New Core Classes: Love them or Leave them?

[Psion]

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!"

Yeah I've seen that happen...

...never.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Well, do not worry, since the revised edition ("3.5.") was published*, no WotC book contains any "new core class".

The core classes are adept, arcane archer, arcane trickster, archmage, aristocrat, assassin, barbarian, bard, blackguard, commoner, cleric, dragon disciple, druid, duelist, dwarven defender, eldritch knight, expert, fighter, hierophant, horizon walker, loremaster, monk, mystic theurge, paladin, ranger, rogue, shadowdancer, sorcerer, thaumaturgist, warrior, and wizard.

No other D&D class is core. None.

* You may consider that arcane trickster, archmage, dragon disciple, duelist, eldritch knight, hierophant, horizon walker, mystic theurge, and thaumaturgist are new core classes from the original third edition.

I speak, of course, of base classes; I adapt my terminology to fit that of the original poster.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

In general, I like the idea of more base classes BETTER than prestige classes and A LOT BETTER than the option of creating your own hodgepodge by multiclassing.

I like most WotC base classes, BUT the scout class is out of control! Too powerful.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I think some of them are neat, but mostly I gotta leave them. If I used a game with non-standard core classes, I would probably ditch most of the standard core and replace them with ten or eleven of the non-standard ones.

 

[ForceUser]

Cleric
Fighting Man
Magic User

and occassionally Thief

are all you need.

Where's the fun in that?

/snooze

 

[candidus_cogitens]

Where's the fun in that?

/snooze

The fun is in the minimalism of it. Less is more. (I'm not speaking for diaglo, of course.)

Actually, I'd prefer even more minimalism. Make players use NPC classes for the first few levels: warrior, expert, aristocrat, adept, commoner. Then the base classes become almost like prestige classes and the standard abilities of those core classes become truly something special.

More is less.

 

[Quickbeam]

If the class isn't materially unbalanced or flawed in some critical manner, then I'm fine with it being used in my game regardless of source.

In the homespun Dark Heritage campaign Josh Dyal is running, I play a character who is a combination Hexblade/Rogue with a bit of Occult Slayer thrown in for good measure. That's not to say that I'm multiclassing like crazy, but rather we felt it appropriate to design something out of the ordinary. The game lends itself to unique class types, and we just sat down and developed a plan for character level progression once it became evident that playing something core didn't suit his actions.

I'm not here to pass value judgments on things in a good/bad sense. What works for me may fail miserably in your game or group.

 

[Captain NeMo]

Hate 'em. I think there should be 5 core classes-expert (alchemist, rogue, blacksmith etc.), warrior (barbarian, town guard, knight) and mage (either divine or arcane). All customization should be handled via skill selection and feat chains (which should be revamped as well). Come to think of it, get rid of classes altogether and just go for skill/feat chains.

 

[Felon]

The fun is in the minimalism of it. Less is more. (I'm not speaking for diaglo, of course.)

Actually, I'd prefer even more minimalism. Make players use NPC classes for the first few levels: warrior, expert, aristocrat, adept, commoner. Then the base classes become almost like prestige classes and the standard abilities of those core classes become truly something special.

More is less.

The key phrase there being "make players use", which implies that you're speaking as a DM.

Humor me here. Let's consider for just a tiny second those meaningless carbon units that have actually volunteered to play in this campaign. Are they going to buy this notion of "I'm less so I'm morre"?

Hate 'em. I think there should be 5 core classes-expert (alchemist, rogue, blacksmith etc.), warrior (barbarian, town guard, knight) and mage (either divine or arcane). All customization should be handled via skill selection and feat chains (which should be revamped as well). Come to think of it, get rid of classes altogether and just go for skill/feat chains.

Hmm. Sounds more and more like some folks should be taking a look at WarHammer FRPG.

 

[Felon]

I like most WotC base classes, BUT the scout class is out of control! Too powerful.

I was concerned about this myself. Turns out if anything that it's too weak.