Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Xeviat-DM 12-23-05, 05:48 AM	As many other DMs, I run games in a setting of my own creation. I purchase many new books, but ultimately it is in hopes of creating more flavor for my games. New content, especially new classes, is poured over devotedly, ensuring that it will fit into the mold of my setting. One aspect of the game that has required the most amount of focus is deciding which base Classes (classes a character can start out in) to include. I know of some DMs that allow any class published by Wizards, and I know of other DMs that only allow the PHB classes. What I hope for this thread is a place for people to discuss their thoughts on the nature of classes in the "standard game" and in their games. I hope that this thread can help me, and other DMs out there, to make good decisions in which classes they allow, and introduce, into their worlds. So, the first step is determining class roles. The roles can be broken down simply into Support Caster, Offensive Caster, Light Warrior/skill user, and Heavy Warrior. Of the classes in the PHB, the Cleric and Druid seem to be support casters, the wizard and sorcerer seem to be offensive casters, the ranger, monk, rogue, and bard seem to be the light warrior/skill users, and the barbarian, fighter, and paladin seem to be heavy warriors. The bard was difficult to place, as they seem to do their best to combine all 4 roles, which is what they're suposed to do. Am I correct in these assumptions?
Xeviat-DM 12-23-05, 05:56 AM	Woops, hit send to early. Rather than edit, I'll just finish up here. I'm not here to abdicate reducing the game to Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard; I'm here to consider the ramifications of adding new classes, or removing classes, to the game. Players like to have their options, and many players may feel stifled if they were required to choose from only those four basic classes. In my own games, I have a desire to add a Knight class, fitting the role of the noble warrior; the European Knight, the Japanese Samurai, and others. The role of noble warrior seems to be held currently by the Paladin, so having both in the same setting may not work well. To fix this, I intend to add a Templar, a warrior/cleric of sorts, whose role it is to defend temples and go on holy missions for their faith. The problem I encountered is that this adds two heavy warriors while it only removes one. Is there room for a Knight, Barbarian, Fighter, and Templar in the same game? Since my Knight is essentially designed around the OA Samurai (they have few bonus feats, and the feats are preset by their technique; they have a mystical weapon that is bonded to them; and they have the ability to deal more damage by focusing their energy into a single strike), are they too similar to Fighters? Sure, there are mechanical differences, but are they enough to warrant two classes? A similar issue might happen in a campaign where all of the Complete classes are added to a setting. Can a game handle the Swashbuckler, Ninja, Scout, Rogue, Ranger, Bard, Monk, and Spell Thief all at once?
q'afuu 12-23-05, 12:54 PM	I think D&D not only can handle all those classes, to an extent it even needs all of them. Although part of that need can be alleviated by PrCs and multiclassing (although that in itself requires a wide variety of classes to be an effective character building tool), those options don't quite cut the mustard. Where does that need come from? Too many class-specific abilities, too few abilities that come under the form of skills or feats. 3E is a huge leap forward compared to older editions in this regard, but it's still far from the point where you can build any concept, although it fits a specific class type, without often needing to go to different classes for different abilities. You can't have a full-BAB character and get Evasion, for instance, let alone Impr. Evasion. You can't master a weapon (as in, taking Weapon Specialization) without Fighter levels. You can't improve both spontaneous and learned arcane magic at the same time at all if you have both, and having both means you multiclassed at some point (although Assume Spell-like Ability helps some here). And so on. I'm certainly not advocating a D&D that's not class-based, but as long as classes determine what you can learn and not just how and how well there'll be a need for many different classes to give access to many different abilities.
Nephlite 12-23-05, 01:09 PM	Classes to add from books- Complete Arcane (i'll just add ones I like): 1. Warlock: A caster that has some skill use too. Similar to a bard, but more fun due to unlimited spell-like abilities. Cons compared to Bard: Less buffing other ability, less spell/abilitiws to choose from, and no music required (can be a pro for it actually lol) Complete Adventurer: 1. Spellthief: Skill user/light warrior that can steal spells/psionic powers (variant says how to incorporate if psionics in your world.) More later, need to go.
