Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Nani? 01-16-05, 09:43 PM	I want hear some arguements pro and con. It seems that a lot of people are making classes that can be easily created/simulated with standard classes/feats/multiclass combinations. It is simply that players are not encouraged to use thier heads in this fashion, with the exeption of UA. Instead, players end up coming up with ton of "classes" that simulate nothing. Furthermore WotC is doing the same thing. Here are some examples: Pirate: Instead of a "pirate class" simply be a Wilderness rogue from UA, perhaps with multiclass in fighter or ranger. Have proffession:Sailor maxed out and feats that help you be a light fighter. If you do ranger and use either favored enviroments (ocean) as a replacement for favored enemies or allow favored enemy: navy or merchant. Tracking would be based off of survival lore of wind/sea currents, signs of land, etc. ("Gulls are around so we must be near land. I bet thier going to need to restock. We'll find them there"). Elementalist: Simply use the energy substitution feat and thematic casting talk to your GM perhaps you GM will allow to make some spells "thematic" and you can define your grease as "ice". Then go into the Elemental Savant class. Witch: Sorcerer, Druid, Spirit Shaman w/ a "standard" technological background or a Multiclass combo of any of them, depending on what you want to empathise. Perhaps trade out some skills "UA style" on a sorcerer build and weapons on a Spirit Shaman. On to WoTC stuff: Swashbuckler: Rogue/Fighter multiclass. Perhaps use the Thug variant fighter from UA (Only medium or light armor, one less feat, more skills and skillpoints). with the right feats. Warlock: Nothing more then/ or easily simulated (depending on your beliefs about sorcerer origins) with Sorcerer with a different mechanic and a built in "dark background". Ban these munchkins. Warmage: A wizard or battle sorcerer with a lot of evocations/conjuration an feats in weapon proficiences and the battle caster feat(s) along with ahigh constitution. Ninja: Again, rogue with a different mechanic, also relax the monk alignment/multiclassing restrictions. You get the idea, what do you think? Are we coming up with too many extra "classes" because we are not applying/encouraged to apply what we have in front of us in a logical manner? All the best, Nani?
ClementWillowbreaker 01-16-05, 10:32 PM	Yes, several of the new base classes are unneeded, and in my opinion take a valid multiclassing option, gut it, and add a few silly abilities that make the old version feel lacking. Swashbuckler is the biggest example- before rogue/fighters were nice, but since they don't get Insightful Strike, they feel weaker for no reason nowadays. The Scout really steps on the ranger and rogue's toe, and has a funky Skirmish ability, too. Warmages are just messed up, and Favored Souls are just funky. The asian classes are really annoying to me- I don't like them, but others do, so I suck up the wasted pages there. The Hexblade, spellthief, warlock, and spirit shaman at least have flavor and some originality and innovation in them. I tell my players to look to multiclassing first- a DM that doesn't have to sweat out funky base class/PrC balance issues has more time to actually run a decent game :rolleyes:
gribnit 01-16-05, 10:44 PM	I fivesixthsheartedly agree, the only time to create a new class is when it just can't be done adequately using existing class mechanics. A flavor difference is not an adequate reason to create an entirely new class.
Arcane Guyver 01-16-05, 10:49 PM	New base classes are there for the same reason as PrCs (at least, the way they're treated these days): a cleaner, better way of representing a certain character concept. Now, it could be argued that the old core four could do the same job, especially with DM-approved modifications. And they'd be right, but the result would be kind of messy. As a player, I'd be fine with using the core classes only, even just the core four. Many people on these boards seem to love any and all new classes, talking about more options & viable character concepts. Seemingly innocent, character-driven aspirations. But then, I saw many gooing themselves over Illumians and "how sweet, flavorful & unique" they were....until the heavily nerfed official print version came out, at which time they were abandoned posthaste...... So I'm not entirely sure if people want a better way to fulfill a character concept, or just new ways to manipulate pre-existing PrCs in an attempt to see just how many dice they can consistently roll for damage.
EvilDuck 01-16-05, 11:06 PM	If you don't like new classes, don't use them, but don't take away my 3-level Swashbuckler, my kooky Warlock, and my super awesome Ninjas(both classes!). :D Options are a good thing. A good thing.
