Too Many Classes?

[Patlin]

Warlocks are.....okay they are nicely balanced, and all.......the problem is they are too boring. All they do is "i fire eldrict blast with so and so invocation". Most of the combat rounds, they will do the exact same thing, over and over with no variation(other than switching targets). Its very hard to roleplay a warlock.....realistically speaking what it looks like is they are raising their hands firing eldrict blasts, unless the player wants to try and RP hollywood style(i fire a eldrict blast from under my raised leg!)

Is this really all that significant compared to, for example, a fighter? Is hitting someone with an eldritch blast most of the time significantly different from hitting them with a sword most of the time?

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

Personally, I'd love if the whole archetypical class system was tossed in favor of a totally customizable method ala 2e's Skills and Powers....but that's just me.

As for new classes, I try to look at each on its own merits. I generally allow pretty much anything "official", just to see how it fits with the rest of the party. Usually, the player makes the ultimate decision as to whether or not it works, then either continues playing it or retires it.

 

[Stalker0]

As others have said, some of the new classes add a lot of value, others not so much. But your the dm, so choose what classes to allow.

For example, I feel the knight adds value, its a more defensive fighter that can't truly be done with a regular fighter, and the code is good roleplaying. But others feel its just a fighter extra, that its not really needed. So as the dm, figure out what side of the fence your on, and go with it.

 

[the Jester]

I use very few of the new classes, but am considering opening up several more. I think what I want to do is have a list of what classes are available by region in my campaign... that might work. (A region is a huge area, roughly 5500 x 4250 miles.)

At present, I allow the XPH classes and the scout... I would almost certainly allow someone to play a warlock and the binder (in ToM) is really cool in my eyes. I'd prolly also allow a knight. I don't much care for the oriental classes in my pseudo-European fantasy. Most of the others just leave me cold (though there are a few exceptions- hexblade seems kinda neat, and I recognize that the duskblade is pretty cool).

 

[werk]

Can anyone weigh in on how they feel on the newer classes, for good or bad?

I think they are fine. The archetypes are archetypes because they have been around for a long time and have become in-grained in the game. If the original box set had included the classes Warlock, Healer, Knight, and Ninja, they would be the archetypes, and you'd be complaining about that darn cleric class.

Play them all, it really doesn't matter. Seriously, most problems people have are excuse for "I don't like them." If you're not comfortable with them, or can't wrap your brain around it, you shouldn't allow them in play, but realize that it is your problem, not a problem created by the class.

.02

 

[Magesmiley]

My general rule for my players is that they can generally play whatever character they want provided that they can rationalize it in the context of the campaign world. I apply this to both race selection and class selection. This has kept a number of the stranger things out there in check, while still allowing the players a wide variety of choices.

 

[Thanee]

If that's all you got against them... simply change your opinion and let the players use them.

I'm reasonably sure, that your campaign world isn't going to implode.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Deset Gled]

Sticking to the archetype classes is great if you're going to stick to the archeype world, and play an archtype campaign. However, alternate classes are great when you want to break out of the mold a bit and play classes that do unorthodox things and fit well in unorthodox situations. It sounds like the archetype is what you want, which is fine, but might not be what your players are after.

Don't let the Duskblade in, though. I hate Duskblades.

 

[Thurbane]

I am in two minds about new base classes.

On the one hand,it is generally good to have more choices in a game, and for people who have been playing for many years, a new class can be an exciting new change.

On the other, I think they somewhat unneccessarily make things more complicated. Basically every niche that there could possibly be within any party has been catered for, half a dozen times over in some cases. Stealth, buffing, melee - you name it, there are now about 5 or more non-core classes who excel at it...

Not to mention that between race/class/multi class/prestige class/feat/skill combos, core only can pretty much be used to create any type of character you can possibly imagine.

My own group is pretty much core only, although now we've been together for a while, some people are expressing an interest in trying some non-core classes.

 

[taliesin15]

My opion on "extra" classes AND all prestige classes is simple. They should be campaign-specific.
If there are no Hexbaldes in your world then, well, there are none. Period.

I tend to agree with this and the original poster. So many of the new classes tend to kind of bore me. And this issue keeps coming up, and probably always will. Witch and Warlock seem to be comprised under Wizard in my mind. Thing is there have been other RPG systems invented (one by Austinite David Nalle, a system I played a couple of times)that by passed the whole issue by simply having characters buy skills, thereby inventing whatever they wanted, and calling themselves whatever they bloody well wanted to.