Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Addi83 04-19-04, 10:11 AM	I know I've said this before, but never in a specific thread, I'm rather concerned about the trend for making every idea for a character concept into a specific core class. To each his own I guess, but for me, part of the fun in DnD is taking the core classes and perhaps a prestige class and using them to achieve a character concept you want. To me, designing a specific core class to fit every character concept comes close to taking all the fun out of character building. Also, you don't have to have new 'never before seen' abilities, part of the fun is also learning to use what the system already gives you, and learning to live without what it doesn't give you. I don't think I'm being that conservative when I say that this flood of new core classes, from WotC even, is a troubling development towards over-complification and over-self-indulgence in D&D as a whole. That being said, no two people can be expected to enjoy exactly the same things, this doesn't look fun to me, but far be it from me to try to force my views on those who do like it. Just my two cents.
detectevil 04-19-04, 10:23 AM	It's not every character concept... it's just Priests and Swashbucklers, isn't it? I mean, Priests, I think D&D is really lacking in. Don't feel the same about swashbucklers. I think that one could be filled by a Rogue/Fighter, easely. This is a concept that, IMO, doesn't justify a core class unless we get rid of both fighter, ranger and rogue. Oh, yeah... and them there are Shamans... which I think is just a Druid. Really don't get that one.
Eltheynn 04-19-04, 10:53 AM	Originally posted by detectevil Oh, yeah... and them there are Shamans... which I think is just a Druid. Really don't get that one. I'll bite. Shaman are not Druids, neither culturally nor stereotypically speaking... The Druid, in D&D (let alone the historical druid), is a defender of nature, that worships Nature itself and gets his power from the revering all things living (and non-living) in the world... More or less. OTOH, the Shaman is a more religious being, one who worships the Spirits that he believes exist in everything, from the trees to the rivers, the animals, the forests, the mountains... And thanks to the relationship with those spirits, the Shaman gets his powers. Their role in Society is pretty different as well, 'cause the Shaman is an important piece in the lives of their communities. Shaman are tribal in nature, and that's not always true of Druids... They fill two different niches, two different stereotypes, and that warrants two classes IMHO... About the Priest, I consider the Cleric to be certainly over-the-top... D&D certainly lacks a Priest, and the Cleric needs to be toned down (which I've already done). The concept of a devote pious scholar is filled via the Core cleric with a bit of RPing, but why the heck does he have to know how to fight decently well? And as for Swashbucklers... I don't really mind the Swashbuckler Class, 'cause a Rogue/Fighter or something like this is not as viable as an entire new class, and leaves a character with abilities that don't fit (SA, anyone?), at least IMO... But I agree that it's preferable to tweak what you already have... That's why I'll not create a Swashbuckler class before I mess a bit with the Core Fighter and Rogue... And then you have Witches... Really, Sorcerers don't cut it for me... A Sorcerer is not a Witch.
farghal 04-19-04, 12:15 PM	dude your being conservative. i rest my case:embarrass
detectevil 04-19-04, 12:16 PM	Originally posted by Eltheynn I'll bite. Shaman are not Druids, neither culturally nor stereotypically speaking... The Druid, in D&D (let alone the historical druid), is a defender of nature, that worships Nature itself and gets his power from the revering all things living (and non-living) in the world... More or less. OTOH, the Shaman is a more religious being, one who worships the Spirits that he believes exist in everything, from the trees to the rivers, the animals, the forests, the mountains... And thanks to the relationship with those spirits, the Shaman gets his powers. Their role in Society is pretty different as well, 'cause the Shaman is an important piece in the lives of their communities. Shaman are tribal in nature, and that's not always true of Druids... That is a matter of interpretation. Nothing says there aren't spirits in the threes, rivers and rocks. Specially when a druid can speak with those things, it's just a matter of personal belief to say where does a druids power come from. Specially since a druid no longer gains powers from a Deity, as it was in previous editions, the most apropriate source would be the spirits of nature. And, if you ant to go by a historical aproach, the D&D druid is a Shaman much more than it is a Druid.
Shadowfoot 04-19-04, 01:45 PM	I have little patience for posts that complain about how other people play their game. Originally posted by Addi83 I'm rather concerned about the trend for making every idea for a character concept into a specific core class. A) Why would what other people do in their games concern you? It doesn't affect you in the least, and no one is forcing you to read those threads. B) I haven't seen "every idea for a character concept" actualized as a core class. Not even close. Originally posted by Addi83 To each his own I guess, but for me, part of the fun in DnD is taking the core classes and perhaps a prestige class and using them to achieve a character concept you want. To me, designing a specific core class to fit every character concept comes close to taking all the fun out of character building. That's how you play the game. Don't confuse it with how the game needs to be played. Why do you use prestige classes? Wouldn't it be more fun to simply use the base classes? Or even just fighter, wizard, rogue, and cleric? After all, a druid can simply be a cleric with the right domains. Prestige classes are just as optional as new core classes; in fact, I believe the DMG introduces both concepts in the same chapter. Utilize the optional rules you wish, and we'll utilize the optional rules we wish. Originally posted by Addi83 Also, you don't have to have new 'never before seen' abilities, part of the fun is also learning to use what the system already gives you, and learning to live without what it doesn't give you. Some people require more from the game than "living without what it doesn't give" deficiencies. Some people don't think it's "fun" to play that way. Part of the beauty of D&D is the ability to customize the game to suit your needs. Some people require more accuracy in their game. If your idea of a swashbuckler includes heavy armor proficiency, trap detection, and sneak attacking, or your idea of the shaman includes trackless step, wild shaping, and scimitars, more power to you. But the number of such classes on these boards, in supplemental books by WotC, and in 3rd-party supplements should show you that not everyone agrees with that philosophy or outlook. The 11 classes in the PHB aren't the only 11 standard archetypes in fantasy or literature; they are simply the ones that made it into this version of D&D, written by specific authors at a specific time. Originally posted by Addi83 I don't think I'm being that conservative when I say that this flood of new core classes, from WotC even, is a troubling development towards over-complification and over-self-indulgence in D&D as a whole. In some ways, I agree here. I have been known to make a custom class or two, or three, or ten. But there are a few principals I try to adhere to each time. First, the class must be a standard fantasy archetype. Witch, corsair, swashbuckler, shaman, etc. are all fine. When I look at classes like the Hexblade, I shake my head. Second, the class must be one that, logically, could be taken as a 1st-level character. When I look at classes like the Marshal, I shake my head. I see a lot of classes that are simply PrCs for the impatient. That doesn't mean the idea of new core classes is flawed - just that those particular core classes are misguided. Originally posted by Addi83 That being said, no two people can be expected to enjoy exactly the same things, this doesn't look fun to me, but far be it from me to try to force my views on those who do like it. Just my two cents. Thanks for sharing. My philosophy is: If it's not my thing, I ignore it. I don't tell people that what they're doing is wrong or unnecessary. After all, it's just my opinion.
