Character Class Inflation [Archive] - Wizards Community

Character Class Inflation [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
dutch206
06-20-07, 01:27 PM There is something that really tees me off, so I thought I would post it here and see what happens. I have a problem with the abundance of character classes currently available in D & D 3.5.

You have the original 'core' classes from the PHB, the classes from PHB II, all of the classes from the "complete" series, not to mention web extras like the "Psionic Rogue". Where does it all end? :confused:

What is considered "core" and what is just fluff?
Tony Vargas
06-20-07, 01:38 PM I'd consider the real 'core' classes to be the PH classes - less the Monk and Paladin. Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Sorcerer if you really want to get right down to it.

But, all the PH classes are officially 'core' and, though optional, so so are the PrCs in the DMG.

The decision to use PrCs, which PrCs to use, and whether to add any non-core classes (or any other non-core material) is something the DM can use to give his world a unique feel or flavor.
madbliza
06-20-07, 01:42 PM Personally, I enjoy to abundance of character classes. One of the things I missed most about 2nd Edition was that you could select character kits, something no longer available in 3.5.

However, I believe that with the introduction of Eberron, WotC is promoting players to create their own character classes, worlds, etc. The core classes are still considered to be the ones in the PHB (at least that's what I consider the core). Based on all the posts here, I don't think it will ever end because even the core classes need to be tweaked.

However, it is always up to the DM to decided. For instance, my DM has barred any of the Complete books excluding the Warrior and Adventurer. Also, all Psionics are unallowable too.
Minmaximus
06-20-07, 02:11 PM Why is everyone so resistant to the diversity of 3.5? I love it. After toiling through years of fighter-a and fighter-b being carbon copies this is a breath of fresh air. I hear story after story about DM's that severely restrict their players' choices. Embrace it. Psionics is far from broken. Clerics are not broken.
BaelinWhale
06-20-07, 02:26 PM The real Core classes are the four major monster food groups, namely the classic Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Healer/Priest/Cleric. These four classes are the cornerstones of any adventuring party and having at least one of each will be enough to let you breeze through most any situation (and are part of a monster's well-rounded meal). :P
goawayugh
06-20-07, 02:34 PM More classes! More classes! More classes! I want more classes!

I LOVE all of the options available. I hate to hear about DMs who limit PCs choices. "No completes, no psionics, no races of.., ". I allow ANYTHING official, you don't even need to clear it with me first! All I ask is that I'm aware of your general character concept, and any variants you have opted for, before we play.

Go ahead, come up with something "broken", I'll just throw a "broken" BBEG at you. Hahahahahaha (evil laugh).
Wiseblood
06-20-07, 02:57 PM I kinda agree with the OP here as a DM and as a Player.

As a DM because I am really kind of tired of having to learn a brand new set of rules whenever someone else has an itch to try something new. Especially when they haven't tried half of the old. there was 3.0 then 3.5 then psionics and ToB I don't like psionics. Is that wrong?

As a player I'm tired of seeing my fun eroded by some freakish class like the Dragonfire adept. WTH the class ability acts exactly like a racial ability or template. Just play a monster.

All in all, it's just a matter of my personal tastes.
Voletta
06-20-07, 03:20 PM The only thing I restrict as a DM is races, and that's only because I like down to earth origins and plot hooks to get the party going. Forget the players forcing me to come up with the reason an Avariel, Tiefling, Mistling whatever and a PC ooze have met up and decided to work together against the forces of my story.

Classes, on the other hand, whatever, go nuts. I like when they choose simple things I'm familiar with, but I understand when they want to play the new, out there thing. For some players, they're looking for a powerful/broken new set of rules that have slipped by errata and me (as the DM). For others, they just want an exotic twist or to mimic a character they love from some source of fiction. Either way, as long as "new character" means they've put enough thought into things to roleplay an interesting character, go right ahead.

