Two quick thoughts about all these new fangled base classes . . .

[Celebrim]

So, when the party asks you to Turn Undead, you just refuse to?

You can. Though it would be I think showing a poor imagination to do so. Instead, you could sing:

"Get out you old wight! Vanish in the sunlight,
shrivel like the cold mist,like the winds go wailing,
out into barren lands far beyond the mountains!
Come here never again! Leave your barrow empty!
Lost and forgotten be, darker than the darkness,
Where gates stand forever shut, till the world is mended"

Which is how one other author who has some small amount of respect had his Kalevala inspired character turn undead. Or you could actually show a bit of creativity and sing your own cuplets.

And if your party is asking you to 'turn undead' when your character has never done anything of the sort, their players are doing quite abit of metagaming.

"And on the flip side, you don't have much of that animist talking to the "spirits of the 4 winds" or "the spirit of the road" stuff."

Sure you do. Every time you cast a spell. Flavor is your perogative as a player. I'm not going to tell you how to play your character. All I care about as a DM is that you maintain the mechanics and stay in character (assuming your character is one that reasonably could exist in my game world).

Anyway. Like I said. You think a concept is 'what I can do', and I think a concept is 'who am I'. We've never come close to bridging that gap, and I don't see alot of sign that we ever will.

 

[Storm Raven]

The rest is personal preference; I enjoy having a somewhat larger set (between 10 and 20) of base classes, each of which offers some interesting and flavorful abilities in addition to relatively bland feats and talents.[/i]

I don't think you are understanding me on this part - I think most of the "interesting and flavorful abilities" can and should be converted to feat trees or other selectable attributes for characters rather than being grafted onto a myriad of base classes.

I don't think the first edition multiclassed casters were drastically overpowered--just a bit overpowered. Remember that fighters and magic-users, at least, lost significant advantages (most notably weapon and school specialization) over their single-classed counterparts.

First off, in 1e, weapon specialization was certainly available to multiclassed characters. I refer you to the rules on page 18 of the 1e Unearthed Arcana. Second, there was no "wizard specialization" in the 1e rules. There was a magic-user subclass named the Illusionist, but that's it.

Second, the multiclasses were massively overpowered in 1e. At 30,000 experience points you could be a 5th level fighter - or a 4th/4th level fighter/magic user. Yep, you lose that one level in fighter to gain 4 levels in magic-user, which is massively overpowered. At 120,000 experience points you can be an 7th level fighter - or a 6th/6th level fighter/cleric. And so on.

And while the limited spell lists of rangers and paladins are mildly useful, I have never found them to take on an important role in how these characters are played--their spells could really go away entirely without much affecting the player.

But in 3e, their spells have become much more important to the classes. Which I think was the wrong direction for the rules to evolve.

What I would like to see for a "semicaster" supporting the fighter/wizard concept is a core class similar to the bard but with a more martial focus and an extensive spell list. Their maximum spell level should be one or two behind that of a single-class caster, probably peaking at 7th level spells, and they should get significantly fewer spells per day. That's still a darn sight better than the 10/10 fighter/wizard peaking at 5th level spells, yet not I think overpowered when compared to the rest of the party.

I'm not seeing why just playing some version of a fighter/wizard or fighter/sorcerer would not work perfectly well.

I cited the mage blade earlier as a good example of this. They have a medium BAB but their weapon of choice automatically grows more magical as they advance in level, and they have some interesting class abilities that let them use their melee attacks on magically defended opponents.

This is exactly the sort of thing I have talked about. Why create a new class when you could just play a fighter/sorcerer (or some other type of caster) and use something like the Arcane Battle feats from The Book of Iron Might? It would accomplish almost exactly the same thing, without cluttering up the game with yet another base class.

And yes, I'm well aware of the Arcane Knight, Spellsword, Fighter 5/Wizard 15, and other options for doing this within the system. I just personally think that the semicaster archetype should be playable and enjoyable from level 1, and that it feels better to me than a wizard taking time off to train in weapons and armor before getting back to magic, or vice versa. (I also think that it should be playable in armor, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.)

First off, the concept is playable from level 1. You just don't have all the powers of a fully developed high level character at level 1. And exactly why (using the core rules) would you need to take time off to "learn weapons and armor" or whatever? And why should there not be, say, a chain of feats available to allow armored casting, which would solve that problem without having to have some sort of variant class with a super-duper special ability tacked on to it.

I also want more core classes because I think multiclassing should be the exception, rather than the rule.

