Complete Mage ToC

[Crothian]

This dispostion puzzles me. I don't think new classes are really necessary, but why actually be happy about a lack of content? If new classes were included, they'd be purely optional anyway. It's not like stuff has to be used because it's there.

Correct, but if I'm not going to use it I would perfer that it not be there and something more useful be in its place. I am happy they did not include an option I would most likely not use for something else that I might.

 

[Psion]

This dispostion expressed by some of you puzzles me. WhileI don't think new classes are really necessary, why actually be happy about a lack of such content?

More room for worthwhile content, naturally.

 

[Felon]

Hmm. Ultimate Magus. Maybe it rewards non-specialist wizards?

 

[Psion]

However, I think most of you specialist fans will be pretty happy with what you can achieve by combining some of the alternate class features with the master specialist PrC.

Coolness. I much prefer the flexibilty of "component built" characters than a one-size-does-not-fit-all solution of a new base class.

 

[Gold Roger]

This dispostion puzzles me. I don't think new classes are really necessary, but why actually be happy about a lack of content? If new classes were included, they'd be purely optional anyway. It's not like stuff has to be used because it's there.

1) As Crothian and others have said, new base classes use lots of space and people that won't use them would propably prefer stuff instead that is easier to integrate.

which leads to:

2) I've found nothing to be as hard to incorporate into a game as base classes. I'm playing an everything goes game and have found I can pick and drop pretty much everything into it without complications, hurt to suspense of disbelieve or anything like that. Most PrC's, feats, spells, races etc I've in fact found to enhance my game. Not so new base classes. They need far more work, distract, often feel tacked on. Some will be used far more than others and at that point it becomes hard to justify why some of them are in fact base classes and not PrC's when there may be only one or two in the whole campaign.

This doesn't mean everyone has that problem, of course, but it explains how some don't like to use new ones.

3) There has recently been a flood of new base classes and I guess I'm not the only that feels enough is enough. For example we've got both the dragonfire adept and the dragon shaman within what? Three months? And both of these classes are:

-Mechanically interesting, but hard to justify from a flavor standpoint.
-Fill the same flavor niche
-share some abilities (get draconic wings, natural armor, breath attack)
-encroach on the mechanical niche of older base classes (dragonfire-warlock, dragon shaman-bard and marshal)

4) There are many new base classes that are barely supported, in fact many of the base classes could use some. Why spit out so much new stuff, when the old one could use some depth?

 

[Particle_Man]

2) I've found nothing to be as hard to incorporate into a game as base classes. I'm playing an everything goes game and have found I can pick and drop pretty much everything into it without complications, hurt to suspense of disbelieve or anything like that. Most PrC's, feats, spells, races etc I've in fact found to enhance my game. Not so new base classes. They need far more work, distract, often feel tacked on. Some will be used far more than others and at that point it becomes hard to justify why some of them are in fact base classes and not PrC's when there may be only one or two in the whole campaign.

One thing to keep in mind that may help is the idea that at some point in your gameworld's history, there had to have been a first wizard, first paladin, etc. ("In the beginning, there was nobody but commoners, warriors and barbarians. Then someone discovered magic and lo! There were adepts!"). Thus there could appear, in your world's present, the first Hexblade, the first Warlock, etc.

I don't mean that you have to use them, but this might help overcome your suspension of disbelief a bit.

 

[Driddle]

I am glad for no more new base classes. They were getting annoying now. But I do like alternate class features.

The game already has more than enough "base" classes to work with, when what we really need are more small-change options for those classes. There's really no reason to devote four pages to a hypothetical "arcane ranger," for example, when all you need is four paragraphs to describe component substitutions -- this spelll list instead of that spell list, for example, and these skills instead of those skills.

As for this product, I'm ever so miffed that familiars got nothing! For all the complaints we hear from gamers around here that a familiar is a worthless mage benefit, you'd think WotC would spend some time providing alternative interpretations or something to beef up the little critters. But noooooo!!!....

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

As for this product, I'm ever so miffed that familiars got nothing! For all the complaints we hear from gamers around here that a familiar is a worthless mage benefit, you'd think WotC would spend some time providing alternative interpretations or something to beef up the little critters. But noooooo!!!....

Shhh! WOTC is at work on the Complete Companion, a guide to provide more options for familiars, animal companions, cohorts, and henchmen in your game.

Edit: And just for Crothian, Paladin mounts.

 

[Crothian]

Shhh! WOTC is at work on the Complete Companion, a guide to provide more options for familiars, animal companions, and cohorts, and henchmen in your game.

But no Paladin mount? Isn't that typical the Paladin always gets screwed like this!!

 

[Nightfall]

Crothy,

I'm still waiting to see them offer better alternatives for those paladins that don't like charging or like having to lug around a mount.