Nani? 01-17-05, 07:22 AM	If you don't like new classes, don't use them, but don't take away my 3-level Swashbuckler, my kooky Warlock, and my super awesome Ninjas(both classes!). :D Options are a good thing. A good thing. My arguement is that people aren't useing the options that they have intelligently. I say that flavor is everything. I say that too much cheese is a a bad thing. Just tell me why a Swashbuckler is not Rogue/fighter. Tell me why a Warlock cannot be a Sorcerer who's "inborn" magical ability is the result of a dark pact, or a Ninja is not a monk/rogue. If your arguement is "sorcerers have draconic blood and Warlocks have a dark pact" or a Swashbuckler has "insightful strike" (I do like it as a feat) I say you don't have an arguement because your arguement is artifical and rule based rather then real life. I say do your own thinking rather have them do your thinking for you. Tell me why the class variants in UA (pp47-65) do not do a better job of reflecting a game based reality. As for the Splat classes I don't reject them totally out of hand, I just say justify them. For example, Spirit Shaman does a better job I think of reflecting a typical "medicine man" or animist then the Druid does. The Favored Soul I think of those rare people who genuinely have communion with deity and are led by those insights. I find them to be edgy, because in many ways they are a direct challenge to a Cleric's authority. Real life examples are Joan of Arc, visionaries who see the Virgin Mary, and dare I say Jesus of Nazareth (regardless of what you think of the claims to divinity), challenging the nice comfortable assumptions of the traditionally pious. In fiction, the one that comes to mind is the main character in Kushel's Dart/Avatar,(forget her name) etc. This is certainly a very rare class (single digit membership at any one time) but a believable one, and one not well explained by WoTC. What do you think? All the best, Nani?
Kuraito 01-17-05, 07:47 AM	I for one, love the new classes. I do see your point about things though, but i was personally unsatisfied with my Fighter/Rouge swashbuckler flavored character. So i tried to make my own class called Fencer. That didn't work out well at all. The class (if you believe it) was WEAKER than my old fighter/rouge combo, and i died....lots. But then WotC gave me Swashbuckler. Now i'm very happy with my Swashbuckler/Duelist. I'll be the first to say that Insightful Strike is stupidly powerful, but now i actually have a character i'm happy with. And if that alone is what the new classes accomplished then their ok in my book. Now, as for the other classes, i think their all ok. I for one dislike the new samurai, but lots of people like it. Favored Soul is really to the cleric what the Sorcerer is to the Wizard, and i like them. Ninja was class that needed to be made one way or another and frankly, while you could get close with rouge (just like i could get close to swashbuckler with fighter/rouge) their are people who would be unsatisfied and rightly so. I see where you come from in alot of your points, but these classes DO give options (if more SPECIALIZED options) to players. If you notice, most of the new core classes try to fill a Fan Favorite void, which is WotC way of trying to give us what we want. I think theres lots of people who, like me were unsatisfied with their versions of the samurai or the ninja or the swashbuckler, and really appreciated WotC tossing them a bone. While you CAN do anything with the base classes in the PHB, theres no saying things will be the way you;d like them. Not because what you want is unrealstic or overpowered but because what you want isn't possible within the normal rules. Sorry for my rambling but i think i actually made a valid point in there...somewhere :) .
Ra-Tiel 01-17-05, 08:12 AM	I'm very pleased with additional/variant/specially flavored core classes for one reason: With the core classes I often come to the point where I can say: ok, by level xy I finally get the flavor/ability I want for my character. And that's not early enough. For each character there should be a distinctive flavor right from the start (read: level 1). If there was nothing that distinguished a swashbuckler from any other ordinary fighter till level 6/7 when you take the duelist prc, then WotC missed the point of *ROLE*playing, and not just *ROLL*playing. Let me post an example. Does/did anybody of you possess the "Kingdom of Kalamar Player's Guide"? In there was a (I admit, poorly designed) Gladiator core class with class features and such. In the introduction they said that a gladiator "prestige class" hardly makes any sense. Let me point it out: you are a fighter/ranger/paladin/blackguard/whatever, travel through the world, save/threaten innocents and battle/commit evil. Then you suddenly decide: hey, let me be enslaved and forced to fight in a dusty pit for the entertainment of others. :looloo: --- That's also the reason why I'm very impressed by Crave's "Uber Generics" (basically allows you to design your own 20 level progresssion based on a point value), and I'm looking forward to the EverQuest2 Player's Guide becoming available in Germany (something around the second last february week), because you have so many options more than: "1 feat at level 1" to customize your character right from the beginning.
Mark_Aurel 01-17-05, 09:10 AM	I like new classes, or formalized variants upon existing ones. The fact that they are there doesn't mean you have to use them. Rather, I think that picking and choosing a subset of all the existing classes can be used to emphasize the flavor of a particular campaign world, or area of a campaign world. For instance, a campaign where the following classes are available: Bard Barbarian Ranger Scout Spirit Shaman ... would be a very different experience than an area where characters can be... Cleric Fighter Hexblade Monk Rogue Sorcerer Spellthief Warlock ... which in turn would be different from an area where players could be... Barbarian Fighter Marshal Rogue Scout ... not to mention ... Fighter Monk Ninja Samurai Shugenja Wu Jen I think the idea of cramming any and all classes, races, and whatever else is published into a single campaign will all too often lead to a flavorless porridge of a campaign world. Now, of course, you could 'make do' with the core four. That in itself is a form of flavor, though. Call it the Vanilla D&D flavor. You can get a lot out of it, but I don't think it's ideal for all campaign worlds. And if you start tinkering with the classes to get what you want, you're basically adding new classes to the game system anyway. Just because it's in a book, doesn't mean you have to use it in every campaign. It's probably better not to, but it's nice to have more options for running campaigns with different flavors than default D&D.
