New Core Classes Foundation [Archive] - Wizards Community

New Core Classes Foundation [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Gorfnod Wonderful
01-11-04, 01:04 AM I'm starting this foundation as I am seeing a lot of animosity towards all the new core classes in DnD and I'm tired of it. I love the new core classes and relish the thought of starting a char I wanna play at lvl 1 and not lvl 6. So he it is, anyone that enjoys all the new flexibility feel free to join.

Current Roster:
(Note: No numbers by the names as all members are equal in this foundation. Order of names only is by the order in which people joined. If I miss someone feel free to e-mail me.)

Gorfnod Wonderful
President Leebs
mercurywyrm
Robert rath
Jaerom Darkwind
Kenkai

Feel free to also share your ideas of new core classes but don't post every little idea unless you have put some thought in it. Also feel free to post links to any classes you have on other posts.
President Leebs
01-11-04, 10:33 AM ill join
Seeker95
01-11-04, 11:38 AM New flexibility?

The additional core classes straight-jacket you into a specialized set of skills and featas and abilities instead of allowing you flesh out a character the way you want. Rather than taking a fighter and selecting the feats, skills, and flavor additives (aka role-play), you get a swashbuckler, which is like a fighter but limited to the characteristics defined by the "new core" class write up.

New core classes do not add flexibility. They add pre-packaged choices. They turn class selection into a fast food menu with the McItem-of-the-Week packaged and ready to go... no creativity needed.

But I guess we have to have a foundation for everything under the sun.
Kaya Kenobi
01-11-04, 04:19 PM Originally posted by Seeker95
New flexibility?

Umm yeah.. what you said.

For someone who's all for 3.5, why so against one of the greatest 3.5 themes, namely all the new core classes that suddenly bloom up in EVERY book made for 3.5? :D Yes, this is sarcasm..

What I don't like is seeing a new class for every style under the sun, but I don't mind seeing Mystic being added to the 11 core classes to round out for an even 12.
mercurywyrm
01-11-04, 04:40 PM Yes, the new core classes are neccesary to represent the character concepts contained by them as a low level character and to keep abilities congruent with concept at high levels. I :love: the new core classes!:D So I shall join! However, I do think it would have been a better idea to make the core classes versitile enough that we wouldn't need new classes all the time.
Kaya Kenobi
01-11-04, 04:59 PM Originally posted by mercurywyrm
However, I do think it would have been a better idea to make the core classes versitile enough that we wouldn't need new classes all the time.

I totally agree.
Robert rath
01-11-04, 05:22 PM I would enjoy reading all of your custom core classes and I would also like all of you to take a look at mine.
Jaerom Darkwind
01-11-04, 06:21 PM I'm in. I recognize that the 11 core classes (classes in the core rules, not to be confused with base classes, classes with 20-level progressions) do not cover every possible option (especially when it comes to fighting classes). However, I think that about half of the new core classes that have been released are redundant and unnecesary. For example, the Marshal, the Warmage, the Samurai (the samurai in OA is a good core class; the samurai in CW screams "PrC for the samurai in OA!").

But, in general, the judicious creation of new core classes which cover obvious deficiencies in the core 11 (perfect example: agile/unarmored fighter) are a Good Thing, as long as it doesn't get out of hand.
Kaya Kenobi
01-11-04, 06:29 PM Originally posted by Jaerom Darkwind
But, in general, the judicious creation of new core classes which cover obvious deficiencies in the core 11 (perfect example: agile/unarmored fighter) are a Good Thing, as long as it doesn't get out of hand.

Ah, but it is... It seems like every post 3.5 book has at least 2-3 new core classes in each book. That is, my friend, getting out of hand.
Gorfnod Wonderful
01-11-04, 06:48 PM I do agree that some of the core classes I have seen and variants of existing classes do seem a little useless or redundant but I also feel that these classes do not limit the flexibility of a character. A character is still free to use any combination of character they choose and as always, if you don't like it then don't use it.
Stormweaver
01-12-04, 03:02 PM Fantasy flight game have some good core class variant in their "path of" Book in their Legend & Lairs series.

