Class Glut?

[tyrlaan]

Actually, the power lists make more classes coexist next to each other more easily. When 90% of what a class gives you is summed up in hit dice and attack bonus, its easy for them to step on each other's toes. With more ingredients in the mix, a wider variety of flavors can be crafted.

I'm a bit confused by your comments. Each sentence seems to contradict the prior. Did you intend your "90% of what a class gives you is summed up in hit dice and attack bonus" to refer to 4e as well, or is that a stealth 3e bash (that makes no sense to me)?

At any rate, I happen to agree that there is not a class glut and there will not be any time soon. Has anyone here played Earthdawn? That system was much more prone to class glut because each class was even more polarized than the 4e classes. In most cases, once you played class/discipline X in Earthdawn there was little point in playing it again. WotC made some smart decisions with 4e by providing a nice amount of power selection for each class and several build options. So, for example, you could play at least 4 fighters before rehashing a large portion of material. My point here is that 4e classes are not one hit wonders, so new 4e classes don't come into being to prevent boredom, but to fill new niches and themes (perceived or actual).

We will see a ton of classes for 4e because of (a) the above, (b) the fact that businesses like to make money and WotC is no different and (c) the focus of a 4e class is severe enough to allow plenty of room for more classes.

Of course whether this is class gut to you or not is really personal taste. Some people see each class as its own special snowflake while others just see a list of powers rebranded. If you're in the former camp, you might never feel there is a class glut. If you are in the latter camp, there already is a class glut.

 

[Cadfan]

I'm a bit confused by your comments. Each sentence seems to contradict the prior. Did you intend your "90% of what a class gives you is summed up in hit dice and attack bonus" to refer to 4e as well, or is that a stealth 3e bash (that makes no sense to me)?

It wasn't intended to be stealthy, although I do feel that "bash" is a little overblown. The first "when" referred to 3e. The second "when" referred to 4e.

3e, when you look at non spellcasters, had rather simple classes. Classes like the swashbuckler or the scout or the ranger or the rogue or the samurai basically gave you an attack bonus progression, save progression, and hit die progression, then a sprinkling of class abilities. Its why the game could drop entirely new classes or alternate versions of existing classes into a two page Dragon article- when everything is attack bonus, hit die, and save progression, plus 7 or 8 class abilities, you just mod a few of them and Presto! You've got a new or alternative class.

I think its very easy for a class to feel redundant in that environment.

Have you ever heard someone say, "why did they make this a class? They could have just made class abilities X, Y, and Z into feats." It wasn't an uncommon sentiment about certain 3e classes, like my poor, beloved, but also beleaguered swashbuckler.

With classes being larger and more complex, ie, with classes having power lists the same way previous edition's spellcasters had spell lists, I think its easier to make classes feel different. There's just more to work with. And since you can create different *feels* for a class by mixing in various amounts of different types of abilities, there are a lot of possibilities.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Has anyone here played Earthdawn? That system was much more prone to class glut because each class was even more polarized than the 4e classes. In most cases, once you played class/discipline X in Earthdawn there was little point in playing it again.

I've played Earthdawn and I don't see how it is prone to class glut at all. I think you are defining class glut differently than I understand it.

glut
–verb (used with object)
to flood (the market) with a particular item or service so that the supply greatly exceeds the demand.

–noun
an excessive supply or amount; surfeit.

What you describe for Earthdawn seems like a shortage of classes. People would want more classes because once they play one they would demand other options.

1E and prior editions never really hit the point of class glut IMO.

2E hit Kit Glut near the end IMO.

3E with the addition of Prestige Classes and the rules for multiclassing hit a glut of class options each time you leveled IMO. Edit: Not immediately, but as time and supplements wore on.

4E definitely has some areas where demand has not been met (the Monk and Psionics come to mind) and has shown, IMO, that there are some fresh ideas that could yet be explored (the Avenger comes to mind). So objectively no class glut yet in that there is still a demand for classes like the monk and psionic characters as evidenced here on the forums.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Count me as someone who rated 3. While you get a bit of overlap, I think you can typically balance archtypes well enough so that classes don't step on each others' shoes.

The key to doing that, I think, is to make archtypes more specific then general. I think that's where 3.5's PrCs come in - the base classes were general, the PrCs (ideally) specific. The idea being that the player starts off with generalized skills and works up to their specialization.

I don't have a lot of playing time with 4e under my belt, but I'd wager that paragon paths are (or at least, are meant to be) much the same.

 

[RefinedBean]

I don't have a lot of playing time with 4e under my belt, but I'd wager that paragon paths are (or at least, are meant to be) much the same.

Yeah, pretty much. I think there are one or two thrown in there that say "You're a bard, only the BEST bard!" or what-not. There are some Epic Destinies that run along the same lines, as well.

 

[Obryn]

The key to doing that, I think, is to make archtypes more specific then general. I think that's where 3.5's PrCs come in - the base classes were general, the PrCs (ideally) specific. The idea being that the player starts off with generalized skills and works up to their specialization.

I don't have a lot of playing time with 4e under my belt, but I'd wager that paragon paths are (or at least, are meant to be) much the same.

That's pretty much exactly how paragon paths work... You still mainly advance as your own class, but you gain some specfic benefits when you use an Action Point, a specfic benefit in some circumstances, and then a grand total of 3 thematic powers - one Encounter Attack, one Utility, and one Daily. They're fairly front-loaded to give a quick and noticeable boost to characters who've hit the Paragon tier.

So, yes, they're very similar to prestige classes, with the main differences being (1) it's impossible to cherry-pick them, since you must be a member of the path to get their abilities; (2) there are usually minimal prerequisites - normally only a class, class build, or race; and (3) you only get one.