Jell_Moo 01-17-05, 09:15 AM	Originally posted by Nani? Pirate: Instead of a "pirate class" simply be a Wilderness rogue from UA, perhaps with multiclass in fighter or ranger. Have proffession:Sailor maxed out and feats that help you be a light fighter. If you do ranger and use either favored enviroments (ocean) as a replacement for favored enemies or allow favored enemy: navy or merchant. Tracking would be based off of survival lore of wind/sea currents, signs of land, etc. ("Gulls are around so we must be near land. I bet thier going to need to restock. We'll find them there"). If you are going so far as to use a variant of a core class, why not simply use/make a new class? I'm not saying that the Pirate neccessarilly *needs* to be a core class of it's own, but if you feel like you have to use class vaiants just to kinda fit the feel of the class, maybe a class of it's own isn't a bad idea. Elementalist: Simply use the energy substitution feat and thematic casting talk to your GM perhaps you GM will allow to make some spells "thematic" and you can define your grease as "ice". Then go into the Elemental Savant class. I haven't seen all that much pertaining to elemental specific core classes... The problem I can see is that you are suggesting non-core material to fit the character concept, which isn't always an option. Creating elemental variants of specialist wizards could be a fun thing. Witch: Sorcerer, Druid, Spirit Shaman w/ a "standard" technological background or a Multiclass combo of any of them, depending on what you want to empathise. Perhaps trade out some skills "UA style" on a sorcerer build and weapons on a Spirit Shaman. Multiclass casters suck badly. I don't want to suck badly, so... Plus the concept of a Witch has a flavour of it's own, and is certainly deserving of it's own Core Class, certainly moreso than the Spirit Shaman. Swashbuckler: Rogue/Fighter multiclass. Perhaps use the Thug variant fighter from UA (Only medium or light armor, one less feat, more skills and skillpoints). with the right feats. The mechanics don't quite cover it I'm afraid. If I want an unarmored swashbuckler type, and I try a Fighter/Rogue multiclass, I'll get pounded into the dust. Sneak Attack, while an great in it's own right, doesn' always fit the concept of a swashbuckler. Also, because of the Rogue's d6, hit points are not going to be all that great. Warlock: Nothing more then/ or easily simulated (depending on your beliefs about sorcerer origins) with Sorcerer with a different mechanic and a built in "dark background". Ban these munchkins. Completely new mechanics deserve a completely new class. I'd rather scrap the sorceror and keep the Warlock myself. And what on earth is "munchkin" about a slightly underpowered class??? Warmage: A wizard or battle sorcerer with a lot of evocations/conjuration an feats in weapon proficiences and the battle caster feat(s) along with ahigh constitution. I agree that the Battle Sorceror does it better. Simply because I like the fact that it can hold it's own in melee as well. Ninja: Again, rogue with a different mechanic, also relax the monk alignment/multiclassing restrictions. Agreed. The Ninja in CA is just a watered down Rogue with a few perks. Not really anything special IMHO. However, I do feel that in an Oriental Campaign a Core Ninja class is worthwhile, I just don't think this is it. You get the idea, what do you think? Are we coming up with too many extra "classes" because we are not applying/encouraged to apply what we have in front of us in a logical manner? I disagree. I think it's silly to think that the Core 11 can possibly fill every distinct archetype, and be mechanically sound at it. When you start using UA variants and the like, then you are practically admitting that the Core Classes can accomplish everything. New classes aren't always a bad thing. Some of them aren't very good, but some are 100% valid and cool.
