How Many Base Classes?

[the Jester]

So I've been giving a lot of thought to the profusion of base classes- it seems that's the new 'in' thing, with the scout, ninja, samurai, wu jen, etc in the Complete books.

Do you allow all these base classes in your game? If so, do you find that any of them step on each other's toes?

For example, for those familiar with the old samurai in OA, why would you have both fighters and samurai when they're so closely parallel? Do you really need scouts and rangers? Doesn't the swashbuckler make the duellist sort of pointless?

I've been thinking... my campaign world is really, really big. It has room for all of them, but I want to limit them by spreading them out across vast regions. So for instance, the Forinthian region has the classes from the PH, plus two custom base classes (cannabix and elementalist). That's more than enough for the local region. Head north several thousand miles and you won't find 'standard' wizards or sorcerers, but they do have another arcane caster base class called the talismancer, and maybe they have scouts as well. And so on.

How does everyone else deal with the proliferation of base classes? Ignore 'em all, use 'em all, use a few, tie 'em to races/cultures, etc?

 

[Crothian]

Well, it isn't anything new. It is just the first time Wizards has really put out more. Smaller companies like the Le Games have been putting out base classes, lots of them, for a while.

I deal with them the same way I deal with everything els, case by case basis. But there hasn't been any red flags with them and in the campaign world I treat them as rare

 

[Sejs]

For example, for those familiar with the old samurai in OA, why would you have both fighters and samurai when they're so closely parallel?

My only nitpick: because not every soldier in OA is a warrior-noble. The gruff, experienced, leather-skinned peasant-born soldier is a Fighter, even if his swordsmanship can put most samurai to shame and his skills as a military commander cause warlords to choke on their riceballs. Even if the Daimyo gives him great recognition and praise for his abilities on the battlefield, a samurai he isn't.


Anyway, as for the crux of the question: do I allow all the base classes in, in my games?

Most of them, yes. No samurai, ninja, wu jen, or shugenja as I generally try to avoid crossing genre too much, but otherwise I pretty much just shrug and say eh, whatever. If there's some cross polination between the sneaky classes, it's no skin of my nose. If noone in my game has an issue with it, there's no point of making one, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[DragonShadow]

The way I've always done it, and the way that it's been done in every game I've been in, is that if the book is available that holds the class, you're more than welcome to take it.

Some of them are more or less identical, but that's why it's up to the Player to decide which one s/he wants.

 

[MonsterMash]

I limit them, even the PHB base classes, martial arts Monks don't really fit in for the main location of my campaign so a player is going to have to pimp their character concept like mad to get me to allow one.

Anyway who needs more than three base classes anyway - that's all we needed in the old days (actually we did use the Thief, Ranger, Illusionist, etc when they came out).

 

[Mark_Aurel]

I've taken to a smorgasboard-like approach in my campaign. I pick and choose the classes that are appropriate to a given area, race, or culture. The Oriental classes (samurai, monk, ninja, wu jen, shugenja) are generally reserved for an Oriental-themed milieu. Currently, I'm DMing a British Dark Ages-style campaign; the various human subraces have somewhat different class selections available. The 'Romans' can be paladins whereas the others can't. The 'Britons' and 'Saxons' can be barbarians or rangers, where the 'Romans' can't. Druids are somewhat modified, and reserved for the 'Britons.' The 'Saxons' have modified bards, that are more warrior-like.

I think that's the best way to handle all the classes, whether they're 'core' or not. Only allow them where they're appropriate and where they fit the campaign style.

 

[Pinotage]

The thing that bothers me is that I'm starting to find that it's hard to differenciate between what is a prestige class and what is a core class. The scout could easily be a prestige class, as could the samurai even. Maybe not the warlock, but then the magic using classes then to be closer to base than prestige. Of course, Wu Jen is just a wizard with a different spell list. I like the idea of a core base of classes which is kind of a 'bare bones' thing on which you can add your prestige class to give it more flavour. Prestige classes are something special, IMHO.

Pinotage

 

[Psion]

Do you allow all these base classes in your game?

Not only no...


For me, this is a default no. I only allow in new classes if I feel they are particularly interesting or cover a niche that is not well covered and an good contribution to the archetypes of the setting. Further, I only allow in new classes if the design is a particularly good take on the concept. And, the class must be one for which I could see an "apprentice" version of the character existing (i.e., isn't better off as a prestige class.)

 

[Michael Morris]

An idea I'm kicking around is going to having only 2 entry classes.... I need to flesh it out more before putting it anywhere.

 

[Kage Tenjin]

An idea I'm kicking around is going to having only 2 entry classes.... I need to flesh it out more before putting it anywhere.

Squire and Chemist?