New Core Classes: Love them or Leave them?

[TheAuldGrump]

Hmmm, I am going to use the term 'base class' instead of 'core class', for me the core classes are those in the Players Handbook.

That said - I have gotten some use out of the Mongoose Power Classes, in particular the Hedge Wizard, which has pretty much displaced the Adept in my games (along with a homebrew Hedge Priest). It makes a decent witch class.

For Iron Kingdoms I will also be implimenting the ones from the IKCG.

I have not used any from the Completes yet, though there are one or two that interest me.

The Auld Grump

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Dragon magazine: I can only think of two at the moment - a psionic class I forget the name of (and it didn't impress me, though I believe it did have a unique take on the new psionic system from the XPH, which I applaud).

I believe you're thinking of the erudite, which has a somewhat "wizardly" approach to learning new powers - typically, by finding power stones or by sucking them out of other psionic characters.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

You just summed up my objection to the mechanics of every prestige class I've ever seen, and to most every core class I've ever seen.

Hehehe. I feel that way about base classes, but when it comes to prestige classes I like to use as many of them as possible - in the world, at least, if not in the party.

I have different criteria for prestige classes, that's for sure. I tend to look at them as "teachings" or "specialisations" or "schools", and I'm as likely to place no weight on the fact that the character entering a prestige class is, in fact, multiclassing as I am to make it significant. In most cases I feel that the mechanics of multiclassing and prestige classes ought to be invisible from the character's point of view - a monk, say, entering the tattooed monk prestige class is just pursuing a particular master's teachings or a particular temple's practices, but no-one in the gameworld would consider him anything other than a monk.

I usually don't think prestige classes are a big deal - it's a bit like academic specialisation. If I write my Honours thesis on the Devil in cinema, I'm still a Studies of Religion major in an Arts degree just like the girl writing about Sufi mystics who sits next to me in class. The fact that if university were D&D we might have different prestige classes doesn't matter - what I object to more is the existence of a Bachelor of Arts, a Bachelor of Arts (Asian Studies), and so on - in other words, a proliferation of unnecessary base classes.

 

[Remathilis]

I typically use only the WotC and occasional Green Ronin or Malhavoc classes, but mostly WotC.

I love the Artificer, Scout, Warlock, Swashbuckler, Hexblade, and Mysitc. I also have a certain fondness for GR's Witch, with a couple of tweaks.

Usually though, I allow most WotC classes IMC.

 

[JVisgaitis]

I like a lot of the new core classes, but for them to really do it for me they have to bring something new to the table. If its another class with uncanny dodge, sneak attack, and more standard abilities picked from existing classes, I just don't care. However, if it fills a niche and presents its use through unique mechanics and is balanced, I'm all for it. Plus, it has to have a good application in a campaign.

 

[Sejs]

As AuldGrump already voiced, small nitpick: base classes, not core classes.


Anyway, for me personally, I like the new base classes as presented and allow 'em in with the exception of the 4 oriental ones from the Complete series (samurai, shugenja, wu jen, ninja).

Looking over the thread, however, I have to admit that Mercule's replacement idea has really piqued my interest. May give that a try in my next game - cheers, Mr 'Cule.

 

[Darkness]

Can't answer the poll. I wouldn't use just any base class but as long as it fits the setting and is reasonably powerful, I might use it if I do have a use for it - being innovative or original isn't required.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Not only do I not use new core classes, I am less likely to buy a D&D book if it has new core classes in it.

 

[malladin]

I actually voted for the top and bottom options. You may think this mad, but I do think that there are too many core classes in the basic rules, I much prefer the cut down/adaptable classes approach (True20/D20M/Grim Tales/DarkLore). That said, if you're going to use the proper D&D, I'd have no issue with someone wanting to use any class that wasn't broken. I'm very much an all or nothing type of person .


Ben

 

[DonTadow]

Not only do I not use new core classes, I am less likely to buy a D&D book if it has new core classes in it.

that is interesting? Why is that?

I said earlier I only allow WOTC non-cultural (think oriental) core classes in my campaign if the pc can write me a good background as to why it fits in our world. I said WOTC, not because I think they can do no wrong, but because I know that they do spend development time (more so now) playtesting their books against other WOTC products, thus there is less chance of something being broken (at least core classes, I dont believe implement the same hardcore testing with their prestige classes). I know that if I integrate a WOTC base class in my game, I won't have to worry about it conflicting or overlapping with previous WOTC material.

I am more leary of other companies "produced" base classes because they are rarely tested against other core base classes (i feel) and some are often overpowered or replicate what is already out there.

A new base class introduced into my game usually produces a new path I can take when adventure plotting later on. I always tell pcs that for every one of you there are probably two dozen npcs of your class more powerful. I go back to the spell thief. The spell thief in my campaign comes from a specific thieves guild whom are not too kind or their members leaving, it helped me open up a whole new path later in the game for the pcs later in the campaign.