New class preference--Am I alone on this?

[Psion]

[

]Not so much anymore. When 3e was initially published, and for a while prior to that before third party (and even WotC for that matter) felt comfortable stretching the capabilities of d20 a bit, that was true, but it's not anymore.

The capabilities of d20 have been more than a little stretched. But I thought we were talking specifically about D&D here, and all that entails. Certainly there are a wide variety of d20 variants; the better ones IMO recognize that there is a default adventuring model and, where appropriate, reforge there archetype selection to fit it. Midnight stands out to me as a grand example.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the right choice." The right choice is what the player wants. The more options he has, the more likely he is to find one that clicks with him.

I was, you recall, speaking about the central adventure model of D&D, or more generally, the campaign style of the GM (I am not necessarily saying just psuedo medieval dungeon crawls, but to be certain, the XP model itself betrays an expectation of combat, and the class layout is built around the "four pillars"). If the player has an array of options, you can no longer guarantee that the one that clicks with the player is one that is going to be a productive PC for the party. If it's not, then the player has not "made the right choice." His choice could either or both sidetrack the campaign or lead to the player feeling unneeded when his character's capabilities fail to be a good match to any situation at hand.

Obviously, some manner of GM judgement can help guide the player towards a selection that will be functional in the context of the campaign that the GM has planned, but IMO this is so much the easier if the player can acheive what they want within a well known framework addressed at the adventuring model.

I do agree that more flexible and open structure classes are certainly desirable, and that does (to a certain extent) reduce the need for more base classes. But I never presented the two options as mutually exclusive.

You may not have, but I will hold my own position that if you can make a class cover as many closely related cases to it's archetype, that is much better than generating a variety of more disparate solutions for each one.

Actually, he can hew down the opposition like wheat at low level.

Obviously, we have different definitions of "hew down the opposition" here. I am alluding to the sorts of capabilities that aren't even options until higher levels, and more commonly associated with powerful figures from legend that march into armies undaunted.

Perhaps. At least, though, I have the recent strategy of WotC themselves of publishing a half dozen or so new base classes in many of their recent supplements to back me up.

I think how much they get used would be much more telling than how much the books which include them as just one option among many get purchased. Purchasing a book does not equate to use of all its parts.

I'm not making any claims as to how broadly it is accepted, but I don't think you are on any better footing to be making such claims.

As you yourself said "more fruitcart than bandwagon", I'm not so sure our views of the situation differ here.

Oh, I would too. Hence my recommendation upthread of Midnight with the Wildlander who is exactly that same concept. Or Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed with the totem warrior, although that's also a narrow concept that's been given flexibility to have a variety of very different builds, which is different. I don't see how having Ken Hood's Bushhunter, or Wheel of Time's Woodsman, or Path of the Sword's Hunter or Outdoorsman, or any of the others I have, added to that is suddenly a problem though. Because it's harder to keep track of more books that way, you say? That's not really much of an issue. Heck, my current Eberron character is using the Ranger and the Barbarian class sections printed off the SRD (because I never bought the 3.5 pHB) and the shifter stats photocopied from my copy of the ECS. In that case, I'd need two books; it turns out that I don't really need to keep track of any; just half a dozen sheets of paper.

You recognize, of course, this is only one player with only one core option. Further, you bring up only the player. They player really only need concern themselves with the classes they actually use from game-to-game. When I speak of managing classes, I speak more so of the GM.

I don't know how you are as a GM, but as for me, I find it prudent to regulate every supplemental class (prestige or core) allowed in the game, for game balance reasons, role reasons, applicability to the setting, etc.

Quite right. It's a problem with D&D across the board. All the classes are too focused on being D&D-isms, at the expense of the way other folk may want to play, i.e., not dungeoncrawling in a strange pseudo-medieval world with classes and magic that make little sense with pseudo-medievalism. That's part of the reason I want more core classes; I don't really like the D&D default assumption of what kind of game I'm going to be playing, or what kind of setting I'm going to be running.