I'm all for variety.
Kenkai
01-12-04, 03:37 PM can we not argue over whether or not they are good? at least not on this thread?

i'll join.
danielinthewolvesden
01-12-04, 05:33 PM In general, I like the new "base" or core classes. I feel most of them fill a niche. There are those who feel anything beyond the "core 4" is needless, and you'll never please them.

However, I do feel that MOST of the new core classes written up here are useless. Especially the 337th new Swashbuckler- when only one player in the entire world (the author) will play it- and everyone else will play CW Swashbuckler- with maybe a tweak here or there.

I think that many of the new classes fill needed "player niches" also. For example- the Healer is fantastic for "the girlfreind" to play. "She" (they can also be little brothers or whatever) usually wants to play "because my freind/brother/husband does" and doesn't throw themself totally into knowing the rules or designing a role. If you have one of these fill some classes- they'll annoy some of the "hard-core" players at the table. But not if they run a Healer! They'll be everyones best freind!:angel:

Of course, like many- I think that the idea of the CW Samurai being a "Samurai" is ridiculous. But the class is balanced.
Gorfnod Wonderful
01-12-04, 09:32 PM Glad to see that we are finally getting some people on the thread. One question though, Stormweaver and
danielinthewolvesden are you joining or just posting. Well I hope everyone keeps contributing to the thread.
Kaya Kenobi
01-12-04, 10:19 PM I see the Healer more as an NPC class, because it's so specific that's all it could be. That is how I see that class.

How many other classes in CW are more of NPC than real class?
danielinthewolvesden
01-13-04, 06:47 PM Gorfnod- I don't really like the Foundation concept. However, this thread is more than just one of the "me too" threads that are most Foundation threads, it has some real meat to it.

Kaya- I somewhat agree- did you read my post where I outlined the player type I thought Healer was extra suitible for?

Interestingly, over on another Thread, one of the designers, Ed Stark said that they wished they had mentioned that the Samurai, Kensai & Ronin were more like a Western concept of what those classes would be. In other words- the Samurai is what a Western Warrior might decide on after reading about samurai, seeing them in action, etc. But not to replace a eastern Samurai-as-a-social-class.
Kaya Kenobi
01-13-04, 06:55 PM Originally posted by danielinthewolvesden
Gorfnod- I don't really like the Foundation concept. However, this thread is more than just one of the "me too" threads that are most Foundation threads, it has some real meat to it.

Kaya- I somewhat agree- did you read my post where I outlined the player type I thought Healer was extra suitible for?

I didn't see it, or I may have skipped over it, could you link or repost it here?
danielinthewolvesden
01-13-04, 07:04 PM Kaya- as you wish....

Originally posted by danielinthewolvesden
I think that many of the new classes fill needed "player niches" also. For example- the Healer is fantastic for "the girlfreind" to play. "She" (they can also be little brothers or whatever) usually wants to play "because my freind/brother/husband does" and doesn't throw themself totally into knowing the rules or designing a role. If you have one of these fill some classes- they'll annoy some of the "hard-core" players at the table. But not if they run a Healer! They'll be everyones best freind!:angel:

:angel:
Silmarien Aldalome
04-15-04, 01:02 AM g'day posters and welcome to the new game world.

hope your migratory flight went well.

You can post IC or otherwise - and think of where we are in terms of "between thread" interactions as well.

But - exactly what we want it to look at is to be discussed at a Great Council (Finwe's started a thread).

regards
stav
RoastSlinky
04-26-04, 05:29 AM I'll join... I like the new classes... especially the Hexblade, which fills a niche not before filled and does it with style. My players have been facing a Hexblade BBEG for the last 2 sessions... I like him, but they probably don't (-6 to all rolls for hours on end! BWAHAHAHA!!!*cough*).

