barbarian, you barbarian.

Barbarian.

[Celestia]

Like how melee and ranged characters don't spend money on magic weapons and select feats to use them better, and how wizards don't spend money on spells and select feats to make their spells stronger? I suppose you could argue that it's bad design that a barbarian or fighter has to spend money on a flight item to hit some baddies with their sticks at all, but truenamer isn't any worse than that.
A wizard with no magic items who spends all feats on Toughness is still a massive, potentially game breaking power. The rest is just gravy.

And the incredible reliance on magic items is exactly one of the biggest gripes so many people have with martials. They need all this stuff just to be mediocre. That's not a good thing.

I also notice that you completely ignored my comment about the Law of Sequence. Couldn't even come up with a flimsy excuse for that one, huh? I guess I'll take that as a forfeit.

[Buufreak]

Are you talking about the whole of 3.5 (all first-party books), or only the PHB?

Edit: in case of the former, yes, all bases have been covered, given that there are well over a 100 base classes and PRC's. In case of the latter, I'd say there's an arcane magic/fighter archetype missing, as well as an arcane magic/rogue archetype. Both of these are introduced in PHB II.

No, good sir. A quick check of a certain website will yield literal thousands of classes, base or otherwise.

[Zanos]

A wizard with no magic items who spends all feats on Toughness is still a massive, potentially game breaking power. The rest is just gravy.
Spells aren't magic items, and a wizard who isn't built with feats to get more spells per level has to buy them and is worse than a sorcerer.


And the incredible reliance on magic items is exactly one of the biggest gripes so many people have with martials. They need all this stuff just to be mediocre. That's not a good thing.
Okay. That doesn't put Truenamer down in some special hole where it sucks more than those classes because it's unplayably broken, which is just wrong. Fighter can't do damage without magic sword, truenamer can't do magic without magic amulet. Makes sense to me.


I also notice that you completely ignored my comment about the Law of Sequence. Couldn't even come up with a flimsy excuse for that one, huh? I guess I'll take that as a forfeit.
Because I agree with it. The LoS sucks. It still doesn't render the class nonfunctional.

[GilesTheCleric]

No, good sir. A quick check of a certain website will yield literal thousands of classes, base or otherwise.

Or one could skip the site-that-shall-not-be-named and look at WotC's official (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/prc) lists (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/class).

[Deadline]

I think the only thing missing is a "Divine Rogue". There have been several attempts at it in PrC form, but I'd far rather see something like a divine beguiler, or use the divine version of Arcane Trickster.

[ryu]

Spells aren't magic items, and a wizard who isn't build with feats to get more spells per level has to buy them and is worse than a sorcerer.


No. That's categorically untrue. Wizard still gets faster spell progression, a larger number of higher level slots, the ability to have comparable to even more total slots with things like specializing or elven generalizing or dormaining, and even taking away literally all ability to get bonus free spells the ability to buy spells from the greatest list in the game is still superior to sorcerers even if you also take away ALL of those other things. And I can still keep going.

[Esprit15]

I think the only thing missing is a "Divine Rogue". There have been several attempts at it in PrC form, but I'd far rather see something like a divine beguiler, or use the divine version of Arcane Trickster.

Isn't there that one undead hunting rogue PrC that needs cleric casting to enter, and gives it progression?

[Zanos]

No. That's categorically untrue. Wizard still gets faster spell progression, a larger number of higher level slots, the ability to have comparable to even more total slots with things like specializing or elven generalizing or dormaining, and even taking away literally all ability to get bonus free spells the ability to buy spells from the greatest list in the game is still superior to sorcerers even if you also take away ALL of those other things. And I can still keep going.
No. That's true. A wizard with no extra spells known has a decent number of 1st level spells and 4 spells of each level after that. I guess at 20 they could have up to 8 9th level spells. A wizard with no additional spells scribed is just worse than a sorcerer for the vast majority of it's career. Getting higher level spells 1 level earlier and at most one extra spell known is not worth not casting spontaneously. If you actually believe that a wizard with it's base allotment of spells granted by it's class is better than a sorcerer then there's way too much kool-aid in your system for me to do anything about.

Seriously hoping I don't summon the Ultimate Sorcerer King or whatever, though.

[GilesTheCleric]

Isn't there that one undead hunting rogue PrC that needs cleric casting to enter, and gives it progression?

So far I have these things as enabling Cleric/Rogue: Sacred Outlaw Drag357 86, Daggerspell Shaper CAd 36, Mythic Exemplar: Dardallion CC 86, Sanctified One (Olidammara) CC 99, Black Flame Zealot CD 22, Master of Masks CS 53, Eye of Lolth DotU 80, Strifeleader FaP 204, Relic Hunter Drag353 88, Scar Enforcer RoD 131, Arcane Trickster DMG 177, Arvoreen’s Keeper Drag321 76, Darkmask LoD 34

[ryu]

No. That's true. A wizard with no extra spells known has a decent number of 1st level spells and 4 spells of each level after that. I guess at 20 they could have up to 8 9th level spells. A wizard with no additional spells scribed is just worse than a sorcerer for the vast majority of it's career. Getting higher level spells 1 level earlier and at most one extra spell known is not worth not casting spontaneously. If you actually believe that a wizard with it's base allotment of spells granted by it's class is better than a sorcerer then there's way too much kool-aid in your system for me to do anything about.

