New Core Classes: Love them or Leave them?

[Celebrim]

I think the new WOTC produced Base Classes all serve a niche depending on what you're looking for. They new base classes are summoned up as either

Combo base classes
sorceror rogue= spellthief
ranger rogue= scout
fighter wizard= hexblade
cleric fighter = warpriest.

...I think they serve a purpose for those characters who know from the start they want to be a combo of two classes but can't pick which one OR those who are not happy with the spell abilties of the cleric, sorceror and wizard

Let's face it. There are just some multi-classes that don't work well together. Fixing that is one of the few reasons I'm ever tempted to allow prestige classes.

I don't feel I need the scout. As you said, the scout is basically a Ranger/Rogue or Ranger/Fighter and those two classes DO work well together. As for the Scout's particular class abilities, I'd be perfectly happy converting the major elements into feats.

In the case of the Warpriest, I hardly feel it necessary because a tanked up Cleric with appropriate domains can be a perfectly good front line fighter even without multi-classing, and if neccessary you can drop a spellcasting level or two in favor of some levels in fighter. Again, fighters and divine spellcasters work pretty well togther. Cleric's are already 'battle priests' with the ability to wear heavy armor. I even have a few feats that can ease the pain of losing your full spell progression. If this still doesn't satisfy you, then I'm highly suspicious of any cleric/fighter prestige or core class because its likely to be either a cleric that gets better fighting abilities for free or a fighter with free divine spell casting abilities.

The only two multiclasses that I've a particular hard time with in 3rd edition are fighter/magic-user and thief/magic-user.

The problem here is that these are just two things that don't mix well. The fighter/magic-user mainly has the arcane armor penalty problem. I figure fighters have enough feats to spare that if I make the right feats available I can overcome this problem. I've not yet had the oppurtunity to try it out, but I now think that you could make a progression toward 8th level Sorcerer/12th level fighter using just the core classes and carefully selecting your general feats from those I've created to support the concept and have a playable character the whole way. That's not currently true of straight up SRD core classes IMO.

In the case of the rogue, the real advantages are the numerous skills and class abilities. If you take only a few levels in rogue, you get alot out of it (evasion, uncanny dodge, sneak attack), but you can never get your skills beyond moderate levels of ability unless you keep with sneaky classes (like ranger) and that means that your skills are really not that great at high levels of play. On the other hand, the strength of a wizard is its spell casting progression. Every non-wizard level you take robs you of alot of potential power. If you only take a few levels in wizard, you just aren't getting anything more than a trivial benifit from your spells at high levels, when your more specialized comrades start slinging around spells. Most critically, neither class has enough feats to make up the difference and taking too many feats just to allow you to multi-class can be a real sacrifice. I suppose you could call Bard the appropriate blend of the two, but Bard carries more flavor than I really like in a class. I would like to be able to play a thief/M-U without being explicitly a performer. I've yet to see something that makes me completely happy here and that's why Monte's Gutter Mage is potentially intriguing to me.

 

[DragonLancer]

I allow the core classes and Psion & Psychic Warrior in my games. When running Dragonlance I allow those plus Mystic and Mariner (both from DL products) but thats it.

My personal opinion is that really you don't need any more than the core classes.

 

[DonTadow]

Let's face it. There are just some multi-classes that don't work well together. Fixing that is one of the few reasons I'm ever tempted to allow prestige classes.

I have to disagree with you. Again, if you take the words out of the book and try to put them into your campaign, obviously you are going ot have problems integrating the other base classes into your campaign. What the combined core classes allow is a character to finally play that thief or sorceror that they have been wanting to play while still not delving too far out of the other element they are used to. I'll take the scout who ran briefly in my campaign. He wanted to run a ranger, and loved the 3.5 improvements to the class, but was use to playing a roguish type class and didn't want to abandon that niche to the party. Yes, he could have prestiged or multiclasses but that usually takes levels away and/or messes with xp. Luckily the complete adventurer came out the next week and the scout addressed those concerns. It allowsa character to play a combined class at first or second level without being too overpowered, as opposed to working through one class or even worse, splitting classes all the way up to the level you can prestige at, then coming up with a good story why you are entering into this prestige. It also forces DMs to add far too many prestiges to their worlds.

There has been an aching question in the back of my mind through all of this thread... how does player input influence the dms decision as to waht does and what doesn't belong in the game. I seem to have come down (and was trained) by a different path of DMs whom all included the players in the world building process (or at least considered their wants and desires?) and in some cases went the extra creative step to include an "out of there "character concept" into their world.

I've heard several comments that ---to summise--- suggest, i dont care what the player wants its not going into my world. My thinking has always been that the world is not mine, it is my players.

