CombatWombat51
First Post
A simple poll for it's own sake. Nothing more, nothing less 
Which of these should be coreclasses?
- Thread starter CombatWombat51
- Start date
CombatWombat51
First Post
Psion said:What poll?
I had to type the poll first, turbo!
snarfoogle
First Post
By "PC", do you mean "playable by pc", "core", or "non-prc"? That would help my decision.
CombatWombat51
First Post
snarfoogle said:
AFAIK, they're all rather synonomous... I mean it in the same fashion as the fighter, rogue, barbarian, sorcerer, etc. are now. However you classify them
Bendris Noulg
First Post
In my view, any archtype that is common enough within a specific setting that many people can easily enough achieve it should be a Base Class for that setting.
For instance, Rokugan has a lot of political intrigue within it. This presents a game where playing a politician should be a viable choice and is represented by the Courtier Class in that book (Star Wars has the Noble which, while more adventurous, fills the same role). A game set on the high seas could very well have a Sailor Base Class. And so on...
As for what should be "Core" Classes (as in "belongs in the Core Rules"), I got to admit that I really don't care. I'm just going to use the ones that fit my game, ignore the ones that don't, and adopt/create new ones to fill the gaps.
For instance, Rokugan has a lot of political intrigue within it. This presents a game where playing a politician should be a viable choice and is represented by the Courtier Class in that book (Star Wars has the Noble which, while more adventurous, fills the same role). A game set on the high seas could very well have a Sailor Base Class. And so on...
As for what should be "Core" Classes (as in "belongs in the Core Rules"), I got to admit that I really don't care. I'm just going to use the ones that fit my game, ignore the ones that don't, and adopt/create new ones to fill the gaps.
wingsandsword
Legend
I've said for years that a Courtier/Noble PC Base class should exist.
NPC Warriors have the PC Fighter Class as a PC version, Adepts have Clerics, and Commoners have anything else. Aristocrats have, well, nothing.
However, the Aristocrat class has no PC analog, Bard is good as a general socialite, but Aristocrats are parts of the social fabric and leadership of a people, and thus definitely a "lawful" class, while Bards aren't even allowed to be Lawful. Paladin could be seen as a "noble warrior", but it's got a lot of religious and behavioral (and that stupid v3.5 summonable PokeMount, "Horse, I choose you!"). The closest thing there has been to a "Noble" class in D&D core rules was the 1e Cavalier.
I think the lack of a class for noble warriors and noble adventurers is just a legacy of D&D's roots as a wargame, and the focus on miniatures combat and combat-oriented games. A Noble could be a very powerful, very useful character in a game focused more on roleplaying and politics than "Kick in the door and kill the monsters" gaming.
In my own games, I use an adaptation of the Star Wars Revised and Wheel of Time noble classes (the biggest balance issue was how big to make the "Resource Access" class feature). I'd post and share it but I can't since it's based on non-OGC material. The Dragonlance setting has a Noble class (I'd use it, but I don't have a copy of the DLCS, I've only looked at it in bookstores), and it's pretty good, but I would rather see it in the core.
One DM I know lets PC's take Aristocrat at 1st level, as the only way to play a PC noble, considering the loss of game-mechanic power from taking an NPC class at 1st level (but they can multiclass to PC classes and PrC's freely) to be the cost of the social and political power that comes with being a nobility.
NPC Warriors have the PC Fighter Class as a PC version, Adepts have Clerics, and Commoners have anything else. Aristocrats have, well, nothing.
However, the Aristocrat class has no PC analog, Bard is good as a general socialite, but Aristocrats are parts of the social fabric and leadership of a people, and thus definitely a "lawful" class, while Bards aren't even allowed to be Lawful. Paladin could be seen as a "noble warrior", but it's got a lot of religious and behavioral (and that stupid v3.5 summonable PokeMount, "Horse, I choose you!"). The closest thing there has been to a "Noble" class in D&D core rules was the 1e Cavalier.
I think the lack of a class for noble warriors and noble adventurers is just a legacy of D&D's roots as a wargame, and the focus on miniatures combat and combat-oriented games. A Noble could be a very powerful, very useful character in a game focused more on roleplaying and politics than "Kick in the door and kill the monsters" gaming.
In my own games, I use an adaptation of the Star Wars Revised and Wheel of Time noble classes (the biggest balance issue was how big to make the "Resource Access" class feature). I'd post and share it but I can't since it's based on non-OGC material. The Dragonlance setting has a Noble class (I'd use it, but I don't have a copy of the DLCS, I've only looked at it in bookstores), and it's pretty good, but I would rather see it in the core.
One DM I know lets PC's take Aristocrat at 1st level, as the only way to play a PC noble, considering the loss of game-mechanic power from taking an NPC class at 1st level (but they can multiclass to PC classes and PrC's freely) to be the cost of the social and political power that comes with being a nobility.
AFGNCAAP
First Post
I voted only for fighter, wizard, and rogue/thief, mainly because I have a major preference for UA's generic core classes now (warrior, expert, & spellcaster). I could happily live with these generic core classes, and have all other class concepts be treated as prestige classes.
Laslo Tremaine
Explorer
I too voted for the four core clases...
Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard. All the others should be prestige classes or feat chains.
Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard. All the others should be prestige classes or feat chains.
Similar Threads
- Poll
- Poll