Seriously hoping I don't summon the Ultimate Sorcerer King or whatever, though.

We have ways of casting spontaneously. In fact with us not allowed to use build resources on free spells it becomes much more likely to be in play. For that other thing eh what do we care? He'd show up get ignored, then get banned again. It's slightly annoying but hardly of consequence.

[Deadline]

Isn't there that one undead hunting rogue PrC that needs cleric casting to enter, and gives it progression?

Don't think so. You may be thinking of skullclan hunter? It doesn't advance cleric casting. There's also Shadowbane Stalker to add to Giles' list. But the one that cleaves closely to what I'd look for in the idea is the divine version of the Arcane Trickster (note: NOT the Divine Prankster).

[Gildedragon]

also missing is a wisdom based arcane caster; I feel there was a misstep in making WuJen Int instead of Wis...

[NomGarret]

If we opt not to count all the "like X but good," which is to say ones where the concept is covered but need class or subsystem fixes, I can't think of any gaps.

[Komatik]

Vampire

Full BAB Druid shell, full spont casting from Death Master's list, Wildshape forms more vampire-appropriate with free use at night but can't be done during the day, usual thematic (Sp)/(Su) assortment.

[Cosi]

All the martial classes need to be better, as do all the classes with a resource management system that isn't psionics or spells. Also, most classes need

For actual new classes, I could see specialist casters for Conjuration, Transmutation, Divination, and Abjuration all being good, as well as some kind of Beastmaster class.


Like how melee and ranged characters don't spend money on magic weapons and select feats to use them better, and how wizards don't spend money on spells and select feats to make their spells stronger? I suppose you could argue that it's bad design that a barbarian or fighter has to spend money on a flight item to hit some baddies with their sticks at all, but truenamer isn't any worse than that.

Yes it is. Despite people's assertions to the contrary, most of the Truenamer's utterances have exactly the saving throw a comparable spell would have. So, yes, their buffs and single target DoTs don't have a save, but their debuffs do. That save is on top of the check to make the ability go at all.


Mystic Theurge as a base class.

What do you envision that as doing? The Mystic Theurge is an entirely mechanical construct, with no real flavor. What would you get out of a Mystic Theurge base class that you don't already get from the standard Mystic Theurge? An extra level of both kinds of casting?


Okay. That doesn't put Truenamer down in some special hole where it sucks more than those classes because it's unplayably broken, which is just wrong. Fighter can't do damage without magic sword, truenamer can't do magic without magic amulet. Makes sense to me.

Point of fact, no the Fighter doesn't. The Fighter requires magic weapons to be effective. The Truenamer requires magic amulets to do anything at all. A 20th level Truenamer cannot effect a Balor with Evolving Mind utterances if he is forced to get by on just skill ranks and a 24 INT (18 + 2 Race + 4 Level). The Fighter still has a better than 50% chance to hit the Balor with only BAB and 24 STR (though to be fair, he will have trouble with DR).


No. That's true. A wizard with no extra spells known has a decent number of 1st level spells and 4 spells of each level after that. I guess at 20 they could have up to 8 9th level spells. A wizard with no additional spells scribed is just worse than a sorcerer for the vast majority of it's career. Getting higher level spells 1 level earlier and at most one extra spell known is not worth not casting spontaneously. If you actually believe that a wizard with it's base allotment of spells granted by it's class is better than a sorcerer then there's way too much kool-aid in your system for me to do anything about.

I gotta disagree. Half the time, the Wizard is a spell level ahead. I have a very hard time seeing the Sorcerer overcome that at odd levels, and at even levels the Wizard gets four times as many spells known of his highest level. And this is without considering things that make the Sorcerer cry like downtime spells or Focused Specialist.

Of course, this is sort of moot, because the real level of power both characters have is "as much as they ask for", and you can certainly impose restrictions such that one or the other is a clear favorite below that level.

[Gildedragon]

Mystic Theurge as a base class.
Sha'ir says "Hi"

[Inevitability]

Vampire

Full BAB Druid shell, full spont casting from Death Master's list, Wildshape forms more vampire-appropriate with free use at night but can't be done during the day, usual thematic (Sp)/(Su) assortment.

4e tried to make a vampire class. It didn't go well.

[Buufreak]

Or one could skip the site-that-shall-not-be-named and look at WotC's official (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/prc) lists (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/class).

... I mean, yea, those exist, But why would anyone want to?

As for the actual OP, I feel like these isn't a very solid mundane healer type. Yea, Crusader kinda does it, but I feel like it isn't nearly as well handled, because mundanes can't have nice things. I'm gonna go ahead and use some words that usually get me shunned, but I did like how 4e handled it, where there was a a punnet square kind of situation to approach classes. It crossed martial, arcane, divine, primal, and psionic with dps, healer, tank, and control. This produced a class that could use any power source to take on any role.

[Shark Uppercut]

The 'ranged initiator' spot is fixed with Pathfinder's Path of War, there are the ranged-only discliplines Solar Wind and Tempest Gale.
What neither 3.5 nor PF have, is a mounted combat initiator. The closest is the PF Cavalier or a 3.X Paladin built for mounted combat, but that's not good enough. I want mounted "Gladiators" or "Generals" or any kind of fighting men that aren't holy and have maneuvers.

