Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mhacdebhandia" data-source="post: 2207253" data-attributes="member: 18832">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.</blockquote>