Favorite 3E class

Remove all ads!

I really like the new proficiency system. Now clerics can use bladed weapons. Also replacing backstab with sneak attack was an excellent move. That made rogues so much better, in addition to their vast array of skill choices.
I like the prestige class assassin. They can backstab, use poison, and cast spells. Plus that death attack is pretty damn cool.

 

True but I think you have to be evil. Sadly this means it is not realy a choice for me, as I allways play as netral and gold.

 

Start out as a sorcerer then at lvl 6 or above take the Dragon Disciple prestige class. At 10th lvl Dragon Disciple you become a half-dragon!

 

Sadly, it's been a long time since I've seen 3E books, and so I don't remember the prestige classes. I remember liking the dwarven defenders because I'm fond of dwarves; as far as regular classes go, my favorite is the paladin, with ranger and cleric as second choices.

 

Ninjas rules! Unfortunately the closest you can get in 3E is ninja of the crescent moon, but it's cool all the same. Rogues are awesome too, really fun to roleplay.

 

As long as my character had a party to adventure with I would be a human fighter and specialize in hand-to-hand combat.

 

I think that the Rogue/Sorcerer has great potential but is a little hard to play. But this must be my favorite class seeing as i like the rogue and sorcerer best.

 

The arcane trickster prestige class would be great to add to a rouge sorcerer. It's one of the better pretige classes IMO.

 

"The arcane trickster prestige class would be great to add to a rouge sorcerer. It's one of the better pretige classes IMO."

Yeah, he sure is. I think the Arcane Trickster is WAY overpowered. If you play a mage/thief, you can level as AT and get full spellcasting abilities, add to that a whole number of cool stuff that would make even single class rogues drool. For instance the impromptu sneak attack, what rouge wouldn't want that?
I think prestige classes should be good, slightly better than ordinary classes, but there should still be something to gain from choosing the ordinary class instead.
In the campaign I DM I've removed the AT's "+1 to equiv. caster level" on levels 2, 5 and 8, makes the class slightly more balanced IMO.

Apart from that, I think the Loremaster is vastly underestimated. In a level by level comparison, a wizard has more to gain from becoming a loremaster than for example a rogue gains from becoming a shadow dancer.

And, finally, I agree with Firestorm, the rogue/sorcerer combination is really powerful. With your main class being rogue, you take one level as sorcerer, giving you access to three 1st level spells. Personally I'd choos True Strike, Expedititious Retreat and Spider Climb, but there are other cool choices, Alter Self for one. Going further in the sorcerer class may enhance you even further, but from a "pure numbers" point of view, every rogue with the least pretensions of grandeur should take a level as sorcerer.

 

Could someone please describe the "Arcane Trickster" for me. My local bookstore doesnt have any of the charcter books (ie. Tome & Blood, Sword & Fist etc.) Thank you.

 

Your opinion there chief. I wasn't commenting on whether or not it is an overpowered class. I've seen worse in T&B. I was simply stating that I liked the possibilities.

[This message has been edited by Crawl (edited October 16, 2001).]

 

It's not for nothing that my first character, also 3rd edition, is a Ranger, I really like them. I play in a group with a rogie and a dwarven fighter. The Dwarve is an excellent mellee fighter, the rogue is an exellent archer. And then... what else do we need? Another melee fighter or another archer? The good thing is that the ranger is both a good archer and melee fighter, (also depends on his stats). I have 15 for strength and for Dex so I am both a good fighter and a good archer. The problem is I am not a star in one of the two, in both I am good but a bit less good then the other two. I also like the fact that rangers are good dual weapon fighters, and the spellcasting will also be necessary later in the game. And I also love nature, like rangers do.

 

Yeah, I know Crawl, I didn't mean to say you were wrong. Rather the opposite in fact, I agree with you that the Arcane Trickster is a mighty good class indeed. All my players are going "Damn, why don't I play a rogue/sorcerer, I'd have rocked!" (except for the two who do play rogue/sorcerer of course ).


And Firestorm, I don't have the book either but basically it's something like this:

At every level the AT gets a "+1 to equiv. caster level", like the Loremaster in the DMG. He gets d4 hp, 4+int sp. On top of this he continues to gain extra bonus dice to his sneak attack, he gains the ability to do Impromptu Sneak attacks (doesn't have to flank or be hidden etc to be able to sneak attack) a limited number of times per day, and he gains the ability to use a few skills at a distance of 30', imagine Pick Pocket, Open Locks etc.

So by taking a level as AT instead of sorcerer has one disadvantage, your familiar doesn't get better as that is based on your sorcerer class level. Instead you get all those other cool thigs listed above.
By taking a level as AT instead of rogue, you lose more, but you gain full spellcasting abilities, and you retain the most important part of the rogue, the sneak attack.

Personally I don't think the limitations I've put on this class (see post above) is too heavy, more likely too soft.
I'll say it again, just for good measure, this is a mighty good class.

 

I can check my T&B tonight when I get home but doesn't the sneak attack not go up for AT. Thus you'd need to keep increasing your rogue class to improve damage from SA.

I do agree that gaining a 'entire' caster level is a bit powerful. So I'm in favor of limiting this in some way.

 

If I'm not mistaken, the sneak attack does go up per however many HD, so there wouldn't be much need for taking more rouge levels (cept for skill points I beleive and HD), unless you wanted to take more rouge levels after you finished taking AT levels.

 

Crawl, I'm not sure about the sneak attack based on HD. The power of your SA looks like it is based on your level as a rogue. I'd have to double check it but that is my impression from reading the rogue class info. Unless AT specifically states it counts as rogue levels for that ability then I'd say no HD don't matter. Otherwise a rogue could improve his SA damage but taking levels in Paladin. That doesn't appears to fit into the rules. I'd say that only rogue levels or level of noted prestige classes would count.

Can anyone clear this up for us?

[This message has been edited by Voltric (edited October 17, 2001).]

 

Yes, sneak attack is awarded to rogue levels and has nothing to do with hd.

level sneak attack
1 1d6
3 2d6
5 3d6
7 4d6 and so on

so, unless the AT class (don't know about it) specifically states that it counts a rogue levels for sneak attack, your sneak attack damage won't change.

looks like i just repeated voltric.

 

If I'm not very very mistaken, the AT does get those bonus dice, just like a rogue. And no, it has nothing to do with HD, it's part of the AT's special abilities. If they didn't get this, they wouldn't be so over-powered.

 

The assasin and the Guild Thief (Prestige class from the FRCS) does improve their sneak attack with levels. So an AT might vey well do the same. Please someone with the Tome and Blood colud you please describe the AT?
Is the bard&rogue book out yet? Cause if it is im gonna buy it.

 

I saw a book the other day called songs and silence. Is that it? I couldn't investigate it at the time.