Thermanshs 04-19-04, 02:25 PM	Excelent post Addi! :bow: I'm either fed up watching all these guys designing brand new classes when a core one already offers what they want provided that the player has enough imagination and creativity to get where he wants. So my advice is:Stay in the core generalists and customize them if you want something out of the ordinary concepts Oh and...Shadowfoot.Noone blames people who use their own class system to fit their purposes.All Addi tried to explain is that it is a waste of time since all these generalists can be perfectly built to match those "closer" concepts you are defending.
Jell_Moo 04-19-04, 02:32 PM	For me, it goes on a case by case basis. Some are needed, and some are simply 20 level PrCs without any prereqs. The Swashbuckler is definately needed. A Fighter/Rogue simply does not cut it. Too many obsolete abilities, and none of the abilities you need. It is a huge archetype, so it should be reprsented. Too bad the one in CW is 97.6% suck. The Hexblade. I actually like the class. I thinks it's fresh and cool. however, this really should have been a PrC. The Samurai. I love the OA one and hate the CW one. Should it be a base class? I personally think so, but understand why some people think it shouldn't be. The Favored Soul. Interesting concept, badly delivered. A spontaneous divine caster would be nice, but I don't think this is it. The Healer. Has anyone, anywhere, even considered playing one? How is this not a PrC? The Marshall. I can see this working in the tabletop game. In standard D&D? Nope. The Warmage. I totally dig this class. To me, this is how a sorceror should look. Base class? Not really. Replacement for the Sorceror? Sure. The Psion. Hell yeah! The XPH is the bee's knees. The Psion is a badly needed archetype. The Psychic Warrior. Definately need. Another good archetype. The Soulknife. I'm kinda iffy on him. I lean slightly towards PrC on this one. The Wilder. I think it's valid. It's a pretty cool class that is well based in fantasy literature. Of course, there are still a few archetypes that aren't particularly well represented in D&D. Some examples... Archer Tinker/Inventor Wild Mage Assassin and maybe a few more I can't think about right now...
Shadowfoot 04-19-04, 02:41 PM	Originally posted by Thermanshs Oh and...Shadowfoot.Noone blames people who use their own class system to fit their purposes.All Addi tried to explain is that it is a waste of time since all these generalists can be perfectly built to match those "closer" concepts you are defending. Again, that's my point. That's an opinion. It's arrogant and presumptuous to tell people what they do is a "waste of time." Everyone plays the game their own way; to dismiss it as a "waste of time" is just rude and unnecessary.
Kyuketsukiouji 04-19-04, 02:52 PM	Shadowfoot: The problem is that these boards are also a feedback mechanism for WotC. If you invent something for your campaign, and I don't like it, I will gladly shut up about it. Until the time you present it for the makers of the game I play to read and consider. At which point I will take the time to comment on whether an idea is good or bad. Because by posting things here, you're not keeping it to your game table anymore, you're bringing it to our collective game table.
Thermanshs 04-19-04, 02:56 PM	I don't simply "dismiss" one's work if he doesn't serve my apetites.Your work in particular is great,all these new classes though can be mingled with the core ones by making some modifications. Thus said,who doesn't use house rules on the class system?Even I do though I prefer making them fit the already made system.
NightScreamer20 04-19-04, 02:59 PM	People make Core Classes to match their campaign settings as well. Maybe a DM wants to remove Clerics and Paladins in place of Priests, and Remove the Sorcerer and Druid in Place of The Witch and the Shaman and the Swashbuckler instead of Rogue or Ranger! It all depends on what you do to match your game. This is a fantasy world meaning it can be molded and formed to represent whatever you want it to. Here's an example: In my campaign world there are only the following Core classes: Shaman/Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue/Wizard/Sorcerer I made the following Core classes into PrCs: Cleric (Priest)/Druid/Paladin/Ranger It's just up to you and your DM how to play. I in fact also enjoy using all these wonderful homebrewed creations posted on all wizard boards from the Monsters to Spells and Classes... I really do NOT think it is your place to tell people how you think the way they play the game is wrong. That is your opinion and really you were jsut setting youself up for getting flamed by those you think you are wrong. I get that it's your opinion but you don't have to tell all of us you opinion...
