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

[Moorcrys]

In many cases I would agree that the core classes can faithfully represent a number of different character types, but I also feel that there comes a point where an instituted mechanic that differs from the core class mechanic is required to create some character types.

For instance, it seems to me as though the hexblade and favored soul were specifically put in the Complete books to allow for a more complete set of rule options -- one being a spontaneous divine caster and the other being an arcane-influenced (as opposed to divinely influenced) fighting class along the lines of the ranger and paladin. The hexblade as an idea is pretty specific, but the mechanic of a familiar summoning, 4 spell-level progressing arcane-based fighting character is not in the core rules and not covered by a core-class... no amount of feat taking or skills are going to create it. Same with the favored soul.

You can't make either of those without changing a core class -- and if you actually need to change core rules, spell-lists, and abilities rather than adding feats or choosing cross-class skills then you're essentially doing the same thing as adding a new class. The core classes simply don't cover it.

To deny that game mechanics serve to flesh out a Third Edition character doesn't seem to hold a lot of weight in my opinion... from choosing a race to class to skill to feat, every step along the way uses at the very least bonus/penalty game mechanics. You can certainly say you're playing a dwarf but not use any of the racial modifiers or darkvision or bonuses/penalties that go along with it and that would certainly be viable and playable, but the mechanic is there for you to use which has (hopefully) been balanced or insituted to help you define the race. The idea is that it brings diversity and options to the game, as well as mechanically defines strengths and weakness of the race and deals in a concrete way with things such as being smaller than a human (i.e. reducing a dwarf's movement to 20'). The same goes with classes -- sure you can play a fighter any way you want, but why is it such a horrible thing for a player to take the swashbuckler from the Complete Warrior to add a mechanical flavor to a lightly armored fighting character? If it's balanced to the core classes what's the problem? What's the difference between the 3,000 feats out there that add flavor mechanics to a character class versus a separate class that packages a number of flavor-specific mechanics over a 20-level spread? A fighter could take stunning fist and become an unarmed monk-styled warrior OR he could play a monk, a more specifically-themed and flavored core class where that mechanic is already built in. Take your pick, but I find nothing sacred or flawless about a core class over a well-built and well-balanced non-core class that adds a unique flavor and/or fills a gap in the 3.5 ruleset. I thought that customization and options were two of the most beloved things in 3.x D&D, why not take advantage of them?

Moorcrys

 

[Spatula]

(I don't like the ranger being a hateful person, favored enemy represents hatred).

Favored Enemy represents study, not hatred. Does a hunter in the real world hate the animals he hunts? Does a ranger with Favored Enemy (animal) hate animals? You're probably thinking of the ranger class from 2nd edition, which had a reaction penalty associated with the favored enemy ability. But that does not exist in 3E.

 

[Sir Elton]

Favored Enemy represents study, not hatred. Does a hunter in the real world hate the animals he hunts? Does a ranger with Favored Enemy (animal) hate animals? You're probably thinking of the ranger class from 2nd edition, which had a reaction penalty associated with the favored enemy ability. But that does not exist in 3E.

Nope. I'm not.

 

[Belen]

In many cases I would agree that the core classes can faithfully represent a number of different character types, but I also feel that there comes a point where an instituted mechanic that differs from the core class mechanic is required to create some character types.

For instance, it seems to me as though the hexblade and favored soul were specifically put in the Complete books to allow for a more complete set of rule options -- one being a spontaneous divine caster and the other being an arcane-influenced (as opposed to divinely influenced) fighting class along the lines of the ranger and paladin. The hexblade as an idea is pretty specific, but the mechanic of a familiar summoning, 4 spell-level progressing arcane-based fighting character is not in the core rules and not covered by a core-class... no amount of feat taking or skills are going to create it. Same with the favored soul.

You can't make either of those without changing a core class -- and if you actually need to change core rules, spell-lists, and abilities rather than adding feats or choosing cross-class skills then you're essentially doing the same thing as adding a new class. The core classes simply don't cover it.

To deny that game mechanics serve to flesh out a Third Edition character doesn't seem to hold a lot of weight in my opinion... from choosing a race to class to skill to feat, every step along the way uses at the very least bonus/penalty game mechanics. You can certainly say you're playing a dwarf but not use any of the racial modifiers or darkvision or bonuses/penalties that go along with it and that would certainly be viable and playable, but the mechanic is there for you to use which has (hopefully) been balanced or insituted to help you define the race. The idea is that it brings diversity and options to the game, as well as mechanically defines strengths and weakness of the race and deals in a concrete way with things such as being smaller than a human (i.e. reducing a dwarf's movement to 20'). The same goes with classes -- sure you can play a fighter any way you want, but why is it such a horrible thing for a player to take the swashbuckler from the Complete Warrior to add a mechanical flavor to a lightly armored fighting character? If it's balanced to the core classes what's the problem? What's the difference between the 3,000 feats out there that add flavor mechanics to a character class versus a separate class that packages a number of flavor-specific mechanics over a 20-level spread? A fighter could take stunning fist and become an unarmed monk-styled warrior OR he could play a monk, a more specifically-themed and flavored core class where that mechanic is already built in. Take your pick, but I find nothing sacred or flawless about a core class over a well-built and well-balanced non-core class that adds a unique flavor and/or fills a gap in the 3.5 ruleset. I thought that customization and options were two of the most beloved things in 3.x D&D, why not take advantage of them?

Moorcrys

Because there comes a time where it becomes too much. Too many options, too many add-on rules and the system breaks down. A GM can only do so much before being completely overwhelmed by players who feel that they had a right to everything and the kitchen sink.

 

[Moorcrys]

Because there comes a time where it becomes too much. Too many options, too many add-on rules and the system breaks down. A GM can only do so much before being completely overwhelmed by players who feel that they had a right to everything and the kitchen sink.

