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

[ThoughtBubble]

Typically, I find I can do most things well enough with the base classes and a little tweaking. However, I find that level tends to be the biggest limiting factor. Usually, to get the feel right, and the right ratio of abilities, it takes a lot more levels then I'm really comfortable with for starting a character(usually in the 6-8 range). In that aspect, PRC's are even a bit depressing, I mean, It's like 7 levels to get in one of those, and then like another 3 or 4 levels for those abilities to really start shining through. That's higher level than any game I've been in gets to.

Now, as a side tangent, on the whole swashbuckling issue, has there been any throught of starting from a Barbarian or Monk as a base, and making a few small changes from there? They both tend to do much better in low armor situations.

 

[S'mon]

In the case of a class like the Favoured Soul, you have a class that derives much of its flavour from the Divine Spontaneous Casting ability... but such is impossible to replicate with the standard rules. So, what then?

Because saying "This Cleric casts Spontaneously" is _impossible_, right? :\

I do that IMC - all Clerics and other Divine casters cast spontaneously. They're still Clerics, I haven't "created a new class." Balance-wise maybe they're weaker than the non-spontaneous unlimited-spell-list Cleric, but since those are (IMO) overpowered, they still stack up well vs Fighters, Rogues et al. The 3e DMG specifically gives you permission to tweak classes in this way, like the 'Undead Hunter' Ranger or the Witch variant-Sorcerer. I really can't understand what the fuss is about.

 

[Belen]

Because saying "This Cleric casts Spontaneously" is _impossible_, right? :\

I do that IMC - all Clerics and other Divine casters cast spontaneously. They're still Clerics, I haven't "created a new class." Balance-wise maybe they're weaker than the non-spontaneous unlimited-spell-list Cleric, but since those are (IMO) overpowered, they still stack up well vs Fighters, Rogues et al. The 3e DMG specifically gives you permission to tweak classes in this way, like the 'Undead Hunter' Ranger or the Witch variant-Sorcerer. I really can't understand what the fuss is about.

I agree here. Nothing states that a favored soul or a hexblade cannot be made using the core rules. They just will not match the classes listed by WoTC.

Personally, I find both the hexblade and Favored Soul concepts completely unneeded. They fit no archetype and I see no reason why they are needed. I may not like LG, but even they do not allow the new classes in their campaign.

Any of the core classes can fit the archetype that a player wants. It's a myth that mechanics produce flavor. If anything, I have seen less flavor in character concepts since the advent of 3e because people are so focused on mechanics. They literally feel that they have to be what is written on their sheet. Their sheet has to say swashbuckler in order for them to be a swashbuckler and that's nuts!

The same thing happens a lot with skills. I see a lot of people say...sorry I don;t have that skill, so I cannot do anything. This is especially prevalent in the social skills arena.

Mechanics are not God. They exist only to provide a framework for a roleplaying game. They do not control the game, despite what many people think.

 

[reanjr]

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.)?

Can you build a character with the flavor of the many prestige classes using the mechanics of the core rules (base classes, feats, skills, etc.)?

For instance. . .

Can a "wu jen" be built with the core rules?

Can a "duelist" be built with the core rules?

Or are many of the prestige classes and alternate/optional/non-core base classes *necessary* for some characters?

Quasqueton

Shaman can be done with thought and work.
Samurai is a no-brainer to make.
Hexblade might not be exact, but close enough for most purposes.
Wu Jen I am not overly familiar with, but from what I know, I would say no.
Duelist can certainly be done.

So I'd say Wu Jen is certainly appropriate for a prestige/variant class.
Shaman and Hexblade would have to be important to the campaign to be worth it.
Samurai and Duelist are worthless.

 

[S'mon]

Shaman = Druid
Samurai = Fighter
Hexblade = Fighter/Wizard
Wu Jen = Sorcerer
Duelist = Fighter/Rogue

 

[hong]

Any of the core classes can fit the archetype that a player wants.

Of course, if we only ever used what was "necessary", we'd be living in a cave somewhere.

It's a myth that mechanics produce flavor.

By this "logic", bringing starships to a D&D game is fine and dandy because it's all just mechanics.

If anything, I have seen less flavor in character concepts since the advent of 3e because people are so focused on mechanics. They literally feel that they have to be what is written on their sheet. Their sheet has to say swashbuckler in order for them to be a swashbuckler and that's nuts!

The same thing happens a lot with skills. I see a lot of people say...sorry I don;t have that skill, so I cannot do anything. This is especially prevalent in the social skills arena.

Mechanics are not God. They exist only to provide a framework for a roleplaying game. They do not control the game, despite what many people think.

In case you missed the memo, there are these things called "splatbooks". They exist for every middlingly popular RPG on the market, whether we're talking White Wolf, WotC, Palladium, SJG, or Guy In His Basement Games. These things called "splatbooks" almost without exception present new additions to the rules framework for players to do stuff, in addition to plenty of syllables of descriptive text. Splatbooks can sometimes rival core rulebooks in popularity. Therefore, your opinion, while not exactly wrong, is certainly not particularly relevant to anyone except yourself.

In any case, I thought you were burnt out?

 

[PJ-Mason]

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.)?

Can you build a character with the flavor of the many prestige classes using the mechanics of the core rules (base classes, feats, skills, etc.)?

Absolutely. Can and have done many times.

Can a "wu jen" be built with the core rules?

Can a "duelist" be built with the core rules?

I am not an expert on what WU-Jen's are supposed to do, but i would say yes, simply because i haven't seen a character type yet that couldn't be made with the rules that exist in the "Core" (PHB, DMG, MM).

You can absolutely make a duelist character. With High dex, weapon finesse, expertise, and spring attack a fighter can wreak total havoc on opposing forces. One of our players used this style of fighting so effectively that we banned spring attacker/duelist character types for a couple campaigns in a row! Light armor fighters are in no way inferior to armor heavy fighters. Unless of course every fight in your games take place in a 6 foot jail cell where no one can escape or something. Then the problem is with your games, not the rules.

Or are many of the prestige classes and alternate/optional/non-core base classes *necessary* for some characters?

Quasqueton

None of them are necessary at all. But a lot of players seem to need the vindication of having DUELIST stamped on their character sheet instead of FIGHTER WITH HIGH DEX AND LIGHT ARMOR.