D&D Metagame - 148 classes, 608 prestige classes

[MoogleEmpMog]

What's C&C?

The half-sane spawn of some blasphemous abomination dredged from the grim mists of prehuman antiquity. Or a d20/AD&D hybrid.

Which amounts to basically the same thing.

 

[scadgrad]

Creeks & Crawdads.

Er, or it might be referring to Castles & Crusades, TLG's much-hyped retro version of d20 fantasy.

Heh, good one Psion.

The half-sane spawn of some blasphemous abomination dredged from the grim mists of prehuman antiquity.

Er, that sounds more like CoC. he he he

@Taluron
Indeed, C&C refers to Castles and Crusades by Troll Lord Games. I wouldn't say it was really that hyped since TLG is a fairly small company. I will be the first to admit though that the C&C camp is very, very enthusiastic and vocal in its support for the game. C&C is basically a bridge that takes the best parts of old & new D&D and is designed so that you can add more complexity if you wish. Highly recommended (but then again, I'm obviously a bit biased).

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Er, that sounds more like CoC. he he he

No, that's what you fight in CoC, it's descriptive of C&C. Necronomicon, 2e Player's Handbook... eh, what's the difference?

 

[Psion]

I wouldn't say it was really that hyped since TLG is a fairly small company.

But a few posters 'round here did their best to make up the difference.

After all, Scarred Lands only had one Nightfall.

 

[der_kluge]

We play C&C now. Simple as that and after nearly a year, I think everyone in the group (except perhaps our newest player who's very much a rules heavy fan) is thrilled w/ the way our game moves along now.

(that's me, for those keeping score at home)

I don't know that I'd call myself a fan of "rules heavy" as much as I am a fan of flexibility. I like HARP a lot because I can create the exact kind of character I want, and I get nothing that I don't need (or at least a miniscule amount of stuff I don't need). (HARP has other problems, though, so I don't even consider it perfect by a longshot) I'm not a fan of "boiler-plate" classes that predefine who I am. As we've seen with my current character - a dex-based noble fighter, it's not an archetype that fits in the C&C molds easily, but kudos to you for not being a slave to the system and finding a way to make it work.

No, I'm no 3e fanboy. I think a lot of the rules are clunky and unnecessary. I think there are far too many feats, and I've never been a huge fan of prestige classes (only ever taken one), and PrCs suffer from some of that same "boiler-plate" mentality, e.g., "I really like all these abilities, except for these two..."

No, for me, it really is about the role-playing, and I'm curious to see how long my character can maintain the facade.

I'm totally digging your game, btw, and yes I admit, I was certainly leary of the C&C rules, but I like them for what they are. I certainly don't think their perfect, but I can appreciate the rules-light aspect of it. It hasn't bothered me in the least. Honestly, it might more if I was playing a spellcaster. So, I'm also stretching myself a bit to play a fighter, since I can't honestly remember the last fighter I played. Probably 10 years ago.

 

[Desdichado]

But there is a practical upper limit to how many such basic building blocks you can consider. That being the case, I think that you should control basic building block style classes, more specifically, 20 level classes. As such, I beleive that you should only consider new classes if it is worth the effort. "Worth the effort" usually means very flexible and plays an important role in the campaign.

Well, ideally all 20 level classes would be very flexible and play an important role in the campaign. Instead, we get stuck with a legacy of D&D-isms that may (or may not) play a comfortable role in every campaign, and which are arguably more like schticks than basic building blocks anyway. That's my main beef with the core base classes -- they only work if you're playing a very standard D&D game, which I don't always do, and their interpretation of the archetypes is too narrow for my taste. A great example is the ranger, which is an archetype that I really love. However, I'm increasingly frustrated by being stuck into the D&D mold of a two-weapon fighter who casts spells. The addition of an archery career path was a step in the right direction, but 3.5 shouldn't have taken a step; it should have gone the whole way.

The Scout, on the other hand, is much more what I had in mind. I'm a bit of a collector of alt.rangers, and the Scout isn't necessarily my favorite of the bunch, but if the Scout had been the original ranger, I'd probably have stopped there.

The lack of a core swashbuckler archetype is another pet peeve of mine.

However, schticks -- being mainly prestige classes and feats -- are extensible. They add specialized flair and it does not hurt beleivability of the game or validity of existing classes if you add them. They represent small specialized groups or specialized abilities. (I can see if Josh reads this, there are going to be words... )

Assuming you mean me, I agree with that actually. My only concern is that players don't tend to want to "graduate" at 5th or 6th level into finally being able to take levels in a class that supports their character concept. You want that from the beginning. But with sufficiently flexible base classes, I'm good -- you can start building your concept, and narrow it down later with a prestige class if you want, but if you can work within your concept from the very beginning, that's vastly superior, IMO.

 

[Psion]

Well, ideally all 20 level classes would be very flexible and play an important role in the campaign.

Ideally. Sometimes you have to take things into your own hands.