[Scorponok]

I'm gonna go ahead and use some words that usually get me shunned, but I did like how 4e handled it,

OMG, that deserves a full shunning, Amish style! :smallwink:


For other classes, what about a true Diplomancer type, where he could get opponents to run away, drop their weapon, or cooperate based on your diplomacy skill. I know you can build a diplomancer via cheese, but I don't recall ever seeing an actual class built around that.

[Nando]

A time-related base class? There are spells and feats and probably several PRCs, but no base class that I'm aware of.

[GilesTheCleric]

... I mean, yea, those exist, But why would anyone want to?

I won't say that WotC seriously missed the mark in not offering a comprehensive digital tool similar to 4e, but they completely missed the mark. I think I remember reading somewhere that they had actually intended to make one, but surprise, it fell through. The worst part is the gall that they have to go after folks who want a reasonable way to search through the 150+ books that they published with terrible indices, conflicting RAW, barely any errata, and unclear precedence rules. It's almost as if they cared more about their bottom line than treating their customers right. That's not even to mention that they no longer support an official community where folks can try to talk to them in a long-format method to tell them about all these problems. It's as if they feel like they shouldn't be responsible.

[Deophaun]

Spells aren't magic items, and a wizard who isn't built with feats to get more spells per level has to buy them and is worse than a sorcerer.
...

...

...

So?

Is the point that the Truenamer is also worse than the Sorcerer, so that makes it the same as a Wizard without gear or feats? Because I don't think it works that way.

[Kaje]

Worse than a sorcerer is still quite capable. A truenamer is not.

[Remuko]

What do you envision that as doing? The Mystic Theurge is an entirely mechanical construct, with no real flavor. What would you get out of a Mystic Theurge base class that you don't already get from the standard Mystic Theurge? An extra level of both kinds of casting?

Casting both arcane and divine spells right at level 1 and progressing them at the same rate, maybe the same method and possibly the same casting stat. Maybe they wouldn't have wizard progression or something, idk what to do to balance it but I'd want it to be playable from level 1 and have access to most arcane and divine magic simultaneously, probably without separate spell slots for each.

Classes are mostly mechanical things, there's tons of ways to fluff it, I just want casting as a lvl 1 character with arcane and divine spells.

[J-H]

Alchemist, and indeed anything built around throwing that is not a halfling or Bruce Banner.
Archers at least have options to try.

[Esprit15]

Casting both arcane and divine spells right at level 1 and progressing them at the same rate, maybe the same method and possibly the same casting stat. Maybe they wouldn't have wizard progression or something, idk what to do to balance it but I'd want it to be playable from level 1 and have access to most arcane and divine magic simultaneously, probably without separate spell slots for each.

Classes are mostly mechanical things, there's tons of ways to fluff it, I just want casting as a lvl 1 character with arcane and divine spells.

But the distinction between Arcane and Divine spells is already just a mechanical thing. It would negate the need for the PrC, and would most likely outshine the pure wizards and clerics, unless you nerfed it to the point of being crap.

[Celestia]

But the distinction between Arcane and Divine spells is already just a mechanical thing. It would negate the need for the PrC, and would most likely outshine the pure wizards and clerics, unless you nerfed it to the point of being crap.
Slow the progression and cut out 9ths. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21575730&postcount=104) At least, that's how I did it.

[Thurbane]

Right off the top of my head:

Ranged Martial Adept
Combat Tinkerer (full BAB skillmonkey with focus on modifying weapons, mechanical devices etc.)
Dragon Warrior (something like Dragon Shaman but will full BAB, heavy armor, MWP, and better abilities)
Non-caster Healer/Buffer that is actually good (like a better version Marshal or Dragon Shaman, or a more focused Crusader - the Crusader is good, but I'm thinking with a stronger focus on buffing allies)
Undead Hunter PrC that doesn't require casting or turn undead to enter

[Cosi]

Casting both arcane and divine spells right at level 1 and progressing them at the same rate, maybe the same method and possibly the same casting stat. Maybe they wouldn't have wizard progression or something, idk what to do to balance it but I'd want it to be playable from level 1 and have access to most arcane and divine magic simultaneously, probably without separate spell slots for each.

Isn't that basically just an Archivist that uses shenanigans to get Wizard-ish spells? Also, it seems like you're basically just taking the two most versatile classes and smashing the together to get something with a niche that is entirely defined by a mechanical quirk of the game.

[rel]

Here is a tough one that the game lacks:

Completely mundane fighter like and rogue like classes that can match the tier 1 casters in power and effectiveness.

[ryu]

Here is a tough one that the game lacks:

Completely mundane fighter like and rogue like classes that can match the tier 1 casters in power and effectiveness.

Now now, don't be bringing in logical impossibility. Next thing we know you'll be asking for plasma at absolute zero.

[Quertus]

An "Ascendent" prestige class, with a capstone of divinity.

A class that actually bends reality, so that people will stop claiming that the wizard does so.

A class based entirely on shape shifting, starting from level 1.

A class that only deals with the undead (creating, controlling, healing, modifying, etc), nothing else, and isn't divine. Bonus points if it's mundane.

Chronomancer.

A class based off mutations.

[Thurbane]

An "Ascendent" prestige class, with a capstone of divinity.

Monk, Perfect Self. :smalltongue:


A class based entirely on shape shifting, starting from level 1.

Hear hear! This is something I always wanted to see.


