How Prestigious?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Across the editions, groups I've been in have been running consistently about 25% non-core.

In 3.X games I've run, it goes slightly higher, but not more than 50%.

Nobody's running 4Ed.

 

[haakon1]

Pawsplay asked: "I'm completely confused. Is the 1e Barbarian "core?" A 2e Fighter Kit? A Hexblade? An Eldritch Knight?"

According to the poll, I'd say, no, no, no and no.

Exactly my intent, Agamon. The poll is about core -- PHB classes -- versus everything else.

Psion asked: "Wait, so even though the class is the same, you are calling PCs with kits "non-core"? Or is that not what you are saying?"

That's what I'm saying. Honestly, I don't know much 2e and especially about kits, but my impression from discussions here is that they were analogous to Prestige Classes, stuff like the Bladesinger (which was also made a Prestige Class). I only played 2e about a half-dozen times, as an extension of an AD&D campaign. We stopped playing c. 1989 before kits were invented. After that, I went back to AD&D until about 2001, when I switched to 3e.

I suppose you can use your judgment on kits -- perhaps some are more like "a fighter with a red hat" and some are more like Prestige Classes or non-core classes?

 

[haakon1]

So 'core' for the purposes of this poll pretty much just means the PH?

Precisely.

I like third edition, I like the diversity of prestige classes. As the DM in a third edition game, I reserve the right (as I do in any[/I> game I run) to tell a player "No, Bob, that's munchkiny."
How hard can that be?

Well, I'm not making a judgment on what's good/bad/easy/difficult to implement fun.

I just got the hunch that there's a lot of variety out there in how groups run their games and I wanted to see what was more popular, and if there was much of a difference by edition.

In my personal gaming experience in all editions, I've seen little (but always some) deviation from the core.

 

[Psion]

Psion asked: "Wait, so even though the class is the same, you are calling PCs with kits "non-core"? Or is that not what you are saying?"

That's what I'm saying. Honestly, I don't know much 2e and especially about kits, but my impression from discussions here is that they were analogous to Prestige Classes, stuff like the Bladesinger (which was also made a Prestige Class).

Well, they don't replace or displace your core class*, so you can see why I might quibble. In this way, they are more like feats than prestige classes.

But under this definition, I'd have to say "most". Though they made an act of being balanced, the ones prior to the Complete Paladin and Bard did so through a disadvantage mechanism, which was never really balanced. So you took one, or you missed out.

* - Which is sort of why they don't really work, BID.

 

[Serendipity]

Well, I'm not making a judgment on what's good/bad/easy/difficult to implement fun. In my personal gaming experience in all editions, I've seen little (but always some) deviation from the core.

Not to worry - there wasn't any perception of a judgment being made on your part. A lot of the dissatisfaction with PrCs that I've seen have been rooted in balance issues, which I do understand. (Thus my remarks above.) I think there's an axis of variation by edition, and another by group preference; the latter of which probably doesn't vary as much over time.

 

[jdrakeh]

not in combat. they had to move silently/hide in shadows and get surprise, if i remember right.

I had to check to make sure, but you're wrong about AD&D 1e (thank god, too, as I was afraid that I imgined those early years of AD&D). From the AD&D 1e PHB entry for thieves:

Back stabbing is the striking of a blow from behind, be it with club, dagger, or sword. The damage done per hit is twice normal for the weapon used per four experience levels of the thief, i.e. double damage at levels 1-4, triple at 5-8, quadruple at levels 9-12, and quintuple at levels 13-16. Note that striking by surprise from behind also increases the hit probability by 20% (+4 on the thief's "to hit" die roll).

There are apparently no other RAW restrictions on the thief's ability to back stab (nor is there any other real mention of it in the PHB, except as it applies to the assassin). Also, apparently, the only real difference between thieves and assassins in this regard is the latter's ability to roll on the assassination table to determine an instant kill.

Assassins attack on the same combat tables as thieves do, including backstabbing. However, if they surprise (q.v.) a victim, they may attack on the ASSASSINATION TABLE.

That pretty much jibes with how I recall AD&D 1e, though I never played AD&D 2e strictly by the book (at the time, we interjected a lot of AD&D 1e into it, so it's entirely possible that such a restriction existed in 2e and we simply ignored it).

 

[Wombat]

In the ancient days of OD&D, we used all sorts of odd classes -- jester, SR bard, and all sorts of APA classes, weird 'zines with all sorts of funky attempts...

Under AD&D, both 1st and 2nd, we primarily used core classes, but some other options as well. Then again, I didn't play those versions very often.

Under 3e we used material from a good number of 3rd party publishers ... in fact some of our campaigns saw little-to-no use of WotC material. Between Green Ronin and Malhavoc, we found non-core material to be far superior to "official" books.

Under 4e ... well, we only used the core books, so all material was core. And this is as far as we intend to go with 4e.

 

[delericho]

Nitpick: The 2nd Edition PHB included all Specialist Wizards, not just the Illusionist. The Illusionist was just given as an example (as indeed the Druid was given as an example of a Specialist Priest, but this was less clear-cut).

I never played 1st Edition. In 2nd Edition, almost everyone had a kit almost as soon as they became available. In 3e, most people played core most of the time (since most campaigns I ran were "Core Rules Only"). In 4e everyone was core, but we only played one session - we might go back to it if and when we can recruit two more players, but for now it's not for us.

 

[Mercule]

Other than 4e, which has seen very little play in my group, I'd say 3e had the lowest incidence of "non-core" classes. Very rarely did anyone want to mess with a PrC. When they did, it was as often one from the DMG as not. If you add Warlock and psionics to core, then there were only a handful of non-core classes over the life of 3e, in my group -- I played a 3.0 thief-acrobat, another player did a swashbuckler, a sword sage who lasted nearly to 3rd level, and we had an Order of the Bow Initiate dip for two levels (who would have been happier taking a feat to give melee archery). There may have been something else, but not so far as I recall.

2e had the highest non-core. As soon as the first kit was allowed, everyone realized that it was dumb to not take what amounted to free power. The result was a near 100% rate of something non-core.

1e was about 50%, with quite a few supplimental classes from Dragon or 3PP, as well as Unearthed Arcana. There were a couple of barbarians, a fistfull of acrobats, and notable alchemists, duelists, death masters, witches, archers, and even jesters with some others thrown in for flavor. I'd say the core classes were a good anchor, but non-core made up about 50% of characters/PC lifetime.

4e hasn't really been out long enough to tell, and my group is heading toward nWoD right now, but I suspect it would break down a lot like 1e did. The class model really seems to be similar in nature (favoring tailored classes over PrCs or kits). The ubiquity of Paragon Paths would be the big factor that would drive it up, depending on whether you consider them "classes" or not (and I would). So, I'd say 4e will be 50-90% non-core.