-O

 

[Sadrik]

Will there be a point when there are enough strikers?
Will there be a point when there are enough divine strikers or another particular power source?

How should DMs populate your game worlds with some many characters with so many shticks? Power sources are so broad that they are not the definite defining factor on a character type. For instance a wizard and a warlock both use arcane but are completely different in shtick. A fighter and a monk are probably going to be martial but are completely different in shtick. This sort of goes into world building of campaign worlds. If the players have a myriad of options how do you create a quasi-realistic world where arcane power (as an example) can be split into: wizard, bard, sorcerer, swordmage, warlock, and more to come. Each has their own unique shtick.

I had this overpopulated class problem at the end of 3e. How do I include the myriad of classes into a believable fantasy world? There is something to be said when a DM can say a fighter walks down the street and to not know what that fighter can do. Now you have a warden, swordmage or paladin and you know precisely what that guy can do. When the hairs get split so finely I feel like you lose some of the shtick because it is all being defined. Basically nth variety can hurt from a constructive world level but not necessarily from a rules level.

In a perfect world I would like fewer classes that can do more. And supplements would bring new options to those base classes. This is not because I don't like some of the shticks they baked up are not cool. I want to not get stuck with endless campaign defining shticks. For instance, if the game master wanted all wizards to have to get their magic from dark powers (warlock) that seems like a campaign decision not necessarily a mechanics decision. Does anybody follow me here?

 

[Nikosandros]

A fighter and a monk are probably going to be martial but are completely different in shtick.

This is completely tangential, but I think that it's been pretty much confirmed that the monk will use the ki power source.

 

[tyrlaan]

3e, when you look at non spellcasters, had rather simple classes. Classes like the swashbuckler or the scout or the ranger or the rogue or the samurai basically gave you an attack bonus progression, save progression, and hit die progression, then a sprinkling of class abilities. Its why the game could drop entirely new classes or alternate versions of existing classes into a two page Dragon article- when everything is attack bonus, hit die, and save progression, plus 7 or 8 class abilities, you just mod a few of them and Presto! You've got a new or alternative class.

With classes being larger and more complex, ie, with classes having power lists the same way previous edition's spellcasters had spell lists, I think its easier to make classes feel different. There's just more to work with. And since you can create different *feels* for a class by mixing in various amounts of different types of abilities, there are a lot of possibilities.

Ok, now I follow you, and agree. Most martial classes were indeed very similar in design.

I've played Earthdawn and I don't see how it is prone to class glut at all. I think you are defining class glut differently than I understand it.

What you describe for Earthdawn seems like a shortage of classes. People would want more classes because once they play one they would demand other options.

True for Earthdawn RAW, but out of control outside of RAW. I guess I was thinking beyond RAW and wasn't clear about it. Though I think it was mostly true because of the limited power options and general re-use of powers vs. invention of new ones, so new classes were just an amalgam of established abilities.

How should DMs populate your game worlds with some many characters with so many shticks?
<snip>
Each has their own unique shtick.

The answer to your question is hidden in your complaint

Seriously though, what did you do in other games? If you needed a tribal shaman NPC you likely fleshed out a druid and then perhaps tweaked it a bit. If you wanted a holy warrior for the god of storms, how did you build it out? Probably a cleric focused on combat spells or perhaps a barbarian with some tweaks.

My point is all the shticks already existed or could have existed in prior editions of D&D. The difference is 4e defines them as their own distinct entities. So instead of using fighter for every armored melee combatant NPC you make, 4e provides mechanical alternatives for various fighter (referring to the 3e fighter here) sub-niches. It was all there before, they just spell it out now.

In a perfect world I would like fewer classes that can do more. And supplements would bring new options to those base classes. This is not because I don't like some of the shticks they baked up are not cool. I want to not get stuck with endless campaign defining shticks. For instance, if the game master wanted all wizards to have to get their magic from dark powers (warlock) that seems like a campaign decision not necessarily a mechanics decision. Does anybody follow me here?

I agree with you, but not for the same reasons I'm just not content with the limitations role and power selections place on how a given class can be played. From a world design/fluff perspective I think the many distinct classes work just fine, as I tried to express above.

But for me personally, I'd prefer to be able to play a ranged warlord or a cleric with trickery spells, etc.

 

[Obryn]

Will there be a point when there are enough strikers?
Will there be a point when there are enough divine strikers or another particular power source?

I don't know that we'll see too many more new classes in existing power sources. I'm inclined to believe we'll see new power sources, first. I doubt we'll see more roles, but I could be wrong.

I had this overpopulated class problem at the end of 3e. How do I include the myriad of classes into a believable fantasy world? There is something to be said when a DM can say a fighter walks down the street and to not know what that fighter can do. Now you have a warden, swordmage or paladin and you know precisely what that guy can do. When the hairs get split so finely I feel like you lose some of the shtick because it is all being defined. Basically nth variety can hurt from a constructive world level but not necessarily from a rules level.

Well, first of all, most NPCs aren't classed characters in the same way 3e NPCs were. They're built off a template, much like a monster. PC classes are for PCs, except in rare cases.

As for world-building? Much like how things worked in SWSE and in many 3e campaigns, don't look at the classes as real things that exist in the game world. You can make NPCs as consistent and realistic as you'd like, but for 4e at least, the class mechanics are not the rules of the world - they're restrictions placed on PCs.

For instance, if the game master wanted all wizards to have to get their magic from dark powers (warlock) that seems like a campaign decision not necessarily a mechanics decision. Does anybody follow me here?

They already can, near as I can see.

If you want Wizards to draw from dark powers, just like a Warlock might, then they do. A Wizard is just one who focuses on area effects and control, not on curses and damage. Drawing on dark powers doesn't restrict your class to "Warlock." Re-skinning classes is a powerful thing.

-O