Core Class Craziness--What's Next?

[Belen]

Well, AFGNCAAP, I agree that new base classes are great for flexibility of character concept, and I agree that some things covered by alt-base classes could have been handled by more flexible original base classes. But the options presented in some new base classes can't be summarized into feats (hexblade's curse, swashbuckler's insightful strike) any more than core base classes' abilities can (animal companion, sneak attack). Although I think there's a risk of going overboard on base classes, I don't think 3.5 has reached that point yet (after all, UA is a book explicitly for new campaign options and rules).

Demiurge out.

Why couldn't they be formed as feats? The d20 modern classes do very well as base classes that can be customized into anything, precisely because they have a large number of feats.

Heck, I recently created a Dedicated Hero that took a swashbuckler advance class.

I think the feat system should be revised to include class abilities. Then we could make characters that fit concepts rather than fit the concept to the class.

I think it could be done.

 

[Belen]

Instead of new core classes, I would really like the ability to customize the existing classes more.

 

[Desdichado]

IMO, prestige classes and multiclassing miss the boat. If you have a character concept, you want to play it right away, not have to graduate to it at 6^th level or worse. Especially for a fairly basic concept like a swashbuckler, I don't want to try to cobble one together with multiclassing, because I get a lot of "junk" features with a combination of rogue and fighter that don't contribute to my concept and don't make sense to my concept. I don't want to wait until I can get the duelist prestige class to start playing my concept.

What I really want is a core class, balanced against the standard core classes, but not restricted by the "classic D&D" paradigm of what classes I should play.

So no, I don't see there being a problem with new core classes, even if they do replace some prestige classes and even if they do replace multiclassing options. I think those are patches to get around holes in the system, for the most part. The swashbuckler archetype in particular is one I think that is glaringly missing from the core class lineup.

 

[NeuroZombie]

Originally Posted by BelenUmeria
Instead of new core classes, I would really like the ability to customize the existing classes more.

If you want customizable core classes checnk out the "Ultimate" classes being posted over at the WotC boards in the Classes section. They are highly customizable and with only one read thru, I think I may adopt them as options IMC next time. Gotta check balance and such, but they are being tweaked on the boards as well, so they should end up well-balanced.

 

[Plane Sailing]

What is really missing, then, is a "class ability" comparison.

Something that can rate various class abilities and make it easy for DM's to decide what is the cost of swapping something out and swapping something else in.

This would make it easier to adjudicate brand new class abilities (like the hexblade curse?) and the value of swapping things around (like the barbarian totems and any other class variant ability).

Class abilities can sometimes duplicate feats, but they are normally more powerful (or much more powerful!). They really are a separate catergory of improvement that PCs enjoy as they get better.

 

[Plane Sailing]

nb if I wanted to create a swashbuckler character from 1st level I'd choose a fighter with 13+ Int, Dex as high as I can make it, weapon finesse, expertise (and subsequently get improved disarm, dodge, mobility, spring attack etc) while using a rapier and wearing a chain shirt.

I'd quite probably agree with my DM that this swashbuckler has his weapon proficiencies limited (perhaps to the bard list or the rogue list?) and loses his Medium and Heavy armour proficiency, while gaining tumble.

He'd be able to go a long way and have lots of fun as a swashbuckler with no additional rules or new class needed.

 

[Desdichado]

nb if I wanted to create a swashbuckler character from 1st level I'd choose a fighter with 13+ Int, Dex as high as I can make it, weapon finesse, expertise (and subsequently get improved disarm, dodge, mobility, spring attack etc) while using a rapier and wearing a chain shirt.

I'd quite probably agree with my DM that this swashbuckler has his weapon proficiencies limited (perhaps to the bard list or the rogue list?) and loses his Medium and Heavy armour proficiency, while gaining tumble.

He'd be able to go a long way and have lots of fun as a swashbuckler with no additional rules or new class needed.

That's fine. I wouldn't; I'd use the AU Unfettered. But you've modified the class as well, so "no additional rules" is a bit disingenious to say. And true, all these options tend to converge at some point.

