Do you allow fighters in your campaign?

[KDLadage]

As far as I am concerned, the only core classes in the PHB should have been:

• Cleric
• Fighter
• Rogue
• Sorcerer or Wizard (see below)

All others should have been multi-class options or prestige classes.

Note: Sorcerers and Wizards represent two ways of looking at Arcane Spell casters. For most campaigns (and this is simply my opinion) it does not feel right having both. I would have included both classes, but made it clear that most campaigns should select one or the other as the way Arcane Magic is handled.

 

[EOL]

As far as I am concerned, the only core classes in the PHB should have been:

• Cleric
• Fighter
• Rogue
• Sorcerer or Wizard (see below)

All others should have been multi-class options or prestige classes.

I disagree in 2e they tried top pigeon hole everything into those four slots and it didn't work. Look at the class books that are being released. Paladins are grouped with Clerics, Druids with Barbarians, but at the same time it would be easy to argue that it should have been the exact opposite Paladins with Barbarians and Druids with Clerics.

Once you make everything a derivative of one of 4 core classes you really start limiting the flexibility. I think that if you only want those four core classes, that's fine get rid of everything else. It's a lot easier to cut than add which for me means most of the time more is better.

 

[Darkness]

Someone actually voted no....

That was Charles himself, most probably; he's always talking about commoners, so he quite possibly doesn't use any PC classes at all in his games.

 

[KDLadage]

I disagree in 2e they tried top pigeon hole everything into those four slots and it didn't work. Look at the class books that are being released. Paladins are grouped with Clerics, Druids with Barbarians, but at the same time it would be easy to argue that it should have been the exact opposite Paladins with Barbarians and Druids with Clerics.

Once you make everything a derivative of one of 4 core classes you really start limiting the flexibility. I think that if you only want those four core classes, that's fine get rid of everything else. It's a lot easier to cut than add which for me means most of the time more is better.

It is, of cource, your right to disagree... but I think I can argue that:

... a Druid is a nature Priest (cleric)
... a Ranger and a Paladin are Fighter/Cleric types
... a Barbarian is an uncivilized/specialized fighter

and so on.

I feel that if the core classes had been written in such a way as to handle the flexibility of various visions of the classes more easilly, then a lot of the arguments about various classes would tend to melt away.

For example:

What are the real differences between a Fighter with the Track Feat (and a couple of levels of Druid) and the Ranger? Should all Tracking specialists be able to cast spells? Should all nature oriented fighters be versed in two-weapon fighting?

Think about this for a second. Once you have a good idea of what I am saying, then ask yourself this:

What does it mean for a character to be a multi-classed Ranger/Fighter? How about a Cleric/Druid?

These situations place the class system in a light that (I believe) highlights the weaknesses of the class system. And by this, I mean in ways that did not have to be true.

You say that by eliminating (as core classes) the Barbarian, Bard, Paladin, and Ranger and by combining the Cleric and Druid into a single class with multiple possible foci that I am pigeon-holing character concepts, when I feel quite the opposiet! I am freenig these concepts to be explored in more ways than the book dictates that it will be followed!

If I made the fighter class and defined it in a way that, through some fairly interesting uses of feats, skills and multiclassing, I could simulate the Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin and the Ranger -- as well as all of the meriad shades of grey that exist between them -- how is this pigeonholing?

 

[nharwell]

I could see reducing everything to 4 classes -- but in that case, why bother with classes at all? Convert d20 to a skill-based system. Or, if you still want "levels" and "class abitilities", use something similar to the "create a class" rules in the 2e DMG. I tried this once -- then I realized that the game no longer really resembled D&D, so I converted it to GURPS.
How far are you wiling to take this level of reductionism?

 

[EOL]

What does it mean for a character to be a multi-classed Ranger/Fighter? How about a Cleric/Druid?

These situations place the class system in a light that (I believe) highlights the weaknesses of the class system. And by this, I mean in ways that did not have to be true.

You say that by eliminating (as core classes) the Barbarian, Bard, Paladin, and Ranger and by combining the Cleric and Druid into a single class with multiple possible foci that I am pigeon-holing character concepts, when I feel quite the opposiet! I am freenig these concepts to be explored in more ways than the book dictates that it will be followed!

If I made the fighter class and defined it in a way that, through some fairly interesting uses of feats, skills and multiclassing, I could simulate the Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin and the Ranger -- as well as all of the meriad shades of grey that exist between them -- how is this pigeonholing?