You may not, and that is entirely understandable. But there is a principle in software engineering called the 80% principle, which I think applies to game design. To wit, consider what 80% of the people want to do with your product 80% of the time, and make these your central design criteria. Consider the corner cases later.

That said, as already stated, I beleive they could do a better job of covering their bases than they have. But at the same time, I think you should recognize and accept that by chosing to go off the beaten path in expected activities, you buy yourself more overhead in terms of managing the supplemental options and fit them together. Further, even considering your activities are different than the core adventuring model, I do think you would be wiser to limit the player options to those that play to the one you have selected, vice simply allowing any core class that strikes a player's fancy.

Your practical solution, if you don't mind my saying so, seems kinda arbitrary.

I assure you it is not, and I fail to see why you would consider it so.

First of all, what support do you need? What support do you get? Looking at my 3e and 3.5 class splat books, it seems you get feats that are "geared" towards a certain archetype, i.e., character class, and would therefore work just fine for any alt. versions of the same archetype, so that's a non-issue. You get prestige classes that narrow in on a tighter archetype, but anyone in a similar archetype is likely to qualify for the same class just as easily, so it's also a non-issue.

This is not a non-issue to me at all. As I said posts ago, being funneled into a specific archetype from the beginning is a problem as it cuts of the possibilities for different directions the player may wish to take the character later.

You get new uses for skills, which apply to anyone regardless of class. You get equipment that anyone can use. You get spells, and this is the only one that actually has some merit, although just about any d20 spellcasting class can utilize any d20 spell if the DM says so, so it's not much of one.

Actually, I find the latter to be a good example of what I am talking about. For one class, it might not be such a big deal. If you add many spellcasting classes and rely on many supplemental spells (using new spells is a much more common occurence in my game than using new classes), you have to evaluate which new spells go with which new classes for each supplement for each new class that you need to portray that may take advantage of. That seems no mean task to me.

Now say your class has a list of bonus feats; every new splatbook with feats that comes out there is the possibility that there are good candidates for inclusion in the new feat list.

Not only that, your own examples are arbitrary breakings of your own guidelines, since they have the same "problems".

You miss the point of my guidelines then. My guidelines are not there because they prevent these problems. Rather, because they minimize the number of times you will have to go through these issues by minimizing the need for the inclusion of further new classes while netting as many concepts as possible by only accepting fairly broad new classes. In other words, it doesn't prevent the management hassles associated with a new class, just the number of times you have to go through it.

Further, splat books are far from the only support that are built of the existing core classes. I also have setting books, city source books, setting design sourcebooks, computer generation tools, NPC sourcebooks, and so forth, which are primarily written with the existing arrangement of character classes in mind. An example off the top of my head: races. The ironborn race, for example, has racial abilities written for the core classes; you chose a class like courtier, you won't fird a corresponding option for you (note that the courtier is a class I do use, so take well my point here that I am not saying these issues are not insurmountable, just that each one that crops up is a little more house ruling you need to do if you want everything to fit as neatly as they do the core class.)

In other words, you keep stating that it's a problem that there are too many base classes, but you've never stated why, other than essentially, just because. You've mentioned keeping track of a lot of books, but that's a pretty weak excuse, and you've mentioned lack of support for alternate classes, but not only is support not needed, but pretty much all the support I've seen would work just as well for more narrow visions of the archetype as for the generic one, so that's not even a real issue as near as I can tell.

Again, then you fail to consider a lot of the support that is out there. There's more than just splat books.

Other than that; if there's more than you just don't want more core classes for reasons of taste, I haven't heard much.

Well, if you ask a question and wait for an answer before you make assumptions about my resoning, I will be delighted to spell out my meaning for you. But I can fairly speculate on which aspect of my philophy you might be curious about. And surely, since you actually have more children than me, you can appreciate that I don't have all day to dedicate to one exhaustively complete post.

But really, presuming to speak for me (a "strawman", if you will) is rude and does little to advance the debate but does much to inflame emotions.

