Just wondering. I got into a huge debate about this the other day with a player in one of my games. While I think the Warlock is ingenious, and the Hexblade is pretty much okay, I truly can't stand any of the others- in my opinion they are trying too hard to replace the originals. Am I biased? Uninformed? Old-fashioned?
Just wondering. I got into a huge debate about this the other day with a player in one of my games. While I think the Warlock is ingenious, and the Hexblade is pretty much okay, I truly can't stand any of the others- in my opinion they are trying too hard to replace the originals. Am I biased? Uninformed? Old-fashioned?
I have a Hexblade/Rogue Ghestalt player in one game and the Hexblade parts seems ok. It's a fight that doesn't get the feats but gains access to self buffs and a few other neat tricks. I also have a Spelltheif player in my other game who fills the rogue position just fine without the social end of things. He is also able to be a partial spellcaster back up with the right scrolls and wands.
Other than that I haven't tried any of the others.
I'm not sure what you mean by "trying too hard to replace the originals," but to answer the question in your title for this thread: yes, I use new base classes. I like having the variety to choose from, and I think several of them are quite well designed. (Others, not so much.)
I think the majority of us feel the same way. I have a couple of the new base classes that I like ie the Scout and the Knight, but I usually get defensive and think they are trying to do away with the original base classes, which WILL NOT happen. We all love the original base classes because they are tired and true. You can have so much fun and diversity with the base classes that most people really don’t need 5 new base classes every month. In my opinion WotC knows this and has to give us “supped up” classes if you will, that can seem to “trump” older base class (yes I’m talking about you warmage and duskblade) to make us want to play this new shinny class. It can be fun to try out a new class or two, but like most, I always end up wanting to roll up a Barbarian or Wizard. I can just get so much more mileage out of the core base classes, which I usually don’t get from the new shinny base classes.
Just my humble opinion, Fizz
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
My current campaign consists of nothing but non-core classes (in fact, core classes are expressly prohibited). It's an interesting experiment. There is a _lot_ of high Charisma going around. It's funny because I hadn't realized what a design crutch Charisma is until I saw how many abilities in the non-core rules run off of it. It's a very cheap way to make a class weaker because it diverts points away from the other attributes that directly factor into combat. And, given the low skill points of many of the non-core classes, they have a difficult time monopolizing that high Charisma in non-combat situations.
But, outside of the context of this campaign, I don't use non-core classes. This isn't out of concern for power, but more for world building and my general sanity. Some non-core classes beg for organizations/backgrounds that I'm not necessarily willing to expend. Plus, if I want to have a wizards guild be an important friend/adversary in the campaign, I want to maximize the chance that the arcane spellcaster is a wizard. Providing a buffet of possible arcane spellcasters greatly reduces that chance.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Non-core classes that I've either played in a game with or run a game for so far:
Warlock, Swashbuckler, Knight, Beguiler, Hexblade, Samurai, and Favored Soul.
Yes, we use them pretty frequently, but the core classes are still a majority. The two games I'm currently in has the following parties:
Game 1: Fighter/Knight, Gun Mage/Rogue, Cleric, Sorcerer (IK)
Game 2: Bard, Wizard, Druid, Knight
I like the Swashbuckler and I am also a fan of the Warlock, and Scout.
Basically, it comes down to player-DM trust for me. I hate to say "no" to a player who I know will handle the class responsibly, but if it's just "ooh, new stuff, me wants!" I'm a little stricter. I personally don't like a lot of the new classes, either because I feel they do trump a core class (warmage to the sorcerer, for example), or are just poorly designed (samurai). Others I find interesting (swashbuckler, duskblade), but I don't see myself ever personally using them simply because I know the versatility and trust the core classes too much.
I've really come to love Sebastian's analogy of the classes to cars. The new classes are supped-up sports cars, while the core classes are tried and true, utilitarian sedans. Neither one is automatically, inherently "bad," they're just different. The new classes do a few things really well, while the core classes are pretty darn good at everything, but not quite as good at the new classes' specialized fields. I just prefer the versatility and "classic," even "basic" feel of the core classes.