Eltheynn 04-19-04, 04:20 PM	Originally posted by detectevil That is a matter of interpretation. Nothing says there aren't spirits in the threes, rivers and rocks. Specially when a druid can speak with those things, it's just a matter of personal belief to say where does a druids power come from. Specially since a druid no longer gains powers from a Deity, as it was in previous editions, the most apropriate source would be the spirits of nature. I was just saying that they fit two different stereotypes. And a Druid gains powers by means of revering nature.... This is a matter of RPing, though. [B]And, if you want to go by a historical aproach, the D&D druid is a Shaman much more than it is a Druid. Agreed, though not the point... And it's not still the same... Not tribal enough for me. But then again (and please bear in mind from now on this post os no longer aimed at detectevil), this is all a matter of opinion, and I don't see the point of the discussion... Either you like new classes, or you don't. Play as you wish. ;)
Kyuketsukiouji 04-19-04, 04:43 PM	The idea of making new Core classes isn't something I'm opposed to, but there has to be a good reason for it. A core class introduces one of two things (often both): A new mechanism. Or A new paradigm. The fighter is a paradigm. It's a warrior skilled with weapons, who becomes increasingly better at using it (as represented by his increasing amount of feats. Besides the usual extra BAB/extra HP/extra saves, the difference between a low-level fighter and the high-level fighter is that the hight-level fighter has more "tricks". That's a good paradigm, and deserves core class status. The Barbarian is a new mechanism/new paradigm: It's a warrior who channels his anger into battle prowess. He doesn't get more "tricks" as he grows in level, but he can rage more often, longer and it helps him more. It would be a bad idea to make the barbarian a fighter prestige class, because it means abandonning all the fighter individuality and picking up a whole new individuality, instead of building up on what you had. The Assasin has no new mechanisms or paradigms. Hitting targets in vulnerable areas for more damage is already something covered by the rogue class. It's just a refinement of that one ability. The assasin is a focus of the Rogue in one direction. It's not deserving of being a core class, because it's not unique enough. The paladin (or vice-versa with the blackguard) is something that could easily be made into a prestige class open to both fighters and clerics, because it meshes their abilities.The designers seem to think it was individual enough to be it's own paradigm instead of being a fighter/cleric. I don't really agree that much with the strange distinction, but I didn't write the books. Core classes, in my opinion, should be kept strictly controlled. When designing one, you have to ask yourself "is anyone else doing something like this already". If you can answer "this is like that class but with this stuff", then it's probably not worthy of being a core class. If you can say "no one does this", then it's probably deserving of being a core class (unless you are setting up a core class to replace another). Only when you're pulling something basic, does it really deserve to be a core class.
Eltheynn 04-19-04, 04:50 PM	Originally posted by Kyuketsukiouji Only when you're pulling something basic, does it really deserve to be a core class. That is, if you try to have the players use a class that probably was not created with that stereotype in mind... Which means it'll be probably be sub-par at it... By that logic, there should be only the 4 original classes (Rogue, Fighter, Mage, Cleric). Everything else can be worked as PrC's, or RP'ed...
Kyuketsukiouji 04-19-04, 05:30 PM	You are ignoring half my argument. I said that to qualify as a new core class, you must either introduce a new paradigm or a new mechanism. Your list of classes are core because they are the basic paradigm representatives. The warrior with weapons, the sneaky thief, the user of magic and the holy man. But that's half of it. The Barbarian and the sorcerer are mechanical core classes. Yes, the "user of magic" paradigm is just as well covered by the wizard than he is by the Sorcerer, they just do it in two fundamentally different ways. Thus they are both valid core class for the "magic user" paradigm. The 3 core tests that a core class has to meet to pass the core class worthiness test are: Does this introduce a new paradigm, or is it repeating an existing one, or blending two existing ones? Does this introduce a new way of doing things, or repeating an existing way, or blending two existing ones? Is this something a 14 year old kid could be expected to be able to know how to do? If any proposed class can't answer yes to questions a or b, and c, then it shouldn't be core. The Arcane Archer fails the paradigm test (fighting with a bow is not new), the mechanics test (nothing really special about imbue arrow or any of the other powers) and the age test (since you have to be both skilled with weapons *and* magic to qualify). The Assasin also fails all three tests. The Archmage fails the paradigm (Really good mage isn't anything different than mage) and the age test, though it has a unique mechanism. They're all prestige classes. The Favoured Soul (Divine spontaneous caster) doesn't fail the tests. It's a cleric paradigm with a spontaneous mechanism, so that's a new thing for clerics. It's also something a young man can pick up, seeing how the god chooses you. That deserves core class status. So do monks, druids and bards. I'll accept debates that Paladins should be prestige or Blackguards core, though.
Thermanshs 04-19-04, 05:51 PM	Originally posted by Kyuketsukiouji Core classes, in my opinion, should be kept strictly controlled. When designing one, you have to ask yourself "is anyone else doing something like this already". If you can answer "this is like that class but with this stuff", then it's probably not worthy of being a core class. If you can say "no one does this", then it's probably deserving of being a core class (unless you are setting up a core class to replace another). Only when you're pulling something basic, does it really deserve to be a core class. :bow:IMO,few classes in here have something brand new (or basic using your terms) to offer despite one's terminology and rephrasal
Jell_Moo 04-19-04, 07:29 PM	Originally posted by Kyuketsukiouji The Barbarian and the sorcerer are mechanical core classes. Yes, the "user of magic" paradigm is just as well covered by the wizard than he is by the Sorcerer, they just do it in two fundamentally different ways. Thus they are both valid core class for the "magic user" paradigm. How so? Couldn't the sorceror simply be a PrC or even a feat for a wizard? And what about the barbarian? That is just as easily a template, PrC or can be broken down into feats. They are core classes because they are fantasy archetypes. Many sources of fantasy literature make reference to them, therefore they are represented as core classes. They don't have to be, yet they are. The 3 core tests that a core class has to meet to pass the core class worthiness test are: Does this introduce a new paradigm, or is it repeating an existing one, or blending two existing ones? Does this introduce a new way of doing things, or repeating an existing way, or blending two existing ones? Is this something a 14 year old kid could be expected to be able to know how to do? Really? I must have missed WotC publishing these guidelines... Let's go over them. 1) You mean like a paladin (fighter/cleric), Ranger (fighter/rogue/druid) or Bard (rogue/wizard)? 2) Do wizards and sorcerors do things all that differently? Do rangers and rogues have completely different functions? 