Too Many Classes?

[TheAuldGrump]

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?

You know that fighter that you saw and interacted with but never fought? That was a knight. NPCs in my game never come out and say 'Hi, I'm Bob - a twelfth level fighter, I will be your challenge for the evening'. It is only the PC (insert new base class here)s that are new, and, given the small number of PCs and the vast numbers of potential NPCs and walking scenery, this is not hard.

That said - I pick and choose what new base classes are allowed, depending on the campaign world. Some I use in nearly every D&D setting (Mongoose Publishing's Hedge Wizard), others never see the light of day (Warlock). This past month saw the inclusion of WotC's scout class. And again there have always been scouts, the PCs may even have spoken to them. Some may have been thought to be rangers, and others thought to be rogues, but the party most likely never even thought about it, that guy in the studded leather armor with a bow could be anything from a poor fighter to a ranger, to a rogue, to a sorcerer who is willing to risk spell failure.

The Auld Grump

 

[nobodez]

The Classes - A Summary

If you're having trouble figuring out how to put stuff in, check out the Player's Guide to Eberron, very nice placements of all the new classes introduced up until it's development.

Hexblade (CW) - A nice, balanced, and fairly interesting class, a sort of anti-paladin
Samurai (CW) - While others find it lacking, I think it's a nice option for the "knight" concept
Swashbuckler (CW) - A good balance of skills and fighting, and the first glimpse as middle saves in D&D

Favored Soul (MH, CD) - The sorcerer analogue to the cleric. A good concept for the loner priest
Spirit Shaman (CD) - Although it uses the druid spell list, the SS fills a much different role, also a sorcerer analogue
Shugenja (CD) - The divine "oriental" class, a good conversion, nice niche

Warlock (CA) - A "blaster" mage, nice class features, and a unique "spell" system
Warmage (MH, CA) - Another "blaster", but based on the Vancian magic system, one trick pony
Wu Jen (CA) - Another oriental class, a good take on new "schools" of magic

Ninja (CV) - It's a stealth killer with balance, "Real Ultimate Power" this is not
Scout (CV) - A versatile wilderness skill user, and a nice schtick, but don't forget the errata
Spellthief (CV) - Sneak Attacks, spells, and a way to screw the BBEG mage, nice combo

Healer (MH) - I wish it hadn't been left behind in the Completes, but it's still an excellent healer, not even a Radiant Servant can compare
Marshal (MH) - An excellent battlefield buffer, works great in combination with a bard to make mooks more difficult (on the BBEG's side), or a party more cohesive

Psion (XPH) - A basic psionics "mage", and a good balance. Telepath is my favorite sub-type
Psychic Warrior (XPH) - A good, balanced "fighter/mage" class, though weaker when compared to more recent offerings, it makes up for it in versatility
Soulknife (XPH) - An excellent class, a psi-monk at the mechanics level, when combined with the soulbow (CP), needs no weapons
Wilder (XPH) - While I've never seen one in play, it makes an interesting concept and is something I'd love to see in play

Archivist (HoH) - A divine wizard, I've played one, and while fun, without help from the DM, you can lose your focus and become ineffectual
Dread Necromancer (HoH) - The DN is a True Necromancer (LM) from first level, and a nice BBEG class

Ardent (CP) - Psi-Cleric, I love the execution, haven't build one yet
Divine Mind (CP) - Psi-Paladin, again, good class, but I haven't used it yet, wording can be a bit difficult on the class abilities though, took me a few read-through to grok
Lurk (CP) - A psi-rogue with all the extras. I haven't delved into too many builds, but it looks promising as a BBEG's henchman
Erudite (CP) - I wish there was an Arcane analogue to this, but as it stands, it's just very cool. I think this would make for a good BBEG or wizards replacement in a party.

Artificer (ECS) - A great class, I hope they put it in the 4.0 PHB (along with psionics), it makes an excellent 5th man or cohort

Beguiler (PH2) - An interesting concept, and a good arcane analogue to the telepath, and a good Mindbender (CA) from first level
Dragon Shaman (PH2) - More auras, breath weapons, and a link to dragons, very cool class
Duskblade (PH2) - At first glance, seems too powerful, until you realize that it's spells are just things that fighters can do with their feats. After that, it's a nice variant fighter class
Knight (PH2) - I think this makes an excellent choice for a Henchman or even a BBEG (with arcane/archer support), though difficult to play without DM guidance

As for the rest (Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, etc.), they seem good and interesting, but I haven't looked close enough, or found a niche for them in my campaign, so I don't have much of an opinion, though anything that makes encounters more interesting (alternate magic systems, cool abilities) can never be a bad thing, as long as you're comfortable with what you're using.

 

[HugeOgre]

I think the danger of the base classes is that in some cases they make it easier to overcome what the original designers thought were balancing elements of the rules - like multiclassing and XP penalties. Whenever you start blending abilities together like the ranger and rogue for the "Scout" you start dilluting the balancing of the classes (this of course, assumes you believe the classes are balanced).

