AFGNCAAP
First Post
Y'know, after getting Complete Warrior and seeing the core class variants in that, hearing about Complete Divine, hearing about some of the core class options in Unearthed Arcana, & even seeing & hearing about the core class variants presented in Dragon, I just hafta wonder...
Is D&D getting core-class happy again?
I didn't have any problem with lots of prestige classes, since they were (more or less) a type/path that a character could develop into. However, it seems like there's quite a few new core classes that focuses on specific ideas or motifs--for example, the UA battle sorcerer seems to (basically) be a sort of fighter/sorcerer combo made into a core class, while the CW swashbuckler seems to be a bit more Dex-focused, roguish fighter.
I don't mind these kinds of characters at all, but I wonder if this could have been avoided (to a certain degree) if some of the existing core classes were made a bit more flexible. For example, would there really have been a need for a samurai class or a swashbuckler class in UA if the fighter class just started off with more feats & less set abilities (for example, being proficient in all simple & martial weapons, and maybe light armor, but granting additional bonus feats at 1st level for medium armor prof., heavy armor prof., shield prof., & tower shield prof.)? This way, the Dex-based fighter could spend feat slots previously taken by the armor & shield profs. on feats such as Weapon Finesse, Dodge, Weapon Focus, etc.; along the same lines, a more wilderness-based fighter could get feats such as Track, or perhaps even feats that allow for additional skills to become class skills.
Of course, all of these new core classes are optional (heck, even the core classes & races in the core books are optional, per DM/player/rule 0 discretion). And, these new core classes may fit the bill for certain kinds of campaigns or character concepts.
However, do these new core classes lessen the value of multiclassing? Does it lessen the value of some prestige classes? I mean, why play a multi-classed fighter/sorcerer if you could play a battle sorcerer instead? Or select the Eldritch Knight PrC? Why play a fighter/duelist or a rogue/duelist if you could play a Swashbuckler instead?
Now, the generic classes mentioned in UA seem to really fit the bill of allowing for a few basic, yet relatively customizable, core classes. Then again, could these really accomdate all of the various possibilities with multiple core classes? Could a Warrior generic class character ever hope to have a d12 Hit Die, or limited divine spells without multiclassing? Could a Spellcaster generic class turn undead, or sacrifice prepared spells for healing energy or animal summoning? Could the Expert generic class ever obtain Sneak Attack, or Bardic Lore?
Then again, with many of the core class ideas & variants that have popped up so far in Complete Warrior and Unerathed Arcana, what'll happen with future books like Complete Divine? Will there be a retro-fitting of existing core class ideas (e.g., the CW samurai vs. the OA samurai)? Will it be merely reprinting material that popped up in Unearthed Arcana (e.g., reprinting the urban druid & cloistered cleric in Complete Divine)?
Of course, this is all optional material, and it's merely a matter of picking & choosing what you do & don't want to use in a game. But will it really be D&D anymore? Can we really have a set assumption anymore on what D&D is, what's possible, what's available, & how it works, with the variety of options present? Will players have to relearn the game (to a degree) when they play with another group (who may have chosen to use more/different options than the player's old group)? What about with new players?
(This argument isn't confined to the addition of core classes--it can be applied to other rule options as well: spell slots vs. spell points; Hit points vs. VP/WP vs. wound levels; etc.)
Well, what do you think?
Is D&D getting core-class happy again?
I didn't have any problem with lots of prestige classes, since they were (more or less) a type/path that a character could develop into. However, it seems like there's quite a few new core classes that focuses on specific ideas or motifs--for example, the UA battle sorcerer seems to (basically) be a sort of fighter/sorcerer combo made into a core class, while the CW swashbuckler seems to be a bit more Dex-focused, roguish fighter.
I don't mind these kinds of characters at all, but I wonder if this could have been avoided (to a certain degree) if some of the existing core classes were made a bit more flexible. For example, would there really have been a need for a samurai class or a swashbuckler class in UA if the fighter class just started off with more feats & less set abilities (for example, being proficient in all simple & martial weapons, and maybe light armor, but granting additional bonus feats at 1st level for medium armor prof., heavy armor prof., shield prof., & tower shield prof.)? This way, the Dex-based fighter could spend feat slots previously taken by the armor & shield profs. on feats such as Weapon Finesse, Dodge, Weapon Focus, etc.; along the same lines, a more wilderness-based fighter could get feats such as Track, or perhaps even feats that allow for additional skills to become class skills.
Of course, all of these new core classes are optional (heck, even the core classes & races in the core books are optional, per DM/player/rule 0 discretion). And, these new core classes may fit the bill for certain kinds of campaigns or character concepts.
However, do these new core classes lessen the value of multiclassing? Does it lessen the value of some prestige classes? I mean, why play a multi-classed fighter/sorcerer if you could play a battle sorcerer instead? Or select the Eldritch Knight PrC? Why play a fighter/duelist or a rogue/duelist if you could play a Swashbuckler instead?
Now, the generic classes mentioned in UA seem to really fit the bill of allowing for a few basic, yet relatively customizable, core classes. Then again, could these really accomdate all of the various possibilities with multiple core classes? Could a Warrior generic class character ever hope to have a d12 Hit Die, or limited divine spells without multiclassing? Could a Spellcaster generic class turn undead, or sacrifice prepared spells for healing energy or animal summoning? Could the Expert generic class ever obtain Sneak Attack, or Bardic Lore?
Then again, with many of the core class ideas & variants that have popped up so far in Complete Warrior and Unerathed Arcana, what'll happen with future books like Complete Divine? Will there be a retro-fitting of existing core class ideas (e.g., the CW samurai vs. the OA samurai)? Will it be merely reprinting material that popped up in Unearthed Arcana (e.g., reprinting the urban druid & cloistered cleric in Complete Divine)?
Of course, this is all optional material, and it's merely a matter of picking & choosing what you do & don't want to use in a game. But will it really be D&D anymore? Can we really have a set assumption anymore on what D&D is, what's possible, what's available, & how it works, with the variety of options present? Will players have to relearn the game (to a degree) when they play with another group (who may have chosen to use more/different options than the player's old group)? What about with new players?
(This argument isn't confined to the addition of core classes--it can be applied to other rule options as well: spell slots vs. spell points; Hit points vs. VP/WP vs. wound levels; etc.)
Well, what do you think?