In order to do all this you would have to vastly increase the number of feats. Plus to accurately simulate something like a Monk you would have to add Disadvantages. Next thing you know you've got so many feats and so many disadvantages that you need to implement a point system to keep everything balanced. By the time you reach that point, why not just play champs or gurps (which I am less familiar with), like nharwell said. Yeah we could do it the way you want, and I think you have some great points, but if we assume a class based system and then try and have only 4 base classes you end up with the same lack of variety that existed in 2e, perhaps worse.

This begs the question why have a class-based system at all. There are a lot of good reasons, speed of generation, especially on the DM side, simplicity and ease of understanding, organizational play (RPGA), greater applicability of supplementary material, backward compatability, etc. My argument is if you assume a class-based system then more is often better.

 

[Rune]

I once ran a game in which all fighters were military trained. If you wanted to be a fighting character who was not military trained, you had two options among the core classes: Barbarian, and Ranger (both common only among the elves. Paladins were a prestige class.). The only other option was Warrior.

 

[KDLadage]

In order to do all this you would have to vastly increase the number of feats.

I disagree. I think it could be much like the Spell Specializations of the Wizard class. I choose fighter, then I have teh option of selecting a specialization within that class that grants me some bonuses here and some restrictions there... viola!

Plus to accurately simulate something like a Monk you would have to add Disadvantages.

Also disagree with this point. But I will not dive into this argument, as I am one of those guys that place Monk as a class that makes no sense in a Western-Eurocentric campaign anyway. Monks should have been reserved as a (prestige) class in Oriental Adventures, if you ask me.

Next thing you know you've got so many feats and so many disadvantages that you need to implement a point system to keep everything balanced.

Since I feel that the feats/disadvantages are a false argument, this no longer applies.

By the time you reach that point, why not just play champs (or gurps which I am less familiar with), it's just like nharwell said. Yeah we could do it the way you want, and I think you have some great points, but if we assume a class based system and then try and have only 4 base classes you end up with the same lack of variety that existed in 2e, perhaps worse.

Again, as I disagree witht he points that lead to this, I also disagree with your conclusions.

Let me ask you, is the magic system lacking for the loss of the Illusionist as a seperate class from the Magic User (Wizard)? I do not think so.

So why would it be any different to have the Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger and Paladin combined in the same way? Or the Cleric and the Druid?

This begs the question why have a class-based system at all. There are a lot of good reasons, speed of generation, especially on the DM side, simplicity and ease of understanding, organizational play (RPGA), greater applicability of supplementary material, backward compatability, etc. My argument is if you assume a class-based system then more is often better.

I agree. We need a variety of classes, and a variety of options within those classes lest the syndrome of "a fighter is a fighter is a fighter" once again become a truism. But yuo have Prestige Classes. Why not sue them to thier full potential?

So many times, I have seen prestige classes used where they were not needed (they are, in effect) a multi-class combination. Other times, they become the "bag-o-ultimate-powers" trap.

But, even though I like the class system (for the same reasons you list above) I think that some of the idea that went into the elimination of the seperate class of Illusionist could have been applied to the Fighter (and the various fighter variations) and Cleric (with the Druid). The Paladin (and perhaps even then the Ranger) should have been a Prestige Class. In fact, witht eh Code of Condect, it is in effect a Prestige Class with no prerequisites...

I feel that through a model of 4 core classes and some basic rules for specializations within it, you have a lot of flexability to create many more types of characters than can be created now... but this is all just my thoughts.

Do not get me wrong -- I like D&D; I like the new d20 system. I think these guys did a great job. But even Monte Cook has said that if it were just him, things might have been a lot different (not better, most likely worse). That is all I am suggesting here. If d20/D&D3e had been my little project, it would not look at all like it does now.

There might be some very good, very valid reasons for teh core classes to be the way they are. I just don;t see it. And unless we talk about it, I doubt I ever will.

As it is, I allow them all. Thay all work pretty well. I don't bitch about them too much. But the inner game designer in me wonders what it might have been had I been there to debate this with them while the game was being designed...

 

[EOL]

Since I feel that the feats/disadvantages are a false argument, this no longer applies.