One class I feel captures the feeling of the core classes really well is actually the warlock. It just has this unique style and set of abilities that makes it stand out from everything else, much like the base classes do (or even better, since there are overlaps in the PHB, like fighter/barbarian/paladin and sorcerer/wizard). The more I think about it, the less I get the "one trick poney" argument for their weakness. The same thing can be applied to a fighter, yet no one says fighters are weak.
I also agree with Sebastain in that it's just so much of a headache trying to keep track of all the new stuff there is out there, and some of it firmly requests the DM to do more than just allow it; they have to build a place for it in their world. That can be really onerous.
I like some of them (Knight, Warlock, Scout, Duskblade) and some of them are okay (Soulknife, Magic of Incarnum classes, Warmage). I let my players play any class unless it is overpowered. I don't think that the new classes can replace the core classes because, at least in my group, we always come back to the Sorcerer, Rogue, Ranger and Druid. Nothing can replace the core classes that we learned how to play with.
I like the swashbuckler and scout. Granted, WotC could have just given the Fighter and Rogue, respectively, alternative class features, but it's just as good to present them as new classes. It's of no importance either way.
I like the variety, but I'll admit that the duskblade, warlock, etc. are too narrowly focused to get much play in my campaigns.
I think we'll allow them in the upcoming campaign. I don't know if any players will actually take them, but I don't have any fundamental objection to them.
I've had a scout, hexblade, swashbuckler, and dragon shaman so far in my games. They're good classes but sometimes lack the focus of the core classes. Haven't seen the warmage in action yet, but I can see where it would step on the sorcs toes. The new Samurai class is just dumb, IMO. I liked the OA version SO much better, even though that got accused of being better thna the fighter (it kind was)
I let anyone play anything from any book I have; and as I have almost every single book and supplement; that is a pretty good list (though I am lazy and havent read them all). I am a strong believer that the gm should let players play anything they want and adjust the game accordingly; the only thing I set rules on of this nature is that charactes have to have the possiblility of working together so no blood enemies and leave my players to work out the details. On the critical side though; hmm the scout is a bit much as it seems to be built on the rouge class and has a lot of abilities and skill points as well as tuff in combat; not unmanagable though.
|
Swashbuckler has seen a lot of use in my campaigns, both with players and my own NPCs, as I prefer it's streamlined focus on the "nimble swordsman" over a Fighter/rogue combination that invariably leaves you with unnecessary armor proficiencies, weak skill points, and a lessened base attack. Of course, I do love my swashbuckler/rogues ;).
I do agree with the common crowd that certain non-core classes have either stepped well into an empty or weakly-filled role (scout, beguiler, and knight) or provide unique options (warlock, Incarnum, binder, Tome of Battle) of play, while others remain on the outskirts due to over-specialization (oriental classes, spirit shaman, spellthief, hexblade).
In my games, I prefer to keep my players' options open, but also then work to define their class's role within the world... if I've got a hexblade PC, then my mind will begin to plot out further ways to include the class in my campaign, otherwise I don't concern myself overly much.
Well, again, I don't do 3x but from my younger days I learned how certain character classes can be abused. Out of 2e I ended up banning the Bard. I found some mechanical issues that made them very dangerous to game balance if I weren't on top of my game every second.
Years ago I also ran Kevin Siembieda's old fantasy Palladium. I ended up banning the Witch class and the Changeling race, again because of game balance issues.
Seems to me that you should let them try anything and everything and only bar the stuff that seems to you (The Ultimate Arbiter of Everything) as too disturbing to the game. Let them play, but vocally reserve the right to ban the class at a later time if you judge it too unbalancing. If you have to invoke that right, at least you set the stage before hand.
This way you don't seem overly arbitrary and it will only take one or two bans before the players will suddenly become very careful about analysing a new class before they clamor for its use. They don't want to get hooked on it and then get it banned.
Yep, we use the new full classes.
My favorite class is now the Ninja.
In former campaigns we have had: warmage, ninja, hexblade, swashbuckler and dragon shaman.
In current 3 campaigns we have:
Scout x 2
Warmage x 1
Dragon Shaman x 1
Ninja x 1
Warlock x 1
So we have a pretty good representation of the new classes, and they don't seem unbalanced. Hexblade might seem a little weak, from my play experience, though.