3) A 14 year old? A 14 year can learn how to fight in full plate, wielding a greataxe, and knock heads of goblins? Is it such a stretch that a 14 year old couldn't learn to wield a rapier, make daring jumps, and perform acrobatic attacks? A 14 year old can start down the path of unlocking arcane mysteries, but not learn science and inventing skills? If any proposed class can't answer yes to questions a or b, and c, then it shouldn't be core. By these guidelines, Bards, Druids, Rangers, Paladins, and Sorcerors all shouldn't be core classes. And a few others are iffy. The Arcane Archer fails the paradigm test (fighting with a bow is not new), the mechanics test (nothing really special about imbue arrow or any of the other powers) and the age test (since you have to be both skilled with weapons *and* magic to qualify). The Assasin also fails all three tests. The Archmage fails the paradigm (Really good mage isn't anything different than mage) and the age test, though it has a unique mechanism. They're all prestige classes. Fighting with a bow is not new, but no class is dedicated to it. It is a 100& valid fantasy archetype that isn't well represented as a core class. Imbue arrow and other abilities are every bit as special as any other class feature. And a 14 year old cannot be skilled with both magic and weapons? I guess bards, clerics, and druids get the shaft. I'm not saying the arcane archer should be a core class, just pointing out that the testing methods are flawed. The assassin is badly represented as well. It was a core class in 1e. Now it is a badly designed PrC. The archetype is very valid, as assassins are well represented in fantasy literature. Rogues only offer so many of the abilities that are associated with assassins. And a 14 year old cannot be a trained killer? Please. Archmage? Okay fine. That's pretty true. An archmage is pretty much just a very powerful mage. The Favoured Soul (Divine spontaneous caster) doesn't fail the tests. It's a cleric paradigm with a spontaneous mechanism, so that's a new thing for clerics. It's also something a young man can pick up, seeing how the god chooses you. That deserves core class status. So do monks, druids and bards. The Favored Soul passes? How in the name of fluffy pink bunnies does he do that? The class makes no mechanical sense. The favored soul is a valid class but an archer, assassin or swashbuckler isn't? Ridiculous.
Kyuketsukiouji 04-19-04, 08:00 PM	Originally posted by Jell_Moo How so? Couldn't the sorceror simply be a PrC or even a feat for a wizard? And what about the barbarian? That is just as easily a template, PrC or can be broken down into feats. They are core classes because they are fantasy archetypes. Many sources of fantasy literature make reference to them, therefore they are represented as core classes. They don't have to be, yet they are. "They don't have to be" is blantantly obvious. Everyone could be commonners and all classes be prestige. But since the makers of D&D didn't do it that way, let's ignore that. The Sorcerer *could* indeed be a Prestige class, but if it was, you would first have to wipe out the entire flavour text, and then you would have to rework the mechanism. How does the Wizard go from an intelligence-based caster that studies ancient formulas and memorise his spells to a charisma-based spontaneous caster? As the classes stand, he doesn't. (Would a Wizard going to sorcerer presitge loose spells knows? If he did, who'd take it?). Same with the barbarian. Would they loose all their feats and tactical knowledge and somehow train themselves to rage? Is there some barbarian academy in the far north? Originally posted by Jell_Moo Really? I must have missed WotC publishing these guidelines... Let's go over them. 1) You mean like a paladin (fighter/cleric), Ranger (fighter/rogue/druid) or Bard (rogue/wizard)? The paladin, as I mentionned, is debatable. Let's pass it. Make a prestige class out of it if you want to. The ranger does indeed mix a bit of fighter, a bit of rogue, and a bit of druid. The problem it, rangers do things none of the three do, stalk their favored enemies. That's a unique mechanism the ranger starts with at level 1 and goes with until level 20 (and beyond). It also fits the "woodsman" stereotype nicely. Bards have very little in them of the bookish wizard, and some of the rogue. You could have cut the bard off or made a prestige class out of him, but WotC came up with a nice mechanism for him, bardsongs, which again is something bards start with and do nice things with throughout their progressions. This new mechanism and the flavour are enough to make them core in my book. Originally posted by Jell_Moo 2) Do wizards and sorcerors do things all that differently? Do rangers and rogues have completely different functions? 3) A 14 year old? A 14 year can learn how to fight in full plate, wielding a greataxe, and knock heads of goblins? Is it such a stretch that a 14 year old couldn't learn to wield a rapier, make daring jumps, and perform acrobatic attacks? A 14 year old can start down the path of unlocking arcane mysteries, but not learn science and inventing skills? The acrobatic child you're describing can be a level 1 fighter with weapon finesse and dodge, on his way to being a dex-based fighter who will perhaps take a swashbuckler prestige class someday. Is he so different from his friend who took weapon focus:greatsword and power attack? Not really. That's why Fighter is the core class, and not swashbuckler. Wizards and Sorcerers fit the same stereotype, but do it in radically different ways (which is why everyone complains about the sorcerer being too weak, if they were that much the same, no one would whine). They are thus both core classes, by virtue of unique mechanisms allied with essential flavour. There's a core class for someone who wants to devote himself to science, it's call expert. Not too many of them go out and kill stuff, but you never know. Originally posted by Jell_Moo Fighting with a bow is not new, but no class is dedicated to it. It is a 100% valid fantasy archetype that isn't well represented as a core class. Imbue arrow and other abilities are every bit as special as any other class feature. And a 14 year old cannot be skilled with both magic and weapons? I guess bards, clerics, and druids get the shaft. I'm not saying the arcane archer should be a core class, just pointing out that the testing methods are flawed. You can devote yourself very well to the bow by being a plain fighter. You'll have a very respectable bab, lots of hp, and tons of archery feats. You'll even be able to take a few feats that have nothing to do with actual shooting, but have lots to do with archery, like Skill Focus: Fletching. If you want to further your studien into the arcane side of shooting arrows, you can do that with a presige class. But you're telling me you want a 14 year-old lad who picks up his first longbow to be able to enchant the arrows too? What fantasy stereotype does that fit? Most core classes are narrow in focus at first because that's what fledgeling adventurers are. You're good at some things, but not awesome. Originally posted by Jell_Moo The assassin is badly represented as well. It was a core class in 1e. Now it is a badly designed PrC. The archetype is very valid, as assassins are well represented in fantasy literature. Rogues only offer so many of the abilities that are associated with assassins. And a 14 year old cannot be a trained killer? Please. The key here is *trained*. Core classes are not exhaustively trained, prestige classes are. Anything that is core must be something a young adult of a normal race can do without any extraordinary measures (again, don't say "paladin" at me). Your trained 14 year old started being taught how to move quietly, strike sensitive spots, hide, and spot traps. After he had the basics down, then they moved him up to poison resistance, deathblows and minor spells. Originally posted by Jell_Moo The Favored Soul passes? How in the name of fluffy pink bunnies does he do that? The class makes no mechanical sense. The favored soul is a valid class but an archer, assassin or swashbuckler isn't? Ridiculous. I will admit to not knowing the full details of the favoured soul, but from what I've heard, they are fully spontaneous divine casters. Since that's a mechanism the cleric stereotype doesn't have, it seems an acceptable core concept to me. I will admit being wrong if you give me the details on the favoured soul.