 

[Desdichado]

I was, you recall, speaking about the central adventure model of D&D, or more generally, the campaign style of the GM (I am not necessarily saying just psuedo medieval dungeon crawls, but to be certain, the XP model itself betrays an expectation of combat, and the class layout is built around the "four pillars"). If the player has an array of options, you can no longer guarantee that the one that clicks with the player is one that is going to be a productive PC for the party. If it's not, then the player has not "made the right choice." His choice could either or both sidetrack the campaign or lead to the player feeling unneeded when his character's capabilities fail to be a good match to any situation at hand.

Ah, I see what you mean. That's a fundamental difference in our GM philosophy then; to me, the players play what they want to play, and it's up to me to make the game work for the choices they made. Within the constraints of the setting, of course. The game I'm currently running more than half a horror game, and it uses Cthulhu-style magic, so naturally, there are no wizard, sorcerer, cleric or druid type classes. But if everyone picked the Courier class from Rokugan for their character, I'd have modified the game to be a heavily social, intrigue riddled game. As it is, it's more swashbuckling action, but that's based on the fact that I got a woodsman, a fighter, and a rogue to start with, and another fighter/rogue type added later.

You may not have, but I will hold my own position that if you can make a class cover as many closely related cases to it's archetype, that is much better than generating a variety of more disparate solutions for each one.

Yes, but that's really the fundamental aspect of this whole discussion. After our rather lengthy replies, I think it's obvious that we are more in agreement than not, except for this one issue; you think that proliferation 20-level classes is bad in and of itself and I do not understand why. I think (although correct me if I'm misunderstanding you) that you're making reference to the GM wanting to keep a handle on what's going on in game, and for that reason you don't want more core classes. But I don't know why that means you wouldn't like having them available as options for the times in which you do want them.

Obviously, we have different definitions of "hew down the opposition" here. I am alluding to the sorts of capabilities that aren't even options until higher levels, and more commonly associated with powerful figures from legend that march into armies undaunted.

In which case your example was extended to an unlikely end to make a point. You could have been less subtle about it, and said that our hypothetical player has as his character concept "a wizard that keeps an ancient red dragon as a familiar," or "someone who can fight off a balor by himself," but even so, it's still beside the point. That's not a concept, that's a point in time of the character's life. What I specifically stated was a core class that fits the concept, and I think we could probably all agree that the fighter fits the concept of a character that is quite capable in melee combat, even at first level, relative to the other classes. The fighter, at any point in time, fits the concept relative to his "colleques" at the same level. There is no such class, however, that really does that for, say a swashbuckler. Or a diplomat. Hence, there's a hole in the lineup of base classes. What I like to see if alternative classes that fill in those holes.

I'm not making any claims as to how broadly it is accepted, but I don't think you are on any better footing to be making such claims.

Oh, I agree that my evidence is weak, cirumstantial and indirect, and could be interpreted differently. However, I do at least have evidence, which is more than can be said for your interpretation.

I don't know how you are as a GM, but as for me, I find it prudent to regulate every supplemental class (prestige or core) allowed in the game, for game balance reasons, role reasons, applicability to the setting, etc.

Much more open than you, I'd say, based on this example. I have a character who's essentially making up a class as we go. I don't even know what abilities he'll have in two or three levels; we haven't gotten that far yet. Naturally, we're collaborating on the effort, for many of the same reasons you mention, but I'm pretty glad that we had the publication of the hexblade to use as a starting point. We've gone pretty far afield from that, but for my game, the publication of alternate classes is pretty essential.

You may not, and that is entirely understandable. But there is a principle in software engineering called the 80% principle, which I think applies to game design. To wit, consider what 80% of the people want to do with your product 80% of the time, and make these your central design criteria. Consider the corner cases later.

That's certainly fair, and I'd be the first to admit that my tastes definitely run into "corner case" territory.