I think you dismiss the argument of increasing complexity (i.e. more feats, dis-ads, etc.) far too readily. You claim that the barbarian could be done as a fighter with certain feat choices. Okay you'd have to add a feat to simulate his increased movement, and a feat for his rage, and a disadvantage for his restrictions with heavy armor, not to mention a feat to increase his hit dice. You would also have to add rules for class skill selection.

Alternatively you could make the barbarian a prestige class, but that presupposes that no one "starts out" as a barbarian. I think it would be more accurate to say most warriors start as barbarians and become fighters.

This is just the barbarian a relatively simple class and already there is a substantial increase in feats. Lets take something like the sorcerer to get from a sorcerer to a mage you would have to have the spontaneous casting feat, available at first level. Is this balanced with other feats? Not in a million years, you would clearly then have to implement disadvantages (which they have within the class) to balance this out. Before you know it that one feat is a separate class (the road 3e took) or a bunch of modular disadvantages which could be built up to the sorcerer class. And don't even try and argue that the sorcerer should just be left out because a lot of people (myself included) really like the class, and I think 3e would be poorer without it.

 

[KDLadage]

I think you dismiss the argument of increasing complexity (i.e. more feats, dis-ads, etc.) far too readily. You claim that the barbarian could be done as a fighter with certain feat choices. Okay you'd have to add a feat to simulate his increased movement, and a feat for his rage, and a disadvantage for his restrictions with heavy armor, not to mention a feat to increase his hit dice. You would also have to add rules for class skill selection.

Please do not take this the wrong way, but it is obvious to me that you did nto read what I wrote (or, at most, skimmed it) and drew a rather odd conclusion.

I will try this again, so read carefully:

Back in the first edition days, we have a Wizard and an Illusionist. Right now, we have a Wizard class and within this class is the Illusionist, the Conjurer, the Necromancer and so on... eight seperate specialized classes with thier own strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, there is the 'general practitioner' of Wizards -- the basic Wizard class by itself.

Right now we have a Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, and Barbarian class. I feel that using the model of the Wizard and the various sub-classes it represents, many things can be eleviated... Make one class with several focus models under it to simulate the various ways a Fighting specialist can be handled. Ranger and Paladin might even be better off handled as Prestige Classes... niot completely sold either way on this one...

Right now we have a Cleric and a Druid class. I feel that using the model of the Wizard and the various sub-classes it represents, many thigns can be eleviated. Make one class with two (or more!) focus models under it to simulate the various ways a Priestly specialist can be handled.

This is what I have suggested. I have not added any disadvantages or some-such mechanic at all; I have not added any additional feats. This is why I dismissed it. I think it is a false assumption.

Alternatively you could make the barbarian a prestige class, but that presupposes that no one "starts out" as a barbarian. I think it would be more accurate to say most warriors start as barbarians and become fighters.

I never suggested the Barbarian be a Prestige class. I suggested that the Paladin be a Prestige Class. I suggested that one might be able to make an argument that the Ranger could/should be a Prestige Class (aka Bounty Hunter in Star Wars).

This is just the barbarian a relatively simple class and already there is a substantial increase in feats.

The way you did it, yes. The way I suggested it - not at all. I would never want to see it handled the way you have suggested, either.

Lets take something like the sorcerer to get from a sorcerer to a mage you would have to have the spontaneous casting feat, available at first level.

Incorrect again; try treading the argument you are debating against. What I suggested was offering both classes, but making it clear that in most campaigns, only one of these classes should be made available, depending upon how your campaign's arcane magic is to be handled.

What you are suggesting is nothing at all like what I suggested, and once again indicated that you (at most) skimmed what I wrote, without realling reading it.

Is this balanced with other feats? Not in a million years, you would clearly then have to implement disadvantages (which they have within the class) to balance this out. Before you know it that one feat is a separate class (the road 3e took) or a bunch of modular disadvantages which could be built up to the sorcerer class.

Again -- PLEASE try to read the argument you are debating against before you try to debate against it. It will make you look much less foolish.

And don't even try and argue that the sorcerer should just be left out because a lot of people (myself included) really like the class, and I think 3e would be poorer without it.

Man... this one is really from left field. Consider yourself in my 'ignore' list until such time as you can read what it is that you are arguing against and absorb soem of the information from those words...

Honestly, I do not mean to sound harsh here, but it is painfully obvious that you are not reading anything I have written here.

Not one word.

Nada.

Zilch.

Zero.

And that, aside from being just plain rude when you are feeling the need to debate, is insulting and disrespectful.