A New Way to Look at Classes

[redkobold]

This thought just came to me but it seems that most of the tweaks in 3.5 concern the alternate classes like Bard, Monk, etc.

I wonder if it would just make more sence from a rules writing and balancing standpoint to have just 4 core classes and all of the other classes as prestige classes built off of one or more of the core classes.

Base Classes:

Fighter (Fighting Base with quick Feat Accumulation)
Wizard (Arcane Spell Base)
Cleric (Divine Spell Based)
Adventurer (Skill Based)

Prestige Classes:
Monk - from the Fighter, Adventurer, or another with more work
Paladin - from the Fighter or Cleric
Illusionist - From the Wizard or Adventurer
Druid - From almost any
Ranger - From almost any
Rogue - From the Adventurer or others
Bard - From any (of course I hate Bards anyway...its an adventure not a musical)

Any thoughts?

 

[dcollins]

This belongs in House Rules. However, I very much agree. The "straight 4" would work better than in 2nd Ed. because of the way multiclassing now works. Many secondary classes could be simulated ust by feats, never mind prestige classes.

The name of that 4th class might be problematic, could be "Rogue", "Explorer", "Expert", something like that.

 

[redkobold]

Yes, I realized it should be in House Rules after I posted it.

I just find some of the "non-core" classes are diffucult from a design standpoint. The Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, etc are generic in nature while the Paladin, Ranger, Monk, etc are very specific. I think WOTC is having difficulty balancing specific ability advancements that have a lot of setting baggage with them versus the base ability advancements which are generic in nature.

They are trying to make grapefruit, kiwi fruits, and bananas that are equal to and balanced with Granny Smith, Fiji and Gala apples.

 

[dcollins]

Well, partly they're trying to give players what they want, of course. People want to play a paladin or monk out of the box... and there's the memory that in AD&D 1st Ed. all these were core classes, as well. (Exceptions: Bard, Sorcerer.) So it's not too surprising that WOTC publishes what people want to buy. (More PC creation options = more sales, apparently.)

And yet I personally agree that it would be more elegant to reduce the number of core base classes.

 

[AuraSeer]

Sounds a lot like D20 Modern, doesn't it?

Your base classes there are Tough Hero, Smart Hero, Fast Hero, etc. Mix and match those however you like. If you want to be something specific-- a soldier, a doctor, or a magic-user-- you take a PrC.

 

[nharwell]

D20 Moderns approach is ok -- incredibly generic base classes with advanced classes you can take rather early (4th level, right?). I don't know that the overhaul of D&D classes required to fit such a system would be worth it. The 4 "core" D&D classes are fairly specific, not generic...

If anything, given the current class definitions, I'd rather see MORE base classes. There are too many standard fantasy/action archetypes that you can't do until 7th-10th level because the base classes are so narrowly defined and these archetypes have been pushed back to PrCs.