That said, as already stated, I beleive they could do a better job of covering their bases than they have. But at the same time, I think you should recognize and accept that by chosing to go off the beaten path in expected activities, you buy yourself more overhead in terms of managing the supplemental options and fit them together. Further, even considering your activities are different than the core adventuring model, I do think you would be wiser to limit the player options to those that play to the one you have selected, vice simply allowing any core class that strikes a player's fancy.

Quite right. I don't allow the players to just play whatever. However, as a homebrewer of a setting that's going a bit far afield from your 1980's brand of D&D, I appreciate having the alternate classes, as otherwise I wouldn't have any support at all for my type of game, I'd be either not playing it at all, or playing it with some other system.

I assure you it is not, and I fail to see why you would consider it so.

Because your stated reasons for making that statement don't seem to actually support your statement.

This is not a non-issue to me at all. As I said posts ago, being funneled into a specific archetype from the beginning is a problem as it cuts of the possibilities for different directions the player may wish to take the character later.

That's also a non sequitar. Anyone who plays half the game and then wants to change their concept is faced with the choice of either a) retconning the character into something else, b) taking up the new concept from that point on, and explaining the change in game, or c) dropping the character and starting with a new one. That's just as true in a class-based game like D&D as it is in a completely classless one like GURPS. I fail to see what that has to do with the discussion on more base classes.

Actually, I find the latter to be a good example of what I am talking about. For one class, it might not be such a big deal. If you add many spellcasting classes and rely on many supplemental spells (using new spells is a much more common occurence in my game than using new classes), you have to evaluate which new spells go with which new classes for each supplement for each new class that you need to portray that may take advantage of. That seems no mean task to me.

No, you only have to evalute them one at a time when a player brings them to you. That's a relatively easy task.

Now say your class has a list of bonus feats; every new splatbook with feats that comes out there is the possibility that there are good candidates for inclusion in the new feat list.

Same as above. You're indulging in too much contingency planning and then saying that the workload is too great to be containable. Your solution is to say, "sorry, no more of these types of options." My solution is to say "I'll deal with that when it comes up and not really give it too much thought otherwise."

You miss the point of my guidelines then. My guidelines are not there because they prevent these problems. Rather, because they minimize the number of times you will have to go through these issues by minimizing the need for the inclusion of further new classes while netting as many concepts as possible by only accepting fairly broad new classes. In other words, it doesn't prevent the management hassles associated with a new class, just the number of times you have to go through it.

You're right, I did miss the point.

Further, splat books are far from the only support that are built of the existing core classes. I also have setting books, city source books, setting design sourcebooks, computer generation tools, NPC sourcebooks, and so forth, which are primarily written with the existing arrangement of character classes in mind. An example off the top of my head: races. The ironborn race, for example, has racial abilities written for the core classes; you chose a class like courtier, you won't fird a corresponding option for you (note that the courtier is a class I do use, so take well my point here that I am not saying these issues are not insurmountable, just that each one that crops up is a little more house ruling you need to do if you want everything to fit as neatly as they do the core class.)

As well say an off-kilter race like the ironborn is the problem, then. I don't fail to take into account books other than splatbooks, because I have a lot of them, and comparatively few splatbooks. Either way, the types of support materials seems to be very similar, broadly speaking. Granted, it's not too difficult to find a combination that's a bit more overhead, such as the ironborn courier, but those are certainly the exceptions, not the norms.

Well, if you ask a question and wait for an answer before you make assumptions about my resoning, I will be delighted to spell out my meaning for you. But I can fairly speculate on which aspect of my philophy you might be curious about. And surely, since you actually have more children than me, you can appreciate that I don't have all day to dedicate to one exhaustively complete post.

But really, presuming to speak for me (a "strawman", if you will) is rude and does little to advance the debate but does much to inflame emotions.

That would be rude. However, restating my understanding of what you said and ending it all with the claim that if I missed something, I'd love to hear more about it, is not. In fact, it's more than not rude, it's beyond normal politeness.

But I think, after your last post, I'm starting to get a feel for why you don't want more core classes. You've (apparently) added a number of other options instead, that mesh well with other core concepts, so it's more work to integrate non-core classes. You're also apparently a bit tighter on the GM controls than I am, which would also create more work for you to integrate other non-core base classes.

