Other D&D classes
This is a follow-up to my last post, wherein I will speak of classes that were never published in a hardcover, but were still intriguing archtypes.
In a fairly early Dragon, Len Lakofka printed this class. The idea was intriguing, but it was a little too thin. I believe it directly lead to weapon specialization, as in the first version (Unearthed Arcana), bow specialization was very powerful. I feel that weapon specialization is a much better solution than an entire class. Robin Hood could be an example of an archer.
In a later issue of Dragon a Berserker class appeared, which I enjoy. It was sort of a sub-class to the barbarian, and was pretty well-designed. There was an earlier version in a really early issue, but it wasn't all that great. Berserkers had existed as random encounters since early versions of D&D, and I thought it was weird that they didn't have a class. I actually tend to allow it in my games, though it's not really a very friendly class. Not sure about any examples in fiction.
An archetype that I myself noticed wasn't represented in D&D is the swashbuckling swordsman. A sword-specialized fighter sort of fit the bill, but they still would always wear armor (if they were smart) and thus didn't have that Errol Flynn feel that I want. Duelists were printed in a fairly early issue of Dragon (sorry, I didn't research this essay as well as the others!) to fill this gap. (I created a class called the swashbuckler, which is an entirely different take on the same concept. Personally, I like mine better, but moving on!) They have a long list of interesting abilities, including a saving throw against dying, meaning they virtually always have a chance to bounce back from apparently-fatal wounds! As I have created my own version, I have a good, long list of possible representatives in fiction: of course there are the Errol Flynn characters like Robin Hood, plus The Three Musketeers, Zorro, and Inigo Montoya.
After his ugly departure from TSR, Gary Gygax was unable to finish his partially-done new classes for AD&D, however he did create one new class, which was published in some small press magazine (possibly a fanzine): the hunter. The hunter is much like the barbarian, but more of a frontiersman or true primitive, used to living on his own in the wilderness and being responsible for his own survival. I think this is a fine archetype and allow the hunter in my own games, as well. In fiction, I think Ayla from Clan of the Cave Bear and perhaps Grizzly Adams could qualify as examples of this class.
The 1st Edition Dungeon Master's Guide mentions two pseudo-classes that exist among certain humanoids (and primitive humans): the shaman and the witch doctor. The short descriptions consist of lists of spells available to each, plus their level limits (which are very low). I've always felt that both should be expanded to full-on classes. The various attempts to do so that I've seen are sub-par indeed. Both are primitive priests and medicine men, the shaman possibly being animistic. The two aren't really seperated in concept. Hmmm. I'd finish them, myself, but it would be a lot of work.
An intriguing archetype that has been explored many times in D&D, across the different versions, but has never been quite done right, to my satisfaction, is the witch. I think it was the second version to appear in Dragon that impressed me the most. It combined the witch from Medieval Christian folklore with the Wiccan religion pretty neatly, having two styles of witches that worked in similar, but opposite, ways. If the class had been printed a little earlier, it might well have appeared in the Player's Handbook. The class is quite complex but interesting to consider. There are many examples of witches in fiction. That film I talked about buying recently, Haxan, is a good source of inspiration.
Finally, in later issues of Dragon (250+), there was a great series of articles on India-style adventures. One had a list of character kits (sort of minor) sub-variants of classes particular to 2nd Edition AD&D). Most were typical of kits: uninspired and not really interesting enough to use as a full class. Still two stood out to me: the yogi and the swami. Wouldn't you love to be able to say you have a swami character? That word is just fun to say. The yogi was a kit for the psionicist class, so I even made one who levitated, teleported, and could stretch his limbs, all psionic disciplines. The DM would not let me breathe fire no matter how much curry I ate, though. :( Though both need a little sprucing up to become full classes (I did so with the yogi), both have good potential. Dhalsim is a good example of a yogi, and the Salami Swami (sounds like a male stripper) from The Powerpuff Girls is a good example of a swami. Well, okay, maybe not.