Nani? 01-17-05, 09:29 AM	I for one, love the new classes. I do see your point about things though, but i was personally unsatisfied with my Fighter/Rouge swashbuckler flavored character. So i tried to make my own class called Fencer. That didn't work out well at all. The class (if you believe it) was WEAKER than my old fighter/rouge combo, and i died....lots. But then WotC gave me Swashbuckler. Now i'm very happy with my Swashbuckler/Duelist. I'll be the first to say that Insightful Strike is stupidly powerful, but now i actually have a character i'm happy with. And if that alone is what the new classes accomplished then their ok in my book. Now, as for the other classes, i think their all ok. I for one dislike the new samurai, but lots of people like it. Favored Soul is really to the cleric what the Sorcerer is to the Wizard, and i like them. Ninja was class that needed to be made one way or another and frankly, while you could get close with rouge (just like i could get close to swashbuckler with fighter/rouge) their are people who would be unsatisfied and rightly so. I see where you come from in alot of your points, but these classes DO give options (if more SPECIALIZED options) to players. If you notice, most of the new core classes try to fill a Fan Favorite void, which is WotC way of trying to give us what we want. I think theres lots of people who, like me were unsatisfied with their versions of the samurai or the ninja or the swashbuckler, and really appreciated WotC tossing them a bone. While you CAN do anything with the base classes in the PHB, theres no saying things will be the way you;d like them. Not because what you want is unrealstic or overpowered but because what you want isn't possible within the normal rules. Sorry for my rambling but i think i actually made a valid point in there...somewhere :) . That is a good point, that some players feel they haven't got the right "feel" down. On a case by case basis I don't disagree. On the other hand, what is wrong switching out a few class skills because "Not because what you want is unrealstic or overpowered but because what you want isn't possible within the normal rules," instead of creating a whole new class that me (as a DM) needs to "figure out" how to deal with. As a DM (I do some "public" games), I hate when I suggest, for example, that if you want to be a Thief-Acrobat, be a Rogue with maxed out Tumble, Jump, Balance and Bluff (for fienting) and a non newbie player stares at me blankly, uncomprehending, both synapsases struggleing with this idea because what they want has not been laid out before them on a silver platter. Ra-Tiel, You almost make my point for me. The Gladiator is a perfect example. Instead of designing a whole new class, why not switch out a few skills, say add Bluff, Perform: Weapon Drill, maybe tumbling. Switch out handle animal and climb (don't want them getting to know the lions or climbing out of the arena, do we), making then non-class skills or leave them in, cutting out heavy armor proficency instead. Take exotic weapon (net and trident) in you want and feats like improved trip. There, you have your gladiator, from first level onward, with no badly designed class. As for the Generics, I like them, and I have replaced the Sorcerer in my home game with the UA spellcaster varient. I do think they should be used in either an all generic game or some very specific characters/switch outs. For example:Iif I want to make a Sorcerer who's natural magic is tied to say plants, no reason you can't make a generic arcane caster who who uses "druid" spells. All the best, Nani?
Kuraito 01-17-05, 10:10 AM	I do agree that new classes should only be made (by players) in situations where what they want to do is impossible. And even then, altering a base class is perferable to making a whole new one. For instance my all original Fencer class was a monumental failure. My Spellblade AKA Red Mage was a HUGE success in my play group because its basically a heavily altered bard. The only time a player should make something completly original is with prestiges but even that should only be done when the player DESPRATLY wants something he can't get elsewhere. Wizards of the coast on the other hand can print all the "flavor" classes they want. Its just PLAYERS should try to avoid it.
Pinky's brain 01-17-05, 10:11 AM	Fractional addition of bab/saves isnt core ... one good reason to avoid multiclassing.
Gilean 01-17-05, 10:33 AM	Some of the new classes have no place as core classes (spellthief, anyone?). Others are fine. Some will be almost identical to each other (sorcerer and warlock) from flavor or commoner standpoint. I suggest to take a look at Ultimate classes by Szatany, they have options.
Tenzhi 01-17-05, 03:07 PM	I prefer most of the new base classes to the insane number of PrCs that get pumped out en masse. And I think that new rule mechanics can be a perfect justification for new classes. It's pretty silly to think otherwise and yet still accept the existence of the Barbarian, Ranger, or Paladin.
Nani? 01-17-05, 03:37 PM	First off, lots of good points. Mark_Aurel, very good point. In fact, I'm runnig a campiegn that is very loosely Roman vs Celt based. The "Celts" have Druids, Rangers, Barbarians, Bards, and Sorcerers, and few Rogues (wilderness) here and there. The "Romans" tend to have Clerics, fighters, wizards, and rogues(city based). I disagree. I think it's silly to think that the Core 11 can possibly fill every distinct archetype, and be mechanically sound at it. When you start using UA variants and the like, then you are practically admitting that the Core Classes can accomplish everything. New classes aren't always a bad thing. Some of them aren't very good, but some are 100% valid and cool. It seems like we are mostly disagreeing on approach. Yes, I like some of the new classes, particularly the divine ones. To me UA is a very useful for some logical tweeks and I use it for model of most of what I want to do. My examples of Pirate, Elementalist, and Witch were from recent posts that I saw. Pirate and Elementalist were examples I saw as WTF. Witch is one that is more "believable" and commonly accepted. A couple points on your opinions, Multiclass casters suck badly. I don't want to suck badly, so... Plus the concept of a Witch has a flavour of it's own, and is certainly deserving of it's own Core Class, certainly moreso than the Spirit Shaman. Yes, they do, unless you only do something like Sorcerer2/Wizard 18. But does my arguement hold for pretty straight Druid/Spirit Shaman/Sorcerer who isvery quite about thier identity as such? On the Spirit Shaman, certainly just Shaman would have been a better name for it but I do think it very much deserves it's place as a class, though not for all games. The mechanics don't quite cover it I'm afraid. If I want an unarmored swashbuckler type, and I try a Fighter/Rogue multiclass, I'll get pounded into the dust. Sneak Attack, while an great in it's own right, doesn' always fit the concept of a swashbuckler. Also, because of the Rogue's d6, hit points are not going to be all that great. I've played this combo and found it highly successful. Sneak Attack and Bluff was an awesome combo which fit perfectly the favor. The bonus feats from fighter rocked and made it work. I never had a HP problem. Of course the Swashbuler in one of the new classes I have least problem (I save that for Hexblade, Warlock, etc) Completely new mechanics deserve a completely new class. I'd rather scrap the sorceror and keep the Warlock myself. And what on earth is "munchkin" about a slightly underpowered class??? Why do we need the different mechanic anyway when we have perfectly valid one that expresses the same character concept?. You seem to be argueing backwards. As for munchkin, I see it as slightly overpowered. I think this probably comes down to a difference in play style. Again I say, why create "new" classes when most things can be created with very minor tweeks of the existing classes? All the Best, Nani?
