Too Many Classes?

Hi all,

I am having a philosophical difference with my players, and wouldn't mind some feedback on either side.

I am having a problem with the newer classes being introduced - for some reason, I feel they do not add to the game - they are too much. When I've discussed it with my players (who want to play Hexblades, Knights, etc) the best argument I seem to be able to make to support my feeling is this: the base classes should be archetypical - the fighter, the rogue, the cleric, the wizard are all fundamental roles that can fill a wide range of specific character portraits (not unlike the d20 modern Fast Hero, Strong Hero, etc).

My players posit that with specialty classes like the druid, paladin, ranger, and bard that doesn't fly. But it doesn't change my feeling. That being said, there are a few new base classes I truly do like - the warlock (the way the sorcerer should have been), and the archivist seem fairly broad, where the specific classes (Hexblade, Beguiler) leave me cold. I don't feel they add to my campaign world, and in fact, make the game unduly complicated. I'd rather the characters take any of the thousands of feats or hundreds of prestige classes to customize their characters.

Can anyone weigh in on how they feel on the newer classes, for good or bad?

IMHO a well done new class adds value to the game. However, any given campaign should not have *every* class, feat, item, PrC, widget that gets published. If the Beguiler doesn't fit into the game world..exclude it.

However, if a player comes up with a good reason within the game for that class to exist, its good for the DM to work with it and see if a compromise can be arrived at.

I generally dislike new classes, simply from the fact that new classes means more work trying to judge balance {Dervish anyone?}. I am much more comfortable working with the Core classes, tweak as needed, and use Feats to customise to fit character concepts.

I also dislike 'rewrite' classes, where the 'new' class is really a core class with a different name and some special ability {that could have been a feat}

YMMV

To some people, a Hexblade is archetypal. Basically, you're telling a player that they cannot play someone who is like a Hexblade. Now, if you disagree, if you think the Hexblade is just a fighter with a few sorcerer levels, say so to your player. Tell them the Hexblade class is unnecessary clutter and the kind of character they want to play can be reasonably accomodated by the existing classes.

Well, some of the new classes I like...and some of the new classes I don't like. I think that you probably need to review each one on its own merits and see if it fits into your game world or not and if you feel its overpowered, underpowered or balanced right. You might just limit yourself to the ones your players are interested in though, to reduce any work load on you.

Having played all of the standard classes from the PHB over the years, I enjoy some forays into new classes to give me new options , playstyles and areas. I think that some of the classes do add alot to the game, while others don't.

Some classes really do require a very different style of play then the standard ones do (referencing hexblade, beguiler and even the warlock, which I hear gets a bit old at higher levels) and can require a little time to get used to by both the DM and the players.

Overall, I think they are good, but I think every DM should review any class before letting it into his game, with the agreement that if anything broken appears, it will be neutralized for game balance (basically, just a disclaimer in case, even if it is never needed).

My opion on "extra" classes AND all prestige classes is simple. They should be campaign-specific.

If there are no Hexbaldes in your world then, well, there are none. Period.

Prestige classes should mostly be something special that is earned both through prerequisites and role-playing - memberships in organizations, with all the restrictions that may bring, etc. After all, someone has to provide all tha specialty training.

Of course, not ALL prestige classes are like that, some lend themsleves very well to self-training.

In any case, this should all be campaign-specific stuff. I find it's generally more fun to play in a robust world where things make sense. If a player wants a Hexblade and you decide to alow it, but it will be the only one in the world, there should be good reasons for it to exist. Maybe he takes a jouney to a far-off land and is exposed to some previously unkown mysterys of magic, or something.

In any case, it should all fit it YOUR world.

BTW, this goes for spells, feats, etc. If you allow EVERYTHING it really opens up the door for abuse and complexity.

We have too many underpowered or highly situational classes.

For example knights wont work in most campaigns.......due primarily to mounted combat and all their abilities are incredibly situational. They also dont seem to have much damaging capability, compared to fighters who already function well enough in the tank role.

Beguilers seem oddly out of place in a standard adventuring campaign, but much more suited to intrigue style campaigns......for example if the PCs were working for a thieve's guild and trying to steal stuff, solve a mystery, so on and so forth.