Maybe I'll do another one of these with my own ideas, plus Oriental Adventures, which has many classes I've overlooked. As always, your input is welcome.
In a fairly early Dragon, Len Lakofka printed this class. The idea was intriguing, but it was a little too thin. I believe it directly lead to weapon specialization, as in the first version (Unearthed Arcana), bow specialization was very powerful. I feel that weapon specialization is a much better solution than an entire class. Robin Hood could be an example of an archer.
In a later issue of Dragon a Berserker class appeared, which I enjoy. It was sort of a sub-class to the barbarian, and was pretty well-designed. There was an earlier version in a really early issue, but it wasn't all that great. Berserkers had existed as random encounters since early versions of D&D, and I thought it was weird that they didn't have a class. I actually tend to allow it in my games, though it's not really a very friendly class. Not sure about any examples in fiction.
An archetype that I myself noticed wasn't represented in D&D is the swashbuckling swordsman. A sword-specialized fighter sort of fit the bill, but they still would always wear armor (if they were smart) and thus didn't have that Errol Flynn feel that I want. Duelists were printed in a fairly early issue of Dragon (sorry, I didn't research this essay as well as the others!) to fill this gap. (I created a class called the swashbuckler, which is an entirely different take on the same concept. Personally, I like mine better, but moving on!) They have a long list of interesting abilities, including a saving throw against dying, meaning they virtually always have a chance to bounce back from apparently-fatal wounds! As I have created my own version, I have a good, long list of possible representatives in fiction: of course there are the Errol Flynn characters like Robin Hood, plus The Three Musketeers, Zorro, and Inigo Montoya.
After his ugly departure from TSR, Gary Gygax was unable to finish his partially-done new classes for AD&D, however he did create one new class, which was published in some small press magazine (possibly a fanzine): the hunter. The hunter is much like the barbarian, but more of a frontiersman or true primitive, used to living on his own in the wilderness and being responsible for his own survival. I think this is a fine archetype and allow the hunter in my own games, as well. In fiction, I think Ayla from Clan of the Cave Bear and perhaps Grizzly Adams could qualify as examples of this class.
The 1st Edition Dungeon Master's Guide mentions two pseudo-classes that exist among certain humanoids (and primitive humans): the shaman and the witch doctor. The short descriptions consist of lists of spells available to each, plus their level limits (which are very low). I've always felt that both should be expanded to full-on classes. The various attempts to do so that I've seen are sub-par indeed. Both are primitive priests and medicine men, the shaman possibly being animistic. The two aren't really seperated in concept. Hmmm. I'd finish them, myself, but it would be a lot of work.
An intriguing archetype that has been explored many times in D&D, across the different versions, but has never been quite done right, to my satisfaction, is the witch. I think it was the second version to appear in Dragon that impressed me the most. It combined the witch from Medieval Christian folklore with the Wiccan religion pretty neatly, having two styles of witches that worked in similar, but opposite, ways. If the class had been printed a little earlier, it might well have appeared in the Player's Handbook. The class is quite complex but interesting to consider. There are many examples of witches in fiction. That film I talked about buying recently, Haxan, is a good source of inspiration.
Finally, in later issues of Dragon (250+), there was a great series of articles on India-style adventures. One had a list of character kits (sort of minor) sub-variants of classes particular to 2nd Edition AD&D). Most were typical of kits: uninspired and not really interesting enough to use as a full class. Still two stood out to me: the yogi and the swami. Wouldn't you love to be able to say you have a swami character? That word is just fun to say. The yogi was a kit for the psionicist class, so I even made one who levitated, teleported, and could stretch his limbs, all psionic disciplines. The DM would not let me breathe fire no matter how much curry I ate, though. :( Though both need a little sprucing up to become full classes (I did so with the yogi), both have good potential. Dhalsim is a good example of a yogi, and the Salami Swami (sounds like a male stripper) from The Powerpuff Girls is a good example of a swami. Well, okay, maybe not.
Maybe I'll do another one of these with my own ideas, plus Oriental Adventures, which has many classes I've overlooked. As always, your input is welcome.