A class that only deals with the undead (creating, controlling, healing, modifying, etc), nothing else, and isn't divine. Bonus points if it's mundane.

Not mundane but...Dread Necromancer?

[rel]

A class based entirely on shape shifting, starting from level 1.


shapeshifter druid ACF from PHBII might be a good place to start when creating such a class.

[Hackulator]

We have ways of casting spontaneously. In fact with us not allowed to use build resources on free spells it becomes much more likely to be in play. For that other thing eh what do we care? He'd show up get ignored, then get banned again. It's slightly annoying but hardly of consequence.

I just had to point out how insane the use of the first person voice is here.

[ryu]

I just had to point out how insane the use of the first person voice is here.

In character voice. You're not very familiar with persona creation are you?

[Melcar]

I think there is a lack of skill based classes.

Classes where you are HUMINT agent, or specialty infiltrator/ cat burglar (not focused on combat, but skills like diplomacy, bluff, disguise, gather information). Just any FBI/CIA agent type, where the class features are not combat orientated.

I know these classes can be to a large extend done by rogue/exemplar/spymaster combinations, but I still feel something is missing in this department.

[Wonton]

Was there ever really a dedicated archer class? For something that's so prevalent in fantasy, it was weirdly relegated to a side-branch of Ranger, which had to come bundled with spellcasting, a bond with nature, an animal companion... all unnecessary baggage, considering many other martial archetypes (Barbarian, Rogue, Monk) got their own classes.

Also, when it comes to the selection of PHB classes, 5e's decision to include the Warlock is really good IMO. The "pact magic" is a really well-known part of fantasy, more well-known than sorcerer's "bloodline magic", arguably.

[Tiri]

An "Ascendent" prestige class, with a capstone of divinity.

Well, there is the Dragon Ascendant PrC in Draconomicon. It does indeed have a capstone of divinity, although it is only available to epic-level true dragons. The Epic Destiny feat includes Demigod as an option, which turns you into a demigod at level 30.


A class that actually bends reality, so that people will stop claiming that the wizard does so.

With spells like Wish, though, a wizard can actually bend reality. The psionic version of Wish is even called Reality Revision.


A class that only deals with the undead (creating, controlling, healing, modifying, etc), nothing else, and isn't divine. Bonus points if it's mundane.

Someone else has already said this, but an example of such a class is the Dread Necromancer.

[Roderick_BR]

Yes it is. Boosting your Truespeak check into the stratosphere helps with the Law of Resistance, but it does nothing against the much worse Law of Sequence. Also, one should not be forced to spend a significant portion of one's build resources just so to be able to use one's class features competently. That's simply terrible design.

Like fighters?

:elan: Ti-dun-dish!
:roy: Hey!

[Luccan]

A class based entirely on shape shifting, starting from level 1.


Agreed. The main issue is you run into the general shape shifting problems that D&D always has, where it either overshadows some character(s) entirely or you get relegated to scout & spy (which isn't bad, but won't fit as wide a game variety).



A class that only deals with the undead (creating, controlling, healing, modifying, etc), nothing else, and isn't divine. Bonus points if it's mundane.


How would you do that with a mundane, though? I feel like at best you're looking at a class that would need a lot of downtime and planning (the only example I can think of in fiction is Frankenstein)

[jdizzlean]

Right off the top of my head:

[LIST] Ranged Martial Adept
Combat Tinkerer (full BAB skillmonkey with focus on modifying weapons, mechanical devices etc.)



Was there ever really a dedicated archer class? For something that's so prevalent in fantasy, it was weirdly relegated to a side-branch of Ranger, which had to come bundled with spellcasting, a bond with nature, an animal companion... all unnecessary baggage, considering many other martial archetypes (Barbarian, Rogue, Monk) got their own classes.



a ranged combat class that doesn't require a rank in Ranger.

a ranged combat class that can actually be USEFUL on a straight lvl 20 build. You shouldn't have to have a character progression that is based off a base class/prestige class1/prestige class 2/base class 2/prestige class 3/base 3/prestige 4 etc. having more then 2 classes of any kind is just stupid.

pretty much an ARCHER based class w/o all the extra crap thrown on it because you have to make up for some kind of deficiency that otherwise is very limiting because no thought was put into the class.

[Lorddenorstrus]

a ranged combat class that doesn't require a rank in Ranger.

a ranged combat class that can actually be USEFUL on a straight lvl 20 build. You shouldn't have to have a character progression that is based off a base class/prestige class1/prestige class 2/base class 2/prestige class 3/base 3/prestige 4 etc. having more then 2 classes of any kind is just stupid.

pretty much an ARCHER based class w/o all the extra crap thrown on it because you have to make up for some kind of deficiency that otherwise is very limiting because no thought was put into the class.

Uuh one of the major points to 3.5 was the huge amount of classes so you can create wonky builds. If your goal is to have 1-2 classes total in your build try 5E where that's the only way to do it and everything is balanced around wet noodle wielding heros.

[Thurbane]

Uuh one of the major points to 3.5 was the huge amount of classes so you can create wonky builds. If your goal is to have 1-2 classes total in your build try 5E where that's the only way to do it and everything is balanced around wet noodle wielding heros.

Yikes: we're possibly moving to 5E, that assessment doesn't fill me with confidence. :smalleek: This was the impression I got from my brief dip into 4E (which I really disliked).

