Are the core base classes enough to build what you want to play?

[Steel_Wind]

Now, one COULD make a bare-chested or hide-wearing barbarian with just the fighter class, but would be be effective in his role? No, hence the need for rage, DR, unflanking ability, hit dice, etc., and hence my point.

WE WALK IN THE GARDEN OF HIS TURBULENCE!

o_0

My real point is that this quote was a fairly convincing comment. I'm with Henry on this one.

 

[MerricB]

Yes, clearly you can point to a game mechanic that is not in the core classes and say, "See, the core classes can't replicate this". But that begs the question - do you need a separate class or mechanics to make the general character concept work? Do you need separate mechanics to play a character that feels like a samurai?

Well, perhaps not a samurai, but I can find plenty of examples where the rules don't allow a concept that seems perfectly feasible.

The multi-classes and prestige classes can give good approximations, but there are concepts where the game mechanics fall short - occasionally greatly short of where they should be.

Replace "Samurai" with "Spirit Shaman" and tell how you do that under the core rules.

A DM is well within his rights to point to the existing classes and say: "That's what you have to work with", but OTOH, I see no reason why more classes cannot enter the game.

Cheers!

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I think the core base classes can do more than some people credit them with.

For instance, the problem Henry poses: an effective swashbuckling fighter is only a problem if you assume that he needs to be a swashbuckling fighter. Make him a Fighter/rogue and the viability problem goes away. If you think "he's a fighter so he has to be able to stay in one place and trade damage without any other allies on the front line and he can't have any classes other than fighter, of course you're going to have trouble. If, on the other hand, you go for a fighter/rogue, you can make an effective "swashbuckler" who dances between opponents wearing a mithral chain shirt and dodging blows, then jabs their opponent with a mortal thrust when they make a mistake.

Human Ftr 2/Rog 4, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus: Rapier, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack. With a buckler and rapier, you can get an AC rather similar to Mr. 2 handed power attack (buckler+chain shirt+16 dex=AC 18; fullplate=AC 18) and, provided you have a flank or a flatfooted opponent, you can do quite significant amounts of damage (3d6+str+enhancement vis a vis Mr. Two Handed power attack who probably has 2d6+ (1.5xstr--probably +4), + enhancement + Weapon specialization). And if you get fireballed, you evade. Increasing in levels, you'll pick up a few other feats (maybe whirlwind attack or Improved Feint and weapon specialization) and start to get more sneak attack dice.

Fighter/bard or just plain bard with perform: witty reparte (oratory) can also work as a swashbuckler. (And he can even two-handed power attack with his longsword if he wishes). In D&D though, you'd need to rely pretty heavily on magic in order to make the fighter/bard combat-effective and if your concept isn't fighter/magician then it might not work.

Just plain fighter might work for a slightly different kind of swashbuckling hero--more Will Turner than Errol Flynn: Fighter X. Weapon Focus Longsword, Weapon specialization longsword, power attack, dodge, mobility, spring attack, combat expertise. Wearing a breastplate or chain shirt and wielding a longsword (with a buckler in the off-hand for when he wants two handed power attack damage), this character fights with strength as well as finesse. Still, I think he can look the part of a swashbuckler in a fight as well as out of it. His AC isn't as good as the guy who wears fullplate but he has options other than standing toe to toe so it will often balance out.

None of the characters fill exactly the same role as the two handed power attacker but then you don't want to. I doubt you'd be satisfied if the DM said "OK, well, I'll let you do 2d6+1.5x str bonus 19-20/x2 crit and get two handed power attack with your "rapier" and I'll let your "chain shirt" give you a +8 armor bonus if you live with a +1 max dex and pay 1,650gp for your "chain shirt." You want to have a fighting style that is different from Mr. Two-handed power attack but still to be able to do a similar amount of damage and survive for a similar number of rounds. That's where prestige classes and other non-core material come in. I don't think they're strictly necessary to simulate the various archetypes but they can help to give a little more flexibility to the various archetypes.

 

[Li Shenron]

Well, perhaps not a samurai, but I can find plenty of examples where the rules don't allow a concept that seems perfectly feasible.

The multi-classes and prestige classes can give good approximations, but there are concepts where the game mechanics fall short - occasionally greatly short of where they should be.

How do you talk about "concepts" here... you are basically saying with your previous examples that it's impossible to craft a character with exactly the same stats & abilities by using the 11 core classes alone, with the core feats etc. and nothing else.

But what does this have to do with the "concept"? And why should the CW's Swashbuckler be a better implementation of the swashbuckling concept?

No problem in expanding the available classes with variants and whatsoever, I do it myself although I prefer to variate the core classes on a feature-by-feature basis (just because if I we do it ourselves, it's best to be careful not to throw it off-balance), but here we are talking about stats and ability combos more than character concepts...

 

[S'mon]

So let's switch this around. What if a fighter chose to have a good charisma at the cost of a slightly smaller con score? Are we supposed to give them something to balance that too?

If the game isn't pure dungeon-hack, that's self-balancing - NPCs will react better to the high-CHA Fighter, he'll get higher level Cohorts, he'll succeed more often on CHA & Diplomacy (etc) rolls, in my swords & sorcery game he'll get the attention of the buxom barmaids while his low-CHA buddy gets the cold shoulder, etc.

 

[S'mon]

If you're changing the rules, you're not using the core classes.

That's a non sequitur - there's a *huge* difference between building a core class from the ground up, and slightly tweaking an existing core class (as the DMG recommends) to fit a particular character concept. The former takes a lot of effort and is hard to do right, the latter is relatively easy, you just need to have an idea of how 3e balance works (eg: some feats are better than others, some skills are better than others, it takes a lot of skill points to balance a feat).

 

[S'mon]

Replace "Samurai" with "Spirit Shaman" and tell how you do that under the core rules.

We used the Druid - with some simple rules for entering the Spirit World on vision quests (ritual requiring DC 10 WIS check, could take-10 in calm environment), eliminated the companion animal and replaced Druid "Summon Nature's Ally" with "Summon Spirit". It took a fair bit of work, but most of that was in hashing out the details of the summoned spirits and their relationship to the shaman ("Forest Witch"). The class remained 95% 'Druid'.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

To address the thread title: In many cases, yes.

But there's no moral virtue attached to restricting oneself to the core base classes, nor any moral failure attached to using other base classes.

The fact that some people seem to believe there is moral virtue at stake is a bit silly.

 

[Tinker Gnome]

I have yet to see a way that any of the core classes unaltered could make a Tinker type character that does not use magic in his inventions.

 

[Whisper72]

To address the thread title: In many cases, yes.

But there's no moral virtue attached to restricting oneself to the core base classes, nor any moral failure attached to using other base classes.

The fact that some people seem to believe there is moral virtue at stake is a bit silly.

I agree fully with you. The only thing that bugs me is when people say that when restricted to core classes, then when a player chooses a 'sub-optimal' style of play (the example of the swashbuckling fighter versus the fighter with the best armor and heaviest hitting weapon), he or she MUST be compensated for that...

If the DM and players wish to do so, fine, that is their choice, but to argue that you are by definition short-changing / penalizing role-playing opportunities if you do not allow boatloads of feats / prestige classes etc. for the PC's to choose from then it is that attitude that irks me.

Either way of play is fine if that is what floats your boat, but implying that I am unfair / harsh or a bad DM for not bending over backwards allowing my players to choose anything in the written rules because players somehow have a right to use options is ridiculous IMHO