Core races/classes too limited?

[Quasqueton]

I DMed and played with the AD&D1 rules for over 15 years. We used just the Player's Handbook for PCs. No one had a problem with the choices available for PCs - human, elf, dwarf, gnome, halfling, half-orc, half-elf; fighter, magic-user, cleric, paladin, illusionist, thief, monk, (and assassin). There was plenty to chose from, and no one seemed bored with the character options.

Even when Unearthed Arcana came out with the options of playing subraces of the core demi-humans, I rarely saw anyone choose a character beyond the core PH. I occasionally heard of someone playing a drow, but that was it. Occasionally someone played a cavalier or a barbarian; I never heard of anyone playing a thief-acrobat.

I played only one campaign in AD&D2, but I've spoken with many people who played those rules for years. From what I heard, it seemed to me that perhaps 50% of all characters were created outside the core book. Lots of people used kits on their characters.

Now with D&D3, I'm seeing even more people choose characters outside the core rules. Not only are characters multiclassing more (sometimes as many as 4 classes), but it seems almost everyone wants prestige classes. And then of course there are all those players who want races outside the core rules.

In a discussion on creating characters for my upcoming campaign, some of my players are disappointed (or downright aggravated) by my "limitation" of using only the core rules. I've been told directly that just using the PH is too limiting and boring. Players want races with level adjustments and prestige classes. It's like everything in the PH has been played out. It's like players can't come up with a new/original or fun human/elf/dwarf/gnome/halfling character of one of the 11 core classes.

For goodness sake, with 5 core races (not counting the half-races) and 11 core classes, that's 55 possible combinations without even considering a character's personality options.

Has the ante for building a new character gotten so high now that a campaign can't be fun unless the PCs have the options of being unusual races with special classes?

Could you enjoy a campaign that ran only with the core races and classes? Or would you feel restricted in character creation and play?

Quasqueton

 

[nsruf]

If your players really want to try out the monster-PC options, maybe put your regular campaign on hold and run something with unsusual characters at a higher starting power level for a while. After all, if the options are there, people are going to want to try them. But make clear that the group may be viewed as more of a "travelling circus" in an ordinary setting

I don't think that there are too few options in the core rules alone, but a change of style or pace is not a bad thing either. It is still a good idea to somewhat limit the rule books available for character creation in advance, just to spare you from having to evaluate each PC closely for admission.

Also, you should probably all get together and plan out what the party is going to be and why they are travelling together at all - with non-core races and classes selected independently, this could be really tricky.

 

[Belphanior]

I can play/DM just fine in a standard core only campaign. I'm also appalled that your players outrightly try to refuse playing in such a campaign. It is the character's personality that counts.

However, I do agree that playing a non-standard race can be a blast. The difference between a half-elf archer and a human archer is... well, not bloody much to be honest. If you'd take a centaur archer on the other hand, you've immediately got something unique going for you. Very different tactics to use, and NPCs are sure to react very differently to you.


Think of it like Star Trek: the characters might be interesting, but most alien species are just humans with funny looking ears or noses. That can get old after a while.
(I like Star Trek btw.)

 

[Aeolius]

Could you enjoy a campaign that ran only with the core races and classes?

The core races are unsuitable for my current campaign. It is set underwater Core races in that campaign shift to aquatic elf, merfolk, locathah, etc.

 

[Umbran]

As the old rhyme goes, "Different people have different 'pinions - some like apples, some like onions."

I've never had to reach outside the core rules to come up with a D&D character I'd find interesting. But for me, the primary concerns are the personality and basic effectiveness. I don't need to go outside the core to meet those concerns. The "new and strange" isn't a draw in and of itself.

But that's just me. Some folks really like to have a high "cool factor" on the image the character presents to the mind's eye. If that's what makes the game fun for them, that's cool.

 

[Rel]

Actually, I think this phenomenon is mostly the result of greater standardization of the rules for non-core creatures having class levels and so forth.

Back in the day, if somebody wanted to play a Kobold Thief or Minotaur Wizard, it would have required a fair bit of house ruling and tweaking to get a character like that to work. Now the rules for making a Kobold Rogue or Minotaur Wizard are right there in the MM and you can find ECL adjustments fairly easily.

Because these options are more available using a codified rules system, the players may start to get the feel that they should be options they are allowed to have when designing characters, despite the fact that they primarily exist as a way for the DM to spice up the bad guys.

Personally, I like these rules a lot as a way to make encounters more interesting. I'm not sure I'd be so wild about allowing them as PC's. But so far nobody has wanted to play them IMC's so I haven't had to consider it carefully.

 

[Praeco]

In my opinion it has less to do with 'too limited' options than with unlimited options. It is more or less the 'goodie factor'. Why play a plain ol' human fighter when you can play a fighter sporting bat wings and horns, who fares from another dimension? Even gnomes, those precocious little fellas, don't have bat wings...

 

[Wombat]

I dunno...

I have a hard time getting my players to play anything other than human

And of my five players, all five are in standard classes and only 1 has taken a PrC.

Diff'rent Strokes, I guess

 

[Angcuru]

Well, I really like the D20 system and all, but I think the idea of classes in general is sort of limiting. IMHO, the best sort of system you could get is if you combined a sort of "get your abilities as you choose, not as a class demands", sorta like the system in Fallout, combined with the D20 system. I.E. You start out with so many points to choose what sort of progressions you're going to take. For instance, you could choose between the poor, fair, good, and best attack bonuses; different strengths and weaknesses in terms of saving throws; hit dice; optional spellcasting/special abilities; skills; additional feat progressions; virtual feats, etc. You choose what you want in relation to your character concept, so you aren't limited by classes, you sort of custom-make your own when you create the character.

But in terms of my personal choice in classes, I prefer to play a semi-sneaky, highly skilled, strong warrior, so I'm stuck with ranger as my archetype.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I'm there to play. I'm a guest in the GM's world.

Having said that, like any guest, if I can't stand the place, I'm leaving.

I think that the option of having so much material 'pushes' people to use it. You didn't spend $30 on Arcana Unearthed to let it sit on your bookshelf did you?

One of my friends only buys new material so that he can use it. His theory is that if he can't use it, why should he buy it? For reading pleasure? There's a ton of fiction out there for that.

I can see that point.

However, I don't always agree with it.

When it takes two hours to make a character because you're plotting his level advancement, feat and PrC selection, then to me, you're no longer playing a role playing game, but a game more ankin to Magic where he who has the best cards wins more often than those who do not.