Jell_Moo 04-19-04, 08:42 PM	[i]Originally posted by Kyuketsukiouji The Sorcerer *could* indeed be a Prestige class, but if it was, you would first have to wipe out the entire flavour text, and then you would have to rework the mechanism. How does the Wizard go from an intelligence-based caster that studies ancient formulas and memorise his spells to a charisma-based spontaneous caster? As the classes stand, he doesn't. (Would a Wizard going to sorcerer presitge loose spells knows? If he did, who'd take it?). Same with the barbarian. Would they loose all their feats and tactical knowledge and somehow train themselves to rage? Is there some barbarian academy in the far north? Bear in mind that I in no way, shape or form think that Barbarians and Sorcerors should be anything other than core classes. That being said... Would a PrC that allowed wizards to cast spontanously be all that odd? What about making Rage a feat? DR and increased move rate already are. The thing is, a wizard and a sorceror are very close to one another. Take a wizard, smack on a PrC or a feat or whatever that allows spontaneous casting, and you pretty much have a sorceror. A fighter and a barbarian are pretty similar as well. A fighter who takes a few DR feats, a feat that ups his move rate, and one that allows rage is pretty close to a barbarian. The paladin, as I mentionned, is debatable. Let's pass it. Make a prestige class out of it if you want to. The ranger does indeed mix a bit of fighter, a bit of rogue, and a bit of druid. The problem it, rangers do things none of the three do, stalk their favored enemies. That's a unique mechanism the ranger starts with at level 1 and goes with until level 20 (and beyond). It also fits the "woodsman" stereotype nicely. Bards have very little in them of the bookish wizard, and some of the rogue. You could have cut the bard off or made a prestige class out of him, but WotC came up with a nice mechanism for him, bardsongs, which again is something bards start with and do nice things with throughout their progressions. This new mechanism and the flavour are enough to make them core in my book. Make a Rogue 3/Fighter 9/Druid 8. How different from a ranger is it? Some small differences, but they would be very close. And does not a swashbuckler do things differently than a core class? According to CW he does. Would an assassin not be different than a rogue? Heck, Unearthed Arcana made PrCs out of both the Paladin and the Ranger. The acrobatic child you're describing can be a level 1 fighter with weapon finesse and dodge, on his way to being a dex-based fighter who will perhaps take a swashbuckler prestige class someday. Is he so different from his friend who took weapon focus:greatsword and power attack? Not really. That's why Fighter is the core class, and not swashbuckler. Difference 1. This fighter has proficiency in medium and heavy armor, something makes no sense to the swashbuckler archetype. Difference 2. The typical swashbuckler goes unarmored, and nothing in the fighter class allows that mechanically. Difference 3. Compared to a power attacking, greatsword wielding fighter, the weapon finesse, rapier wielding fighter bites. Sure you can wait 6 or so levels and obtain a PrC, but you suck for those 6 levels. Let me ask you this. Do you henstly believe that a magic user that casts spontaneously is more a valid character archetype than a rapier weilding swashbuckler? There's a core class for someone who wants to devote himself to science, it's call expert. Not too many of them go out and kill stuff, but you never know. An expert is not an inventor/tinker. It is a very central fantasy archetype. Plus, the expert is not a core class, it is a NPC class. Add in the fact that there aren't really any rules to support the character whatsoever, and you simply cannot fufill the character concept at all. You can devote yourself very well to the bow by being a plain fighter. You'll have a very respectable bab, lots of hp, and tons of archery feats. You'll even be able to take a few feats that have nothing to do with actual shooting, but have lots to do with archery, like Skill Focus: Fletching. If you want to further your studien into the arcane side of shooting arrows, you can do that with a presige class. But you're telling me you want a 14 year-old lad who picks up his first longbow to be able to enchant the arrows too? What fantasy stereotype does that fit? Most core classes are narrow in focus at first because that's what fledgeling adventurers are. You're good at some things, but not awesome. A plain fighter does not well represent a typical fantasy archer. Heavy armore and shield use aren't part of the bill. And considering the small amount of core archery feats, you don't really excel at it. Any other full BAB class can do it just as well. And a 14 year old boy can master some magic right? Learn how to fire a bow right? Can he not learn just enough magic to empower his archery? Keep in mind that I'm not saying the Arcane Archer should be a core class, but I don't think that it's all that huge a stretch. The key here is *trained*. Core classes are not exhaustively trained, prestige classes are. Anything that is core must be something a young adult of a normal race can do without any extraordinary measures (again, don't say "paladin" at me). Your trained 14 year old started being taught how to move quietly, strike sensitive spots, hide, and spot traps. After he had the basics down, then they moved him up to poison resistance, deathblows and minor spells. A 14 year old could certainly be trained in poison use, crippling strike and a few handy spells. No different than learning to be any other class really. Just like other core classes, his abilities would improve as he gained levels, and would gain new abilities. I will admit to not knowing the full details of the favoured soul, but from what I've heard, they are fully spontaneous divine casters. Since that's a mechanism the cleric stereotype doesn't have, it seems an acceptable core concept to me. I will admit being wrong if you give me the details on the favoured soul. So as to not violate the CoC, I'll give you a small sampling... Remember, this is supposed to be a spontaneous version of a cleric... 5th level gives energy resistance 12th level gives weapon specialization 17th level you grow frickin' wings!!! What is that?!?