 

[Razz0putin]

<Dagnabbit! I forgot to include options for preferring PrCs over core classes and for preferring other groups of core classes to replace those from the PH (like Arcana Evolved).>

I definately would've voted this way had this been an option.

 

[Navar]

I prefer a warrior/mage to be either the product of multiclassing or a prestige class in the case of the Hexblade. As for the warlock, I think that the general feel can be achieved with one of the two "core" arcane spellcasting classes.

But YMMV. I'm not offended if YOU use them. I just don't particularly like them.

Well I would hope you wouldn't be offended.

The only reason I asked is because you implied that the scout was the only class that wasn't better as a prc/multi class option. And Warlock is impossible as another option. And hexblade just gets the stuff faster. That was the only reason for my query.

 

[Felon]

I don't feel I need the scout. As you said, the scout is basically a Ranger/Rogue or Ranger/Fighter and those two classes DO work well together.

I guess humans have become such a common race that a lot of folks don't take into account that multi-classing is very constrictive if you aren't multi-classing with your favored class. Or maybe a lot of folks just ditch favored classes altogether. But I've tried elf ranger/rogue, and it's pretty stifling being locked onto a path where levels must be kept even to avoid a 20% XP penalty.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The Complete Books base classes really don't strike me as very impressive. There are some that come close: Hexblade (interesting idea and flavorful, but hard to make work as an NPC), Scout (great at first level, but unless you're a mounted archer, skirmish blows chunks compared to spring attack), swashbuckler (if that's your thing, it's better than the other options, but it's still not as effective as a real fighter), favored soul (a nifty cleric alternative that gives the DM more control over the magic available to the party). Potentially, Warlock and Warmage (if you are happy playing a sorcerer who can do nothing but damage, it's the class you've always dreamed of) actually succeed at being workable classes. However, the vast majority of them seem like single class progressions for concepts that manage to be either slightly or significantly weaker than the multiclass ways of doing it.

For other books, I like the psion, wilder, and psychic warrior. Soulknife doesn't look like it has enough to make it work. For a fighter class with 3/4 BAB, getting an indestructible, undisarmable weapon for free doesn't seem like it makes up for the lack of BAB. The only thing that would make up for it--Knife to the Soul--would only do so by being broken.

From the Minis handbook, the marshall looks very interesting. On the whole, I'd say that the Minis handbook looks to have the a good proportion of useful classes.

From non-WotC stuff: Green Ronin's Assassin's Handbook. My hat of this book know no limit!!!. The fact that Green Ronin seems to have put serious effort into designing the worst mechanics possible for Killing Blow makes me deeply suspicious of everything else they put out--even though they have quite a good reputation.

Player's Guide to Arcanis: The new base classes seem to be hit and miss though they don't suffer from the same problems as the Complete Books (ie their variant holy warriors and other base classes fill unique roles in the world that would be difficult to do better with a combination of core classes). However, the more innovative the classes are, the less they seem to work in their assigned roles. The priest, for instance, is a nifty class, but it's still an NPC class and is not really suitable for PCs.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

When it comes to classes, I use the 'core' PHB classes. I might allow a non-core class but I'd have to review it and decide if it is original or flavorful enough.

 

[Gez]

Not only do I not use new core classes, I am less likely to buy a D&D book if it has new core classes in it.

Well, do not worry, since the revised edition ("3.5.") was published*, no WotC book contains any "new core class".

The core classes are adept, arcane archer, arcane trickster, archmage, aristocrat, assassin, barbarian, bard, blackguard, commoner, cleric, dragon disciple, druid, duelist, dwarven defender, eldritch knight, expert, fighter, hierophant, horizon walker, loremaster, monk, mystic theurge, paladin, ranger, rogue, shadowdancer, sorcerer, thaumaturgist, warrior, and wizard.

No other D&D class is core. None.

* You may consider that arcane trickster, archmage, dragon disciple, duelist, eldritch knight, hierophant, horizon walker, mystic theurge, and thaumaturgist are new core classes from the original third edition.

 

[Sammael]

Whether or not I allow a new base class in my gamedepends greatly on the flavor. I can deal with the mechanics quite easily, even if they are broken, but the class must be original and have a cool ability that doesn't merely mimic another class.

I have removed the paladin as a base class, as that entire concept screams "prestige" to me.

So far, I've used (as a DM and as a player) the following base classes (other than the ones from the PHB, of course): Psychic (Green Ronin's Psychic's Handbook), Hexblade (Complete Warrior), Warlock (Complete Arcane), and Scout (Complete Adventurer).