Still, what I don't understand, is why you're against the concept apparently carte blanche. You indicate that you use at least some non-core base classes, the Courier from Rokugan at least, so presumably in another setting or another game, you might allow one or two others instead if they fit the setting (i.e., artificier in Eberron.) Having them available as options, even if you opt not to use them, is certainly better than having a hole in your lineup, having a need for a class, and not having anything at all to choose from to fill that hole. I mentioned earlier that I have three different d20 Sanity systems. I actually mispoke, I have five that I've counted amongst my books, pdfs and other sources. Clearly I'm only using one in my current game, and in another game I might not use one at all. But I still like having the choices. Each of them has its strengths and weaknesses, and another time I might opt for it instead. I feel the same way about core classes. I like having lots of options, even if I'm not using them.

In fact, I think we've been coming at this from completely different perspectives, somewhat. You're looking at it from a GM's perspective saying, "it's a headache to have to evaluate and then support or reject each of the new classes that comes out, and if I accept it, figure out how to make it fit in the game." I see them more as a tool for GM's. If my setting doesn't admit the concept of woodsmen who develop mystic powers as they grow more attuned to their environment, but rather a more "realistic" idea of someone who just gets good at being in the woods, I like the fact that I've got dozens of alt.rangers to use to replace the ranger. If my setting doesn't utilize the high magic default of D&D, I'm glad I have alternatives to the wizard, sorcerer, cleric and druid. And so on, and so forth.

 

[dagger]

My thoughts exactly. There are eight base classes available to PCs in my campaign setting; but only three of those come from the PHB. And for another character, we're working up another class as we go, just a few levels at a time.

If you don't mind me asking, what are those 8 classes?

 

[Desdichado]

If you don't mind me asking, what are those 8 classes?

No, not at all. Here's the link to the classes right here.

 

[I'm A Banana]

To me, 20 level core classes should be broad

Aye, I'd agree in theory, but in practice, it just doesn't work that way. What's broad about the Paladin? Pretty much one archetype, and variations on that theme, right there. Or the Wizard? No, you're a book-mage, and you will be for 20 levels....

In theory, all the bases can be covered with four big ones:

Tank, for soaking up damage
Stealth, for sneaking around and crowd control
Blaster, for dealing massive damage
Healer, for fixing up afterwards

Voila! You've basically got the Generic Classes from UA! (actually +1, but that's just because I made the blaster and the healer different) Every concept you want can be imagined as an expression of one of those four, maybe plus a template for flavor. A Druid is just a blaster/tank with a nature theme; a Ranger is just a Stealth/Tank with a nature theme; A Wizard and a Sorcerer are two different themes for blasters, etc., etc.

But people want more complexity. They want their class title to reflect who they are from level 1. If "Assassin" exists as a PrC, nearly every player who wants their character to be known as an assassin will feel compelled, ne, REQUIRED, to take that PrC, even if it doesn't really fit the mold they're looking for. This has been "The Ninja Problem," as well...a special title and ability set didn't exist at first for those looking to define their characters as Ninja. There's a certain power associated with the title of what mostly defines you for your 20 levels that requires that the title go hand-in-hand with how you see your character's role in the world. It doesn't matter if you can call your 20th level Rogue an "assassin," it's not written on his character sheet!

So what makes a base class? Easy: what you think people should be defined as in your campaign setting. As such, I welcome a base class as eagerly as I welcome a new monster, or a new Prestige Class. They're all ways to diversify the setting, more menu options to choose from. If I'm having a strongly Fey-influenced world, maybe I can pick and choose from the menu of classes to have only some: no Fighters, just Hexblades; no Clerics, just Druids; no Wizards, just Sorcerers; no Rogues, just Spelltheives. Of course, my DM menu should be limited, too....since it's a Fey-influenced world, more animals, more plants, more Fey....probably fewer tentacle demons and hard-shelled constructs will threaten the party. Since I don't have clerics in the campaign, Undead won't be a trouble (instead, just make "Unseelie Fey").

