• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 3E/3.5 What D&D 3e/3.5e classes do you wish had become core in later editions?

What D&D 3e/3.5e classes do you wish had become core in later editions?


D&D 3.x gave us a wonderful proliferation of character classes for the game. Mostly prestige classes, but definitely a good number of new base classes.

Only one of the classes introduced became core in the later editions, the Warlock, originally from Complete Arcane. I always thought that was a curious choice, as at least in the gaming circles I ran with it was NOT a popular class, and its general concept seemed like just a Sorcerer with different roleplaying.

I would have loved to see the Noble class become standard, as a non-spellcasting class option (I don't like that it seems most classes have innately supernatural/spellcasting abilities and there's very limited support for a low-magic game) and an option for social-oriented characters. They weren't useless in a fight (medium armor, martial weapons, middle BAB, some leadership-themed buffing abilities similar to bard songs), but they really could shine in a social or political adventure.

I would have liked the Mystic (or Favored Soul) to become a core class. I liked the idea of a spontaneous divine caster, and I really never liked that the default standard for a divine caster in a D&D world is a heavily armored combat cleric. I know Favored Soul was more popular, but I liked the "flavor" of the Mystic better, and Favored Soul literally sprouting wings at high level seemed rather wacky and out-of-nowhere.

I would have liked the Archivist to become a core class. For much the same reason as Mystic, I like alternative divine casters, and the Archivist has been one of my "go to" solutions for a priest character that's more studious and ministerial and less "running around smacking people with a mace".

I would have liked the Knight to become a core class. I know the concept of the Knight and Marshal classes, as a warrior-leader on the battlefield, became core with 4e in the Warlord Class, and the Marshal was a variant of that, but the concept didn't continue into the core of 5th edition, it didn't become a lasting part of D&D like the Warlock did.

Swashbuckler is an archetype I see come up often enough that a core class might have been good. The idea of a dexterous, lightly armed fighter that relies on agility and skill over heavy armor is certainly a character concept I've seen a lot and come up in a number of campaigns, usually done cludgingly by a Rogue that took combat-oriented feats like power attack and didn't sink a lot of points into traditional "thief" skills.

There were several versions of a Shaman class (Shaman, Spirit Shaman, Dragon Shaman) all for the same general concept of a more "primitive" divine caster that got their spells not from Gods, but from the spirit world and patron spirits. Having a Shaman as a core class would have been nice, but I've already made it clear I felt the core Divine options were a little limited.

Hexblade was an interesting concept, a fighter class with limited arcane casting. Since there are 2 fighter-type classes in the core rules with limited casting based off the core divine classes (Ranger being fighter plus druid casting, Paladin being fighter plus cleric casting), a "fighter plus arcane casting" type made sense, and this one seemed to be "fighter plus warlock". I'm not QUITE sure it should have been in the core rules, but it was definitely an interesting concept to explore.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Can you add an option for None?

There are a lot I would like to add maybe as subclasses, etc., but I don't like having too many "core" classes personally.

Added at your request. It has been a long time since I've posted a poll here, I thought people responding could add their own options (like on some other venues).
 


the Jester

Legend
Just the marshal/warlord. None of the rest have enough identity to justify being a core class vs. a subclass or feat option, in my opinion. Many of those classes were attempts to patch issues in 3e.
 


Just the Marshal, and even then I'm not gung-ho about it. The rest of them, good riddance. 5e can handle all of them conceptually with subclasses.
 

BrokenTwin

Biological Disaster
Voted for the ones on the list that I liked, but I also have to put forth the Binder as my absolute FAVORITE 3.5 class. Dragon Shaman SHOULD have been able to be covered by a dragon-blooded sorcerer, but as is, it fails. Some of the options I didn't vote for I feel would work better as subclasses than their own fully fleshed out set.

All of the Book of Nine Swords classes would have worked as a single class with different subclasses to represent their differences. Same with Magic of Incarnum.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
First, many of these would really be subclasses in 5e, so they aren't in the running for core class even if I think they might belong as a subclass in the PHB. Sure, it is possible to force them out to their own classes, but that's not the 5e way.

That really eliminates a lot of the list. Beguiler? Knight? Warmage? Samurai? Ninja? I could go on. Actually, when going through it, it eliminates 95% of the list. What we have left are the few that really have no analogs in 5e.

Second is that I want to keep a low barrier to entry for things like AL and stuff, so adding a class to the PHB means taking a class out. Core neutral.

None of the few remaining are "more core" than the "least core" of the PHB classes. It could be possible to swap out Monk for one fo the other oriental adventures classes on thematic core-ness, being roughly equal, but on mechanical coreness the unarmed warrior is a bigger trope than any of them.

So I chose none.

Now, if I was redoing the PHB I might rearrange some to make space for some. Make a tanky gish with two customization points like the Warlock has, one of which is arcane vs. divine (at the least) that handles paladin, duskblade, and the like. Maybe some other rearranging as well.

Maybe add another choice to background/race/class, like "role". So a "wilderness" role would get the skills to turn a rogue into a scout or a fighter into a spell-less ranger, and likely some talents at levels, without needing to have subclasses in multiple different classes for the same thing.

And in that case, I can see mining these for ideas of what we can accomplish in the design space. And even without it some might make good subclasses.
 

Remove ads

Top