Classes: the basic four or a whole bunch of them?

[Geoffrey]

Generally speaking, do you prefer campaigns with only the four basic classes (clerics, fighters, magic-users, and thieves), or do you prefer to also include a whole bunch of other classes (druids, paladins, rangers, illusionists, assassins, monks, bards, etc.)?

[serleran]

I have grown to like the racial class, so I like to see elf, dwarf, and gnome as an option, with some selective capacity so that they're not all identical.

But, beyond that, I actually prefer to build classes so each character is unique in all respects. The fighters in the armies of The Standalone Steppes, for example, are vastly different than those from Garnock Grim (both places on my Windswept World) and I feel it is easier to represent that by making them different "classes" even if they share the same underlying guidelines.

[SmootRK]

I prefer some alternate class choices to achieve some archetypes.

For instance, when one wants a light fast moving swashbuckler fighter type (that is not a Thief), one needs some changes from the standard fighter... otherwise, your fighter is simply sub-par to an otherwise equivalent Sword-n-Board style fighter who is doing things the 'standard way'.

The easiest way for me to do this without a mass of extraneous house-rules, is to utilize an appropriate class offering that suits the archetype one is going for. It is just easier to have such qualities coded directly to a class, than to try to come up with various ways to tweak out the standard (4) classes with various options... plus in most cases, somebody has done the work for me already in making a class that I can use by just dropping it in.

[SinVraal]

I like the race as class ones as well as Paladin, Bard and Ranger.

[Fitz]

I favour the idea of starting characters in one of the Big Four, and making sub-classes available down the track. Like the idea of having to get to 5th level as a Fighter and have the requisite stats before you can become a Paladin (which comes from somebody or other's clone, but I can't remember which one off the cuff).

[DiscoJer]

I like them. I mean, D&D started off with two, then people kept making more and more and more, either officially or unofficially.

I admit, some of them can get silly, things like "Blade Dancers", and I'm not crazy about racial classes (especially since eventually different racial classes come out, like in BECMI having Elf, then later Elf Warrior for non-F/MU elves. And you'd need to come up with an Elf Cleric class to do Drow properly)

The other thing is, it seems to me that out of the big 4, 1 is rather useless/redundant. The Thief. Almost every "thief" in classic fantasy literature is more just a really athletic fighter with some thieving skills. The Grey Mouser, young Conan (early 20s) and probably Cugel the Clever at least.

I favour the idea of starting characters in one of the Big Four, and making sub-classes available down the track. Like the idea of having to get to 5th level as a Fighter and have the requisite stats before you can become a Paladin (which comes from somebody or other's clone, but I can't remember which one off the cuff).

BECMI did that, when a Fighter was 9th level, he could become a Paladin, Avenger, or Knight, depending on his alignment. And neutral Clerics could become Druids that way.

[Ravendas]

I use 2e, so the phb classes are in, except for the Cleric which is out. I use the Priest Handbook priests in place of clerics. More flavorful, and more balanced along with druids in 2e.

I allow kits to modify the classes, as long as they get my seal of approval. Luckily my group doesn't have any power gamers (yet) trying to make some ridiculous 'uber' character combinations.

[DungeonDevil]

If the inspiration lies in fantasy/S&S lit, then do what ye will!

[artikid]

The basic four with multiclassing covers it all, and I hate race as class.

[PaladinesAngel]

Ewwwww definately not just the basic four. They are the dullest of the whole bunch. The lot for sure.

[garhkal]

I favour the idea of starting characters in one of the Big Four, and making sub-classes available down the track. Like the idea of having to get to 5th level as a Fighter and have the requisite stats before you can become a Paladin (which comes from somebody or other's clone, but I can't remember which one off the cuff).

Or getting a few dozen adventures down so you learn the system before they get offered as replacement characters.

[Matthew-]

The four basic classes, with some subclasses occasionally thrown in for variety.

[Maliki]

It depends, I'm fine with the 4 basic classes as long as their is some way to customize the class. (Skills, kits, proficiencies, feats, talents, etc.) I don't want every fighter to be the same as every other fighter. If there is no way to customize the basic classes, then I am fine with a variety of classes.

[Clangador]

I'll take a whole bunch. I don't like race as class, but I put up with it when playing Basic.

[genghisdon]

I like some extras, but I'd be happy to see them rotate in or out by the campaign. Each campaign thus has different classes available.

I like about 6-8 classes for PC's in a given campaign. I wouldn't even say the "big 4" are always desireous to have (clerics in particular can get the boot often, and generic D&D Magi are next most likely to get tossed).

[Finarvyn]

In general, I'd prefer to have enough classes so that each player can be a different one. I like to stick to the "big four" but if I have more than 4 players in a campaign I like to add a couple more options.

[Corathon]

"Bunch of classes, and no racial classes" is my preference. I'd play in a game that had only 4 classes or had race as class, though.

[Bedivere]

Classes and subclasses - basically btb PHB.