I still think it's a fair request to have a base class that is a viable level 20 option. ToB would have been the prefect opportunity to do this.

Dips to custom build characters IS a strength of 3E, but many people just want an "out of the box" option where they don't have to research handbooks and dumpster dive 12 different sources to make a character fulfill the concept they want.

[ryu]

Yikes: we're possibly moving to 5E, that assessment doesn't fill me with confidence. :smalleek: This was the impression I got from my brief dip into 4E (which I really disliked).

I still think it's a fair request to have a base class that is a viable level 20 option. ToB would have been the prefect opportunity to do this.

Dips to custom build characters IS a strength of 3E, but many people just want an "out of the box" option where they don't have to research handbooks and dumpster dive 12 different sources to make a character fulfill the concept they want.

I mean you can play a druid who turns into a bear, has a bear companion, and summons bears regularly for most of the contribution with the occasional utility and healing and still do well in any party. Likely even be the most effective person in the party if it's not a high tier game. Even in a game of tier one players and tier one enemies that's still useful. Likely least powerful in party, but I can still work with that easily.

[jdizzlean]

Yikes: we're possibly moving to 5E, that assessment doesn't fill me with confidence. :smalleek: This was the impression I got from my brief dip into 4E (which I really disliked).

I still think it's a fair request to have a base class that is a viable level 20 option. ToB would have been the prefect opportunity to do this.

Dips to custom build characters IS a strength of 3E, but many people just want an "out of the box" option where they don't have to research handbooks and dumpster dive 12 different sources to make a character fulfill the concept they want.

i like the versatility personally, but it's also a curse when you have to apply 5+ classes to a build to get it to do what you want.

having to apply them in the first place in order to be "competitive" late game in the first place is the problem w/ the broken system. I won't even get into the argument on that and conflicting rule sets.

Or the standard response of druid 20/wiz 20 breaks the game and that's core. etc.

[ryu]

i like the versatility personally, but it's also a curse when you have to apply 5+ classes to a build to get it to do what you want.

having to apply them in the first place in order to be "competitive" late game in the first place is the problem w/ the broken system. I won't even get into the argument on that and conflicting rule sets.

Or the standard response of druid 20/wiz 20 breaks the game and that's core. etc.

You don't even have to play the druid to potential. As previously stated you can contribute almost entirely in bears and still have a place in a tier one party. I've actually had a teammate like that. He was handy.

[GilesTheCleric]

Yikes: we're possibly moving to 5E, that assessment doesn't fill me with confidence. :smalleek: This was the impression I got from my brief dip into 4E (which I really disliked).

I still think it's a fair request to have a base class that is a viable level 20 option. ToB would have been the prefect opportunity to do this.

Dips to custom build characters IS a strength of 3E, but many people just want an "out of the box" option where they don't have to research handbooks and dumpster dive 12 different sources to make a character fulfill the concept they want.

5e is more of a PF/ 2e approach of modifying base classes rather than adding in a ton of multiclassing complexity. The design goals in that respect are a bit self-conflicting: multiclassing casting classes doesn't make you start all over at level 1 casting -- it scales more based on your character level. In contrast, feats/ ASIs are directly tied to single-classing. If you don't hit the next ASI in your class and instead choose to multiclass, then you may never get to pick a feat. So on one hand it rewards multiclassing, and on another penalises it.

It sounds to me like a lot of optimisers over on the 5e forum still like to take dips just like we do, though of course in different classes. Paladin and Warlock sound popular.

I think you should give it a try before making a decision about it. It's such a different system to 3e in many ways that I don't think it's really fair to compare them.

[Luccan]

5e is more of a PF/ 2e approach of modifying base classes rather than adding in a ton of multiclassing complexity. The design goals in that respect are a bit self-conflicting: multiclassing casting classes doesn't make you start all over at level 1 casting -- it scales more based on your character level. In contrast, feats/ ASIs are directly tied to single-classing. If you don't hit the next ASI in your class and instead choose to multiclass, then you may never get to pick a feat. So on one hand it rewards multiclassing, and on another penalises it.

It sounds to me like a lot of optimisers over on the 5e forum still like to take dips just like we do, though of course in different classes. Paladin and Warlock sound popular.

I think you should give it a try before making a decision about it. It's such a different system to 3e in many ways that I don't think it's really fair to compare them.

Haven't been playing 5e long, but looking at the rules and discussions, the most popular choice is to dip 2-4 levels in any class. Front loading of noncasting abilities is part of every class, so you might lost out on an ASI, but you get abilities which are probably worth more to your build than a feat (and of course if you need feats early, play Variant Human). Actually, if you were playing a nonfeat (feats are an optional system in 5e, as is multicassing), multiclassing game, it would probably be more worth it in almost every respect to multiclass in favor of any single ASI.

[Thurbane]

I still think it's a fair request to have a base class that is a viable level 20 option. ToB would have been the prefect opportunity to do this.

Dips to custom build characters IS a strength of 3E, but many people just want an "out of the box" option where they don't have to research handbooks and dumpster dive 12 different sources to make a character fulfill the concept they want.

Maybe not exactly clear in my post, but I meant it would have been nice to have a viable Archery type character that could be straight classed 20 out of the box.

Warlock 20 kind of does this, but some people want an actual archer, not a zappy zappy analogue.