Fewer base classes would encourage more multiclassing. More base classes reduces the incentive to do so.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Celebrim & Dannyalcatraz..the OP asked that discussion of this specific instance be dropped or moved on to another thread...thanks.


However, your discussion has highlighted an issue that I see fairly commonly. Basically there are two camps in regards to what a 'class' means.

To some, a 'class' is a collection of abilities that sometimes comes with optional flavor text. This camp views multi-classing and altering flavor as a matter of course.

To others, a 'class' defines who the character is and if flavor text exists, that sets the character. An example is the Barbarian's "tribal" roots.

These two points of view can be equally fun to play...but very painful to watch a debate between the two over a character concept.

Did you know there was an entire sub-sectoin in the DMG regarding "Modifying Character Classes"?

If you’re like most DMs, the character classes in the Player’s Handbook are flexible and varied enough to fit most any niche or need, particularly with the possibilities of multiclassing, the variety of feats and skills, and facets such as school specialization for wizards and domain selection for clerics.

Seems that many problems with realizing character concepts would dissapear if more DM's read and used this portion.

 

[Storm Raven]

Not quite- NO flash, a little healing & buffing, and, except for the Travel & Luck domain spells, nearly everything above 3rd level was a defensive spell.

Well, that's easy to deal with for a bard - since you select your repertoire of spells from a list, you simply choose those that are not flashy, have a little healing, and a buffing. Let's see, for a 10th level bard you could select:

1st: cure light wounds, disguise self, expeditious retreat, remove fear.
2nd: cat's grace, cure moderate wounds, delay poison, heroism.
3rd: cure serious wounds, good hope, remove curse, see invisibility.
4th: break enchantment, freedom of movement.

There. No flashy spells. A little healing. A little buffing. Some movement stuff. That wasn't hard, despite your constant protestations.

1) He wasn't a superlative caster with the exception of Travel, Luck and protective spells.

2) Druid has a whole host of issues that don't belong, such as shapechanging & animal companion.

So don't take an animal companion. I don't see the objection though - vanamoinen had a special horse, the Son of Pohjola was always accompanied by a wolf, Lemmenkainen and Kullervo were often accompanied by hunting animals. And if you don't want to shapechange, don't be higher than a 4th level druid. A druid/ranger multiclass would work just fine. Of course, I don't see why shapechanging would be a problem for a Finnish type hero. Lemminkainen and Vanamoinen, for example, could both shapeshift in the legends told about them. Your objections seem to mostly amount to "I wanted to play a special character, and it took special mechanics to make him" more than they amount to anything substantive.

1) The core set of spells for this PC- protective spells- are almost entirely absent from the spell-lists of those 2 classes.

Which protective spells do you think they need? Alarm? Barkskin? Blur? Dispel Magic? Displacement? Invisibility? Protection from Energy? Resist Energy? Because, you know, those are all on the bard and ranger lists.

2) Excising the stuff from the core classes that is alien to the core concept would not be allowed in any campaign this PC would have been run in.

And somehow, you don't seem to have to do that. Nothing needs to be excised from any of the core classes It seems to me that you just don't want to say "bard/ranger" because it makes your Finnish superhero seem less special.

Long & short- its a concept that is ill-suited to 3.X Core RAW. Most of the counter suggestions seem to involve HRs or DM tweeks.

Actually, it is a concept that is easily doable, quite well, by the 3e core rules as written. You just seem to think that the rules say something different than they do.

 

[Andor]

Generally speaking, WotC's design ethic seems to be that new classes are used to allow access to new mechanics when those mechanics are central to the image of the character. Feats are used when the mechanic is something that any character should be able to learn without detracting from his core competancy.

Put another way, a class is a career and a feat is a night class.

There are 2 problems with this approach.

1) Mundane classes kind of blur together. A Fighter 1/Ranger 1/Swashbuckler 1 isn't all that different from a Fighter 3.

2) Because the average character has (theoretically) 20 levels and 7 feats to play with, feat actually represent a greater opportunity cost that a level does.

The proper approach should be this:

A Class is used to allow a mechanic that grows progessively over the life of the character.

A Feat is used to allow a static mechanic.

So the problem with having only a few base classes is that you then don't have many different mechanical systems possible that progress with the character. Unless of course you give them a 'class ability' at every level and have them choose from lists of abilities that grow in long chains. And then (Guess what?) you're multiclassing anyway, just under a different name.

It depends on the campaign world you're trying to portray. If heavy armour and Heavy Cav are the kings of the battlefield, and the is only one type of magic, then the Fighter, the Wizard, and the commoner are the only classes you need.