[francisca]

I prefer the big 4. I have a couple of homebrew classes, the Strider and Fortune Hunter, which are a ranger type and an Indiana Jones type, respectively that pop up in my games now and then, as well.

[Kyrel]

I voted Other (Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief, Dwarf, Elf and Halfling). From my list, one can see I enjoy "Basic" (or what have you) D&D the best. I have neither want nor need for other character classes. The seven listed above fill all the gaps just fine, and, if need be, can be tweaked to suit any player's individual taste.

[Grypharius]

Lot'so classes. I despise race as class. I don't like the idea that if you've met one elf . . . you've met them all.

"Ahhh, I see you're a halfling clad in leather that must mean you're a thief."

"Excuse me ?!?!? I happen to be a druidess of Sheela
Peryroyl Our Holy Mother of The Field and Garden. My
companions and I have been sent hear to route the goblin clan that have been ravaging your orchards, and
disrupting the trade route that runs on it's eastern borders. Oh, I'm sorry. You must be one of those archetypical thick headed humans I've heard about."

[Justisaur]

I prefer some alternate class choices to achieve some archetypes.

For instance, when one wants a light fast moving swashbuckler fighter type (that is not a Thief), one needs some changes from the standard fighter... otherwise, your fighter is simply sub-par to an otherwise equivalent Sword-n-Board style fighter who is doing things the 'standard way'.

The easiest way for me to do this without a mass of extraneous house-rules, is to utilize an appropriate class offering that suits the archetype one is going for. It is just easier to have such qualities coded directly to a class, than to try to come up with various ways to tweak out the standard (4) classes with various options... plus in most cases, somebody has done the work for me already in making a class that I can use by just dropping it in.

+1

...and I'd like to see that swashbuckler class

[monk]

Basic four plus Robots. And Wuukies and Witch Doctors. Y'know, to cover the basic Jungian archetypes: Warrior, Sage, Puer Aeternus, Friend That Occasionally Steals From You, Asperger's Guy, Sicko, and Hairy Greek.

[outlander78]

I voted for the basic four, because "a whole bunch" is too many.

I like the following classes, plus BECMI's race-as-class, but do not want to see any growth beyond, as too many become unwieldy:

fighter, ranger, paladin, monk
cleric, druid
magic-user, specialist mage
thief, bard

So not quite 1E or 2E by-the-book, but reasonably close. I believe that adding in cavaliers, barbarians, archers, witches, sorcerers, prestige classes, kits and so on makes for too much muddle.

[winemaker81]

I first voted basic 4, but changed my vote as I use all PH subclasses. Most of the time PCs are the basic 4, but that is player choice and dice rolls.

[Owesstaer]

The more choice there is, the better I like it. This also extends to kits, though they will have to fit the setting!
In terms of races however I sometimes was close to forbidding elves as half or more of the party wanted to create their elven princesses -.-

[garhkal]

Lot'so classes. I despise race as class. I don't like the idea that if you've met one elf . . . you've met them all.

"Ahhh, I see you're a halfling clad in leather that must mean you're a thief."

"Excuse me ?!?!? I happen to be a druidess of Sheela
Peryroyl Our Holy Mother of The Field and Garden. My
companions and I have been sent hear to route the goblin clan that have been ravaging your orchards, and
disrupting the trade route that runs on it's eastern borders. Oh, I'm sorry. You must be one of those archetypical thick headed humans I've heard about."

I'm lucky i had nothing in my mouth, otherwise my keyboard would be covered.. that was funny!
PS edited as i saw i quoted the wrong guy... sorry..

I'm at a loss...

I didn't realize i had quoted the wrong post..

[SmootRK]

I prefer some alternate class choices to achieve some archetypes.

For instance, when one wants a light fast moving swashbuckler fighter type (that is not a Thief), one needs some changes from the standard fighter... otherwise, your fighter is simply sub-par to an otherwise equivalent Sword-n-Board style fighter who is doing things the 'standard way'.

The easiest way for me to do this without a mass of extraneous house-rules, is to utilize an appropriate class offering that suits the archetype one is going for. It is just easier to have such qualities coded directly to a class, than to try to come up with various ways to tweak out the standard (4) classes with various options... plus in most cases, somebody has done the work for me already in making a class that I can use by just dropping it in.

+1

...and I'd like to see that swashbuckler class

I'm lucky i had nothing in my mouth, otherwise my keyboard would be covered.. that was funny!

Well, i play BFRPG, but the lightly armored fighter class that i use is available here in the simacrulum downloads (Additional Fighting Sub-Classes)... The Gladiator, but a simple name change makes it a workable "duelist". I know it works well in that capacity... I wrote it.

[apprentice]

I like the four basic classes for player characters. And random weird ones for NPCs and the occasional henchman. Having a ninja henchman is awesome. Rolling up a ninja to play is lame.

Unless someone wants to roll up a Menage or has an idea for a "Monk-Acrobat," in which case I don't want to argue or get into a lawsuit.

[shadowmane]

I favor the four basic classes. You can pretty much tweak any of the four to get to your idea of a character.