Geethree 04-19-04, 09:19 PM	While I normally don't care if people make new core classes, I do care if people start insulting the core system because they cannot properly use it. For example, swashbucklers. I can and have created a perfectly fine dexterity-based fighter with the fighter class. The high intelligence the character has allows me to take advantage of skills normally unavailable to the fighter (bluff, diplomacy, tumble), the high charisma allows me to make better use of my low-ranking diplomatic skills (which should not rival the bard or rogue, anyway), and the high dexterity lets me maintain a good defense and attack (with weapon finesse). Does the fighter fit every swashbuckler concept? Of course not. Does a fighter/rogue fit every swashbuckler concept? I'd say it's fairly close. All that's left requires a little imagination. The great thing about D&D is, as has been said, it's fully customizable. Any reasonable DM will allow a fighter to swap his heavy weapon proficiency and shield proficiency for a few more class skills, or perhaps more skill points. I am willing to bet that you can almost always achieve your desired swashbuckler concept with a little bit of reasonable tweaking. Another thing on new classes, people seem to ignore the fact that feats and skills exist. If somebody wants to be a sorcerer with good reflexes, they go and make an entirely new class - instead of using the feat Lightning Reflexes. People seem to absolutely abhor the idea of using a skill not on their classes skill list. If it's not on there the character shouldn't have it! Well, that's stupid, and I've seen far too many people complain about this (not necessarily on these forums). And, then some people just want to have their cake, eat it too, and then have another cake. Let's make a fighter, but add more class skills and a good reflex save! Let's take the sorcerer, but now he gets a bloodline, four bonus feats at first level, and a d6 hit die! I am not condemning those that create new classes. By all means, go ahead. It's your game. I simply question the necessity of these new classes.
Kyuketsukiouji 04-19-04, 09:29 PM	Who forces the fighters to wear that heavy armor in your campaigns? Pump your dex, take expertise, tumble, jump, Dodge, Mobility and Weapon focus, and you've got quite the respectable character. Just because there's no class feature in there that gives you some kind of dodge bonus to ac ever x level, you suddenly suck or something? I get the impression a good deal of you have been playing with prestige classes and supplements for so long you've lost track of the core rules power levels. 1st level dex-based fighter and 1st level str based fighter can get pretty comparable AC and bab, and the dex-based fighter will be in street clothes, or padded armor at the best. I will agree that Favoured Soul sounds a lot more than what I thought it was...but then again, it certaily looks like it's got more flavour to it that the current sorcerer, who is almighty with his Summon Familiar class ability, and 19 levels of nothing.
BlaineTog 04-19-04, 09:58 PM	When I look at a core class (new *or* old), I ask myself a few questions: Does it fit a common fantasy archetype? Is this the sort of thing that would pretty much require you to train from an early age? (This is the one that, to me, justifies the Bard) Does it introduce a radically new mechanic (and fit the above questions)? For new Core Classes: Is this specifically geared to replace another core class? If it *is* a mix of two other classes, does it have a distinct flavor and is only such because the multiclass would be noticieably weaker (which is, IMO, what a Rogue/Fighter is if you want a Swashbuckler). And if these are iffy (and we are looking at a borderline PrC): Would it be akward as a 10-level Prestige Class (ie Sorcerer, Druid, Shaman, Barbarian, etc)? (This is hard to quantify, sadly) What would the base class *be*? Is this an extention of that class (which is, IMO, what a PrC should be) or does it alter the flavor instead of merely refine it? I have nothing against new Core Classes. If you want to "waste the time" to make one, it's your time to waste. If you come up with something truly unique, then the game benefits. For the most part, I see no harm in more core classes. Need I remind you that everything outside of the Core Threee (and nothing in there is sacrosanct either, you know) is purely optional? Why deny others their fun?