-c
In all the various games I've been in/run, I can say this:
Hexblade, Spirit Shaman, Samurai, Duskblade.
That's the list of non-core base classes I HAVEN'T seen in play yet. With the possible exception of the warmage (which is really good, but I've seen it get pwnd a few times too) none of them seem overly strong relative to other classes. Spelltheif in particular I find to be one of the most fascinating classes.
Dread necromancers also rock the freaking world, but have serious weaknesses as well.
A lot of it depends on 1) the experience of the players and 2) the campaign world. If I'm running a game with more than one or two new/inexperienced players (and I mean inexperienced with pencil and paper D&D), I'll restrict the rules in play to the core books. Alternately, I may be running an alternate setting (either published or my own creation) that will restrict the available races, classes, equipment, etc.
Other than that, most of the non-core base classes seem OK. They seem fairly well balanced with regard to the core base classes. Some of them (favored soul, knight, scout, spirit shaman, swashbuckler, warmage, etc.) are different/specialized takes on the base classes, others (beguiler, duskblade, hexblade, spellthief, etc.) mix two party roles without the need for multiclassing, others still (ninja, samurai, shugenja, wu jen, etc.) are oriental flavor classes, and a handful (dragon shaman, warlock, etc.) are new concepts.
There is an element of power-creep in the supplements, but this is less the fault of the alternate base classes than the expanded selection of feats, spells, and prestige classes available. Even if you restrict the players to the core base classes, they will be significantly more powerful if you allow the rest of the choices in the expansions.
The biggest difficulty I see with non-core base classes is keeping up with them and getting a handle on their abilities. A moderately experienced DM pretty much knows what the core classes can do and can plan challenges accordingly. Even just using the complete series, you're talking about doubling the number of classes available, and it spins the DM's head for a while to keep up with them. I'm slowly incorporating them into my game, by playing or letting players play them occasionally.
On the whole, I'm happy with any class that I can reasonably incorporate into my campaign, that is not unbalanced, and that the player has put some thought into roleplaying. Oh, yes, and that I have the book for. Specific classes that I especially like/dislike:
Like: Warlock (really cool, new concept), swashbuckler (fills a niche), ninja, shugenja and wu-jen ('cause I dig OA--note that the shugenja's detect elements ability is really wacked and I'm not quite sure how I'd house-rule it to fix it, but the overall idea is interesting). Also sohei (OA with 3.5 update in Dragon 318), for same reason as above.
Dislike: Warmage (no versatility, trumps sorcerer, makes magic too mundane, and energy orb spells are way imbalanced).
For others, at the moment, I have no particular opinion.
One further note--I think some of the classes might be a bit more powerful than their core counterparts--I'm thinking of the rarely-miss eldritch blast and the scout's skirmish damage here, but I'm still evaluating these two in the campaign I'm running online. We'll see if these strengths allow the players in question to hog all the glory and chew up every challenge I send their way. (Yes, that means you, Eltanin!)
In the next game I run, I'll be allowing any base class, and even the option to create new ones if a player so desires. I may edit a non-core class if there's something I don't like about it, but I'll allow it. There's a strong possibility that it'll be a planescape game, so in that case there will be no issue with finding a place in the campaign world for all those options.
Thanks for the input, everyone. They still leave a bad taste in my mouth, but maybe I'm being crotchety. Any room on that porch for me, Fakey? :-)
|
|
Thanks for the input, everyone. They still leave a bad taste in my mouth, but maybe I'm being crotchety. Any room on that porch for me, Fakey? :-)
as long as you gots a cane and like telling the neighborhood kids to "stay off my lawn!" in a raspy voice, I think me and Heathy can skootch over a bit....
FH (younger than Heathy!)
I have a Spelltheif/Swashbuckler (and soon to be Legendary Captain), a WarPriest/Scout/Cleric, and a Ranger/Knight in the current campaign that I run. (plus a Wizard/Rainbow Servant and two cohorts. and their ship's crew) Everyone wants to be a scout, We've had Samurai, Warmage, Favoured Soul, and Dragon Shamans in previous campaigns. They're all OK, but have drawbacks not associated with the core classes (like a dependency on Charisma, and they can be hard to fit into your world). The Dragon Shaman seems like it is trying to get rid of a sweet prestige class (Dragon Disciple), So i'm not crazy about it. Also, i'm THE DM, so I did'nt get to play many of the classes, except the Warmage.