If you want a lightly armoured, speed based fighter to be a viable playstyle you now need to add another class. If you want divine healers you add another class. If you want pact mages whose powers differ from Wizards and Clerics you add another class.

It's all in the world you want to portray, and how much you want to highlight the differences between different career paths in that world.

Can I make a single flexible fighter class that can be used to emulate a gladiator, a knight, a paladin, a woodsman, an archer, a swashbuckler, a hexblade? Yes, yes I can, although the class description and options will take up many many pages.

Can I make a single caster class that can emulate a vancian wizard, an instinctive sorcerer, a devout priest or an evil summoner. Yes, I can swing that too, although the classes won't be as distinct as they otherwise might be.

Can I make a single hybrid class that can cover terrain as diverse as a Psiwarrior, a Binder, a Totemist, a Warlock, a Spellthief, a Ninja, a Shadowcaster, a Monk or a Dragon Shaman? No. I don't think I can. There is only so much you can squish into a base class before you might as well play HERO.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'll start another thread to honor the OP's request.

Here it is- http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=3265899

Join in if you wish.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

More seriously, it never ceases to be amusing when someone condemns a game company for trying to (gasp!) make money. It's as if GM's are compelled to allow absolutely everything into their games, and can never resort to saying "No, that doesn't really fit."

While I completely and totally agree with this, people do have the right to their opinion of disliking new classes as well. Yes, WotC does have to try and make money, but they could do it through other means than introducing new classes.

Having said that, I think WotC has done a good job spreading it around. Each new book often has a great mixture of PrCs (which have been scaled back in total amount since the first 4 complete books came out), feats, spells, oraganizations, item stuff, class variants, etc. I really do applaud WotC for their attempt to diversify the game.

Having said that, I don't buy all the books either, because I am one of those DMs who can decide something doesn't fit. I dislike the "Races of" books and have bought none of them. I don't care for Libris Mortis or any of the Campaign Specific books (Eberron, FR, DL, etc). I didn't care for CPsi (although I think the XPH was one of the top three supplements ever written) and by the initial feel I won't care for CS either. But it is WotC's job to write books. It is my job to discern what fits into my campaign.

 

[fuindordm]

I don't think you are understanding me on this part - I think most of the "interesting and flavorful abilities" can and should be converted to feat trees or other selectable attributes for characters rather than being grafted onto a myriad of base classes.

Sure I do, but while I have great respect for D20 Modern it's not my preferred style of play. I do not like highly generic systems for a fantasy setting, that's all.

Second, the multiclasses were massively overpowered in 1e. At 30,000 experience points you could be a 5th level fighter - or a 4th/4th level fighter/magic user. Yep, you lose that one level in fighter to gain 4 levels in magic-user, which is massively overpowered. At 120,000 experience points you can be an 7th level fighter - or a 6th/6th level fighter/cleric. And so on.

You're right, I was really talkiing about 2nd edition --thanks for the catch.

Note also that in earlier editions the multiclassed character had lower HD, THAC0, and saving throws. I agree this was not much of a loss, but the characters did lose an entire level at least of 'staying power' relative to the rest of the party in exchange for the increased versatility. And that's the main point--multiclassers should get more options in exchange for less power, but the power of their options should not lag too far behind the rest of the party either.

But in 3e, their spells have become much more important to the classes. Which I think was the wrong direction for the rules to evolve.

I definitely agree with this.

Why create a new class when you could just play a fighter/sorcerer (or some other type of caster) and use something like the Arcane Battle feats from The Book of Iron Might? It would accomplish almost exactly the same thing, without cluttering up the game with yet another base class.

Personally, I think bringing in additional feat trees is more cluttered than bringing in additional base classes. I don't really want a game where I have to sort through 500 feats and talents to construct my character, and the more such options multiply the more difficult it is to control bizarre combinations. Once upon a time, feats were meant to customize your character, not define your character--this is why PCs get so few of them.

First off, the concept is playable from level 1. You just don't have all the powers of a fully developed high level character at level 1. And exactly why (using the core rules) would you need to take time off to "learn weapons and armor" or whatever?

Let's see... should I play a 1st level fighter with 2 ranks in spellcraft or a 1st level wizard with a martial weapon proficiency? Which one would better fit the concept? Or should I play a 0/0 character using the DMG option for apprentice characters (which still forces me to choose one of the classes to come *first*, and define my starting HD and first level class skills?)

As for taking time off to learn, you're right that none is required. This is a case where the game mechanic violates the implied setting (magic is difficult to learn, and so for that matter is gaining proficiency in all martial weapons) -- another reason why I prefer that multiclassing be the exception.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html

Ben