I ALWAYS know how to make people feel like their class is just as fun/helpful/powerful in the party. Convincing the poor human she's just as cool and heroic as the glowing, winged, flying demon/shapechanging cube from lvl 1, not so much.
RealSorceror
06-20-07, 03:37 PM Sir, I like my fluff, and I'll be eating that cake.

If you don't like that I'm a Warlock Shadowcaster, then don't let me in your game, simple as that. I might be sore about it, but you won't have to deal with a Factotum Binder shifting his abilities around and stealing everyon's thunder.
flaiquiri
06-20-07, 04:08 PM Everything is optional.
dutch206
06-20-07, 07:36 PM The real Core classes are the four major monster food groups, namely the classic Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Healer/Priest/Cleric. These four classes are the cornerstones of any adventuring party and having at least one of each will be enough to let you breeze through most any situation (and are part of a monster's well-rounded meal). :P

ROFLMAO :D
Karui_Kage
06-20-07, 07:49 PM I must be lucky. I made over 20 books (22 I think) available to my players for my new Age of Worms game. As far as I know, their level 20 builds are:

Human Barbarian 20
Elf (Grey) Wizard 20
Gnome (Dragonish one, I forget which book, just a couple minor skill changes) Druid 20

The only one doing any multiclassing is:
Elan Scout 4 / Ranger 5 / Psion 1 / Elocator 10

Whose build I already cleared, and looks fine to me. :) I'll tell you though, it's nice to have a few vanilla builds in the group. I don't mind a lot of the material, but it is a breath of fresh air to see a group of (mostly) standard classes.
Rowan_Whispercloak
06-20-07, 09:47 PM The only problem I have had with the number of new classes are the fact that not all of them are equal in power, but that is mostly my opinion and possibly the play style of the groups I am in.
windscar18
06-20-07, 10:00 PM I personally find that the inflation of classes aren't a problem because I tend to have the spare time to actually learn them.

I do find however that not having access to all the books can be a pain sometimes however. For example, I have to constantly AIM my friends while I'm at this summer program to ask them for class abilities for the spare campaign I run on the weekends.
Wolfvyn
06-20-07, 10:11 PM Yeah the sheet number of new classes can be a pain sometimes, especially when one character wants to be something that you have no idea what it is. I actaully get this alot from one of my players that keeps looking for the "ultimate" build. However it really isn't that big of a deal most of the time. As long as everyone is having fun and your game is still challenging things will work out. Besides, as someone else mentioned earlier, breaking a character that is a "broken" class isn't all that hard. PLus if there is always trouble you could always just ask people on here to help you make a badass villian to frustrate your characters.
Kevin Andrew Murphy
06-21-07, 03:00 AM The only new class I'd consider "core" is warlock, and that only because it's so popular and so well supported in other books.

It also makes better flavor sense than the sorcerer, IMHO.
Cypher_of_the_Eye
06-21-07, 03:40 AM Call me crazy:looloo: but I Consider 5 books core.
They are:

PHB
DMG
MM
XPB
ToB

'Why Psionics?" you ask, and i say, "It's as well put together, thoughtout and, well, fun as any thing you can find in the PHB. Except the fighter class. The only fighter i like is Fighter."

"Why ToB?"
"imhe fighters are one trick pony's that MUST have a PrC to be a viable member of a mid to high lvl party. Remember, just my Opinion. I'm entitled to it, Doesn't make it valid. And Martial adepts are just cool, though lacking in Epic support.
:rant: YA HEAR THAT WOTC!!!! CLIFF'S NOTES OF BATTLE: MARTIALISM BEYOND 20!!! /:rant:
though i do love the breadth of options that the complete series brings, not to mention the rest of the splat books.
obsidianprism
06-21-07, 04:48 AM PrC... hmm... two opinions.

As a a player:
I look at some of these and say, "Who in their right mind would seriously play an Oozemaster?" So from that frame of mind I do see a lot of fluff. But at the same time its always fun to try something new just to spice things up a bit. After playing the game from the last 12 years or so, anyone can get tired of the same old same old and adding different classes can give a player memorable characters that stand apart from every other campaign.