Mirikon 01-17-05, 03:48 PM	New core classes are only a problem when they are badly designed, or don't fit into the campaign world in a way that the DM is comfortable with. In other words, there are campaigns where Wu Jen is a much cleaner choice for a DM than Wizard, and campaigns where Spellthief fits into the campaign world nicely. Saying that all the new core classes are unneeded, because you can use variants of existing classes, and multiclass those with other variants is just sad. If it fills a role that the player wants his character to have from the beginning, and it fits the campaign world, why not have the class? I mean, if to get the feeling of what you want, you're having to go through ten classes/PrCs to get what you want by level 20, clearly there's something wrong. The Ninja (haven't played the one in CV yet, so wouldn't know how effective it is) is a perfect example. Sure, you could call them a funky monk/rogue combo. But to get it to really fit, you'd wind up being something like Rogue 10/Monk 10. That means for about half the game, you're only half of what you want your character to be. Now, a ninja core class (that fits the campaign) solves this problem. Yes, you're now a ninja from level 1. No crazy multiclass things, no determining whether the Sneak attack and Sudden strike stack, no wondering if you can flurry with your ninja weapons, etc. You pay a bit of time working the things out in advance, but save time later on. Swashbuckler and Warlock are two of my favorite new base classes. The Swashbuckler is more than a Rogue/Fighter/Duelist. They're like Errol Flynn (sp?) in his old movies, fighting aboard a ship. They are a great dex-based fighter, and provide a feel you can't get with the Rogue/Fighter combo. The Warlock, too, is worthy of being a base class, despite what people say about it being a sorcerer with a different mechanic. Yeah, and a tiger is just a different kind of lion. Seriously, people. Your basic argument is that both apples and oranges are fruit, therefore and orange is a different kind of apple. Do you even bother to go through the logic of your statements before putting them up here? Now, the argument fits with the Wizard-Wu Jen comparison, but that is because the Wu Jen is basically a variant wizard, but the Warlock and Sorcerer are as different as the Paladin and Barbarian are. Yes, they both use weapons to hurt people. No, they're not the same.
DM Zoc 01-17-05, 03:57 PM	Honestly, we don't need anything other than the base four. Warlocks should be Sorcerers. * Paladins should be Fighter/Clerics. Rangers should be Fighter/Rogues. The problem with 3.X (and really, the only thing that was a step backward from previous editions) is the move to prestige classes from kits. Someone said it before, but I want something that defines me right off the bat as the character I want to play; I don't want to take six levels before my character can survive. Flat out, an un-armored melee-fighter does not work unless you have magical items to compensate, or a prestige class ability (or creative multi-classing, which doesn't make sense in most cases). *Wizard is not an adventuring class to me, because adventuring is not conducive to better study habits.
Kintara 01-17-05, 04:11 PM	Classes are mostly a design decision of convenience, anyway. They are package deals that follow a certain theme/archetype. Creating a Swashbuckler class just makes it easier to play a swashbuckler. I'm not saying it's difficult to multiclass Rogue and Fighter, but it's even easier to simply take the Swashbuckler class. Plus, it fits even tighter into the concept. A Swashbuckler doesn't need trap finding, for instance. Yes, I could sub out trap finding for some other ability (or simply neglect it), but again, it's a matter of convenience. The same goes for Sneak Attack, really. A Swashbuckler should be able to go one on one with out feeling like they are being inefficient, in my opinion, and Sneak Attacking generally encourages a different sort of approach to fighting. Feinting is a decent mechanic for handling it, but the Swashbuckler's abilities fit even better, and you can feint on top of it. The reason Sneak Attack isn't necessarily ideal is that to take full advantage of it, you're encouraged to spend more effort on a different style of tactics than many Swashbucklers will want to take. Adding a full BAB and a bonus to damage means that more direct methods won't be as inappropriate. That said, maybe your concept for your character would fit Rogue/Fighter better. So be it. There can be more than one way to make a Swashbuckler. I don't place too much value on the name of the class. Just because there's a Ninja class now doesn't mean that I can't make my Psychic Rogue a ninja if I wanted to. I can make a Fighter a barbarian, too. I could call my Druid/Fighter a ranger, or my Cleric/Fighter a paladin. The rules are just tools, and having more of them doesn't bother me. I can see the use of them for the right occasions. Really, the first RPG I really got into was GURPS, a point-based system with no classes at all. If you want to take your position further, why not just advocate the Generic class rules in UA, or start using the Mutants and Masterminds rule-set?
