New class preference--Am I alone on this?

[Desdichado]

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.

Personally, I think that's combining in-game and metagame concepts in a way that isn't necessary. You can be the meanest mofo on the planet as a lowish level fighter, or a (relative) nice guy (maybe not "nice", but again, speaking relatively) as a high level blackguard. How evil you are, and what kind of atrocities you conduct, or at least attempt, are more based on your personality and concept than they are on the mechanics of your character. This goes again back to my conversation upthread with Psion about the difference between concept and level. I don't think the two are very strongly (if at all) tied.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

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

Nah, a rogue? Hitting things with weapons? Mediocre at best, I'd say, compared to a fighter or barbarian. And those extra damage dice come in if he manages to hit with a Sneak Attack, not all the time.

 

[Psion]

Aye, I'd agree in theory, but in practice, it just doesn't work that way. What's broad about the Paladin?

I don't know who you quoted, but let me state for myself: I beleive 20 level core classes should be fairly general (I don't belevie, however, in retreating to the "four pillars".) AND I beleive that/am not afraid to confess that I feel the paladin fails this test.

 

[Psion]

Ah, I see what you mean. That's a fundamental difference in our GM philosophy then;

Quite likely.

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.

I feel like I am repeating myself, but let me sum up in hopes that it put fine enough point on it:

I beleive
1) that of the new core classes that are out there, some are very general and cover a fair breadth of character concepts, and some are more specific. And,
2) that there is a non-negligible time that goes into managing these additions to your campaign.

So, it is my conclusion that by allowing a small cadre of more general classes in instead of a larger amount of more specific classes that cover similar territory, I have made a better investment of my time.

Now you allude to the possibility of not actually doing the work to integrate new classes until a player actually uses it. I have a philosophy of using the same options for PCs and NPCs, and feature NPCs as my primary opposition, so there is a good chance that I will have already had to make use of a given option many times before it ever comes to the player's attention.

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 really don't agree. To pluck an example from fiction, Vlad Taltos of the Dragaera novels started out as a pretty common street thug... as did most of the lackeys that worked with him or for him. It was only after much development that he was ready to be a true assassin-for-hire instead of an enforcer. And I don't think that example at all unusual in the evolution of an assassin... or any of a variety of specialists, really.

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

See above.

Yes, if a player actually DID bring a class option to me, I would have to consider it (and in all likelihood, if the class is too specific, point him to the more general equivalent that acheives the same end.) I tend to put the options on the table beforehand because I will be using them myself.

As well say an off-kilter race like the ironborn is the problem, then.

It's just one example.

Still, what I don't understand, is why you're against the concept apparently carte blanche.

I'm hoping I addressed this above.

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.)

I include the courtier not so much because of setting considerations (though I'll note that it's in Swashbucking Adventures, too.) Rather, because my play model is sufficiently broad that some characters proficient in intrigue are a credible option, and the rogue and bard are something of an inexact fit for a character who might wish to address that option face on.

Having them available as options, even if you opt not to use them, is certainly better than having a hole in your lineup,

Since I choose broad classes that I feel can fit a variety of character concepts, I feel that I have fewer pre-existing holes. Trying to address the possibilities of concepts a player may be interested in with narrow classes feels a bit like "conceptual whack-a-mole" to me.

 

[Rystil Arden]

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

I have to totally disagree with the Tank, Stealth, Blaster, Healer as all-inclusive since they don't even begin to describe any of my PCs in the slightest. Its mostly because Blaster is a bad generalisation for the category into which you lump the arcane casters and psions.

If you forced me to play one of those four archetypes in your system, I would be pretty upset, and probably would not play in that system. Perhaps this is because of my preference for non-evocation wizards and psions (beguiling Enchanters and Illusionists with Cross-Class Diplomacy and Bluff, manipulative Telepaths, Conjurers who use their powers for non-combat situations [Majour Creation, Summoning creatures for non-combat purposes], secretive Diviners who have 6 Knowledge skills and know everything that's going on before anyone else [as well as the implications of current events based on the context of the last two thousand years of arcane history and the conjunctions of the outer planes]).

D&D is strong because I can play all of these archetypes if I want, very easily and without having to customise some generic class. And the best part is that I have a few ways to go about it (Do I want my enchantress to be spontaneously able to access the spells she needs but unable to have a sufficient variety of spells? Then I play a sorcerer. Do I want her instead to plan out her spells ahead of time but be capable of many different sorts of effects? Then I play a wizard. If I want real flexibility and a fresh perspective, then maybe I'll ditch the arcane aspect and play a Telepath).

That's the great thing about having all these classes: They are there for you if you want to use them, and if not, nobody is forcing you to do so. As for me, I would never play a Sorcerer because of the crippling lack of spell variety, but I'm still glad that the option is there for people who enjoy it.

I can see the point of view of people who prefer Prestige Classes to Base Classes, but I truly don't understand the people who say that they wish that all the classes would be officially removed in favour of a minute number of generic classes. If you don't like all the classes, don't use them. If you don't like the new ones coming in, ignore them. But doesn't it make sense that the availability of multiple options, even if they are not for you, is a good thing in general?

If we go to a generic/advanced/prestige system, there will be a lot of "No you can't do that" moments, where the DM has to say, "I'm sorry, you can't play the character concept you want until you qualify for an Advanced Class. Your Monk-like PC is just going to have to settle for being an Expert with the exact same abilities as Bob's Assassin-like PC and Jenny's Bard-like PC [except for specific skill/feat selection, but they use the same list for the feats, have the same weapon and armour proficiencies, etc]. In my opinion, it makes characters more bland and boring, and less fun to play. Isn't it more fun to say, "Yes. Bob can play a Roguish Assassin-type character who sneaks about and attacks distracted enemies [can't get Sneak Attack until advanced class using the Expert class], you can be an unarmed and unarmoured combatant who fights with discipline [sure, you could try doing this by selecting Improved Unarmed Strike, etc as your feats and voluntarily removing your armour, but then you'd die because the Expert's abilities are far fewer than what the Monk gets to compensate their unarmed, unarmoured style], and Jenny can be a silver-tongued Bard with plenty of random knowledge and the ability to raise the morale of her allies with inspiring performances.