Anyone use any "A Touch of Class" material in campaigns?

[ChampionWiggles]

For those that don't know what "A Touch of Class" is, it's a supplement for 5e that was backed on Kickstarter that adds 5 completely new classes to 5e. It's not made by WotC. Here is a link to the material if you want to take a gander:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B16y1B6WvSSTeDJWaWtQaFo1blE/view

Anyways, I'm going to be DMing a group here soon for a small campaign just to give our main DM a break from the lengthy campaign we've been doing for over a year now. A few people in the group want to use classes from this and I'm a little hesitant to allow it. I haven't been able to analyze the stuff in depth, but a quick glance at the classes just kind of seem like they aren't balanced very well in terms of gameplay (Or at least a few of them aren't). I was mostly just curious if people had used any of the material before in their campaigns and what their experience and opinions on it were. But even if you haven't used the material, what are people's thoughts on this? I'm probably not going to let them use it in the campaign for a number of reasons. I'm still very new to DMing so I don't want to make things more complicated by adding extra classes, I'm not fond of adding non-WotC material to campaigns, and I either don't like the classes or don't think they are very balanced.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm probably not going to let them use it in the campaign for a number of reasons. I'm still very new to DMing so I don't want to make things more complicated by adding extra classes, I'm not fond of adding non-WotC material to campaigns, and I either don't like the classes or don't think they are very balanced.
Those all sound like excellent reasons not to allow the book.

[mgshamster]

First off, just because something is non WotC doesn't man it's bad. And EN World has a history of decently balanced material. I, too, used to have a mistrust of any 3PP material. So one day I went out to the 3PP community and opened a discussion with the professionals in the industry. What I discovered was that 3rd Party Publishers have come a long way since the days of 3e, and have significantly improved. Just like WotC has improved over the years. And oft times (especially in the case of Paizo), professional 3PP material was better balanced than core material.

Where you primarily saw poor material was with amateurs or with material that is not play tested. And this is most notably true of any material published on DanDWiki. But these classes are not DanDWiki, they're EN World, and EN World has a good reputation. I bet we could find threads on the EN World forum where people have discussed and play tested those classes. In fact, you'd be better off posting this topic there than here.

Even though you're a new DM, the only classes you have to care about are the ones your players are playing, so it won't be any additional material as far as you're concerned.

If you do allow it, just be sure to have open and honest communication with your players: "If I feel something is over or under powered, I reserve the right to change an ability or to remove the ability/spell/class from the game."

[Findulidas]

There is enough material to make a myriad of diffrent classes just by the published official material. If you are a first time dm then its completely fine to just say that you want to go only with that.

[Scripten]

The classes in the book aren't the worst homebrew I've ever seen, at least. Depending on the feel of your campaign, I'd definitely recommend reading each class thoroughly before allowing it as well as, like mgshamster said, ensuring that your players know that their abilities may be modified over time for balance.

The reason I mention the feel of your campaign is because these classes fundamentally change the world in which they exist. Quasi-magical alchemy and Tarot card casters are unique, but they also introduce the expectation that those elements will exist in the world. Besides the fact that you may not be comfortable with introducing things like Tarot into your world, it will add more work to your already significant todo list as DM.

A number of these custom classes can be recreated with some amount of creativity and the vanilla classes/backgrounds. There are also some which restrict or determine alignment, which you may or may not be comfortable with.

[Laserlight]

When DMing, I tend to say "Yes, but this does not create a precedent." So I would allow it.
Caveat the first: I'm not a new DM
Caveat the second: Two of my players will squeeze every drop of optimization they can; the rest are less likely to. Depending on who's proposing it, I might well ask "What's the attraction of that class? What can you do with it that you can't do out of the PHB?"
Caveat the third: I'd tell people up front "If it's broken, I'll nerf it. We'll talk about how much nerfing it needs to be comparable to PHB. If you decide you can't live with the nerf, you can re-spec the character or retire her and bring in another one, no penalty."

Same applies to UA stuff.

[mgshamster]

A number of these custom classes can be recreated with some amount of creativity and the vanilla classes/backgrounds. There are also some which restrict or determine alignment, which you may or may not be comfortable with.