I am aware that there are plenty of classes that are completely playable (and even OP) as straight classed 20. :smallwink:

[Elderand]

5e is more of a PF/ 2e approach of modifying base classes rather than adding in a ton of multiclassing complexity. The design goals in that respect are a bit self-conflicting: multiclassing casting classes doesn't make you start all over at level 1 casting -- it scales more based on your character level. In contrast, feats/ ASIs are directly tied to single-classing. If you don't hit the next ASI in your class and instead choose to multiclass, then you may never get to pick a feat. So on one hand it rewards multiclassing, and on another penalises it.

It sounds to me like a lot of optimisers over on the 5e forum still like to take dips just like we do, though of course in different classes. Paladin and Warlock sound popular.

I think you should give it a try before making a decision about it. It's such a different system to 3e in many ways that I don't think it's really fair to compare them.

The difference is that in 3.5, you can have 4 or 5 dips in different (prestige) classes. In 5e you'll rarely see a build with more than single dip often 2 level long.

[Lans]

Alchemist, and indeed anything built around throwing that is not a halfling or Bruce Banner.
Archers at least have options to try.

You can do boomerangs.


Was there ever really a dedicated archer class? For something that's so prevalent in fantasy,.

Targeteer fighter varient from drag 310




How would you do that with a mundane, though? I feel like at best you're looking at a class that would need a lot of downtime and planning (the only example I can think of in fiction is Frankenstein)

Didn't magic the gathering do a whole host of these in their line of blue zombies?

[Luccan]

Didn't magic the gathering do a whole host of these in their line of blue zombies?

No idea, I don't play Magic. Also, is there a Magic RPG I didn't know about? Because I don't know how well the card game rules would transfer over

[Quertus]

Hear hear! This is something I always wanted to see.

Not mundane but...Dread Necromancer?


Well, there is the Dragon Ascendant PrC in Draconomicon. It does indeed have a capstone of divinity, although it is only available to epic-level true dragons. The Epic Destiny feat includes Demigod as an option, which turns you into a demigod at level 30.

With spells like Wish, though, a wizard can actually bend reality. The psionic version of Wish is even called Reality Revision.

Someone else has already said this, but an example of such a class is the Dread Necromancer.


Agreed. The main issue is you run into the general shape shifting problems that D&D always has, where it either overshadows some character(s) entirely or you get relegated to scout & spy (which isn't bad, but won't fit as wide a game variety).

How would you do that with a mundane, though? I feel like at best you're looking at a class that would need a lot of downtime and planning (the only example I can think of in fiction is Frankenstein)

Dread Necromancer: the class gets DR, vampiric touch... just a whole lot of stuff that isn't undead minions. I just want a focused class. But I like DN. :smallwink:

Undead for muggles: Frankenstein is usually considered a construct, but, yeah, that kind of thing. I just stitch these bodies together, apply this secret blend of herbs and spices, and voila! Undead! We all want muggles to have nice things, and undead are the nicest thing. :smallcool:

Dragon Ascendant: well, I suppose that technically meets my specifications. :smalltongue:

Reality Bender: ok, I suppose Wish might almost qualify; I want a class based around this, from level 1. "For the next minute, skeletons within 30' of me lose their DR", "This flask of oil can burn a Fire Elemental", "actually, you memorized a different spell this morning", for example.

Shape Changer: hmmm... I want shape shifting to be powerful, I just want a pure fighter to be even more powerful. So, sure, by level 20, I'm turning into fully functional dragons, beholder, gnats, towers, whatever, but what's that compared to Improved Crit Keen Vorpal Great Cleave free 5' step between attacks?

[khadgar567]

Dancer. Cuz i dont know how nobles entertain them self in that wreched universe.
maid for plot based reasons and give bard a way to shut up and be useful at same time

[jdizzlean]

Maybe not exactly clear in my post, but I meant it would have been nice to have a viable Archery type character that could be straight classed 20 out of the box.

Warlock 20 kind of does this, but some people want an actual archer, not a zappy zappy analogue.

:

game, set, match.

[A_S]

I think 3.5 is missing a fair amount of design potential in "themed" spellcasters. It has a few (Beguiler, Dread Necromancer), and you can sort of fake it by artificially limiting your spell selection on other spellcasters (e.g., a Sorcerer who only learns [cold] spells), but the options aren't great.

It ends up meaning that 3.5 does a pretty poor job of simulating:

Time-manipulation-based casters
Dedicated elementalists (e.g., Avatar-style benders)
Elsa from Frozen
Probability manipulators (though there's some feat support for this)
Ritualists (like Dragaera-style witches)
Mages who specialize in messing with other people's magic

There's a lot of good homebrew on this topic, though.

[Deadline]

Dancer. Cuz i dont know how nobles entertain them self in that wreched universe.
maid for plot based reasons and give bard a way to shut up and be useful at same time

Just a quick note, Bardic Music only requires a performance skill. You can totally Inspire Courage through Perform(Dance). Also, Bards. Bards are how nobles entertain themselves. And Bards get Profession as a skill. You can totally have a Bard with Profession(Maid).

Ok, so that last one was a bit of a stretch. But Bards can do everything! :smallwink:

[Ellrin]

Just a quick note, Bardic Music only requires a performance skill. You can totally Inspire Courage through Perform(Dance). Also, Bards. Bards are how nobles entertain themselves. And Bards get Profession as a skill. You can totally have a Bard with Profession(Maid).