MysteryGilgamesh 12-23-05, 01:30 PM	You don't really need a Knight class, as the base fighter accomplishes that well. Use the OA samurai if you want a samurai class. It's pretty much nothing but a slightly adapted fighter anyway. Keep all of the core classes, because, well...They're the core classes. They're what everyone expects to exist. As for classes from the Complete books, I'd include: Swashbuckler: A decent enough varient for someone who wants a more romanticized, quick hero, but doesn't want an out and out rogue. Spellthief: An awesome class, one that fills a very nice role. Scout: Again, it fills a nice role for people who want to be a rogue, but not be a Rogue, you know? Warlock: Personally, I detest this class. I find it weaker than even the sorcerer, and the sorc is one of the bottom rung classes in the game. Still, it's not without some merit, and according to the polls here on WotC's site, people (for some unfathomable reason) like the class. Good for your average "Dark hero with screwy powers" role. Wujen, Shugenja: If you've got the samurai, might as well include these two. I personally detest these classes as well, but they match up with the samurai. Ninja: Again, if you include samurai, you might as well include this. I personally love this class, too. For other classes... Psionic classes: I'd definatly include these. In fact, I frown upon any setting that doesn't include psionics. It's very well made, and meshes perfectly. Incarnum: Yeah, I love this too. So I'd include it. I like the idea of soul power, plus it's generally just a nice supplement.
Mad Icon 12-23-05, 02:11 PM	I tend to allow anything produced by Wizards. Not that I always love all the classes or that I don't think they might have some odd flavor problems. But usually, I just ignore the flavor. I see classes as tool-sets nothing more. I tell new players, don't sit down and look at the books and try to decide on a class, just tell me what you want to play, get a really clear picture of it in your imagination and together we can craft it from what's available. So far I have not met a build that I can't accomodate through a combination of core classes, prestige classes and racial substitution levels (which, btw, I think are the finest addition to D&D of late.) I do not generally allow psionics. When I do I use them as an alternate form of magic, not as 'psionics'. I'm of the school that feels they just don't fit in my fantasy. I'm not saying anyone else is wrong to include them, they just always felt off to me. I like the new Incarnum stuff but I've yet to have a player interested in them so I've not seen them in use. MI
Pandaemoni 12-23-05, 02:15 PM	I'm not presently running a game, but my view is that the "core" classes (from the PHB) are fine and that the other vase classes, while interesting are not really needed. Scouts are really just Ranger/Rogues with a few new abilities. Spellthieves are just Mage/Rogues with a few new abilities. Swashbuckers are Fighter/Rogues, etc. The niche filled by each of the new core classes can generally be filled by some existing combination of the core classes plus some roleplaying. The new special abilities for each class are nice, but few are so earth-shatteringly different from what previously existed that excluding them from the list of permissable core classes would strip all the fiun out of the game for players that gravitate towards them. What they are good for is: alternate cultures. If I were to put together a new world at the momebt, I likely would not have (for example) Warlocks in my primary world...but if the players traveled to another continent on the same planet, or some isolated island nation, there they might find no one has ever heard of a "sorcerer" but warlocks and warmages are the typical spellcaster class. Same (more obviously) for ninjas, wu jen, samurai and other east asian themed classes. They'd have their place on my world, but it would most likely be removed from my "default" society. If the players find themselves in that part of the world, though, they would be the ones with the "unusual" classes. If a player offered up a truly compelling RP-based reason for wanting a particular non-standard base class, then I might allow it, though, and develop a suitable backstory for how he got the skill in some far away land (or alternate universe) and wound up in the standard one. (Though there's still be a small penalty on him, as I'd make training a slightly arduous process since there'd be no one nearby to teach the character the requisite skills) If the players as a whole wanted it, I'd also be willing to base my game in one of those alternate societies (an asian-themed campaign, for example). Basically, I see the non-core base classes as generally a roleplaying aid. Rather than develop are particular niche for your character through skill, feat, weapon and spell selection and through actual role-playing, they carve that niche out for you in advance with much less effort. There 's nothing inherently wrong with using those classes as crutches in that regard, but so far I have never been blown away with any non-base core class. That said, I think there is a minor need for a spontaneous divine spell caster and I am far more open to new prestige classes, as those get added on only after the players have established their characters through solid role-playing (then again, I always begin all my campaigns at level 1). Edit: I'm also with Mad Icon on Psionics. I don't use them. I might someday include them as a trait developed on a different continent, a parallel universe or even a different planet, but I see no need for "magic 2" as a sequel to normal D&D magic. When they come up in game (as when mind flayers make anb appearance) I usually just treat them as normal magical spell-like abilities. In my mind psionics are more of a science fiction themed RP element.
