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

[mhacdebhandia]

Hmm. I think it's reasonable for a player, when faced with creating a PC with only the core rules, to request that the DM accomodate her character concept by altering the rules. However, I think it's also reasonable for a DM to refuse to do so, if the limits were put in place to effect a certain kind of campaign.

However, I think any DM who restricts his games to the core rules for the sake of "balance" or a similar notion, but who refuses to make his own changes in order to accomodate the players, is either a fool or someone very insecure about their mechanical judgement.

 

[hong]

Hmm. I think it's reasonable for a player, when faced with creating a PC with only the core rules, to request that the DM accomodate her character concept by altering the rules. However, I think it's also reasonable for a DM to refuse to do so, if the limits were put in place to effect a certain kind of campaign.

However, I think any DM who restricts his games to the core rules for the sake of "balance" or a similar notion, but who refuses to make his own changes in order to accomodate the players, is either a fool or someone very insecure about their mechanical judgement.

No, Chris, your vampire clown prestige class is STILL banned, no matter what names you call me.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Actually, your Britannia game is an example of how to restrict options for the right reason - which is the flavour and tone of a campaign.

 

[Whisper72]

However, I think any DM who restricts his games to the core rules for the sake of "balance" or a similar notion, but who refuses to make his own changes in order to accomodate the players, is either a fool or someone very insecure about their mechanical judgement.

Heh heh... it is exactly because I am NOT concerned about the aetherial concept of 'balance' that I would disallow all manner of PrC's, as I do not feel the need to 'balance' the less effective combat skills of a swashbuckling fighter as opposed to a 'tank' fighter. What I WILL do however, but IMHO that is something all DMs must to anyway, is keep in mind the make-up of the party when making up adventures for them. Thus a group with more swashbuckly types will prolly not run into too many encounters where a real tank is needed. On the other hand, I expect the non-tank fighter to make smart use of the fact that he is more agile, and so overcome the same encounter a tank would do by bashing away, but use different tactics based on his strengths...

 

[Umbran]

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

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.

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.

 

[Belen]

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

Thank you. This has been my point all along. If someone wants to play a concept, then has to have more "rules" in order to play that concept because they make a comparison between apples and oranges, then what is the point? A swashbuckler is not supposed to be a frontline tank! There should be no comparison between the two.

A better comparison is looking at the combat abilties of a rogue versus the swashbuckling fighter. The fighter wins. Period. People act like a loss of one ability, such as medium armor prof is the end of the world. Why do they have to get extra goodies? Personally, this leads me to believe that they just want to play a mechanical character. They really do not care about who or what the character is, but rather, what he can do. This is not the type of person I want in my game.

To steal a term from 3e ethos, I want a balanced player who does not ignore either mechanics or character.

I am not saying that I will not work with a player to have a viable character. However, I will NOT work with someone who whinges about being less optimal because they are comparing fighting styles and they do 10 less damage per round.

I am not saying that I have never or will never tweak a character or core class, but I will not do it because someone tells me that their swashbuckler is not a tank.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

To the original question I think in general yes they can which is why I generally shy away from non core classes and PRCs in general.

 

[Sir Elton]

I am not saying that I have never or will never tweak a character or core class, but I will not do it because someone tells me that their swashbuckler is not a tank.

Good. Swashbucklers aren't tanks anyway. Try suggesting to play a rake, or a fop as a tank.

The Fop

Playing an effeminant fighter changes the dynamic. He's someone who is bored with fighting and he will not go in there and mix it up like Conan and/or Henry V. So your looking at a fighter who has an inordinate ammount of feats. No weapon specialization. Certainly weapon finesse, weapon focus, dodge, and mobility. Watch _Zorro: the Gayblade_ for an example of a foppish fighter.

The Rake

The Rake is different in concept sense he is, well, a little rich boy -- a middle child (unless you are a Prince of Wales or a Duke of Cornwall). He spends Father's money for his own enjoyment and gets into duels of honor. Again, your looking at Combat Expertise and all the classic Swashbuckler feats; but the Rake could also use power attack too.

Strangely enough, one can create these concepts using a pure fighter. A multi-class Rogue/Fighter is possible as well. But then, you run into the problems I was facing with the Ranger (I don't like the ranger being a hateful person, favored enemy represents hatred). So sometimes you need make up a core class to fit the concept into the core rules.

It's exactly this limited view, of making up a new character archetype, that be moans many people who use GURPS instead of D&D. Although strangely enough, the more things change, the more they stay the same. (I guess I'm rambling off topic).

So my point is that the Core Classes are flexible enough to handle most concepts. But not all of them. That's why we have all these different options to add on to our game. Oriental Adventures, the Expanded Psionics Handbook, etc. All of these can add flavor to the game.

 

[Nuclear Platypus]

What the HECK happened to my hit die references in that post? I put d12 in there for both references, and for some reason it came out d10 and d20???

Precognition of 4E power creep?

All kidding aside, yes it can be done tho it'll be odd in most cases. Compare the viability of an Elric type character in 3E as opposed to the earlier editions. True he can be created in earlier editions but its far easier now.

That being said, I'm rather biased towards the Stat classes of d20 Modern (later used quite effectively in Grim Tales).

 

[mmadsen]

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.)?

When I first saw the third-edition rules for the fighter, I immediately recognized that you could build a French knight, a Japanese samurai, or a Mongolian steppe nomad with one class. I was very impressed.

Naturally, I feel that most warrior-themed prestige classes are inelegant and unnecessary. And I don't see why we need a samurai class. (Or, rather, I'd prefer to see either a fighter class with more skill points and more class skills or an aristocrat class on the same playing field as the PC classes.)