Basic classes and various derivations

[MadLuke]

It is not just a provocation, is a thought that I have since some time: am I the only one to think that, deep down, the 4 basic classes (cleric, fighter, thief and mage) and multiclass, but only among those 4 are the most "strong"? And that really rangers, druids, bards, Spell Thief, dwarven defender, Shadow Thief of Amn and any other class or PrC, as fascinating, do nothing but "stretch" the broth? (Of course: I love the PrC, particularly those related to a setting or a certain specific character BG.)

Bye, MadLuke.

 

[Visigani]

Actually, there's really only two basic classes. The Extraordinary Person and the Supernatural Person. Everything else is an amalgam of these two things. The extraordinary person draws on skills and abilities that test the limits of mortals. They're preternaturally quick, insightful and so forth... Uncanny Dodge is a great example of what I'm talking about.

The Supernatural Person draws on abilities otherwise unavailable to mortals.

 

[Empirate]

Actually, straight Druid is one of the most powerful classes you could play. Easily more powerful in almost every single situation than a Rogue or Fighter, and easily on par with the Wizard and Cleric in most situations.

PrCs and lots of multiclassing (or heavy DM intervention) are the only thing making Fighters viable from the mid levels on. Rogues lose their shiny at about the same time, but may manage to stay competitive for a bit longer, given the right equipment etc.

 

[Sekhmet]

To tie Empirate's argument into Visigani's argument, he appears to be saying that Extraordinary Persons require additional niche supplementation (PrC's generally improve one facet of a character archetype) to become viable in the same setting as Supernatural Persons.
This occurs primarily because the Supernatural Persons can bend the rules of reality quite easily (that is the entire idea behind spell casting, after all), where the Extraordinary Persons are almost strictly unable to do so.

 

[Herzog]

As a sidenote, the 'extraordinary' classes are more dependant on magic items than the 'supernatural' classes are.

This might not seem that important, but becomes an issue when you (as DM) want to have a gameworld where magic items are less common than in the 'standard' setting.

 

[the Jester]

Funny you should ask- that is exactly the principle I'm using in my homebrewed "D&D Jazz Edition". Base classes are, well, the base you build on by using prestige classes for any kind of specializing. For instance, I have prestige classes that include abjurers, acrobats, archers, assassins, axemen, bards, battlepriests, berserkers, blood magi, cavaliers, crushers, dagger masters, diviners, dragonslayers, druids, enchanters, etc. etc. as prestige classes.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

It is not just a provocation, is a thought that I have since some time: am I the only one to think that, deep down, the 4 basic classes (cleric, fighter, thief and mage) and multiclass, but only among those 4 are the most "strong"? And that really rangers, druids, bards, Spell Thief, dwarven defender, Shadow Thief of Amn and any other class or PrC, as fascinating, do nothing but "stretch" the broth? (Of course: I love the PrC, particularly those related to a setting or a certain specific character BG.)

Bye, MadLuke.

This idea was made quite explicit in 1e, where you had "subclasses" of other basic classes that were essentially the basic class plus more (paladin and ranger were subclasses of fighter, for instance, and were basically "This works like a fighter, but also..."), and in 2e you had four groups of similar classes that you couldn't multiclass between (thieves and bards were both in the "rogue" group and so forth).

The choice of which classes are basic and which are subclasses/advanced classes/whatever is essentially arbitrary, but I think the reason the fighter/wizard/rogue/cleric party is viewed as the basic party is that, prior to 3e when the cleric got a lot more offensive magic and the rogue's Sneak Attack became a viable combat option relative to the thief's Backstab, the classes essentially broke Magic vs. Mundane down into "magical combat" (wizard), "magical utility" (priest), "mundane combat" (fighter), and "mundane utility" (rogue). Given the 3e changes to priestly magic, the UA version of generic classes just has Skills Guy, Combat Guy, and Magic Guy rather than splitting the latter into Blaster Guy and Healer Guy, but the traditional four-role party is still viable.

Funny you should ask- that is exactly the principle I'm using in my homebrewed "D&D Jazz Edition". Base classes are, well, the base you build on by using prestige classes for any kind of specializing. For instance, I have prestige classes that include abjurers, acrobats, archers, assassins, axemen, bards, battlepriests, berserkers, blood magi, cavaliers, crushers, dagger masters, diviners, dragonslayers, druids, enchanters, etc. etc. as prestige classes.

Any chance you could post some or all of this on the forums for us to see?

 

[Visigani]

The "Classes" are really just a codification of archetypes to make things easier for people to imagine and dream.

A fighter in full plate who whips out a sword and then a book of spells best have a damn good reason for having these abilities.

 

[the Jester]

Any chance you could post some or all of this on the forums for us to see?

My thread's over here.

 

[slwoyach]

That's why I'm using the generic classes (warrior, expert, spellcaster) in my next campaign.