Ok, so that last one was a bit of a stretch. But Bards can do everything! :smallwink:

Can they run screaming around a battlefield at their full base speed in full plate with no chance of arcane spell failure without level dips?

[Zanos]

Dancer. Cuz i dont know how nobles entertain them self in that wreched universe.
I'm not really sure how you get a class out of making perform checks. There's a couple of prestige classes and feats based around "battle dancing" or whatever nonsense, though.


maid for plot based reasons and give bard a way to shut up and be useful at same time
Isn't a maid just a commoner?


I think 3.5 is missing a fair amount of design potential in "themed" spellcasters. It has a few (Beguiler, Dread Necromancer), and you can sort of fake it by artificially limiting your spell selection on other spellcasters (e.g., a Sorcerer who only learns [cold] spells), but the options aren't great.
I think a problem with this is that elemental spellcasters usually focus on doing damage with utility being secondary, and focusing on one element outside of feats like searing spell is just bad, because resistance and immunity to certain elements are common. D&D characters become capable by virtue of being versatile, you can't (usually) kill a fire elemental by throwing more fireballs at it, you have to do something else.


Time-manipulation-based casters
I feel like there's a reason for this.


Mages who specialize in messing with other people's magic
Abjurers? There are a lot of abjuration spells to mess with other magic as I recall.

[Telonius]

Can they run screaming around a battlefield at their full base speed in full plate with no chance of arcane spell failure without level dips?

If they're Dwarves? Yes. (Battle Caster feat, mithral full plate).

[Ellrin]

If they're Dwarves? Yes. (Battle Caster feat, mithral full plate).

Well good, then.

[Dagroth]

Like how melee and ranged characters don't spend money on magic weapons and select feats to use them better, and how wizards don't spend money on spells and select feats to make their spells stronger? I suppose you could argue that it's bad design that a barbarian or fighter has to spend money on a flight item to hit some baddies with their sticks at all, but truenamer isn't any worse than that.

There's a difference between being able to spend money on a large variety of weapons/items and choose from a large variety of feats... and a Truenamer who is stuck with a very limited arrangement just to be semi-competitive.


Alchemist, and indeed anything built around throwing that is not a halfling or Bruce Banner.
Archers at least have options to try.

Master Thrower PrC. Works best if melded into the Invisible Blade PrC like it was first intended.


I would like to see PrCs for DFA, for Marshalls & Dragon Shamans. I'd like to see a "Mystic Paladin" much like the Mystic Ranger... slightly slower access to special powers, but improved spellcasting.

An Initiator Archer... PrCs for Initiator/Warlock, Initiator/Psi, Initiator/Incarnum, Initiator/DFA, Initiator/Auras, etc. Warlock/Incarnum, DFA/Incarnum...



In other words... more support and crossover among the various existing things.

[Cosi]

I feel like there's a reason for this.

That just sounds like a Diviner with haste, slow, time stop, and celerity. Maybe some additional dazes or stuns, or a time-fluffed snake's swiftness.

[Zanos]

There's a difference between being able to spend money on a large variety of weapons/items and choose from a large variety of feats... and a Truenamer who is stuck with a very limited arrangement just to be semi-competitive.
The number of viable weapon enchantments for fighters is not tremendously large.


That just sounds like a Diviner with haste, slow, time stop, and celerity. Maybe some additional dazes or stuns, or a time-fluffed snake's swiftness.
There's a couple other time effects in psionics. Timehop comes to mind. It's true that D&D doesn't support a time wizard out of the box, but I was more commenting that designing time mage who's even closed to balance is a headache. Timehop is already considered one of the best powers in the game.

[Dagroth]

The number of viable weapon enchantments for fighters is not tremendously large.

I would have to disagree... especially if they're hanging out with someone who can cast Greater Magic Weapon on their weapon.

Then they only need the base +1 and can choose from a very large variety of enchantments. Sure, some are not as good as others and most are fairly niche use... but there are lots. Especially if you head into Dragon Magazine territory as well as MiC.

And that doesn't even touch on the large variety of weapons themselves.

[Cosi]

There's a couple other time effects in psionics. Timehop comes to mind. It's true that D&D doesn't support a time wizard out of the box, but I was more commenting that designing time mage who's even closed to balance is a headache. Timehop is already considered one of the best powers in the game.

It depends on how tight of a "time magic" focus you want, particularly at low levels. I think you could probably work up a Beguiler-ish Diviner class with a time subtheme over the course of a day, but a full on Time Mage requires more work (if only because there aren't that many time spells).

[GreatWyrmGold]

If you took all the classes that were basically: "You're a ninja, Hagrid!" "No, you're not, Hagrid." "I know, Hagrid." and merged them into a single class you could probably get something interesting.
I feel like there's a reference in there that I'm missing. I mean, the first quote makes some sense, but the others...



Like how melee and ranged characters don't spend money on magic weapons and select feats to use them better, and how wizards don't spend money on spells and select feats to make their spells stronger? I suppose you could argue that it's bad design that a barbarian or fighter has to spend money on a flight item to hit some baddies with their sticks at all, but truenamer isn't any worse than that.

