Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lawz420 02-22-07, 11:30 AM	recently our game has included a scout, a favored soul, a knight, a warlock and the one old fashioned paladin this being y first dive into 3.5 with the expansion books , I have to question is there somthing missing not having the rogue find traps or the cleric turning undead or even the fighter feating himself out ? I have found over the last 3 months that these non core classes can accomplish the same things all core charecters could , however they have to be a little more onventive when it comes to basics Traps for example pose a threat as the scout can find them but has a hard time disabling them. The favored soul and paladin can heal but their turn undead is horrible or non existent. The Knight can take the blows but when it comes to dishing it out he sometimes hits less then the high strength warlock. Lastly the warlock is really good at adding the extra damage from a spellcaster that you expect to see however fails whenever a non combat encounter comes up (eg: no knock, invis, spiderclimb etc ) So to all I pose a question Do you prefer core or non core class base or do you a prefer a mix and why ?
Krusk 02-22-07, 11:50 AM	We usually play with any base class allowed. We for flavor reasons restrict out some of the more oriental classes, wu jen samauri ect. but other than that we go with a mix as the players want.
gullas 02-22-07, 01:12 PM	well our group is more into the core classes then the expanted ones:)...
Lecen_of_Mitran 02-22-07, 01:39 PM	Traps for example pose a threat as the scout can find them but has a hard time disabling them. Why are you saying that? Donīt you know that they made an errata saying that "Disable Device" is a Scoutīs skill? Please, donīt tell me that your friend has been all this time taking that feat as a cross skill! Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!! :D :D
marcel_deathbringer 02-22-07, 02:05 PM	Well, I am more of a Core Character Class person myself. I am actually getting ready to have my sorc. take levels as Dragon Disciple, but besides that, I don't think I have ever played anything besides a core character class. On the other hand, the rest of my group goes bonkers for All the other "stuff" I believe a couple of them own almost every 3.5 book ever created. I just don't get it. I guess I just like simplicity and functionality.
JoAT 02-22-07, 02:15 PM	Honestly, I actually prefer the newer, expansion classes. From what I've seen, the melee-types tend to be stronger, the caster types tend to be weaker, and the skill-monkeys stay just about the same, moving things towards a more balanced and easier to adjudicate state. I also enjoy parties that try to make it without one or more of the big four 'character types' - recently, a group composed of a cleric/warlock, a wilder and a warmage/wizard went through a trap and sneak filled dungeon, and the amount of ingenuity displayed was quite high.
Kursk 02-22-07, 02:46 PM	In my game, yes. As most other classes aren't available.
journeyman777 02-22-07, 06:16 PM	Traps for example pose a threat as the scout can find them but has a hard time disabling them. Thank the WotC gods for errata. Scout can now fulfill the trapfinder role perfectly well. The favored soul and paladin can heal but their turn undead is horrible or non existent.Meh, not having turn undead is like not having a ranger with favored enemy undead. The extra power is nice when it's relevant, but unless the campaign is focused on that type of foe, you won't really miss it. (not having to deal with DMM cheese makes me even more fond of divine casters that lack turning) The Knight can take the blows but when it comes to dishing it out he sometimes hits less then the high strength warlock.I wonder at the build your knight is using. My group's knight is barely optimised but rarely misses on any roll higher than a 4. Lastly the warlock is really good at adding the extra damage from a spellcaster that you expect to see however fails whenever a non combat encounter comes up (eg: no knock, invis, spiderclimb etc ) Must be his choice of invocations. Baleful Utterance is a solid utility effect and there are invocations for invisibility, spiderclimb, charm person, suggestion, and dispel magic among other effects. Heck, Beguiling Influence by itself can make the warlock more useful in interpersonal situations than a wizard or even sorcerer. So to all I pose a question Do you prefer core or non core class base or do you a prefer a mix and why?I prefer a mix, but that's mostly because I own so many of the books and have played many of the classes multiple times already. Some of the newer classes I don't like (you wouldn't catch me playing a spirit shaman or warmage), but there are others I would love to see in the PHB whenever 4.0 rolls around (knight and scout definitely). In fact, my new favorite class is binder. I spend my free time making up new vestiges just to further support the system. I guess the most telling thing to note is that my group has had a non-core base class in pretty much every party for more than a year now and we like them even more now. We've had entire parties without a single core class function just fine.
kelvinaw273 02-22-07, 07:05 PM	A good group will play whatever they like and play to their strengths with good tactics.
Seeker95 02-22-07, 08:11 PM	I prefer a three base class system: Warrior - Rogue - Caster Every other possible class -- core, base, or prestige -- is build through the appropriate feat, skill, multi-classing, personality, equipment, and "special ability" selections. Yes, I intend to build 4e before WotC does.