I think this may be my beef with these new base classes- not that they are trying to replace core classes, but maybe prestige classes, even (as someone mentioned above) alternate class features. I'd rather change something in existance than add something new, and I've had nothing but great experiences with them over new base classes. So far, I've had one person use them "correctly", everybody else was either new to the game and completely lost or more of a "new stuff! Gimme! Gimme!(Thanks, Saern)". There are just so many features of these new base classes that i think could have been handled better with a feat, prestige class, or alternate feature. Then again, maybe I'm getting grumpy as time goes on.
|
|
I have a Spelltheif/Swashbuckler (and soon to be Legendary Captain), a WarPriest/Scout/Cleric, and a Ranger/Knight in the current campaign that I run. (plus a Wizard/Rainbow Servant and two cohorts. and their ship's crew) Everyone wants to be a scout, We've had Samurai, Warmage, Favoured Soul, and Dragon Shamans in previous campaigns. They're all OK, but have drawbacks not associated with the core classes (like a dependency on Charisma, and they can be hard to fit into your world). The Dragon Shaman seems like it is trying to get rid of a sweet prestige class (Dragon Disciple), So i'm not crazy about it. Also, i'm THE DM, so I did'nt get to play many of the classes, except the Warmage.I think this may be my beef with these new base classes- not that they are trying to replace core classes, but maybe prestige classes, even (as someone mentioned above) alternate class features. I'd rather change something in existance than add something new, and I've had nothing but great experiences with them over new base classes. So far, I've had one person use them "correctly", everybody else was either new to the game and completely lost or more of a "new stuff! Gimme! Gimme!(Thanks, Saern)". There are just so many features of these new base classes that i think could have been handled better with a feat, prestige class, or alternate feature. Then again, maybe I'm getting grumpy as time goes on.
See this is where our opinions differ. I hate Prestige classes. I would rather have a 1-20 class that has all the flavor without the multiclassing. I want 1-20 classes only. I hate the classic wizard5/fighter5/eldritch knight10, or the rogue5/sorcerer5/arcane trickster10. I would rather have the Duskblade or maybe a class with less HP/level and more spell selection or the Beguiler, or a class with sneak attack and spells but less other features. Not some Frankensteined mix of 2 opposite classes that will let me merge into a decent PRC.
It is too much trouble trying to figure out which 2 classes can blend well enough to let me get into that PRC which truly captures the spirit of my PC.FH
In my new campaign, I have a knight PC. I am curious to see how the class works in gameplay. Otherwise, I didn´t have the chance to try them.
I think that these classes fill some specific niche in the games - basically, you could argue that a plain fighter could be a knight as well, with the right feats, and you don´t strictly need a knight defined as a separate class.
Stefan
I think this may be my beef with these new base classes- not that they are trying to replace core classes, but maybe prestige classes, even (as someone mentioned above) alternate class features. I'd rather change something in existance than add something new, and I've had nothing but great experiences with them over new base classes. So far, I've had one person use them "correctly", everybody else was either new to the game and completely lost or more of a "new stuff! Gimme! Gimme!(Thanks, Saern)". There are just so many features of these new base classes that i think could have been handled better with a feat, prestige class, or alternate feature. Then again, maybe I'm getting grumpy as time goes on.
See this is where our opinions differ. I hate Prestige classes. I would rather have a 1-20 class that has all the flavor without the multiclassing. I want 1-20 classes only. I hate the classic wizard5/fighter5/eldritch knight10, or the rogue5/sorcerer5/arcane trickster10. I would rather have the Duskblade or maybe a class with less HP/level and more spell selection or the Beguiler, or a class with sneak attack and spells but less other features. Not some Frankensteined mix of 2 opposite classes that will let me merge into a decent PRC.
It is too much trouble trying...Say, that's interesting! PrC vs. new base classes- two different styles of play! I'll consider that for an upcoming game, as well as (I think it was Fakey's) the idea for having a new base class only campaign.