The CORE of the Matter

[shilsen]

In my two groups, out of ten PCs, the only non-core classes are a scout and an artificer, with the artificer arguably being core for Eberron.

 

[IronWolf]

I tend towards core classes over the other classes. Though I just started a campaign where my first level was taken as a Dwarven Cleric racial substitution class from Races of Stone.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't like using non-core base classes. I think there is no character concept that really can't be done outside the core set of classes, so the reason to use a non-core class for me would be for an alternate mechanics, but so far there hasn't been anything among the published non-core classes that stroke me as interesting to add to a game (with the exception of the old Mongoose's Chaos Mage).

The Psion could definitely be an interesting class, but I've never been interested enough in the whole psionics subsystem to buy an entire book and study how it works. It has in fact a "different concept" but I don't know why I always feel it slightly inappropriate for a fantasy setting (I'm probably too traditional...). It's be great in a modern or scifi setting tho.

The Healer sounded like the ultimate class which is there to make everyone's favored NPC or cohort, but it probably wouldn't appeal many as a PC.

The Warlock and the Warmage for me are narrowed sorcerers and feel just plain boring. No new concept at all IMHO.

The Spellthief is too specific for my tastes as a base class, although its signature abilities would be nice if available as feats or as a prestige class.

The Scout seems nothing more than a variant ranger. No new concept at all again.

The Hexblade also has no new concept at all, being just another take to the fighter/mage idea. The Swashbuckler is more of a variant fighter than a new class as well. However I think these two base classes probably work well mechanically. It's just that instead of having new classes (of which I'd have to take every detail), I'd rather try to make these concepts with the core fighter and some added feats or special abilities.

Anwyay, I would allow a non-core class if a player really wants it, but I definitely don't suggest its use by e.g. giving players a list of 'allowed' non-core classes. Instead I largely prefer to make variants of the core classes. E.g. instead of introducing the Favored Soul, I would allow UA's spontaneous cleric. I think there are several advantages of using variant core classes instead of non-core classes, for the fact that such a cleric is still a cleric for any purposes (for example, using spells and stuff from supplements).

 

[Li Shenron]

Also, in a setting different from the "classic" ones, it makes much more sense for me to use non-core base classes. I don't play Eberron, but the Artificer sounds appropriate to the setting themes, if I understand correctly.

And of course in an eastern setting I want oriental core classes and not the western ones

 

[zeo_evil]

"The Hexblade also has no new concept at all, being just another take to the fighter/mage idea."

I love hexblades. More of an alternate evil paladin or something like that.

 

[zeo_evil]

"The Warlock and the Warmage for me are narrowed sorcerers and feel just plain boring. No new concept at all IMHO."

The warlock is about as close to broken as it gets IMHO. You should see what my friend is getting away with.

Where did my signature go?

 

[Gold Roger]

I like both. There are some non core classes, I feel are badly designed (Samurai, Swashbuckler, Healer), but there are many more that I really like (Spirit Shaman, Ninja, Scout, Warlock, Spellthief, Psionic Classes). However, non core classes sometimes just don't fit the setting.

 

[Hussar]

Definitely Core for my games. Even in my current game, where I threw the doors open, I still see everyone going core. I tend to agree with the above. The core classes certainly can fill out pretty much any character concept. Race might be a different matter, but class? No problems.

 

[Staffan]

Hmm. In the Eberron campaign I'm currently running, I have:
Human artificer
Warforged fighter/cleric
Halfling sorcerer (only there about every other session on account of being a workaholic)
Kalashtar soulknife
Elven druid
Shifter fighter/monk

So, the artificer is using a lot of stuff from both the core books (since many of the infusions mimic PHB spells, and part of the fun of being an artificer is having an arsenal of scrolls to handle odd situations) and the Eberron book.
The fighter/cleric is of an Eberron race, but most of that's already on his sheet. He has a domain that's in the ECS, but most of the stuff that's related to the domain is in the PHB.
The sorcerer uses PHB spells. The only Eberron thing about him is that he has a Talentan boomerang.
The soulknife is based on ECS and XPH material. Even so, most of his abilities are already on his character sheet, so most of the referencing of those books would happen during downtime, when levelling up.
The druid has a magic double-scimitar, which is an Eberron weapon. Other than that, he's pretty much PHB.
The shifter fighter/monk's class abilities come from the PHB, but he also relies heavily on his racial stuff which is from the ECS.

Taken all together, I think I would vote for "mainly core."

 

[JediSoth]

I chose the "Clicky clicky" option because my answer is more complicated than the poll. My players pretty much stick to the core classes (though one has taken levels in Warlock). In my ideal campaign world, most of the core classes would be supplanted by Arcana Evolved classes, supplemented by some expansion classes from the "Complete [CLASS]" books. But, we're doing WLD right now, and I told them I would pretty much allow anything in this campaign, so feel free to go wild.

JediSoth