I thoroughly agree with this. There's a lot of variety using just the phb and a bit of refluffing that can recreate the feel of the majority of Homebrew and 3pp classes. Rarely do we need a mechanical change to get the feel we want.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

I'm probably not going to let them use it in the campaign for a number of reasons. I'm still very new to DMing so I don't want to make things more complicated by adding extra classes, I'm not fond of adding non-WotC material to campaigns, and I either don't like the classes or don't think they are very balanced.As a new/fill-in DM, you are totally within your rights to not allow the material and to ask them to save whatever plans the players have for that material for when your regular DM is back behind the screen to deal with it.

[Sariel Vailo]

I might use this.so thank you

[Honest Tiefling]

There is enough material to make a myriad of diffrent classes just by the published official material. If you are a first time dm then its completely fine to just say that you want to go only with that.

This. I firmly believe that any successful DnD group is going to be the result of compromise between the Dungeon Master, players, and...Reality. Sometimes, it is good for both parties to go outside of their comfort zone. In other ways, it is a unwise idea.

If you do not feel that you are comfortable using these classes, that should be reason enough. I would be completely honest about if you do or do not intend to use them in the future, but it's a very pushy player who wants a first time DM to get outside of their comfort zone. DMing, especially as a first time DM, is hard and time-consuming. I think this is a fine time to outright ban this material.

[Waterdeep Merch]

After reading through them, I'm not sure I'd recommend their use in most campaigns.

The alchemist is the best of the bunch, but I think the artificer up on the DM's Guild right now looks more fun. Still, this one is well-balanced and isn't too difficult to use. If you aren't using the one from the DM's Guild, this is respectable.

Scientific sorcery is just a set of character options. If you've got that one player that absolutely must play an alchemist, it's usable. Otherwise I wouldn't bother.

The cardcaster is, as far as I can tell, well-balanced, possibly fun to play, and would ruin your game. Because of the random nature of the cards and the sheer variety of spells each one can possibly cast, you'd need to flip through the PHB a ton. Having niche utility spells be on cards is also a terrible design, because the few times they might actually be useful you might not get them. And that's before we get into the unique card mechanics which will be in play at the same time as all the normal combat, eating up time and making each combat turn taken by the cardcaster take way too long. Everyone will hate this player, and it's not a concept that needs a dedicated class. Just play a wizard that uses tarot cards as a focus.

The diabolist should be a subclass of warlock, frankly. Or possibly wizard, or even cleric. It's a summoner-type. Add in some summoning abilities and you're good to go. It's just not interesting enough as a full class for all this. They didn't do enough interesting with the conjuring points, it's otherwise built for melee but would suffer there with such shoddy defense, and the lack of true spellcasting is weird and inherently very weak next to a warlock. And it's flavor isn't really any different from an infernal warlock, no matter what they tried saying about a diabolist's superiority to a warlock (hah!)

The feywalker, again, should be a subclass. This time of ranger, rogue, or even fighter or barbarian. The concept just doesn't need a full class, and it doesn't communicate anything. It's a teleporting spell-less beastmaster ranger? Bleh. Play a ranger and just write fairies into your background.

The morph is wholly unnecessary. Besides being janky rules-wise, it's just a beast druid that lacks spellcasting in exchange for more powerful forms. I rarely hear beast druids clamoring for this, and removing spellcasting makes them less interesting overall. Play a druid.

Having a noble class makes being a noble less interesting. It's a title. Add it onto any existing chassis. There's zero reason to make a mechanical form of it. They're also terrible here. Play a battlemaster fighter or a mastermind rogue if you want to direct your friends. And literally anything as a noble.

Occultists... play a wizard. Or an artificer. Or a warlock. It fits the theme better. Yes, they're mechanically different, but that's actually what I take most umbrage with. How in the hell do you have someone that practices the 'occult' in a D&D universe that can't cast spells? The occult's all about magic! Fiddly rules and exceptions round out a class that's again built to work best on the frontline but can't actually survive being there. Play a tome warlock.

My biggest gripe is that these classes don't accomplish any theme that can't be easily made with the rules that already exist (except the alchemist, if you don't use the artificer). That, and their rules are either fiddly or really weak.

[War_lord]

If it was me (and I'm running my first real game Friday), I'd say no. You're a first time DM, there's no way you could really judge the fairness of any homebrew material. I would recommend telling them to keep it to the PHB for now, you'll have enough to juggle already without worrying about how 3rd party content will interact with it.