Are the alternate base classes becoming core?

[Greg K]

Take this following post with a grain of salt, because I've never read anything about these classes (Scout, Warlock, ect).

I came into 3e very pleased, because after so many years of 2e, I could now custmize characters a lot more. If you wanted a scout in 2e, you had to be a Fighter/Thief or a Ranger. In 3e, if you want a scout, play a Ranger, a Rogue, or a multiclass of both with a sprinkling of other classes as well if you wish.

You forgot the customizing your character option to create class variants. It is in the PHB. I used it to create, among other things, a wilderness rogue variant and an urban barbarian variant shortly after the release of the 3.0 PHB.

I thought 3e introduced Prestige Classes to handle additional specializations. I don't see why other classes are needed

That was only one option.

11 is plenty. I "grew up" playing OD&D, where there were 7 classes, and 3 of them were Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling.

Mabe for you. I personally don't mind new classses. As a DM, I hate making my players multiclass to meet many starting concepts that should be playable at first level and, past a certain point, I don't fill customizing classes.

I just wish that WOTC would design what were, imo, better new base classes- where better in part means, for many classes, building in more flexability to accomadate a wider variety of concepts of what the class should be. For example, a warrior mage base class is good. Building channeling spells via weapon is not in my opinion good design, because now the class doesn't accomadate many views of what a warrior mage should be. The channeling spell via weapon should be a feat choice.

 

[sjmiller]

My campaign has a cleric, a fighter/wizard, a ranger/rogue, a druid, and a fighter/holy liberator.

We need to convince the druid to take a level in something else.

I am sure this will derail the conversation, but I have to ask it. Why does the druid need to take a level in something else? What if the player is happy being a single class? Does everyone have to multiclass just because they can?

I have a gaming party of eight. Out of that group, half of them have not multiclassed and I doubt they ever will. The three of the others have taken racial levels (borrowed from Arcana Evolved) and the last is a wizard/rogue.

heck, if I were playing right now instead of DMing, I would most likely be a single class character. I just don't see why every character has to multiclass.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I am sure this will derail the conversation, but I have to ask it. Why does the druid need to take a level in something else? What if the player is happy being a single class? Does everyone have to multiclass just because they can?

I think you are taking the post much too seriously. My hunch is that seans23 was merely pointing to the parallelism that would happen if everyone had a multiclass or PrC. That's all. i don't think it was meant as an heavy handed edict on high. Human beings prefer symmetry to non-symmetry, that's all.

 

[sjmiller]

I think you are taking the post much too seriously. My hunch is that seans23 was merely pointing to the parallelism that would happen if everyone had a multiclass or PrC. That's all. i don't think it was meant as an heavy handed edict on high. Human beings prefer symmetry to non-symmetry, that's all.

Perhaps I am, but I seem to notice a lot of people talking about their party makeup and a great many are multiclassed. Like the original poster's concern about alternate base classes becoming core classes, I worry that multiclassing is becoming the de facto norm as opposed to an option.

Oh, and the symmetry vs. non-symmetry thing just goes to prove that I must not be human after all.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Yes, you are correct that there are many multiclassed or PrCed gamers out there. But, just as much as there should be nothing wrong with being single classed there should be nothing wrong with multiclassing. Players play for different reasons. Some like the RP and the class is just a set of mechanics to give some vague shape to their character. Thus, they tend to not multiclass that often. For others, their character is their mechanics, and thus they must multiclass to give new life to a character they've never played before!

Neither is wrong, just different styles.

Now - for a true derailment, I'll make a statement that I've totally thrown out favored classes and multiclass penalties in my game. I've found that multiclassing typically weakens a character. Multi-multiclasses usually does so even doubly. Why penalize a choice that is likely (although admittedly not always) going to be suboptimal? [Note: PrCs are not included in this question simply because multiclassing into a PrC does not count towards multiclassing penalties, anyway] This is especially true with anyone multiclassing a full caster!

 

[GreatLemur]

I'd bet money that--unless 4E restructures the class system heavily enough to make this meaningless--the Warlock will make it into the core classes. We all know that cast-all-day mechanics first popularized in the Warlock are gaining traction both among WotC designers and the D&D community at large. I also think it's telling that the Warlock was the one non-core class to make it into Neverwinter Nights 2. If any class is on track for promotion, it's that one.

 

[Nyaricus]

Now - for a true derailment, I'll make a statement that I've totally thrown out favored classes and multiclass penalties in my game.

I've never, ever used multiclass penalties in my games, and I've actually done favoured classes in an entirely different fashion - kinda moving ahead, and kinda looking to D&D's past for inspiration.

Basically, like older editions of D&D, there are some classes which are restricted to certain races. However, any level in any allowed class is attainable, as is any amount of multiclassing between allowed classes. This was merely the lesser of all evils to themeatically tell my players that no, they can't be dwarven sorcerers or elven barbarians. It doesn't fit.

I dunno, it works for me, anyways. Sometimes I'm into running crazy games where everything is fair game.

cheers,
--N

 

[I'm A Banana]

There's a lot of this "power creep" meme floating about, but, when it comes to base classes, there really isn't any. The top three classes have been the same since at least the advent of 3e, and one could make the argument for considerably longer.

I was on board until the Bo9S, when a warblade can out-fighter a fighter.

 

[Crothian]

I was on board until the Bo9S, when a warblade can out-fighter a fighter.

This is another thing I've seen a lot of on the board but just haven't seen in our own games. That and the fighter is still actually not out classed by the castors and we're at tenth level.

 

[Wik]

This is another thing I've seen a lot of on the board but just haven't seen in our own games. That and the fighter is still actually not out classed by the castors and we're at tenth level.

Y'know, I kept reading "The fighter is a crappy class! There's no point playing one unless you're multi-classing or trying to get into a PrC!"

Right now, the goliath fighter in our group is pretty much the only reason the group is alive. At 6th level, he can dish out 30 hit points a round - on average. Since our group lacks any arcane caster, I'm not sure if he's out-classed by the casters, but something tells me that wouldn't happen.