Too Many Classes?

[Archade]

I appreciate the input, folks. It's helping me articulate my reluctance to include new classes.

Thurbane said it best -- adding a new class can possibly add complication to a campaign. I think I can understand my internal logic for my campaign world now. Please keep in mind versimilitude matters to me as a DM. Maybe I am worrying about my campaign world imploding in my mind, Thanee.

A feat is easily added to a game, and we don't need to worry were it came from. It could be self-taught, or learned from another.

A spell or a magic item is easily added to a game, becuase they are created by inventive spellcasters. Only one person needs to create a new spell or item.

A prestige class is easily added to a game, and it comes from a small handful of npcs or social group within the campaign. Some small justification and/or social role on where the prestige class comes from should exist.

A base class would belong to hundreds or thousands of other npcs in the campaign world, and a player character must learn their classes from somewhere -- one is not simply born a hexblade or knight (although one might be born a warlock or sorcerer, but let's not go there).

My reluctance to add a base class is because I need to understand where all those base classes were before. Warlocks a born, not trained, so I am comfortable with them. Archivists can be justified by existing in small numbers, hiding in libraries and monastaries across the campaign world, and their insertion doesn't cause a huge impact on the game.

Do any other DMs worry about this sort of thing?

 

[mvincent]

adding a new class can possibly add complication to a campaign.

I agree, but then also also feel that anything outside the core rules is likely needlessly complex, as I have yet to see someone completely understand, let alone exhaust the possibilities of, just the core rules.

My reluctance to add a base class is because I need to understand where all those base classes were before.

You mean in-game reasoning? Bases classes (like stats, hp, etc.) are still technically a meta-game concept. PC's should have no concept that they actually exist as such. Example: a group of people that they refer to as 'rogues' might actually be made from various base classes, or a "knight" might simply be a fighter. The exception to this is when a class is named after a specific organization that the PC is expected to belong to (but that's more an issue with adding an organization than a base class).

If you want to justify not allowing base classes to your players, I might use other reasons, like:
1) It is needlessly complex
2) You can't be expected to read all the books to support these new rules adequately
3) The core classes have been playtested more and are more balanced
4) Access to too many options can result in Pun-Pun
5) The core rules already support almost any character type.
6) The main reason players want more rules is because they want to be more powerful (which does not actually make the game better... just less challenging).
7) No new rules until they 'clean their plate first' (i.e. fully understand the rules they already have).

To be fair, I've played the "optimize with every supplement you can find" game (and it was kinda fun), but I find it much more satisfying to optimize with less.

 

[Thanatos]

A base class would belong to hundreds or thousands of other npcs in the campaign world, and a player character must learn their classes from somewhere -- one is not simply born a hexblade or knight (although one might be born a warlock or sorcerer, but let's not go there).

I kind of disagree here...I think you realistically treat a base class just like a prestige class in limiting how many people have access to it. When you consider how the DMG deals with it, not ever melee person is a fighter...most are the warrior npc class...a smaller percentage are actually 'fighters'. Most of your temple priests are 'adepts' not clerics...etc. Now a base class could belong to thousands, but I don't think its an absolute requirement that it does. I believe there could be 'secret' societies of classes in some campaign worlds which put a limit on to it...and if a player wants one, he has to work his background around it...which makes it better for you, gives you more hooks to attach to him.

My reluctance to add a base class is because I need to understand where all those base classes were before. Warlocks a born, not trained, so I am comfortable with them. Archivists can be justified by existing in small numbers, hiding in libraries and monastaries across the campaign world, and their insertion doesn't cause a huge impact on the game.

Do any other DMs worry about this sort of thing?

I don't really worry about this sort of things. I feel as long as the DM has a general understanding of how the classes or even PrC's can fit in his world, then its probably good. You can really justify putting any class in your game if you are the DM, its just a matter of if you want to or not...there may or may not be a point if a player doesn't want to play it though. You control the impact it makes in any event.

In any of the non-core games I've ever played, I've never seen adding a class to the world turn into a big deal...even if it was someones home-brew posted here, copied and given to the DM to modify and review. There's a very good point to consider and that is you can't always duplicate what you want to try with just the base classes, but sometimes there exists a new class which does what you want it to.