Hexblades are just underpowered compared to the duskblade. Thankfully wizards got it right the 2nd time around.

Warlocks are.....okay they are nicely balanced, and all.......the problem is they are too boring. All they do is "i fire eldrict blast with so and so invocation". Most of the combat rounds, they will do the exact same thing, over and over with no variation(other than switching targets). Its very hard to roleplay a warlock.....realistically speaking what it looks like is they are raising their hands firing eldrict blasts, unless the player wants to try and RP hollywood style(i fire a eldrict blast from under my raised leg!)

Anyway........i dont see how many classes is a bad thing. If they are decently done, they cant help but add to the variety of options a player and DM can have.

Technically speaking, yea you CAN play a gish type mage by taking a sub optimal multi-class fighter/wiz build, then levels in the non-impressive eldrict knight class.......but why should you have to do this when there is a duskblade class that does this decently, without requiring you to gimp your PC?

Question said:

Hexblades are just underpowered compared to the duskblade. Thankfully wizards got it right the 2nd time around.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Hexblades have a nasty supernatural ability, and mettle is nice. Their spell selection is quite decent for what they do. I prefer the Hexblade.

Warlocks are.....okay they are nicely balanced, and all.......the problem is they are too boring. All they do is "i fire eldrict blast with so and so invocation". Most of the combat rounds, they will do the exact same thing, over and over with no variation(other than switching targets). Its very hard to roleplay a warlock.....realistically speaking what it looks like is they are raising their hands firing eldrict blasts, unless the player wants to try and RP hollywood style(i fire a eldrict blast from under my raised leg!)

Click to expand...

I really don't think so. To me, warlocks are about finding a 101 naughty things you can do with unlimited invisibility, tentacles, or a very high Bluff. Plus shopping for magic items to deceive. "Look, ma! I'm a warlock with a staff of healing!"

Technically speaking, yea you CAN play a gish type mage by taking a sub optimal multi-class fighter/wiz build, then levels in the non-impressive eldrict knight class.......but why should you have to do this when there is a duskblade class that does this decently, without requiring you to gimp your PC?

Click to expand...

EK is not gimped. At level 17, you have a level 15 caster level. You're a very solid wizard replacement, which a duskblade is not. Duskblade does what it does well, but EK does something rather different.

As, for that matter, does Hexblade.

I have the opposite opinion to the OP. I feel that new base classes allow you to have specific niche characters without having to pick feats or PrCs. For one thing, there are some abilities that no feat can give you (barring perhaps one you make yourself). Things like the Hexblade's Curse, Knights challenge or Duskblade's Arcane Channeling cannot be replicated with any feats or classes, at least not in the same way.

Second, if you force someone to play a "Hexblade" by taking levels of Fighter and Sorcerer and then levels of some obscure PrC, you're screwing their concept by not allowing them to play it from the beginning of their career. I don't know about you, but when I think of a neat concept I want to be able to play it relatively close from the start.

That's not to say that all classes should be allowed all the time. As the DM you are certainly within your rights to restrict the classes, but I feel you want to do so for the wrong reasons. Some base classes don't fit in, but most of them are mishmashes of multiclass combinations with some unique abilities thrown in that cannot be duplicated. A Rogue/Sorcerer/Arcane Trickster does not equal a Beguiler, because a Beguiler gets abilities that were custom created for it starting from 1st level.

We often play: "Core only" for generating Chars... later we use most products...

The reason is that some of the new classes are just insanely weird, and doesn't fit in at all... some shouldn't even be there..

The bard class is completely unneccessary! It's more properly done as a multiclass, like in 1st edition!

(Just kidding.)

I like having a lot of classes to choose from. As long as they offer different abilities instead of just more abilities or better abilities, I'd recomend allowing them with a few exceptions:

1) DM must have fair access to the pertinent rules.
2) Class shouldn't complicate the DMs life
3) Class should fit into the campaign world at least vaguely

The idea is for everyone to have fun, and for a lot of us (oldtimers especially) variety is very important to that.