I don't, however, understand the reticence about new core classes. What's the big deal? Why not? Why does everything have to be done within the framework of D&D as presented? One of my big problems with D&D when I left it in 1e days was the rampant D&D isms that didn't emulate anything I read in fantasy fiction. I came back in 3e because the rules were so much better and more flexible, but I'm not finding that I feel the same thing; I don't like the D&D flavor.

So for me, new core classes are essential so I can do games with different types of flavor. True, I don't want to run an "anything goes" type of game, but I want more options, not less. This constant talk of streamlining d20, or D&D, into less options is astonishing to me.

 

[DonAdam]

Especially for a fairly basic concept like a swashbuckler, I don't want to try to cobble one together with multiclassing, because I get a lot of "junk" features with a combination of rogue and fighter that don't contribute to my concept and don't make sense to my concept. I don't want to wait until I can get the duelist prestige class to start playing my concept.

This is the primary issue for me as well. That's why I like the idea of some generic classes. I still have not seen a satisfactory base class skill monkey (looking forward to the UA expert).

However, I'm also all for keeping the classes that have D&D-specific flavor. The generic classes are great for a general fantasy d20 game and for filling the holes that D&D leaves open, but if I'm playing D&D I want armor wearing clerics and sneak attacking skill monkeys as well. In an ideal world I think the D&D-specific stuff would be prestige or advanced classes but I don't think that would be a wise marketing move.

Of course, the downside is that very flexible stuff is much harder to balance. Part of the balance of a class is the package of abilities, meaning that powerful abilities are balanced with the inclusion of lesser ones.

 

[WizarDru]

I LIKE new core classes, as they allow you to start the character concept at 1st level, as has been stated. More options, when done in moderation, make me happy. The three new alternate core classes in CW are separate and useful enough to warrant their existence. The CW Samurai is a good two-weapon warrior without all the excess baggage of the fighter or ranger classes, the swashbuckler is a reasonable exploration of the dextrous warrior and the hexblade is not a sorceror/fighter hybrid, but a separate class with some unique abilities and it's own flavor.

Prestige classes were originally designed to work and be implemented in a different fashion than they now are, according to Monte and others.

The articles in Dungeon (305-307, was it), were excellent slight reworkings of the core classes, similar to what ps was just suggesting, but more fully explored in detail. As it stands, ps, you cannot create a dextrous warrior in 3e/3.5e using the fighter class. It simply becomes an untenable situation to fight without armor, and a normal fighter requires armor to survive his encounters. A high Dex won't change that, nor will using combat expertise. Note that you mention the necessity of a chain shirt...which goes directly counter to the common concept of a swashbuckler. One doesn't see D'artagnan or Captain Jack Sparrow wearing chain. That's where additional options could help.

Yes, I can shoehorn such a character into the peg hole that is fighter or rogue....but wouldn't it be nicer to use a class that was designed around the archetype, instead?

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

What is really missing, then, is a "class ability" comparison.

Something that can rate various class abilities and make it easy for DM's to decide what is the cost of swapping something out and swapping something else in.

This would make it easier to adjudicate brand new class abilities (like the hexblade curse?) and the value of swapping things around (like the barbarian totems and any other class variant ability).

Class abilities can sometimes duplicate feats, but they are normally more powerful (or much more powerful!). They really are a separate catergory of improvement that PCs enjoy as they get better.

You should check out Upper_Krust's CR Calculation system in the house rules forum (might be on p. 2 or 3). It's created for his upcoming Immortals Handbook. It's really good and I use it myself for creating balanced abilities. So far, it has worked perfectly.
When UK's website is up and running (any day now) I will pester him until he posts all the classes in a broken up by ability form (so far, not all abilities are listed.)

There is also a pdf at rpgnow.com called something like character customization (sp?). I think it retails for ~$7. I haven't seen it myself, but I've heard it should be great.

Leroy van Camp III who roams these boards is creating something similar for d20 Modern. He is in theprocess of making a ver 2.0 of which I've seen some material. This stuff is really well balanced and assigns a point cost to all abilities, from HD, BAB to feats and skill points. So far, it's only for Modern, but the intention is to rate all PHB abilities as well.
It's been a while since I mailed back and forth with him, so I've no idea how near to completion it is at this time.