Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 2094029" data-attributes="member: 2205">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.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.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.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.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.That's certainly fair, and I'd be the first to admit that my tastes definitely run into "corner case" territory.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.Because your stated reasons for making that statement don't seem to actually support your statement.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.No, you only have to evalute them one at a time when a player brings them to you.  That's a relatively easy task.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're right, I did miss the point.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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.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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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.</blockquote>

Verification