Yes, that's where you as the DM decide which books to use or not to use. There's way too much material, a lot of it IMHO unbalanced or ridiculous, to suggest that you allow all of it, or even 80-90% of it. You can only use the 3 core books if you'd like and have an incredible game -- but going back to the start of the thread, which was I think the question of whether you can duplicate most of the new (tell me if I'm wrong but I have the feeling it meant basically WOTC-written) core-classes by simply using PH core classes with feats and skills. And my response is while many things can be duplicated with core classes, skills, and feats, you can't use the available core classes in the Player's Handbook to make a favored soul (spontaneous divine caster) type or a hexblade (arcane inspired fighter type a la paladin/ranger) type because they are built, balanced, and accessing a mechanic that no core class possesses inherently. Unless of course you'd like to significantly modify the sorcerer or ranger/paladin class to do so, in which case my argument is why go through the effort -- either ban the class and that style of character or just use the one that's been created and (hopefully) playtested.

Moorcrys

 

[Moorcrys]

Oops, I also wanted to add:

I think WOTC added the swashbuckler class to the Complete Warrior (from what I've read) mainly BECAUSE it's very difficult to make a lightly-armored, Dex heavy warrior work very well using the core rules. To them it was adding an interesting alternative that made use of that particular style.

And as far as I can tell from looking at it, it's far from an uber-powered or power-creep kind of a class. It seems to me to be more of a framework that you can use skill choice and feat choice to flavor the character to your liking, rather than spending all those feats and skills simply trying to make it work.

Moorcrys

 

[MerricB]

These two are largely (unintentional) straw-man arguments, in that they aren't problems with the class system, but with the rules in general. In both the above cases, merely introducing a class is insufficient. The DM must include whole new world-altering systems to the game (spirits and technology, respectively) in order to make the concepts work.

Of course, you cannot make a character that covers a concept completely absent from the core rules. Sounds rather like saying that the D&D class system is lacking because it doesn't enable you to do a good hacker/computer programmer character.

Rubbish. In original D&D one could not make a THIEF, because the mechanics for doing so were completely absent from the rules.

You could not make a PALADIN, RANGER, ILLUSIONIST, DRUID... the list goes on.

To say "you must add world-altering systems" displays a desire to redefine the question to prove your point. By that, you demonstrate that the point is lost.

There are character concepts that require new character classes to handle.

The question as to whether or not the DM should be required to use or create new classes is another question entirely. I am quite in my rights to ban clerics and druids from my game, because I've decided that there is no divine magic in the game.

However, that wasn't the question that was asked.

Instead, the argument has devolved into: "I have a problem with my players. They want me to break the established rules for them." That is purely a problem with the individual group, and is not going to be resolved here.

 

[Umbran]

To say "you must add world-altering systems" displays a desire to redefine the question to prove your point. By that, you demonstrate that the point is lost.

I wasn't the one who redefined the question, really. I was merely the one who recognized that the discussion had gone beyond the original question. Whether or not you can do a thing with the existing classes is moot if the thing in question isn't otherwise covered by the rules. The question has then gone beyond the issue of classes, and into the larger realm of overall rules.

However, let us review - the original question was:

Can you build a character with the flavor of the the many non-core base classes (shaman, samurai, hexblade, etc.) using the mechanics of the core rules (core classes, feats, skills, etc.)?

Note that Quasqueton is asking about the flavor. He's not interested in getting the mechanics exactly correct.

I put it to you, MerricB, that I can put together a character with almost all of the flavor of a modern archtypal hacker using only D&D rules:

We've got a character who is incredibly intelligent, but perhaps weak in interpersonal skills and maybe common sense. He spends most of his time locked away in a room fiddling with bits of wooj nobody understands, tends to talk about technical details using language that only a few really grasp. He's perhaps a touch hyper, likely drawn to mild stimulants in liquid form. When in a crunch, he has a tendency of pulling out some odd bit of wooj and saving the day.

What we have is a wizard with a high Int, low Chr and Wis. He has a penchant for spell research, knows Draconic, has some ranks in Alchemy so that he knows how to make really strong coffee, and he tends to use spells of his own design rather thant he textbook standards.

All the flavor of a hacker, none of the mechanical hangups.

 

[Imperialus]

In my group we typically only allow acess to the core classes, even PrC's have to be ok'd by the DM. I've never done a swashbuckler style fighter but I have created a character simmilar to the one suggested by Eldar Basalisk. He had a STR and DEX of 16 respectively with a CON and INT of 12 with WIS and CHA being 10. He wore a breastplate and a buckler carried a shortbow and a longsword with weapon focus/specialization and did the dodge mobility spring attack feat tree with power attack and cleave thrown in for good measure.

He didn't have the HP or the AC of our front line fighter but he typically filled the role of keeping mooks away from the spellcasters. The tank (John Irenicus) would go toe to toe with the biggest threat in the room while Drake would hold the rest of the line against everything else, keep them from reaching either the spellcasters or getting a flank on John and get flank attacks in on the big threat if oppertunities presented themselves. In all honesty had Drake and John gone toe to toe against each other John would have probably cleaned the floor with him but Drake filled his purpose and was a lot of fun to play.

 

[MerricB]

All the flavor of a hacker, none of the mechanical hangups.

That's a nice example, Umbran - I stand (partially) corrected.

However, I do contend that flavour is not inseparable from the mechanical concerns. The way the character actually plays in the game is very dependent on what mechanics are used.

In the case of a class like the Favoured Soul, you have a class that derives much of its flavour from the Divine Spontaneous Casting ability... but such is impossible to replicate with the standard rules. So, what then?

How the character plays in the game (mechanically) is as important to the game as the basic concept the player has.

Cheers!