As a DM:
When it comes to running a game there is always more effort on your part than the players, and sometimes it does bug me when someone asks to play something I haven't read about. My group of players are probably to smart for their own good and will use anything they can to get that little bit of leverage over me, even if its just for that one session before I have really had a chance to look over their characters abilities closely (which makes my job even harder, but makes the campaigns way more creative and fun). But at the same time, I see classes as a benefit to the DM as well, I use them extensively as NPCs and villians. That oozemaster might not be to cool as a player, but encountering one in a castle with a Bard/Arcane archer and his buddy a Sorc/Master of the Unseen Hand adds a little spice to the campaign.
deviknyte
06-22-07, 01:55 AM I'd first like to congratulate everyone for not yelling or screaming at each other on a thread like this.

Second I love all the classes too. Whatever you want to play go for it. I do end up stopping the cheap tricks because they make the game less fun, but you made yourself a target with your +38str rager. In fact I've built a bunch of classes and used a lot of classes posted on here (thank you everyone for the classes I've used or the things that have inspired me). When I think of core class, the PHB, DMG, XPH, Complete Psionic, Savage Species (because me and my friends hate level adjustments, races as character classes best idea ever!)and any monster counts. Books I just... all of them.

I have my banned list (for varies reasons role-playing or broken) but it's a short list. If you have something very powerful than very powerful things will come at you. I usually have my party work together (as much as possible because they love suprising each other) so that when I'm force to up the ante the role-playing builds don't get massacred.

Although I do have a bit (lot) of changes to my base classes. A lot of customization on every class. I have the base classes fill genre requirements and not be to restricting to one theme. That way every class is good (beyond 4th level) and is there to help you play anything from Inu Yasha to Aang to even a few of the lesser powered comic book characters.

I don't think at the end of a base class your powerful builds are all the same or one trick ponies. Nor do I think that at the end of a base class your character now is a carbon copy of Cloud Strife. But I don't mind if the class makes you a limit breaking fighter of some sort.
aotrscommander
06-22-07, 06:27 AM Personally, Ilike the large number of classes. I buy the most books and as DM I make an effort to integrate everything into my world.

Like Cypher_of_the_Eye, I have adopted XPH and ToB as the unofficial 4th and 5th Core books, but I also try and use every book I buy (which includes pretty much everything I consider to be non-world specific; mainly the Completes, but Lib Mort, Heroes of Battle and MiC to name a few others). "Core only" to me is something that vanished as soon as there were nonCore books available.

(That said, I have pretty much the entirity of 2nd Edition Rolemaster and a fair chunk of 3rd+, so I'm well prepared to be selective about what comes out of the books. I don't allow whole books anyway - even Core is treated selectively (yes, Spiked Armour, racial Exotic weapons, I'm looking at you).)

During the writing of my latest campaign - a conversion of Dragon Mountain to 3.5 for a 14-(current estimate) 20th level party - I have attempted to use at least one of every Class I've got. Save only CW Samurai (winner of the most sucktastic class ever award) and Shujenga and Wu Jen (seeing as neither of thos are going to be used immediately in the upcoming campaign for which Dragon Mountain is the mechanics dry-run for).

PrCs, I tend to be more brutal about, for example. I suspect that maybe 50% of them get shorn out for being crap, stupid or world-specific or often a combination of the three. (I actually thought this was a much larger percentage, but it surprised me how long my list of available PrCs actually is. On the other hand, Complete Champion dragged the average down markedly).
Darth Sephiroth
06-22-07, 11:35 AM Personally I like the options, however when I DM I do reserve the right to bar any material from a campaign world. This means that if psionics do not exist in the world, then the players can't play psionic characters.

I also have had the rule that I had to have an accessible copy of the source between any sessions I want it. This has also led to me being given photocpies from Dragon Magazine and actual books on occasion.
goawayugh
06-22-07, 02:02 PM I also have had the rule that I had to have an accessible copy of the source between any sessions I want it. This has also led to me being given photocpies from Dragon Magazine and actual books on occasion.