I'm under no complusion to use every class out there...I'd really be content with the three generics in UA. But then, if I want some Spaghetti Western setting, it's good to know I can have CW's Samurai to get my back. And otherwise, he's over there doing nothing and doesn't need to be a concern.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

As a sidenote, how many people enjoy playing healer types? I think very few. If we're talking about fundamental building blocks, there's probably two.

Thunk - good at hitting things
Clunk - good at hitting things with spells

Everything else is important to the game, but flows from that basic choice.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Aye, I'd agree in theory, but in practice, it just doesn't work that way. What's broad about the Paladin? Pretty much one archetype, and variations on that theme, right there. Or the Wizard? No, you're a book-mage, and you will be for 20 levels....

I agree with 95% of your post, I just wanted to comment on this one here...the thing is that the inclusion of a few narrowed concept classes into the core base class assembly simply served to emphasize the way the creators of D&D wanted the game presented to go. If you rip out most of the narrow concepts from that assembly, you do remain with 4 base concepts: Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric. With the exception of the cleric, those classes are pretty broad already. The fighter can be easily customized through feat choices into whatever fighting concept you have in mind, the rogue is the epitome of versatility on the skill dance floor, and good for vital-point surgery in a pinch, the wizard can be anything from staight battle caster to crazed alchemist to scary necromancer. The cleric suffers from already incorporating too many exceptions in its basic built, having to guard the back of the group, being the healer AND turning machine against evil and undead, and since 3E being the buffer of primary combatants, too.
If you add the flexibility you gain when allowing to swap class skills or trade class abilities (up to a point, of course) for others, you can build nearly anything with those 4 classes.

So, all in all, those 4 classes do look like they are pretty damn broad-ranged to me...which is probably why they were the only 4 classes available in "ancient" times. Every other class simply saves you the work of tacking on flavour and adjusting the abilities to fit to the concept for each individual. They are trying to encompass a broad spectrum within their focus, so to speak, so the DM has less work to cut and paste a ranger-type from fighter and rogue, for example. They take some workload off my back, and that's always appreciated.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

As a sidenote, how many people enjoy playing healer types? I think very few. If we're talking about fundamental building blocks, there's probably two.

Thunk - good at hitting things
Clunk - good at hitting things with spells

Everything else is important to the game, but flows from that basic choice.

You just eliminated the rogue class concept.

 

[Janx]

I'd have to agree with Ravellion. Things like the Paladin "should" be a prestige class.

My reasoning is based on the concept that a prestige class is something you become. Your character may have "acted" like one for some time, but at some point he makes the transition to the real class. Part of this is also based on the concept that a low level PC is NOT really demonstrative of the person he wants to be. Put another way, all the action heroes in the movies are higher than 5th level. Before that, you're just working on attaining that skill level. The math supports this, when you consider the capabilities of a pre-5th level PC.

So in my mind, the core classes are the basic route someone takes. They may act a certain way, which makes them suggestion of what Prc they'll grow into. So a fighter may act all honorable and holy, and when he's high enough level, he can apply for Paladinship (kinda like Sturm in DL, except he always failed to get in).

Basically, a I don't think an 18 year old kid leaves home with the mindset of "I'm the meanest blackguard there ever was on this planet!" He more likely starts off as an evil fighter, and works up to greater and greater evils.

I guess that's part of the litmus test for whether something should be a class or Prc
does an 18 year old make sense for this class?
does this class make sense for a 1st level PC?

It's pretty easy to accept an 18 year old fighter or mage, who's pretty green.
It's harder to accept an 18 year old "ArchMagus of Doom", who just left home yesterday
So in that example, the "Archmagus of Doom" fails the test and is NOT a good Core Class

 

[Varianor Abroad]

You just eliminated the rogue class concept.

Not at all. The rogue is good at hitting things with weapons. All those Sneak Attack dice that they get? What're those for?