If your players all want to play hexblades, knights, etc. that should really tell you something important. As much as it is the DM's game and world and what he says goes...he won't have anything going if the players are unhappy and unenthusastic about the game.

Maybe you can have all your players make level 10 characters of the classes they want and pick a module to run them through as a one-shot to see how they work and if your fears are justified and give your players an opportunity to see if thats what they really want to do as well.

 

[Thanatos]

If you want to justify not allowing base classes to your players, I might use other reasons, like:
1) It is needlessly complex
2) You can't be expected to read all the books to support these new rules adequately
3) The core classes have been playtested more and are more balanced
4) Access to too many options can result in Pun-Pun
5) The core rules already support almost any character type.
6) The main reason players want more rules is because they want to be more powerful (which does not actually make the game better... just less challenging).
7) No new rules until they 'clean their plate first' (i.e. fully understand the rules they already have).

Wow, I'd be insulted (and likely not play) if my DM came to me with any of those excuses...I'd rather him be direct and honest and just say "I am only interested in running core class games, they fit my idea of my world where other classes, except maybe X do not."

 

[Whimsical]

It's not just to increase power. I have been lucky enough to have played a lot of D&D in the last twenty years, particularly 3e. I have played the base classes and races repeatedly, in many varied combinations. The fact is I have been feeling...sated and would like to play some other RPGs just to experience something new and fresh. However, these new classes and races keeps my interest in D&D high. I loved playing my warlock; it turns out that blowing [poo] up never gets old. I'm currenly enjoying playing a dwarven barbarian/spirit shaman/earth dreamer (my first barbarian) and am excited about playing a kobold beguiler in the next campaign that will be starting up. When another campaign starts, I'm going to consider the stuff that has been coming out in Tome of Magic/Tome of Battle. All of this keeps D&D fresh for me.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

The idea of something "fitting" i think is the problem here. Every class can fit into any campain world, I am willing to bet, It just takes some creativity and adding in new flavor and spices. If you dont have a problem with the stats and abilities of the class itself, it shouldt be a problem. I think limiting something becuse of flavor is just an admitince of lack of creativity.

A warforged can be remade flavor wise to be an organic humonkulas that looks realitivly human. Same stats, diffrent concept. It can be done with anything. If its balanced its all good.

is thier a class inpaticular you have issues with, that your afraid someone may want to play as?

 

[MarkB]

We have too many underpowered or highly situational classes.

For example knights wont work in most campaigns.......due primarily to mounted combat and all their abilities are incredibly situational. They also dont seem to have much damaging capability, compared to fighters who already function well enough in the tank role.

Knights have one class feature related to mounted combat. Generally, they function just as well on foot. And they are a defense-oriented class, and function very well in that role. I don't see anything particularly campaign-specific about them.

Beguilers seem oddly out of place in a standard adventuring campaign, but much more suited to intrigue style campaigns......for example if the PCs were working for a thieve's guild and trying to steal stuff, solve a mystery, so on and so forth.

They fulfill the 'rogue' party slot, but with more emphasis on doing so via spellcasting than via skills and sneak attack. If you claim beguilers are unsuited to a standard campaign, you're making the same claim for rogues.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

You can use a new class in my world if

a) you buy me the book it's in

and

b) it's balanced

and

c) it fits with the flavor of the setting.

 

[Archade]

It boils down to the flavor of the setting -- particularly the perceived flavor by the DM.

Currently I'm running an FR campaign. I'd allow Warlocks and Archivists (and I'd allow the oriental classes if they were Shou).

I'm thinking of running a Ptolus game (bougbht the book at Gen Con), and I'm trying as an experiment to think how the various other base classes might fit -- any ideas?

 

[Shellman]

I am generally not a big fan of limiting what kind of classes a player can choose from. As long as the Class is not out of place in the campaign or game world. I believe that most of the time, the DM and player can/ should come to some sort of compromise (unless the pc is just too uber-powerful compared to the rest of the party).

IMO,

Hexblade- good concept and pretty well balanced. Serves as a good support fighter, but not your mian battle tank.

Warlock- I really like this class, but it has some balance issues, it could use some tweaking (EB [without any invocations] not having an energy type). Best as a supporting spellcaster. Complete mage is supposed to have some new feats, invocations and maybe PrC's to help give the class some options.