Complete? ... The basic classes are still best.

[Samothdm]

They're called "Options" for a reason. They're "Optional."

I think a lot of it might depend on how often you play and how long your campaigns last. For the campaign I run, we've been playing for about 3 and a half years with pretty much the same group of newbies, so Core was fine for them.

For people who go through campaigns a characters a lot more quickly, having more options might be good so they don't get bored.

I took a few levels of hexblade in the new campaign in which I play just because it was different from the same old thing.

 

[Laman Stahros]

The warlock is so cool, he makes me want to throw out the sorcerer.

I did throw out the sorcerer, replacing it with the warlock and the warmage. Works great.

 

[francisca]

The warlock is so cool, he makes me want to throw out the sorcerer.

/me Frantically nods head in agreement.

To me, the Warlock is what the Sorceror should have been. I like it so much.....

(waits for the crowd to respond with: "How much do you like it?")

I like it so much I'm back-porting it to my 1E Greyhawk game, probably just as an NPC, initially.

As for the topic of this thread. I agree, with at least one obvious exceptions (and a few more). I don't like prestige classes, I don't like oodles and oodles of spells, and I mostly stick to the core. On the other hand, I can see why others want more beyond the core classes and spells. I mean, how many times can you play a straight up fighter, or Wizard, etc... ? For me and Driddle, the answer is apparently "infinite". It's my hunch that if we could get the actual sales numbers, we'd find that we're in the majority, but hey, where is the fun in debating about whether or not the fighter is broken or a book that came out a year and a half ago?

 

[lotuseater]

well, it sounds like everyone's found something to be happy about. that's good. for myself, i could be very happy with a core only game as a player (though i agree that the prc's in the dmg aren't very interesting), but as a dm, it's nice to have a lot more options to generate ideas.

and it seems as if i may be the only one who prefers the sorceror to the warlock. hmmm.

 

[Jdvn1]

I've concluded the core character classes from the PHB and the prestige classes from the DMG are all you really need.

... I thought everyone already knew that.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm the complete opposite. I don't like the core rule takes on most of the archetypes with the exception of the most basic, i.e.; the fighter, the rogue and the barbarian. The ranger is a complete D&Dism in terms of the wilderness guy/hunter archetype, the paladin likewise for the upright pseudo-religious knight type, and I don't particularly like D&D style magic, so most of the other classes are also out. I also don't like the less broad classes that shoehorn my character into a narrow interpretation of the archetype in question.

In other words, I'm almost always on the lookout for other core classes.

 

[Imret]

Gotta say, I'm with Joshua on this one, with an exception...I'm not real fond of the barbarian. I like the rogue, I like the fighter, I like the druid, and the cleric's not bad. I know some people find them overpowered, I don't, YMMV.

I find the core "full arcane casters" to be dull as dishwater. Not the fault of the magic system, in my opinion, just....there's no flair. Every 1st level wizard I've ever seen has the same half-dozen spells, because they're the useful ones. It doesn't feel like one commands the awesome forces of the arcane with word and gesture, you feel like a supply clerk. Sorcerors.....eh. Just not fond of them myself. Not enough spells IMO, but too easily broken with more.

The ranger and the paladin are interesting concepts, but IMO badly executed. I've never liked spellcasting rangers, and the paladin is not only under-equipped for his role, it's WotC balancing (slight) mechanical advantages with roleplaying disadvantages. The best part being, these disadvantages are the perfect combination of strict and vague to spawn near-endless controversy amongst players (as a search for "paladin" would almost certainly show you).

I simply cannot understand the bard. I see the need for the role the bard plays in the party, except...bardic music annoys the hell out of me as an ability. I just don't like the character image it spawns. Barbarians strike me as something better suited to a template and some feats. Monks...well...monks are the most riding-on-rails class I've ever seen.

Prestige classes are another matter entirely. I've probably used....two dozen non-core PrC's in my DMing. Sometimes I see one in another book, and I think "THAT'S the villain's prestige class".

Or, in conclusion - I disagree with the OP.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Have to admit, I've found most of the base classes in the Complete line to be awfully lame-- notable exceptions being the Warlock and the Favored Soul. (And to a lesser extent, the Shugenja, which allowed me to balance out my Gestalt-rules adaptation very nicely.)

I will, eventually, find a use for the Hexblade, though at the moment it seems only like a way to get Mettle at low levels.

The base classes from Expanded Psionics Handbook, and a large number of Prestige Classes from it and the Complete line, however, have been aces. I love the subtle distinction between the Psion and the Wilder, and the Psychic Warrior and Soulknife are just awesome classes.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I hate the spellcasting ranger. Almost every NPC I've made that's a ranger has been either from AEG's Mercenaries book, or has taken the spellcasterless options from a book like FFG's Wildscape or WoTC Complete Warrior.

I also dislike the fighter. No professional skills? So no fighter was ever a professional soldier. Kingdoms of Kalamar has some great military skills in it but I'll probably house rule the Fighter from the Black Company as a base default.

Some players dislike the rogue due to it's root thieving ways and I've seen Trap Master core classes and Scout core classes. I think it's good that they offer them.

Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed did quite a few things right. In Rolemaster, a system Monte worked with for quite a while, they have fighter, thief, and rogue, which is a fighter thief. I've always thought that D&D could use one, and the Unfettered is a good exmaple of that class. Ditto with the Mage Blade, a good fighter-wizard variant. The Akasic is another good example of a skill master, as if the Black Company's Jack of All Trades. Of course the Noble, beefed up from the bare bones of the Aristocrat, is another PC worthy effort.

I guess that in some cases, with role playing and a lot of tinkering, all of those could be done with the core rules, but at that point, why not use the options presented in the system?

 

[Thanee]

Well, after four "Complete" books from WotC and no telling how many similar products from secondary and tertiary vendors, I've concluded the core character classes from the PHB and the prestige classes from the DMG are all you really need.

So, you concluded, what we really need? Nice!

However, while I somewhat agree about the core classes being enough, I totally disagree about the prestige classes. They are lacking considerably.

It's fine to play pretty much without prestige classes (I once DM'ed a campaign where no PrC where allowed, except those who are required for a concept to work reasonably, like the Mystic Theurge), but when you use prestige classes, then I feel that a bit more variation is required than what the DMG presents.

Bye
Thanee