New Core Classes: Love them or Leave them?

[S'mon]

I've heard several comments that ---to summise--- suggest, i dont care what the player wants its not going into my world. My thinking has always been that the world is not mine, it is my players.

I run a persistent world that currently has several active PC groups in it, and long term PCs who have been around since 1986 as well as the guy who started playing a week ago. I need to maintain the game-world's integrity so I won't generally alter it (much) to fit player preferences, BUT I am very much willing to work with players to add things to the world that are cool and can be fitted in to what already exists. In extreme cases this can even involve new civilisations being created. As far as new base classes go, I'm concerned about balance & flavour - I'll allow in an exotic new class if it's not overpowered (or we can tweak it) and its flavour fits the swords-&-sorcery setting. So eg I don't use PHB Bards, but I do have Assassins, Houris and Demonists.

 

[IronWolf]

As a player, I don't tend towards the newer core classes, I am pretty happy with the standard vanilla classes in the PHB. As I DM most of the time though, I do allow players to take core classes from the Complete books. I usually review them, make sure there is at least *some* reasonable explanation for the class in the campaign and then say yes. I try to let the players have fun, if they like a class and will make their game more fun then I try to accomodate them.

 

[Corinth]

All of the core classes are in the PHB and DMG. You folks must be talking about all of the new basic classes published since then.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I like the concept of Prestige Classes, but many, many of them I've seen could be done just as well by way of multiclassing. New core classes I look askance at most of the time, because I think most of them cover an archetype that one of the original core classes could cover with judicious use of feats and skills - the Knight, as a concept, is a good example.

Of the new core classes I've seen, the Warlock covers an archetype that has not been covered very adequately before in D&D. The Sorcerer kind of went in that direction, but the Warlock, frankly, covers it better, and is one of a few of the newer core classes that I feel is justified. I just don't see the Wizard or Sorcerer classes as being able to emulate that type of character very well. The Warmage is cool, and I love it, but I don't know if it is breaking enough new ground to justify it as a new core class - but hey, I'd love to use it anyway. It's kind of the exception to the rule.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

All of the core classes are in the PHB and DMG. You folks must be talking about all of the new basic classes published since then.

It's just semantics. I think everyone knows what's being discussed here.

 

[Felon]

It's just semantics. I think everyone knows what's being discussed here.

Yes, everyone knows what's being discussed and there's no confusion whatsoever, yet every time one of these threads show up, a few folks appoint themselves the highly-constructive task of pestering folks with coy remarks about how can we possibly have a discussion about new core classes because there aren't any. And it's usually the same few folks, so they're not gaining ground. Feel free to ignore them or ridicule them to your heart's content.

IMO, a new core class should be founded on a new ability or concept that distinguishes it from the PHB's core classes. The Scout core class from Complete Adventurer, for instance, could have easily just been a hodgepodge of ranger and rogue abilities (Uncanny Dodge, Trackless Step, etc.), but the addition of the Skirmish ability gave it a new niche to fill. That's the kind of thought that just doesn't go into third-party publishers' core classes, the Mongoose Power Class series being an excellent example.

 

[Gez]

They're's always peep hole a pointing them shelves the eyely constructive task of pestering you because yew zing "core class" instead of "base class" is just plane wrong.

Core class = class from the core rules.
Class without prerequisites you can take from level 1 to 20 = base class.

The fact that people understand what you mean anyway doesn't prevent you from still being incorrect. It's like common typos. If you type "yuo" or "teh" instead of "you" or "the", everyone will still understand what you wrote. But it'll still be annoying.

DM: "Only core rules accepted."
Player: "Cool, I'll finally play my warlock/rokugan ninja multiclass character concept!"
DM: "It's not exactly core rules."
Player: "They are core classes, hence, core rules!"

 

[ColonelHardisson]

lots of rationalization

All this does is obscure the real discussion. That's no fun.

 

[Felon]

They're's always peep hole a pointing them shelves the eyely constructive task of pestering you because yew zing "core class" instead of "base class" is just plane wrong. [/quoe]

They're's always peep hole a pointing them shelves the eyely constructive task of pestering you because yew zing "core class" instead of "base class" is just plane wrong.

No no, Gez. C'mon now, get it straight. You're not being petty over spelling, you're being petty over semantics

The fact that people understand what you mean anyway doesn't prevent you from still being incorrect.

Sure, it just makes it too inconsequential an issue to be a pain in the arse about. /sigh

 

[Psion]

Yes, everyone knows what's being discussed and there's no confusion whatsoever, yet every time one of these threads show up, a few folks appoint themselves the highly-constructive task of pestering folks with coy remarks about how can we possibly have a discussion about new core classes because there aren't any. And it's usually the same few folks, so they're not gaining ground. Feel free to ignore them or ridicule them to your heart's content.

Bold and repeat, because it needs to be restated.