Also, I do like quite a few of the new classes over on the classes board- I've had my players play BlaineTog's Voice of God, Shadowfoot's Swashbuckler and Archer, and my Eye of God. I've also used Shadowfoot's Profession class extensively for NPCs.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gorfnod Wonderful 01-11-04, 01:04 AM	I'm starting this foundation as I am seeing a lot of animosity towards all the new core classes in DnD and I'm tired of it. I love the new core classes and relish the thought of starting a char I wanna play at lvl 1 and not lvl 6. So he it is, anyone that enjoys all the new flexibility feel free to join. Current Roster: (Note: No numbers by the names as all members are equal in this foundation. Order of names only is by the order in which people joined. If I miss someone feel free to e-mail me.) Gorfnod Wonderful President Leebs mercurywyrm Robert rath Jaerom Darkwind Kenkai Feel free to also share your ideas of new core classes but don't post every little idea unless you have put some thought in it. Also feel free to post links to any classes you have on other posts.
President Leebs 01-11-04, 10:33 AM	ill join
Seeker95 01-11-04, 11:38 AM	New flexibility? The additional core classes straight-jacket you into a specialized set of skills and featas and abilities instead of allowing you flesh out a character the way you want. Rather than taking a fighter and selecting the feats, skills, and flavor additives (aka role-play), you get a swashbuckler, which is like a fighter but limited to the characteristics defined by the "new core" class write up. New core classes do not add flexibility. They add pre-packaged choices. They turn class selection into a fast food menu with the McItem-of-the-Week packaged and ready to go... no creativity needed. But I guess we have to have a foundation for everything under the sun.
Kaya Kenobi 01-11-04, 04:19 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 New flexibility? Umm yeah.. what you said. For someone who's all for 3.5, why so against one of the greatest 3.5 themes, namely all the new core classes that suddenly bloom up in EVERY book made for 3.5? :D Yes, this is sarcasm.. What I don't like is seeing a new class for every style under the sun, but I don't mind seeing Mystic being added to the 11 core classes to round out for an even 12.
mercurywyrm 01-11-04, 04:40 PM	Yes, the new core classes are neccesary to represent the character concepts contained by them as a low level character and to keep abilities congruent with concept at high levels. I :love: the new core classes!:D So I shall join! However, I do think it would have been a better idea to make the core classes versitile enough that we wouldn't need new classes all the time.
Kaya Kenobi 01-11-04, 04:59 PM	Originally posted by mercurywyrm However, I do think it would have been a better idea to make the core classes versitile enough that we wouldn't need new classes all the time. I totally agree.
Robert rath 01-11-04, 05:22 PM	I would enjoy reading all of your custom core classes and I would also like all of you to take a look at mine.
Jaerom Darkwind 01-11-04, 06:21 PM	I'm in. I recognize that the 11 core classes (classes in the core rules, not to be confused with base classes, classes with 20-level progressions) do not cover every possible option (especially when it comes to fighting classes). However, I think that about half of the new core classes that have been released are redundant and unnecesary. For example, the Marshal, the Warmage, the Samurai (the samurai in OA is a good core class; the samurai in CW screams "PrC for the samurai in OA!"). But, in general, the judicious creation of new core classes which cover obvious deficiencies in the core 11 (perfect example: agile/unarmored fighter) are a Good Thing, as long as it doesn't get out of hand.
Kaya Kenobi 01-11-04, 06:29 PM	Originally posted by Jaerom Darkwind But, in general, the judicious creation of new core classes which cover obvious deficiencies in the core 11 (perfect example: agile/unarmored fighter) are a Good Thing, as long as it doesn't get out of hand. Ah, but it is... It seems like every post 3.5 book has at least 2-3 new core classes in each book. That is, my friend, getting out of hand.
Gorfnod Wonderful 01-11-04, 06:48 PM	I do agree that some of the core classes I have seen and variants of existing classes do seem a little useless or redundant but I also feel that these classes do not limit the flexibility of a character. A character is still free to use any combination of character they choose and as always, if you don't like it then don't use it.