HAHAHA! Nice way to get free info!

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
dutch206 06-20-07, 01:27 PM	There is something that really tees me off, so I thought I would post it here and see what happens. I have a problem with the abundance of character classes currently available in D & D 3.5. You have the original 'core' classes from the PHB, the classes from PHB II, all of the classes from the "complete" series, not to mention web extras like the "Psionic Rogue". Where does it all end? :confused: What is considered "core" and what is just fluff?
Tony Vargas 06-20-07, 01:38 PM	I'd consider the real 'core' classes to be the PH classes - less the Monk and Paladin. Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Sorcerer if you really want to get right down to it. But, all the PH classes are officially 'core' and, though optional, so so are the PrCs in the DMG. The decision to use PrCs, which PrCs to use, and whether to add any non-core classes (or any other non-core material) is something the DM can use to give his world a unique feel or flavor.
madbliza 06-20-07, 01:42 PM	Personally, I enjoy to abundance of character classes. One of the things I missed most about 2nd Edition was that you could select character kits, something no longer available in 3.5. However, I believe that with the introduction of Eberron, WotC is promoting players to create their own character classes, worlds, etc. The core classes are still considered to be the ones in the PHB (at least that's what I consider the core). Based on all the posts here, I don't think it will ever end because even the core classes need to be tweaked. However, it is always up to the DM to decided. For instance, my DM has barred any of the Complete books excluding the Warrior and Adventurer. Also, all Psionics are unallowable too.
Minmaximus 06-20-07, 02:11 PM	Why is everyone so resistant to the diversity of 3.5? I love it. After toiling through years of fighter-a and fighter-b being carbon copies this is a breath of fresh air. I hear story after story about DM's that severely restrict their players' choices. Embrace it. Psionics is far from broken. Clerics are not broken.
BaelinWhale 06-20-07, 02:26 PM	The real Core classes are the four major monster food groups, namely the classic Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Healer/Priest/Cleric. These four classes are the cornerstones of any adventuring party and having at least one of each will be enough to let you breeze through most any situation (and are part of a monster's well-rounded meal). :P
goawayugh 06-20-07, 02:34 PM	More classes! More classes! More classes! I want more classes! I LOVE all of the options available. I hate to hear about DMs who limit PCs choices. "No completes, no psionics, no races of.., ". I allow ANYTHING official, you don't even need to clear it with me first! All I ask is that I'm aware of your general character concept, and any variants you have opted for, before we play. Go ahead, come up with something "broken", I'll just throw a "broken" BBEG at you. Hahahahahaha (evil laugh).
Wiseblood 06-20-07, 02:57 PM	I kinda agree with the OP here as a DM and as a Player. As a DM because I am really kind of tired of having to learn a brand new set of rules whenever someone else has an itch to try something new. Especially when they haven't tried half of the old. there was 3.0 then 3.5 then psionics and ToB I don't like psionics. Is that wrong? As a player I'm tired of seeing my fun eroded by some freakish class like the Dragonfire adept. WTH the class ability acts exactly like a racial ability or template. Just play a monster. All in all, it's just a matter of my personal tastes.
Voletta 06-20-07, 03:20 PM	The only thing I restrict as a DM is races, and that's only because I like down to earth origins and plot hooks to get the party going. Forget the players forcing me to come up with the reason an Avariel, Tiefling, Mistling whatever and a PC ooze have met up and decided to work together against the forces of my story. Classes, on the other hand, whatever, go nuts. I like when they choose simple things I'm familiar with, but I understand when they want to play the new, out there thing. For some players, they're looking for a powerful/broken new set of rules that have slipped by errata and me (as the DM). For others, they just want an exotic twist or to mimic a character they love from some source of fiction. Either way, as long as "new character" means they've put enough thought into things to roleplay an interesting character, go right ahead. I ALWAYS know how to make people feel like their class is just as fun/helpful/powerful in the party. Convincing the poor human she's just as cool and heroic as the glowing, winged, flying demon/shapechanging cube from lvl 1, not so much.