Fighter can't do damage without magic sword, truenamer can't do magic without magic amulet. Makes sense to me.
There's a difference. As time goes on, melee and ranged characters get better and better even with basic equipment and minimal investment, while Truenamers get worse and worse. After all, the Truenaming DCs for basic utterances (never mind the new ones) grow faster than you can put skill points into the skill. (Not to mention that every other class, aside from fighters and such, can do magic without magic items.) And there's other stuff going on.
The biggest problem seems to be that the developers kept nerfing everything, presumably because the ability to do stuff all day seemed too unbalanced. Even dealing with all of the other issues, there's little a truenamer can do that another class can't do as well or better, with a tiny fraction of the hassle.



In character voice. You're not very familiar with persona creation are you?
I assume you mean the sort of thing where I pretend to get offended when people talk about harvesting dragons and not the thing where you go into a TV to fight a weird incarnation of your inner demons?



Even in a game of tier one players and tier one enemies...
I didn't know enemies had tiers, too.



Also, is there a Magic RPG I didn't know about? Because I don't know how well the card game rules would transfer over
Several. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=magic+the+gathering+rpg) But most are fan-made. There's an official MtG/D&D crossover sourcebook, though. (http://io9.gizmodo.com/magic-the-gathering-comes-to-dungeons-dragons-for-th-1773422948)



It ends up meaning that 3.5 does a pretty poor job of simulating:

Dedicated elementalists (e.g., Avatar-style benders)
Elsa from Frozen

Why did you say the same thing twice?

[Thurbane]

The 2E Tome of Magic had Wild Mage and Elemental Wizards as base classes.

The 2E supplement Chronomancer had (unsurprisingly) the Chronomancer as a base class.

Funny that two of these are what people wanted to see in 3E.

[ryu]

Oh you can totally rate the tier of any given enemy. It's mostly a matter of how they'll compare as opposition to a party of a given tier in a majority of circumstances assuming they make reasonable tactical, or if possible strategic, use of their listed abilities. This can mean casters or critters with nasty abilities that are higher level but without the broad range of options a caster has to a high tier party.

[mastermisha1]

I always wanted to see a proper tank class.

[Ellrin]

I always wanted to see a proper tank class.

The knight sucks, but that's basically what it's trying to be.

[Mordaedil]

I won't say that WotC seriously missed the mark in not offering a comprehensive digital tool similar to 4e, but they completely missed the mark. I think I remember reading somewhere that they had actually intended to make one, but surprise, it fell through. The worst part is the gall that they have to go after folks who want a reasonable way to search through the 150+ books that they published with terrible indices, conflicting RAW, barely any errata, and unclear precedence rules. It's almost as if they cared more about their bottom line than treating their customers right. That's not even to mention that they no longer support an official community where folks can try to talk to them in a long-format method to tell them about all these problems. It's as if they feel like they shouldn't be responsible.

A quick internet search for a mobile app actually turned up a reddit thread with an explaination on how to set it up on your own phone(or tablet) for your own private use, which I recommend everyone still playing third edition do.

For those without, it also contains a link to a database, which if you have the technical know-how, you can use to set up and present all of the information. I am doing something like that for my own private use, but I don't feel like sharing yet, because it's kinda unfinished and it's probably against several rules.

The most access friendly route is probably just following the reddit thread though.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Oh you can totally rate the tier of any given enemy. It's mostly a matter of how they'll compare as opposition to a party of a given tier in a majority of circumstances assuming they make reasonable tactical, or if possible strategic, use of their listed abilities. This can mean casters or critters with nasty abilities that are higher level but without the broad range of options a caster has to a high tier party.
Do you know anywhere that details this concept more thoroughly? It's pretty far off-topic by now.
Speaking of off-topic:



-snip-
Neat! Unfortunately, the lack of obvious search terms makes it hard to Google. I don't suppose you could provide us with some, or maybe a link?

[ryu]

Do you know anywhere that details this concept more thoroughly? It's pretty far off-topic by now.
Speaking of off-topic:



Neat! Unfortunately, the lack of obvious search terms makes it hard to Google. I don't suppose you could provide us with some, or maybe a link?

I mean it's really more of a learned skill than anything, because it's much harder to individually tier every possible enemy. You learn to pay more attention to the abilities than most.

[Thurbane]

The tier system as it stands is a bit of a headache to get everyone to agree on; trying to apply that to the hordes of monsters that exist ion 3E would be an absolute nightmare.

[ryu]

The tier system as it stands is a bit of a headache to get everyone to agree on; trying to apply that to the hordes of monsters that exist ion 3E would be an absolute nightmare.

Which would be why it's a personal skill rather than outlined system. I do think we can all agree not all enemies of a given CR are created equal.

[Thurbane]

Which would be why it's a personal skill rather than outlined system. I do think we can all agree not all enemies of a given CR are created equal.

True - we all know CR is a bit of a hit-and-miss affair already.

[ryu]

True - we all know CR is a bit of a hit-and-miss affair already.

And further that some map well onto being a good challenge for a party of tier 1 people, some are doable by NPC classes, and everything in between? We can debate about where the lines are, but the fact that there are lines is pretty gosh darn difficult to dispute.

[Mordaedil]

Neat! Unfortunately, the lack of obvious search terms makes it hard to Google. I don't suppose you could provide us with some, or maybe a link?

Here's the most I can do for you at this moment in time: Reddit thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/2mtaxa/dd_tools_has_received_a_cease_and_desist_from/)