Are the alternate base classes becoming core?

[Nonlethal Force]

I thought 3e introduced Prestige Classes to handle additional specializations. I don't see why other classes are needed. 11 is plenty. I "grew up" playing OD&D, where there were 7 classes, and 3 of them were Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling.

Personally, I am of the complete opposite opinion. Of course, I also have a very serious "buyer beware" mentality. I love the fact that WotC keeps putting out new classes ... and to be honet I was upset that Dragon Magic only had one - and I think Comple Mage had none, right? Anyway, I love to see new classes, so long as they don't significantly advance "powercreep." {However you define that term is fine with me}

I love all the new classes because it adds variety. If I want to play a spellcaster who is themed around being sneaky I can do it without multiclassing and making myself "weak." I can be a beguiler. If I want to play a gish {In the general non-specific sense of the term} I can do so without multiclassing into a wizard/fighter and making myself weak. I like options.

In the same light, I am also a fervent believer that DMs need to make sure that they think when they DM. For example, I don't like Bo9S, any of the "Races of ..." books, or setting specific texts. So, I limit the choices of things to what I like. That is required!

So ... what I am saying is that I totally respect DMs who limit their book selection. But I also love all the new choices!

 

[DragonShadow]

In my experience, I have a hard time getting players to move on to the new classes and step away from their nice safe Core classes.

I've played just about everything imaginable, and I like the new classes. I'll promote them for what they're worth, but I can't see them being included in the next editions PHB.

I agree, though, that they've released just one too many new base classes. Almost every book in the Complete series has three new base classes, and it seems that they're not much different from the other classes, they've just got built in flavor. (Swashbuckler is at the top of my "Why Do We Have This Crap?" list.)

My question to you, though, is are all of the core classes even "Core"? If they weren't included in the PHB, would people yearn for them to be brought back? Some people inevitably would, but when it comes down to what people play in any given situation and what they don't, I have to ask "why is this in my PHB, and this not?" It's all a matter of personal preference, of course, and the classes in the PHB are (IMO) meant to be the most basic of base classes. Have an archetype, it's in the book.

Everything else is just fluff.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Although it is a cool dark wizard archetype, I couldn't see it replacing the sorcerer - it is nowhere near as interesting, versatile and useful. Sorcerers are so good that I've not been able to bring myself to play a wizard yet (and wizards were my favourite characters in 1e)

I'd like to buy it, but conventional wisdom has the Sorc being underpowered -- the ability to rifle off a few more spells/day (even with a good, decently scaling spell selection) is usually not that powerful when compared to the spell level they lag and the ability to switch out your spells on the fly (especially for metamagic, which the sorc almost cannot use). In versatility, they ain't got nothing on the Wizard, and a "dark wizard" like the Warlock is a really strong archetype, while a "charismatic dragon-blooded magician" like the Sorcerer is significantly less popular.

Their main strength is the few more spells/day, something that doesn't even come into play if you don't have more than a few encounters before resting (and if you're going by the cleric's ability to heal, you'll be ending usually long before the Wiz runs out of spells, making the Sorc's main bonus rarely used).

The Warlock does that strength better (infinite spells/day), anyway.

So what makes the Sorc so good in your eyes?

 

[seans23]

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

Hey now, I'm a cleric/contemplative.

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

 

[Nyaricus]

I'd like to know what classes have traction out of the official class list

At 175 classes with many being dups, I think the game could stand some weeding out of classes.

That said, I'd like the see more of the Tome of Magic and the Heroes of Horror classes in play.

[sblock=All Wotc Base Classes]
Archivist (HoH)
Ardent (ComPsi)
Artificer (ECS)
Barbarian (PHB)
Bard (PHB)
Bardic Sage (UA)
Battle Sorcerer (UA)
Beguiler (PHBII)
Binder (ToM)
Cleric (PHB)
Cloistered Cleric (UA)
Crusader (ToB)
Divine Bard (UA)
Divine Mind (ComPsi)
Domain Wizard (UA)
Dragon Shaman (PHBII)
Dragonfire Adept (DraMag)
Dread Necromancer (HoH)
Druid (PHB)
Druidic Avenger (UA)
Duskblade (PHBII)
Erudite (ComPsi)
Factotum (DunScp)
Favored Soul (ComDiv)
Fighter (PHB)
Healer (MHB)
Hexblade (ComWar)
Incarnate (MoI)
Knight (PHBII)
Lurk (ComPsi)
Marshal (MHB)
Monk (PHB)
Mystic (DLCS)
Ninja (ComAdven)
Noble (DLCS)
Paladin (PHB)
Paladin of Freedom (UA)
Paladin of Slaughter (UA)
Paladin of Tyranny (UA)
Planar Ranger (UA)
Psion (XPH)
Psychic Warrior (XPH)
Ranger (PHB)
Rogue (PHB)
Samurai (ComWar)
Savage Bard (UA)
Scout (ComAdven)
Shaman (OA)
Shadowcaster (ToM)
Shugenja (ComDiv)
Sohei (OA)
Sorcerer (PHB)
Soulborn (MoI)
Soulknife (XPH)
Specialized Wizard Variants (UA)
Swordsage (ToB)
Spellthief (ComAdven)
Spirit Shaman (ComDiv)
Swashbuckler (ComWar)
Thug (UA)
Totem Barbarian (UA)
Totemist (MoI)
Truenamer (ToM)
Urban Ranger (UA)
Warblade (ToB)
Warlock (ComArc)
Warmage (ComArc)
Wilder (XPH)
Wilderness Rogue (UA)
Wizard (PHB)
Wu Jen (ComArc)
[/sblock]
71, by my count. Many of the class variant in UA contribute bulk to this list - but then again many of the class variants are really effin sweet, too!