RealSorceror 06-20-07, 03:37 PM	Sir, I like my fluff, and I'll be eating that cake. If you don't like that I'm a Warlock Shadowcaster, then don't let me in your game, simple as that. I might be sore about it, but you won't have to deal with a Factotum Binder shifting his abilities around and stealing everyon's thunder.
flaiquiri 06-20-07, 04:08 PM	Everything is optional.
dutch206 06-20-07, 07:36 PM	The real Core classes are the four major monster food groups, namely the classic Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Healer/Priest/Cleric. These four classes are the cornerstones of any adventuring party and having at least one of each will be enough to let you breeze through most any situation (and are part of a monster's well-rounded meal). :P ROFLMAO :D
Karui_Kage 06-20-07, 07:49 PM	I must be lucky. I made over 20 books (22 I think) available to my players for my new Age of Worms game. As far as I know, their level 20 builds are: Human Barbarian 20 Elf (Grey) Wizard 20 Gnome (Dragonish one, I forget which book, just a couple minor skill changes) Druid 20 The only one doing any multiclassing is: Elan Scout 4 / Ranger 5 / Psion 1 / Elocator 10 Whose build I already cleared, and looks fine to me. :) I'll tell you though, it's nice to have a few vanilla builds in the group. I don't mind a lot of the material, but it is a breath of fresh air to see a group of (mostly) standard classes.
Rowan_Whispercloak 06-20-07, 09:47 PM	The only problem I have had with the number of new classes are the fact that not all of them are equal in power, but that is mostly my opinion and possibly the play style of the groups I am in.
windscar18 06-20-07, 10:00 PM	I personally find that the inflation of classes aren't a problem because I tend to have the spare time to actually learn them. I do find however that not having access to all the books can be a pain sometimes however. For example, I have to constantly AIM my friends while I'm at this summer program to ask them for class abilities for the spare campaign I run on the weekends.
Wolfvyn 06-20-07, 10:11 PM	Yeah the sheet number of new classes can be a pain sometimes, especially when one character wants to be something that you have no idea what it is. I actaully get this alot from one of my players that keeps looking for the "ultimate" build. However it really isn't that big of a deal most of the time. As long as everyone is having fun and your game is still challenging things will work out. Besides, as someone else mentioned earlier, breaking a character that is a "broken" class isn't all that hard. PLus if there is always trouble you could always just ask people on here to help you make a badass villian to frustrate your characters.
Kevin Andrew Murphy 06-21-07, 03:00 AM	The only new class I'd consider "core" is warlock, and that only because it's so popular and so well supported in other books. It also makes better flavor sense than the sorcerer, IMHO.
Cypher_of_the_Eye 06-21-07, 03:40 AM	Call me crazy:looloo: but I Consider 5 books core. They are: PHB DMG MM XPB ToB 'Why Psionics?" you ask, and i say, "It's as well put together, thoughtout and, well, fun as any thing you can find in the PHB. Except the fighter class. The only fighter i like is Fighter." "Why ToB?" "imhe fighters are one trick pony's that MUST have a PrC to be a viable member of a mid to high lvl party. Remember, just my Opinion. I'm entitled to it, Doesn't make it valid. And Martial adepts are just cool, though lacking in Epic support. :rant: YA HEAR THAT WOTC!!!! CLIFF'S NOTES OF BATTLE: MARTIALISM BEYOND 20!!! /:rant: though i do love the breadth of options that the complete series brings, not to mention the rest of the splat books.
obsidianprism 06-21-07, 04:48 AM	PrC... hmm... two opinions. As a a player: I look at some of these and say, "Who in their right mind would seriously play an Oozemaster?" So from that frame of mind I do see a lot of fluff. But at the same time its always fun to try something new just to spice things up a bit. After playing the game from the last 12 years or so, anyone can get tired of the same old same old and adding different classes can give a player memorable characters that stand apart from every other campaign. As a DM: When it comes to running a game there is always more effort on your part than the players, and sometimes it does bug me when someone asks to play something I haven't read about. My group of players are probably to smart for their own good and will use anything they can to get that little bit of leverage over me, even if its just for that one session before I have really had a chance to look over their characters abilities closely (which makes my job even harder, but makes the campaigns way more creative and fun). But at the same time, I see classes as a benefit to the DM as well, I use them extensively as NPCs and villians. That oozemaster might not be to cool as a player, but encountering one in a castle with a Bard/Arcane archer and his buddy a Sorc/Master of the Unseen Hand adds a little spice to the campaign.
