New Core Classes: Love them or Leave them?

[DonTadow]

In places where the "suggested" class is similiar to another class but the differences are cultural I would not allow it. Allowing that would really hurt the theme of the campaign you've already established. I couldnt see myself allowing any of the Orieintal classes, however I did allow the Samarai, but I had already broke down the monesteries into seperate teaching styles and I derived the Samarai from draconic teachings rather than oriental ancestry.

 

[Gez]

Thinking a bit about those new base classes from the Complete Thingies, I have one thing to say: they seem better designed than the core base classes. Look at the class feature table of the Warmage, of the Favored Soul, of the Hexblade; and compare with the Wizard, the Cleric, and the Fighter. Which is more exciting?

Hey, Gez, You really from france?

Why, yes. Yes I am.

 

[Celebrim]

For my next campaign (hopefully starting up this summer), I intend to use the following core classes from the PH:

Bard (3.5)
Cleric (3.0)
Fighter (3.0 with slight modification)
Rogue (3.0)
Sorcerer (3.0, with slight modifications)
Wizard (3.0, debating various modifications with myself)

And the following core classes from outside sources:
Shaman (Green Ronin) (with slight modification)
Holy/Unholy Warrior (Green Ronin) (with slight modification)

And the following homebrew classes:
Aristocrat (not the NPC class)
Explorer
Expert (not the DMG class)
Fanatic
Hunter

With the following core classes being debated with myself:
Feyborn (Homebrew, but can't smtih rules that really satisfy me yet)
Akashic (Malhavoc Press, fits one of my homebrew races really well but don't want to buy the book just for that one class)
Gutter Mage (Malhavor Press, fits into the slot of 'thief/magic-user' that I've found so hard to do right in 3rd edition, but ditto above. Also, I'm worried about how narrow it is, and might simply convert the class lock stock and barrel into some feats and spells)

I would not allow any core class that I hadn't thought over a good deal, and I don't allow prestige classes. I do however have alot of homebrew feats and tweaks that are designed to allow players to play anything that want with the small set of classes I have, and basically my goal is to move towards having everything in terms of a few highly broad and flexible class concepts. Adding new classes to the campaign without good reason takes away from my goal of having the class system virtually transparent because the classes don't by and large force a particular interpretation on the personality or background of the character. As such, I tend to only like classes that let me generalize a whole range of ideas, rather than classes which seem to have been created to represent one idea only.

 

[Beckett]

I'm pretty open to allowing in pretty much anything WotC has done (exceptions being BoED and BoVD, and certain presitge classes). Outside of WotC, most of my D20 stuff is from Monte Cook. While I love AU/AE, I feel those classes work better in that system, and haven't tried mixing them with regular D&D.

In my group, the scout, the favored soul, and the ninja have all gotten some playtime (I'm even using a scout in the one game I'm not running). I'm a particular fan of the warlock, but have only used them as villains so far. The game I'm playing might see a player taking a healer as a second character as it looks like our favored soul will have to drop out.

 

[TerraDave]

One core class outside the PHB we use is basically the cloistered cleric from UA.

Not that distinct or out there, BUT it fits a big nich in the campaign world (a fantasy Earth where most priests, even the casting kind, just don't wear a lot of full plate). And players in different campaigns have been interested in it--always a good sign.

In theory, it would be better if the cleric was flexible enough not to need such a variant, and the fighter was flexible enough so swashbuckler was not needed, etc.

(as an aside, the others are essentially some Elf specialty priest adopted from an earlier edition of the game...basically fit the "healing druid", "cleric magic user" and "fighting elementalist" roles, if such roles exist)

 

[S'mon]

I'm willing to use a modified version of the Mongoose 'Power Class' assassin, but haven't yet. I use the Anti-Paladin core class adapted from some free Internet download. I use other core classes of my own and/or my players' making, or adapted from old White Dwarfs etc. I don't use any WotC non-PHB core class. Some of the PHB classes are heavily altered IMC, eg Bard & Ranger, also Paladin to a lesser extent.

 

[Psion]

Hmmm... it seems I am not so alone in my careful scrutiny of these things as I was lead to beleive...

 

[Jdvn1]

I like the majority of them... I'll let a player use any core class I think is well balanced.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I tend to be open to the use of new base classes, assuming that they're distinctive enough in one way or another to be worth separating from the others which cover their archetype.

For instance, the Complete Warrior samurai class is junk. There's nothing about the class which couldn't be modelled by a fighter who selects two-weapon fighting and some hypothetical intimidation-based feats, and in fact the samurai's class abilities would be more interesting if they had been feats in the first place. You don't even have to get into the question of how much the class deserves the name "samurai" to disdain it.

From the same book, though, I have no objection to the swashbuckler or hexblade. Both of these base classes are distinctive enough from both a mechanical and a flavour standpoint to deserve their own implementation. Now, I know that many people argue about the implementation itself - usually coming down on the side of declaring both classes to be weak - but strength or weakness is fixable after play reveals it. Bad conceptualisation - a base class that has no reason to exist in the first place - is harder to deal with.

That said, whether or not I will use a given base class depends very much on the campaign I'm running. There are some settings where a sinister, curse-laying arcane warrior just doesn't fit, and so the hexblade would be out of contention.

 

[Celebrim]

...and in fact the samurai's class abilities would be more interesting if they had been feats in the first place.

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.

Samurii and Swashbucklers are just fighters with a particular flavor, and can be adequately built from a fighter if the feats are provided to them, or possibly by a combination of fighter with a few levels of some other very broad class.

Every prestige class I've ever seen seemed to be built with the idea that it would be cool if characters chould get feats more often than they do. While that is a position I'm somewhat sympathetic to, it's no reason to introduce prestige classes. I want the player's options to be greater, not less.