Jell_Moo 04-19-04, 10:11 PM	Originally posted by Geethree While I normally don't care if people make new core classes, I do care if people start insulting the core system because they cannot properly use it. For example, swashbucklers. I can and have created a perfectly fine dexterity-based fighter with the fighter class. The high intelligence the character has allows me to take advantage of skills normally unavailable to the fighter (bluff, diplomacy, tumble), the high charisma allows me to make better use of my low-ranking diplomatic skills (which should not rival the bard or rogue, anyway), and the high dexterity lets me maintain a good defense and attack (with weapon finesse). Who is insulting the core system? I just say that it doesn't allow for all archetypes. A straight fighter makes a very poor swashbuckler. Up your Int all you want, take bluff, diplomacy and tumble too. They are still cross class skills, so even if you constantly up them, you'll never be particularly good at them. A high Cha offers you nothing at all mechanically, and only helps 2 skills that you have practically no ranks in. That just bites. A high dexterity is nice, sure. Nice to hit and AC. Too bad you do screw all damage. Without something like SA to up your damage, you may as well just spit at the enemy. I should have clarified, I want a swashbuckler that doesn't suck. Sorry. Does the fighter fit every swashbuckler concept? Of course not. Does a fighter/rogue fit every swashbuckler concept? I'd say it's fairly close. All that's left requires a little imagination. The great thing about D&D is, as has been said, it's fully customizable. Any reasonable DM will allow a fighter to swap his heavy weapon proficiency and shield proficiency for a few more class skills, or perhaps more skill points. I am willing to bet that you can almost always achieve your desired swashbuckler concept with a little bit of reasonable tweaking. Why not make a core class to fit the archetype, if it cannot be adequately created by the existing rules? Why the aversion to a new class if creating your character requires this much tweaking? Another thing on new classes, people seem to ignore the fact that feats and skills exist. If somebody wants to be a sorcerer with good reflexes, they go and make an entirely new class - instead of using the feat Lightning Reflexes. People seem to absolutely abhor the idea of using a skill not on their classes skill list. If it's not on there the character shouldn't have it! Well, that's stupid, and I've seen far too many people complain about this (not necessarily on these forums). Feats are nice and all, but they hardly allow one to customize their character to fit every archetype. Giving a fighter Weapon Finesse, Lightning Reflexes, Dodge, Mobility and Spring Attack might make a swashbuckler of sorts, the problem is that he sucks. He still does less damage, has a lower ac, and as a result of using feats to make his archetype has fewer feats. The Fighter core class isn't flexible enough. Assuming that every fighter is using heavy armor and shields doesn't do the archetype any favors. Having to waste a feat just to be able to hit as well as a str fighter (let alone do damage) bites. And, then some people just want to have their cake, eat it too, and then have another cake. Let's make a fighter, but add more class skills and a good reflex save! Let's take the sorcerer, but now he gets a bloodline, four bonus feats at first level, and a d6 hit die! I am certainly not saying that. But having a fighter class that can accomodate more than a single character concept isn't a bad thing. Originally posted by Kyuketsukiouji Who forces the fighters to wear that heavy armor in your campaigns? Pump your dex, take expertise, tumble, jump, Dodge, Mobility and Weapon focus, and you've got quite the respectable character. See above. Just because there's no class feature in there that gives you some kind of dodge bonus to ac ever x level, you suddenly suck or something? If you don't wear armor, and have no class feature or spells that boosts AC, then yeah, you kinda suck. Monks get a set AC bonus and Wis to AC. That's what keeps them alive. I get the impression a good deal of you have been playing with prestige classes and supplements for so long you've lost track of the core rules power levels The thing is, as nice as the core rules are, PrCs and supplement material are even more powerful. Like it or not, it's a fact. 1st level dex-based fighter and 1st level str based fighter can get pretty comparable AC and bab, and the dex-based fighter will be in street clothes, or padded armor at the best. The only way they'll have a comparable to hit is if the dex based fighter takes weapon finesse. That means the str based fighter has one more feat. Also, the str based fighter does more damage. They are by no means equal at 1st level, and the difference gets larger later in the game. I will agree that Favoured Soul sounds a lot more than what I thought it was...but then again, it certaily looks like it's got more flavour to it that the current sorcerer, who is almighty with his Summon Familiar class ability, and 19 levels of nothing. The Favored Soul is plain bizarre. The sorceror is another matter altogether. It really needs a class feature or too. A totall lack of flavor is never a good thing.
Sensei Gith 04-19-04, 10:22 PM	A Dex-based fighter will suck compared to a Str-based fighter. That's well-documented and not really arguable. The swashbuckler is stuck sucking until he can qualify for prestige classes that make him as good as the other guy. The solution? A core class that gives out abilities that are useful to swashbucklers and keep them balanced for all 20 levels. Swashbucklers and Str-fighters are very different in terms of mechanics, feats, abilities, strengths, weaknesses, etc.. They both hit things with pointy sticks, but they don't fit into the same class. As-is, they are crudely shoved in and told to multiclass (with rogue? that doesn't even make sense). They certainly are a seperate and very important archetype. Why can't they have a class of their own?
khyron1144 04-19-04, 10:43 PM	I've got no poblem with new core classes, but since Complete Warrior and Minis Handbook are very far down my shopping list, the only ones I might really use are the ones from this board, which are really the most iffy balance-wise. I'm working on one of my own and when it reaches a pretty good balanced state, I will cautiously introduce it into my campaign. That would be the Duelist linked to in my signature by the way.
Thermanshs 04-20-04, 05:16 AM	Geethree,we're in total agreement.
Lotus Crane 04-20-04, 06:09 AM	As a sytem, D&D is totally abstracted. The best way to be happy about it, is to not nitpick over the exact details of how your character's actual mechanics came to be, but just do whatever works for the archetype image you have in your head. For example, how about a wandering swordsman, seemingly blessed by the heavens, who with a bit of dashing daring-do protects the common people from brutal bandits and the greedy nobles? An aasimar swashbuckler 19 (Complete Warrior)? A spiritfolk samurai 9/iajutsu master 10 (Oriental Adventures)? A human fighter 4/rogue 4/duelist 10 with a moderate celestial bloodline (Unearthed Arcana)? Should he take Combat Expertise or Combat Reflexes? Weapon Focus or Improved Critical? Iron Will or Toughness? How about the egomaniacal, cold-blooded psychopath with knives, who delights in stalking and torturing foes, whether they are innocent and completely helpess, or proud and mighty in their element but weak against the shadows? A halfling swashbuckler 10/master thrower 5/invisible blade 5 (Complete Warrior)? A half-fiend rogue 6/assassin 10? A drow rogue 4/monk 4/ninja scout 10? Should he take Quick Draw or Improved Initiative? Blindfight or Precise Shot? Dodge or Alertness? At the end of the day, people really shouldn't care about whether or not they achieved their desired concept through base classes or prestige classes, feats or racial abilities, high ability scores or magic items. Your character is who you want it to be, even if the game system doesn't always let you make it what you want it to be. Honestly, trying to push personal beliefs, either way, of what a core class should or shouldn't be, is just semantics at best. Should the paladin be a prestige class instead of a base class? I dunno, on the one hand a paladin is "called" to his profession, which implies that some good-hearted teenager is given a vision from a deity, and thus instinctively knows what he must do to combine martial prowess with religious piety. Then again, paladin is a rather specialized field of work, and in some contexts, paladin is a title rewarded to the veteran warriors of a church or royal court, and thus couldn't possibly apply to a callow youth. Both examples could be true, therefore paladin exists both as a base class, and as a prestige class (or variants therefore, such as Knight Protector (CW) and Holy Liberator (DotF). All such views are equally valid. So in other words, trying to overanalyze each individual aspect of the game mechanics is a mistake, because the flavors you could interpret from a single specific part (base class, PrC, racial ability, feat) are infinite; everybody will see something different. Instead of breaking down what your character is, look at who your character is once all the parts are assembled. How about you guys all read my sig, and then meditate for a few minutes. That'll make you happier than arguing about stuff like this. In fact that's what I'm going to do now, meditate upon my sig, then go to bed, since it's 6 in the morning and I'm still awake.