Stormweaver 01-12-04, 03:02 PM	Fantasy flight game have some good core class variant in their "path of" Book in their Legend & Lairs series. I'm all for variety.
Kenkai 01-12-04, 03:37 PM	can we not argue over whether or not they are good? at least not on this thread? i'll join.
danielinthewolvesden 01-12-04, 05:33 PM	In general, I like the new "base" or core classes. I feel most of them fill a niche. There are those who feel anything beyond the "core 4" is needless, and you'll never please them. However, I do feel that MOST of the new core classes written up here are useless. Especially the 337th new Swashbuckler- when only one player in the entire world (the author) will play it- and everyone else will play CW Swashbuckler- with maybe a tweak here or there. I think that many of the new classes fill needed "player niches" also. For example- the Healer is fantastic for "the girlfreind" to play. "She" (they can also be little brothers or whatever) usually wants to play "because my freind/brother/husband does" and doesn't throw themself totally into knowing the rules or designing a role. If you have one of these fill some classes- they'll annoy some of the "hard-core" players at the table. But not if they run a Healer! They'll be everyones best freind!:angel: Of course, like many- I think that the idea of the CW Samurai being a "Samurai" is ridiculous. But the class is balanced.
Gorfnod Wonderful 01-12-04, 09:32 PM	Glad to see that we are finally getting some people on the thread. One question though, Stormweaver and danielinthewolvesden are you joining or just posting. Well I hope everyone keeps contributing to the thread.
Kaya Kenobi 01-12-04, 10:19 PM	I see the Healer more as an NPC class, because it's so specific that's all it could be. That is how I see that class. How many other classes in CW are more of NPC than real class?
danielinthewolvesden 01-13-04, 06:47 PM	Gorfnod- I don't really like the Foundation concept. However, this thread is more than just one of the "me too" threads that are most Foundation threads, it has some real meat to it. Kaya- I somewhat agree- did you read my post where I outlined the player type I thought Healer was extra suitible for? Interestingly, over on another Thread, one of the designers, Ed Stark said that they wished they had mentioned that the Samurai, Kensai & Ronin were more like a Western concept of what those classes would be. In other words- the Samurai is what a Western Warrior might decide on after reading about samurai, seeing them in action, etc. But not to replace a eastern Samurai-as-a-social-class.
Kaya Kenobi 01-13-04, 06:55 PM	Originally posted by danielinthewolvesden Gorfnod- I don't really like the Foundation concept. However, this thread is more than just one of the "me too" threads that are most Foundation threads, it has some real meat to it. Kaya- I somewhat agree- did you read my post where I outlined the player type I thought Healer was extra suitible for? I didn't see it, or I may have skipped over it, could you link or repost it here?
danielinthewolvesden 01-13-04, 07:04 PM	Kaya- as you wish.... Originally posted by danielinthewolvesden I think that many of the new classes fill needed "player niches" also. For example- the Healer is fantastic for "the girlfreind" to play. "She" (they can also be little brothers or whatever) usually wants to play "because my freind/brother/husband does" and doesn't throw themself totally into knowing the rules or designing a role. If you have one of these fill some classes- they'll annoy some of the "hard-core" players at the table. But not if they run a Healer! They'll be everyones best freind!:angel: :angel:
Silmarien Aldalome 04-15-04, 01:02 AM	g'day posters and welcome to the new game world. hope your migratory flight went well. You can post IC or otherwise - and think of where we are in terms of "between thread" interactions as well. But - exactly what we want it to look at is to be discussed at a Great Council (Finwe's started a thread). regards stav
RoastSlinky 04-26-04, 05:29 AM	I'll join... I like the new classes... especially the Hexblade, which fills a niche not before filled and does it with style. My players have been facing a Hexblade BBEG for the last 2 sessions... I like him, but they probably don't (-6 to all rolls for hours on end! BWAHAHAHA!!!cough). Also, I do like quite a few of the new classes over on the classes board- I've had my players play BlaineTog's Voice of God, Shadowfoot's Swashbuckler and Archer, and my Eye of God. I've also used Shadowfoot's Profession class extensively for NPCs.