Instead, we get stuck with a legacy of D&D-isms that may (or may not) play a comfortable role in every campaign, and which are arguably more like schticks than basic building blocks anyway.

Indeed. c.f., my weekly rant on bards.

That's my main beef with the core base classes -- they only work if you're playing a very standard D&D game, which I don't always do, and their interpretation of the archetypes is too narrow for my taste. A great example is the ranger, which is an archetype that I really love. However, I'm increasingly frustrated by being stuck into the D&D mold of a two-weapon fighter who casts spells. The addition of an archery career path was a step in the right direction, but 3.5 shouldn't have taken a step; it should have gone the whole way.

The Scout, on the other hand, is much more what I had in mind. I'm a bit of a collector of alt.rangers, and the Scout isn't necessarily my favorite of the bunch, but if the Scout had been the original ranger, I'd probably have stopped there.

I see what you mean, but personally, I find Mearls' Wildscape a much more workable solution (I was about to lament that Mearls wasn't on WotC staff when they were writing CoAd, but then it wouldn't have been open content.) Wildscape expands the ranger by adding a scad of "combat styles", some of which aren't really "combat styles", and gives you the option to extend your combat styles by giving up spellcasting. That, I think, helps make the ranger much more general and at the same times doesn't have me putting a second class in the game that is too close for the ranger for my comfort, and keeps the ranger there for the purposes of other products that assume the ranger is there.

 

[ashockney]

How have all these classes and prestige classes affected your games?

Our games are more dynamic because of the variety, and more experienced players always seem to be entertained trying a new twist on an old favorite.


Do you allow material from any (all) books outside the core SRD?

We use all core books, and the complete books (with general approval). Much to my surprise, I also received a great deal of demand for inclusion of classes/feats from the miniature's handbook.

What have you found challenging to manage?

It is challenging to manage the variety of different abilities, and how they interact with each other. One character, playing a Paladin/Marshall/Divine xxx, is very powerful, with his maxed out CHA bonus adding mods to all flanking damage, saves, and his divine class grants him mettle. Very tough, although not really a damage machine. It's also challenging to have a bard/diplomat in the same party, and keep the encounters challenging, without being overbearing to the non-combatant.


Has the sheer volume of available source information affected your buying? Have you capped out, and if so where? Why?

I capped out at the "races of" books. I'm a huge fan of FR, and that's where our campaign is based. I've also bought all the 3.5 Complete books. So most of those are included in our material. I've not ventured into purchasing any of the "races" books. I have a real tough time balancing all ECL races. In my experience, they haven't been clear, and haven't been well balanced.


Do you find it challenging to balance the class and prestige class combinations your players devise? What combinations (c'mon min/maxers) have proven most abusive?

Wizard/Red Wizard/Archmage/Incantatrix - take your pick from these in some combo
Rogues who min/max their use magic device
Balancing highly effective combantants with less effective combatants (ie, Barbarian vs. Bard, Fighter vs. Monk, Ranger vs. Rogue)


Finally, how has this sheer volume of information changed the meta-game environment? As designers, how do you account for the many varieties and flavors that exist? How has the volume of options available altered your groups game play?

The meta game in general seems to promote multi-classing and prestige classing. The "standard four" classes seem to be non-existant. It sometimes proves difficult to fill all the "required" roles for a party, among all the different variations made available to players, which in turn requires a little more strategizing. More game emphasis seems to be put on "character building" between adventures, and having a critical component like magic items out of the player's control to plan/count on, creates some unexpected tension.

 

[Desdichado]

Ideally. Sometimes you have to take things into your own hands.

Indeed. Sadly true, but indeed.

Indeed. c.f., my weekly rant on bards.

Yes, and there are at least weekly rants on paladins from someone too, for being more of a schtick than a basic building block. Not that they use those terms.

I see what you mean, but personally, I find Mearls' Wildscape a much more workable solution (I was about to lament that Mearls wasn't on WotC staff when they were writing CoAd, but then it wouldn't have been open content.) Wildscape expands the ranger by adding a scad of "combat styles", some of which aren't really "combat styles", and gives you the option to extend your combat styles by giving up spellcasting. That, I think, helps make the ranger much more general and at the same times doesn't have me putting a second class in the game that is too close for the ranger for my comfort, and keeps the ranger there for the purposes of other products that assume the ranger is there.

Huh. I really wish I had picked up Wildscape, in that case, in the latest $5 sale at FFG. My favorite that I own, so far, is the Wildlander from Midnight, because it's got such an a la carte approach to class abilities that you can build any type of wilderness warrior/scout that you can imagine within the confines of the class.

I really like what I hear of that Wildscape approach, though.

 

[Particle_Man]

Another option (for shorter campaigns this works better, as there is less retrofitting) is to "vote out" classes whenever you allow new ones. Same with prc's feats, etc. There are a set limit in the phb, dmg. STick to that number. But not specifically those classes.