Shoes 04-20-04, 06:59 AM	Originally posted by NightScreamer20 In my campaign world there are only the following Core classes: Shaman/Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue/Wizard/Sorcerer I made the following Core classes into PrCs: Cleric (Priest)/Druid/Paladin/Ranger Hey, that sounds sweet. Think you could post them or send them via by e-mail? shoes_the_chaotic@hotmail.com [better, try first] OR akirahawkins@yahoo.com [decent, try second]
Yorlum 04-20-04, 07:45 AM	Originally posted by Eltheynn That is, if you try to have the players use a class that probably was not created with that stereotype in mind... Which means it'll be probably be sub-par at it... By that logic, there should be only the 4 original classes (Rogue, Fighter, Mage, Cleric). Everything else can be worked as PrC's, or RP'ed... YES!!!!!!! [Although fer crissakes, call 'em Thieves, not Rogues!] And, for those who want to complain about us complaining about the profusion of classes... It DOES matter. Everytime a new player wants to join a campaign, with this neato class that was derived from Splatbook X, and I say "No", it matters. It causes unnecessary anguish to the player, who has a perfectly legitimate, though Horridly unbalanced, concept, perfectly legel per the published book, but it makes me into the bad guy for not wanting that crap in my game.
Shoes 04-20-04, 08:04 AM	Originally posted by Yorlum YES!!!!!!! [Although fer crissakes, call 'em Thieves, not Rogues!] And, for those who want to complain about us complaining about the profusion of classes... It DOES matter. Everytime a new player wants to join a campaign, with this neato class that was derived from Splatbook X, and I say "No", it matters. It causes unnecessary anguish to the player, who has a perfectly legitimate, though Horridly unbalanced, concept, perfectly legel per the published book, but it makes me into the bad guy for not wanting that crap in my game. Then tell him "Deal with it..." seeing YOU are the DM and can always enforce Rule 0. Now that doesn't mean you can't work with him and try to find an alternate solution to what he wants to create, but he'll have to learn you have the finally saying. Originally posted by Kyuketsukiouji The problem is that these boards are also a feedback mechanism for WotC. If you invent something for your campaign, and I don't like it, I will gladly shut up about it. Until the time you present it for the makers of the game I play to read and consider. At which point I will take the time to comment on whether an idea is good or bad. Because by posting things here, you're not keeping it to your game table anymore, you're bringing it to our collective game table. True, these boards are reguraly used to find ideas and get feedback from its buyers (WotC that is), but these boards are also used to get feedback from player to player. As I said before, the DM has the final say in the matter. If there is something you don't like 'bout the game Wizards has presented you, change it. I know plentty of DMs from different groups that add/change/remove material from their game from the core products from Wizards of the Coast. If your DM (or you in this matter) decides to allow whatever WotC publishs in it's core sourcebooks, don't blame us, blame only yourselfs for allowing. As a final note, I do agree with Shadowfoot on one part (actually a lot of things) that... "If it's not my thing, I ignore it. I don't tell people that what they're doing is wrong or unnecessary. After all, it's just my opinion." But I thought my voice should be heard on such a topic seeing I'm one of those people that likes to post new material to the game for what I'm allowing and all.
Sensei Gith 04-20-04, 08:27 AM	I ask five questions before allowing a new class: 1. What archetype does this class represent? 2. Does this archetype fit in my game? 3. Should this archetype be available at very low levels? 4. Is this archetype already available at low levels? 5. Can n existing class be adapted to fit the archetype? The swashbuckler passes with flying colors, but the samurai does not, because it can already be done just by adding new fighter bonus feats.
Soichiro Arima 04-20-04, 08:40 AM	I have not read the whole thread so I dont know if its been mentioned so here goes: No every one likes playing at high levels! The only way to get some abilities is to multiclass and take prestige classes. If I want to be say as Duelist, well could I not focus on those things from level one rather than take 5 levels in a core class or 2 and them become one? How bout an Arcane Trickter, what they do could easly be studied from knowing nothing about Tricks or Arcanes. I hated having to make NPCs 3-5 levels higher than the PCs just because I wanted them to have the abilities of PrC so first I started making a classless system, they tell me what they want to do and I make a class for them. Low level campaigns need consept specific core classes.
detectevil 04-20-04, 02:37 PM	I think the main word here is Core. The core classes in Fantasy were, initially, Gandalf, Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas. And, since it's so much fun to sneak in and out of places, Thieves are core to anything. As imaginations wandered, King Artur became core, Saint Patrick became core, and that Animal Shaping scimitar wielding fellow was made core. And people accepted. But there was a core class out of the books. Conan. People playing fantasy games would play Conans even when it wasan't a core class. Eventually, it became core. I suppose Priests have never made Core because there was no interest in playing such concept. Monk has probably made it because it was part of other RPGs, and people wanted to play them. And Sorcerer is basicly a Gandalf variant for people who don't want to be trapped into a library all day. Samurais are part of the Core of what is an Oriental Adventure. So are Ninjas and Monks. But they are not in the Core of a Fantasy Setting. I would say the same for Swashbucklers. This concept is not Core to a fantasy setting. Somehow, a paladin, a ranger or a barbarian as a core class is more justifyable than a Swashbuckler. Why? Because of Lancelot, Aragorn and Conan.