deviknyte 06-22-07, 01:55 AM	I'd first like to congratulate everyone for not yelling or screaming at each other on a thread like this. Second I love all the classes too. Whatever you want to play go for it. I do end up stopping the cheap tricks because they make the game less fun, but you made yourself a target with your +38str rager. In fact I've built a bunch of classes and used a lot of classes posted on here (thank you everyone for the classes I've used or the things that have inspired me). When I think of core class, the PHB, DMG, XPH, Complete Psionic, Savage Species (because me and my friends hate level adjustments, races as character classes best idea ever!)and any monster counts. Books I just... all of them. I have my banned list (for varies reasons role-playing or broken) but it's a short list. If you have something very powerful than very powerful things will come at you. I usually have my party work together (as much as possible because they love suprising each other) so that when I'm force to up the ante the role-playing builds don't get massacred. Although I do have a bit (lot) of changes to my base classes. A lot of customization on every class. I have the base classes fill genre requirements and not be to restricting to one theme. That way every class is good (beyond 4th level) and is there to help you play anything from Inu Yasha to Aang to even a few of the lesser powered comic book characters. I don't think at the end of a base class your powerful builds are all the same or one trick ponies. Nor do I think that at the end of a base class your character now is a carbon copy of Cloud Strife. But I don't mind if the class makes you a limit breaking fighter of some sort.
aotrscommander 06-22-07, 06:27 AM	Personally, Ilike the large number of classes. I buy the most books and as DM I make an effort to integrate everything into my world. Like Cypher_of_the_Eye, I have adopted XPH and ToB as the unofficial 4th and 5th Core books, but I also try and use every book I buy (which includes pretty much everything I consider to be non-world specific; mainly the Completes, but Lib Mort, Heroes of Battle and MiC to name a few others). "Core only" to me is something that vanished as soon as there were nonCore books available. (That said, I have pretty much the entirity of 2nd Edition Rolemaster and a fair chunk of 3rd+, so I'm well prepared to be selective about what comes out of the books. I don't allow whole books anyway - even Core is treated selectively (yes, Spiked Armour, racial Exotic weapons, I'm looking at you).) During the writing of my latest campaign - a conversion of Dragon Mountain to 3.5 for a 14-(current estimate) 20th level party - I have attempted to use at least one of every Class I've got. Save only CW Samurai (winner of the most sucktastic class ever award) and Shujenga and Wu Jen (seeing as neither of thos are going to be used immediately in the upcoming campaign for which Dragon Mountain is the mechanics dry-run for). PrCs, I tend to be more brutal about, for example. I suspect that maybe 50% of them get shorn out for being crap, stupid or world-specific or often a combination of the three. (I actually thought this was a much larger percentage, but it surprised me how long my list of available PrCs actually is. On the other hand, Complete Champion dragged the average down markedly).
Darth Sephiroth 06-22-07, 11:35 AM	Personally I like the options, however when I DM I do reserve the right to bar any material from a campaign world. This means that if psionics do not exist in the world, then the players can't play psionic characters. I also have had the rule that I had to have an accessible copy of the source between any sessions I want it. This has also led to me being given photocpies from Dragon Magazine and actual books on occasion.
goawayugh 06-22-07, 02:02 PM	I also have had the rule that I had to have an accessible copy of the source between any sessions I want it. This has also led to me being given photocpies from Dragon Magazine and actual books on occasion. HAHAHA! Nice way to get free info!