Me personally, Id like to see classes become even MORE archetypal, centered around the ability scores perhaps, and the feats and special abilities of the various classes opened up as "trees" to which you either can or cant have access to, depending on the capricious nature of the DM (or um, the nature of the setting). I havent gotten around to writing a variant rules set for it though, nor has anyone else (beyond Spencers Buy the Numbers, which is a bit TOO granular for me) so I guess I'll shut up and go back to waiting for NWN2 to come out.

 

[nobodez]

That's another approach, but like I put in my descriptions, many of the new classes allow you to play a more specific archetype from first level, rather then playing a weaker multi-class combination, perhaps with a prestige class or two. Each of the new classes have a niche that they're good at, better then any of the original 11 (or even the base 4, cleric, fighter, rogue, sorcerer), but when compared to the more general things, they show a lack that the 11 (or 4) can fill better.

Yes, there are many classes that are better at certain niches, but none of them are as good in the broad stroke. A warlock is a great blaster, but they can't buff. A healer can heal like none other, but they can't deal a lick of damage (except to undead). A Scout is good in the wilderness, but put him in a dungeon or the city, and it's not nearly as good as a rogue of the same level. It's all about being able to play a niche character that you enjoy. You can still play the rogue or ranger, but some people feel the scout is a better fit for their character.

A fighter/rogue or ranger/rogue is good for a combat sneak, but a ninja just does it that much better, but not much else. A warmage can throw out so much damage, and is more versatile then a sorcerer, but they can't buff, or throw a comprehend languages, or anything like that, but a sorcerer or wizard can.

Oh, and before I put the sorcerer in for the wizard in my four class spots. That's because in the basic game, the sorcerer is put forth as the easier class, and in reality, it is, it's so much easier then a wizard, I don't know why it's thought as a variant if only because of history (of the game, not in the game).

 

[Varianor Abroad]

For Ptolus, you can pretty much add anything from any other Malhavoc product (except the stuff that Monte revised for the book specifically). Iron Heroes would need a bit of a tweak, but the AE material meshes very smoothly. In fact, Monte has a magister and a giant in his current Ptolus game. Book of Roguish Luck PCs go particularly well, having an urban theme already. Most of the WotC stuff would fit, but again you'd want to pick and choose what fits thematically.

 

[Whimsical]

If you are concerned about having to represent the base class in your campaign when a player starts playing a class that has never appeared, just have the PC be the first one ever to appear in your game world. After all, someone had to be the first one. Why not the PC?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I have two general approaches:

Free-for all: Wanna play hexblade? Go ahead! That Warblade seems interesting and you wanna try it? Why not? Dragon Shaman, Shadowcaster, Duskblade, Scout. No problem.

Less is more: We don't need 38 classes plus 2000 PrCs. We don't need 38 classes. We don't need 11 classes. 3 is all you need: Warrior, Expert, Spellcaster.

The first approach is what I do in my current campaign (Forgotten Realms).

The second one is what I'll do in my homebrew (S3C): Only three classes, who differ in BAB, Base Save Bonus, Hit points, skill points and caster level (as well as weapon group proficiencies for the first level). Instead of standard spellcasting, I'll be using Elements of Magic. Everyone gets a feat every level, and most relevant abilities are to be converted into feats. There are no bonus feat lists, and no class skills. All classes have spellcasting (Spellcaster Strong, Expert Weak, Warrior Latent - 1/4). Ability boost every two levels. No magic items except quasi-items (which you more or less enchant yourself with day-long spells each day) and artifacts (exceedingly rare).

The major spellcasint classes will be there as Magic Traditions (Mage for those who use spellbooks and prepare spellbooks, bards for those who use music, priest for those who follow a diety and limit themselves to certain spelllists, and so on)

 

[The Levitator]

I've been reading this thread with a lot of interest, because our group is in a similiar position. We have talked about the Generic Class variant on the srd20.org site. I'm wondering if anyone has any experience in this and how it compares to having a plethora of classes to choose from?

 

[starwed]

I've been reading this thread with a lot of interest, because our group is in a similiar position. We have talked about the Generic Class variant on the srd20.org site. I'm wondering if anyone has any experience in this and how it compares to having a plethora of classes to choose from?

I've played in a campaign using a variant of this before; it seemed to work pretty well. (The campaign world was extremely low magic and used sanity rules, so might not be the best comparison to regular D&D). Certainly, no one felt that their PC's were generic, and it was probably easier to make the character's stats match the concept.

 

[The Levitator]

That's encouraging! The only problem I see with our group is that we have a couple of relatively inexperienced players and it seems like you need to have a good background in the game to put a decent character together that way. I'm going to bring it up at our next session and see if there is any interest.