Which PHBII classes would you adopt?

Felon · May 13, 2006

So the PHBII has been released and I'm sure everyone has their copy now, right?

So, which of the four new classes do you think you'd allow in your campaign (or, in the case of your really progressive types, are allowing already)?

Sorry, no "none of the above" choice. I want to see votes weighing them against each other, not dismissing the lot wholesale.

exile · May 13, 2006

I voted for all of them, that said I don't even really like all of them. The beguiler is easily my favorite and I would consider playing one. If I were running a big, wide-open D&D game, I would readily allow all of them. That said, if I were trying to tailor the game to tell a particular story, I might limit any or all of them that seemed out of line with what I was trying to accomplish.
Chad

Jdvn1 · May 13, 2006

I already allow all of them. They each have their own flavor, and I tend to let players have fun with whatever class they like as long as I think it's not overpowered (some of these I think are weak, even).

Felon · May 13, 2006

I would've voted for all of them, but the dragon shaman steps too hard on the toes of the marshal. I don't like the idea of highly convuluted base class eclipsing one that applies to a broad number of concepts.

I would've preferred to ask folks to rank their favorites from 1-4, but the poll design doesn't allow for that.

wingsandsword · May 13, 2006

I like the Knight, it's a fantasy archetype which definitely deserves a core class to itself. If Samurai can be a core class in Oriental Adventures, Knight should be a core class in normal D&D. The heroic knight in shining armor is as distinct from the generic warrior-type of the Fighter as the religious crusader of the Paladin, the primitive berserker of the Barbarian, or the outdoorsy scout/archer of the Ranger.

The others seem a little too specific to be core classes in all but specialized campaigns, and might be better served as PrC's, multiclass/feat combinations, or with other existing core classes filling a similar role.

To me, a core class should be something that is core to the setting, a basic archetype of characters you would be likely to find anywhere in the setting.

The Cardinal · May 13, 2006

all of them

Gold Roger · May 13, 2006

The beguiler is a great archetype that fills a needed niche. It models the utility mage better than every other class. I'm happy that with him enchantments and illusions may finally take a more prominent place in the game. Check, I allow it.

The dragon shaman is an exotic class that underlines the prominence of dragons in the game. It's a team player that can still stand on his own two legs. The machanics are easy, mostly quite static/passive and need little bookkeeping. Add to that that it emulates the iconic dragons and has an easy set of motivations and it's the perfect class for novice and casual players. Check, I allow it.

The duskblade is a great archetype that is often emulated by multiclassing/PrC, but badly so. A charakter that has studied the melting of arcane magic and swordplay for his life should be able to have both abilities from level one on. The class is on the powerful side, but I think still balanced. Check, I allow it.

The knight does for me what it doesn't for others: It models the iconic fantasy knight as I envision it. How could one not have fantasy with honorable heavy armored warriors that challenge their opponents, even against all odds. It also fills a usefull place mechanically. Check, I allow it and in fact play one as my next charakter.

Personaly I like base classes that are a bit more specific as long as they are well done.

drquestion · May 13, 2006

I voted for all of them; I "allow" pretty much anything my group, as a whole, is cool with.

wingsandsword said:
The others seem a little too specific to be core classes in all but specialized campaigns, and might be better served as PrC's, multiclass/feat combinations, or with other existing core classes filling a similar role.

As I see it, the advantage to having them be base classes is that players can use them right away. You can play a duskblade from first level, rather than waiting 6 levels to become an eldritch knight or a spellsword.

Pseudonym · May 13, 2006

Felon said:
So, which of the four new classes do you think you'd allow in your campaign (or, in the case of your really progressive types, are allowing already)?

I'll allow the beguiler, duskblade and knight into my game. I'm already working on a duskblade npc to weave in when the current adventure arc is resolved.

The dragon shaman I'm still undecided about; not so much because of anything inherent in the class mechanics, but because I can't see it fitting in to my vision of Eberron; aside from perhaps related to the Argoneessen tribes, but I find them problematic anyway.

I'll re-evaluate that when a player asks to make one, but I don't plan on using them.

JRRNeiklot · May 13, 2006

Eh, maybe the Duskblade. Actually, I'd probably allow them all if someone really insisted on playing a class that sucked, but I wouldn't recommend any of them.