belthazzar1113 12-23-05, 11:52 PM	I don't know about the rest of you but i tend to let just about any base class into my game. I enjoy that new base classes are coming out. It might seem like many of the classes are just meshes of tothers, like the swashbuckler being a fighter/rogue but they do things that you can't do with that combination. And can't do things that you could do. Its a give and take. I break everything down a bit differently than the rest of you i think. TO me a base class is defined not by the role it plays, but by how it accomplishes its effect. There are arcane casters, divine casters, mental masters, supernatural characters, martial trained characters, skuldrugery and skill characters, monsterous characters, and now incarnum characters. Base classes to me represent the focus that you start off with. Each base class really does have things they train and things they don't. You could make a swashbuckler-like character with a fighter/rogue. But then you would have sneak attack, which isn't exactly what a swashbuckler should have, and you would be trained in meavy armor and a host of weapons swashbuckers didn't train in. Its not close enough to what a swashbuckler really is, so you make a new base class to define what that type of trainin entails. From the level 1 neophytes just learning the basic ropes, all the way to level 20 where you would get the essence of what a real swashbuckling hero would be. Each base class presents a different basic training and basic begning for a character. Did you study arcane magic, was it in your blood, were you granted power from an hereditary boon? Base classes are a great way to represent specilized training that you recive from the time that you are young that preclude training in any of the more traditional classes. There is a large enough difference between a warmage apprentice and a wizard apprentice to justify them being two seperate base classes in my mind. I think its just a matter of opinion though. Alot of people liked the way D20 Modern worked with classes based on what stat you were focused on and then you were almost forced to multiclass and then pick your specialty later (as each of those classes only had ten levels.
Greg_K 12-24-05, 02:38 AM	The classes that I allow depend on the type of setting that I want to create. Available, classes in the current campaign include: Barbarian, Bard*, Cleric**, Fighter, Healer***, Monk, Psychic (Green Ronin), Rogue, Shaman (Green Ronin), Swashbuckler (Shadowfoot), Sorceror****, Warrior Mage (AEG's Myrmidon), Witch, Wizard*****, Specialist Wizards I also allow several class variants from Unearthed Arcana including: Barbarian: Hunter, Bard: all the variant bards, but they lose several of the Roguish skills Cleric: champion of good, cloistered cleric Fighter: Thug and Sneak Attack Monk: Style variants including several Andy Collins posted to Dragon Rogue: Martial ("Bonus Feat") Rogue, Wilderness Rogue Specialist Wizards: variant specialist abilities are required for specialists I am willing to allow certain other classess on a case by case basis, but I doubt that I will ever allow the PHB Druid or any of the Complete Classes (the scout might be an exception if I do not find another version that I like better) and never will I use the Spell Thief or classes from either the Psionics Handbook or Magic of Incarnum. * Class undergoes changes to spells available ** class undergoes changes *** No unicorn companion **** some additions ***** Minor addition