However, stuff like 3 nature priest classes (Shaman, Spirit Shaman and Druid) could be combined into one base class, and stuff like the Totem Barbarians already have standard barbs counted in their ranks. I agree there could be a lot of weeding in the classes area.

cheers,
--N

 

[Particle_Man]

My question to you, though, is are all of the core classes even "Core"? If they weren't included in the PHB, would people yearn for them to be brought back?

Well the "Bard" was not a base class in 1st ed., and didn't exist in B/X D&D (nor did many other classes).

In 2nd ed., Monk, Barbarian and Assassin did not exist except in kits, so would hardly be "core".

Sorceror did not exist prior to 3rd ed., AFAIK, except as a level title for magic-user (which was essentially a wizard).

Of course, one could go "Small" and just have the Unearthed Arcana Warrior, Expert and Spellcaster and do everything with feats, but I find that less satisfying, personally.

 

[Stalker0]

I general I think multiclassing can handle most archetype needs, there isn't a lot that can't be worked out with a few classes and a little imagination. That said, there are some real gems to be found in the new base classes.

I think the warlock hit upon an archetype completely lacking in the core. Its the real sorceror, not the wizard-light that the regular sorc is. The scout is a solid wilderness...scout, though I think a bit underpowered at high levels. The duskblade is a good attempt at a fighter mage. This is one area where multiclassing drops the ball, a straight up fighter type/arcane spell caster just doesn't cut the mustard.

And then there are others which I see little need for. What's the point of the warmage? An evoker or a sorc packing empower spell can pretty much do what a warmage does. And of course, lets not even get started on the samuari

 

[Hussar]

I think D&D will always have your three main archetypes: Fighter, Thief, Magic-User. These are reflected by the NPC classes of Warrior/Expert/Adept, and could probably be used as a framework for other classes that spring off them, with optional class options for DMs who wish to use them in their campaign.

Warrior Classes:
*Fighter
*Paladin
*Barbarian
*Monk
++ Knight (optional)


Expert Classes
*Ranger
*Bard
*Rogue
++Scout (optional)


Magic-User Classes
*Wizard
*Sorceror
*Cleric
++ Warlock (optional)
++ Favored Soul (optional)


The optional base classes have always reminded me of the "kit" options in AD&D - especially with the inevitable power creep.

However, since there is no reason to expect this mythical "Fourth Edition" any time in the near... ever, I would say that these extra classes are currently optional content, officially supported by WotC.

"inevitable power creep"?

What non-core classes are bigger than CoDzilla? Or even the wizard? Every time power comparisons of classes come up, those three are always top of the heap. If the new classes were even equal in power, don't you think one of them would have knocked off one of the top three?

If anything, most of the non-core classes are considerably weaker than core. Warwizard? A poor man's blaster Sorcerer. Swashbuckler? Pretty much the opposite of power creep. Same goes for a fair number of the non-core classes.

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.

 

[theredrobedwizard]

Only a minority of players buy these supplements, so that can't really be so.

I... what? I'm pretty sure that nearly every player I play with buys around 8 supplements a year. That's the average. Then there's the completeists (the DM and myself) who buy just about every non-FR supplement that's printed.

Maybe I just game with people who don't fit the mold or something, but I think we figured that our Average Yearly Contribution to WotC (AYCW) was around $250. Most spent more, one guy didn't spend any (because he's been employed all of 6 weeks in the past year; lazy bum). This doesn't count minis, other WotC products purchased, or 3rd Party materials; just D&D books.

What's your group's AYCW?

Appearantly, we're the minority.

Back to the OP; They might one day be core, but that's a long ways off. According to some posters, only a minority buy the supplements, so we're going to have to wait for them to play catch up.

-TRRW

 

[Numion]

The sky isn't falling.

I wouldn't consider the sky falling even if they did creep into core in 4E. I always liked RoleMaster for the fact that it had a gazillion classes (professions). "Oh, you're a Force Mage? Cool." D&D would work better in this regard because of PrCs, so there's no stupidity like a 1st level Archmage, like there's in RM.

Designers should just clarify for themselves the purpose of base classes and PrCs (it might be unnecessary to have two tools for the same job), and it should be all good.