Jell_Moo 01-17-05, 04:23 PM	Originally posted by Nani? It seems like we are mostly disagreeing on approach. Yes, I like some of the new classes, particularly the divine ones. To me UA is a very useful for some logical tweeks and I use it for model of most of what I want to do. My examples of Pirate, Elementalist, and Witch were from recent posts that I saw. Pirate and Elementalist were examples I saw as WTF. Witch is one that is more "believable" and commonly accepted. UA can be a great tool to help achieve the desired 'tweak' to a class you like. However, the biggest downfall with it is balance. While I would say that most alterations are in and of themselves balanced, they don't always balance well against one another. For example, the Spell Point system creates a bad imbalance if combined with certain Wizard Domain variants and certainly hoses the Sorceror. I personally, don't see a need for a Pirate or Elementalist Core Class. However, I wouldn't be upset if WotC did them, and did them well. I love options. The Wicth on the other hand, is one I would love to see as I feel it's an ugly gap in the Core Classes. Yes, they do, unless you only do something like Sorcerer2/Wizard 18. But does my arguement hold for pretty straight Druid/Spirit Shaman/Sorcerer who isvery quite about thier identity as such? On the Spirit Shaman, certainly just Shaman would have been a better name for it but I do think it very much deserves it's place as a class, though not for all games. A Sorceror 2/Wizard 18 is so horribly bad I don't even want to think about it. The Spirit Shaman itself isn't bad per se, I just feel that a tighter Shaman could have been used. I much prefer the Shaman from OA. To me, the Spirit Shaman feels like a badly watered down Druid. Then again, it's mostly the mechanics that bug me about this one. The biggest problem, to me, is that casters multiclass so poorly. To make them viable, WotC has patched them with PrCs. To me, that's why New Core Classes, or at the very least variants of existing ones are needed. I've played this combo and found it highly successful. Sneak Attack and Bluff was an awesome combo which fit perfectly the favor. The bonus feats from fighter rocked and made it work. I never had a HP problem. Of course the Swashbuler in one of the new classes I have least problem (I save that for Hexblade, Warlock, etc) Bluffing in combat is a pain for two reasons. 1) Even with Improved Feint, you still have to use a move action to Feint the opponent, which means that your mobility is badly reduced and number of attacks suffers. 2) The opponent gets to add their BAB to their Sense Motive check. This can be a painful thing to overcome. As to the Swashbuckler, I love the flavor and hate the mechanics. When there's no reason to take a class after 3rd level, the class has a problem. Why do we need the different mechanic anyway when we have perfectly valid one that expresses the same character concept?. You seem to be argueing backwards. As for munchkin, I see it as slightly overpowered. I think this probably comes down to a difference in play style. Again I say, why create "new" classes when most things can be created with very minor tweeks of the existing classes? Because the existing mechanic is flawed. The Sorceror, as written, is bland and flavorless. A complete lack of class features is painful. The Warlock, which has a great write up and description, also has fun and interesting class features. It also has something the Sorceror doesn't. A reson NOT to jump into a PrC as quickly as possible. I see no reason for WotC not to make a class when the new one is better than the old. I can only see the Warlock as being overpowered if the DM has way more encounters per day than normal. Then, I could see it's advantages. The problem is that 'minor tweaks' to classes can vary from DM to DM. I think, for that reason, that clear cuts variants and some new classes are needed. UA helped a lot, but didn't cover everything. For example. The CA class that I love the most is the Scout. Many people would simply say "Play a Ranger". However I want to play a class that is great in the Wilderness but is 100% non magical. The Ranger certainly doesn't fit that bill. The CW spell less variant sure doesn't either. What about the UA Wilderness Rogue? That was the best I had going for me, but I hated the fact that it was a little too fragile for my liking (d6, low fort as opposed to the Scouts d8 and medium fort) and the fact that depite some switching of class skills, it had little in the way of wilderness related class features, and none before 10th level. Therefore, to me, the Scout was just what the doctor ordered. Sometimes making a variant is easier (making a Pirate or a Ninja for example), while sometimes a variant is just a little too hard to nail down and a new Core Class is needed (a core Gish, or the Spellthief for example.)
thasis 01-17-05, 06:15 PM	The reason for these classes is that people don't want to go to the trouble of multiclassing lots. Theoretically people are looking for a perfect class that they will never multi-class away from. Thats exactly what the Warlock does. There's absouloutly know point to multi-class all over the place. You just keep on going. I like that myself. Multi-Classing just spreads you out two much. Thats just my opinion though.
Kursk 01-17-05, 06:40 PM	I fivesixthsheartedly agree, the only time to create a new class is when it just can't be done adequately using existing class mechanics. A flavor difference is not an adequate reason to create an entirely new class. Totally agree. With the right combo of mutli calss, skills, feats you can make almost anything. Oh yeah, and the ability to role play, (lacking in most new players I've played with)
mercurywyrm 01-18-05, 12:49 AM	I find several classes that are new good, and am tempted to replace normal classes with them. Ranger, mostly because the spellcasting on them is a bit odd for their niche and I don't like Favored Enemy all that much, gets replaced by the much better designed scout class. The broken druid gets replaced by the Spirit Shaman who actually has tales beyond D&D that reflect him and is better balanced. Sorcerers, the most poorly designed class ever, get replaced with the Warlock, now all I got to do is modify the warlock mechanics and flavor to also fit for other alignments and ancestries. They also get replaced by the Shujenga who fills in a flavor gap of a highly spiritual elementally based mage class, which can go for blasting or close combat. Classes I don't like from the new books, in order of most hated to least: 1. Ninja: I don't think ninjas should be like this, it doesn't work out flavor wise with most fantasy and "historical" ninja stuff I have read, and heard. Plus the class balance is wonky and it is like a rouge with pycho-blink powers attached. 2. Spelltheif: Uhh, this sucks as far as mechanics goes, this character's power varies too much from encounter to encounter and I think may have been better off flavor wise as a prestige class for rouge spellcaster multiclasses. 3. Mashall: Go ahead and play this if you really want to be a subpar bard with medium armor proficiency and the ability to use more marial weapons. 4. Samorai: This class is even more of a pigeonhole than the core Barbarian... 5. Warmage: If I want to blast at things with different elements I will go play a video game like Metroid, or Fire Emblem, or Final Fantasy. This class serves a niche that has allready been shown to be subpar and uses class mechanics that really mess with some prestige classes and feats from other books balance. Classes I don't care much for but don't mind: 1. Favored Soul: Not really good at replacing a cleric but a bit better balanced and more sensically flavored IMO. 2. Hexblade: Too much of a Pigeonhole for me but the idea is cool enough and well enough implemented for me to allow, I don't like evil tendencies in classes so I shy away from this one. 3. Swashbuckler: Not enough skills to catch my intrest, mechanically looks worse than the ranger, rouge or fighter, three of it's closest relatives in class niche. 4. Wu Jen: Look, its a wizard only weirder! :eek: I think it holds its own but don't like playing with taboos myself. If I were to pick and choose classes from the core and the other books to allow I would probably go for: Spirit Shaman Rouge Scout Fighter Favored Soul Shujenga Psion Artificer Monk Warlock Weilder I would then include prestige class versions of the Bard(Rouge/Spirit Shaman prestige), Palladin(Favored Soul, Mounted Fighter), Ranger(Spirit Shaman/Scout/Fighter, tracker), Hexblade(for Warlock/Fighters), and Wizard(Artificer Prestige Class). I would also include the Warmind Prestige class to cover the ground of the psychic warrior.
Arcane Guyver 01-18-05, 01:26 AM	In a high-psionics campaign I can easily see a Spellthief (retrofitted for psionics, obviously) fitting in amazingly well - stabbing a psion in the back to leech power points and possibly cancel out his psionic focus is entirely feasible IMO. Running up behind a wizard, stabbing him in the back and somehow ripping a prepared 'Locate Object' out of his head is a much, much bigger stretch for me. I hadn't thought about comparing the Spirit Shaman with the Druid. I will have to do so. IMC right now I've basically replaced clerics with Favored Souls mechanically, and it's working quite well. What about Healers? I thought they were a nice idea, but I don't see them having a place in Eberron.
GypsyComet 01-18-05, 01:47 AM	Wow. Look at all that red make-up... Shamanism has "tales outside of D&D that support it"? Granted that D&D Druids are not at all connected to their real world namesakes, but Shamanism is a family of real, *living* religions found within cultures on all of the permanently occupied continents of Earth. That said, I rather like the Spirit Speaker (PrC) from a recent Dragon. Mechanically, it hits benign possession by, and invoked assistance from, helper spirits pretty well. As for all these new Base classes (not "Core"; that's the PHB/SRD only), many should be viewed as replacing existing base classes, not simply adding to the list. Several good examples of this exist, both in this thread and in print (Diamond Throne, forex).
BlaineTog 01-18-05, 01:55 AM	Honestly, we don't need anything other than the base four.Actually, we only need two: Magic-User (Options allow for both Arcane and Divine builds) Non-Magic-User (Options allow for both Dex/Skill and Str builds) My current opinion: Who gives a flying monkey how many core classes there are? As long as they are the sort of thing that needs 20 levels to accuratelly portray, can conceivably be taken from 1st level, and are balanced, there's no good reason not to add them. "I'm a Monk/Rogue/Ranger" just doesn't have the same oomph as "I'm a ninja." "I'm a Rogue/Fighter/Barbarian" isn't the same as "I'm a pirate."
Mark_Aurel 01-18-05, 05:52 AM	Mark_Aurel, very good point. In fact, I'm runnig a campiegn that is very loosely Roman vs Celt based. The "Celts" have Druids, Rangers, Barbarians, Bards, and Sorcerers, and few Rogues (wilderness) here and there. The "Romans" tend to have Clerics, fighters, wizards, and rogues(city based). Heh, that's funny. I run a similar campaign, sort of a Dark Ages British Isles style game; there are 'Romans,' 'Britons,' and 'Saxons.' They each have a set of classes permissible: The 'Romans' can play: Cleric, Fighter, Marshal, Noble, Paladin, Rogue, Wizard. The 'Britons' can play: Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock. The 'Saxons' can play: Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Fighter, Noble, Scout, Warlock. There's also the option to take some basic variants on some of these classes ('Saxon' bards can switch Fort and Reflex saves; 'Saxon' barbarians can gain additional DR or better rage by sacrificing some skill points and other barbarian abilities, making them more berserker-like) for some additional flavor. Each of the human races are also a subrace with some minor additional bonuses; the 'Britons' gain +1 on all Craft checks, the 'Romans' gain +1 on Diplomacy and Sense Motive, and the 'Saxons' gain +1 on Constitution checks and Fort saves to resist cold weather. There's actually more to it than that, but that's the basic gist of it. To me, the thing is that you can always play just the base four and pretend a class is whatever you like to pretend it as. Ultimately, it is a game of the imagination. However, I think when there are mechanics available that are better suited to emulating a particular type of character, those should be taken advantage of. That's one of the big leaps, I think, from previous incarnations of D&D into 3e/3.5e. There are established mechanics that enable you to emulate many more concepts mechanically than before, and with great modular ease. Widening the selection of character classes only helps that modularity. Not all classes are for all campaigns, but it's nice to have more than 11 classes to pick and choose from when creating a new campaign. Denying new character classes is a bit like denying the use of feats or whatever; they're a modular component to character building, part of the freedom that 3e/3.5e grants over previous editions. If you tinker with the mechanics of the core four, you are in effect introducing new classes anyway. I personally prefer formalized variants to random tinkering. It's easier to manage that way, and not accidentally imbalance something. I would like a longer list of variations upon existing classes, though, in the Unearthed Arcana style, or substitution level-style. When variants become too complex, though, I think it's time to just make a new class. The Scout is an example of this. You could modify a rogue quite a bit to make it do the same thing; written as a variant, it would get unwieldy and unelegant, however. I also think several of the new classes make better base classes than some of the core ones. Paladin or ranger are concepts that could easily be prestige classes. A scout, on the other hand, looks more like a core class to me than a ranger does. To be honest, I do think that many of the new core classes are poor or have little use, though. I prefer the original OA samurai to the one published in Complete Warrior. The Swashbuckler is neat, but I might've preferred a more generic 'dextrous fighter.' But there are several that I think are really good ideas mechanically and flavorwise, and that I'll use in my campaigns: Favored soul, hexblade, marshal, scout, spirit shaman, warlock, warmage.
Particle_Man 01-18-05, 11:46 AM	Let me give you an example: My friend would never play arcane casters like sorceror or wizard before. Now he is willing to play the Warlock. This is not a matter of power so much as a matter of extreme ease of bookkeeping. No spellbooks, no "what spells do I know today", no "do I still have 2 3rd level slots left today or 3", not even any "how many spell points do I have today". It is dead simple. You can keep your blasting and invoking up all day. Using spell-like abilities instead of spells as the class's core mechanic for a primary caster is such an extreme mechanical change that it affected a player's decision to play it. And NO ONE ever thought of it before (the ranger/paladin variants in CW don't count, as they were 1/day and they are not primary casters), so saying "Well you could just replace x with y" doesn't cut it for the sorceror. No one had. It took Wotc to show us how. It was an act of creativity for which I salute them. I bought complete arcane solely because of the Warlock. When next I run a 3.5 game, the sorceror and wizard are out, and the warlock is in.