Class Granularity

[Talislan]

I'd prefer to have 20 basic classes ranging from 1-30, each with a different focus and varying abilities, and lots of choices as they move up (the various teired progression concepts) then to have 8-12 basic classes to pick from with 50+ prestigue classes that vary wildly in power and pre-req stupidity, all of which must be decided early on and planned for. Sometimes that was cool for role-playing, but overall, it bloomed more into powerplaying or as a weak bandage for lack of variety in the main class ability set.

I know where you are coming from with this but (and maybe this is just me) I have always liked to develope my characters as I play, so if my characters' adventures lead them to use their sword play skills a lot, then as they rise in levels I deploy my 'experience feats/skills' as such. If they end up hiding behind their shield a lot then likewise it is this area that I aim to deploy their experience. Now this forces me to do two things: a) think about the adventure and how my characters skills fit into it in more depth. b) really roleplay my character into using the skills I want them to develope.
As I say, this is just the way I like to do my roleplaying though, and I really can see the powerplay problems that have arisen in the past. I am just hoping with the new mechanics that they are just that, a thing of the past.

 

[Doug McCrae]

D&D has suffered from too much overlap between classes. The OD&D trio divided the labour up pretty well, which meant there wasn't room for the OD&D splats/AD&D. The magic-user is a better thief than the thief, paladin too similar to cleric, too much overlap between the 'outdoors' classes - barbarian, ranger and druid. It's as if someone took True20 and decided to add another half dozen classes.

4e is going with many classes, partly so they can sell more splats. To make this work it's essential the broken AD&D class system be completely rewritten to give each a distinctive niche.

I have no preference for few or many classes, but I do have a preference for systems that work. 1e-3e didn't, it looks like 4e will.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think the poll is a poor one because it doesn't have a middle option, but I picked high, because for D&D, and the style 4E is going for, high is more appropriate than low. Like Oakwood, around a dozen classes is where I'm most comfortable.

I'd rather see versatility in the base classes than a special, new, base class being needed for each conceptual variant of a role. For example, I often come across people wanting to play "swashbuckling"-type melees in D&D. In 3E, you could not replicate this with a combination of rogue and fighter, and indeed a new base class had to be made. For 4E, I'd really hope that either Rogue or Fighter or both could be used for that "role", given all the options those classes are supposed to possess.

I'm pretty sure what we'll actually see if extremely high granularity (WotC seems to have ideas for another half-dozen base classes at least, probably three times that), the annoyance value of which will be compounded by only the initial base classes being properly "supported" across later products, just like in 3E (where later base classes were supported patch-ily if at all). Still, implementation is everything. I may yet be surprised and impressed.

 

[Lackhand]

I don't care how many classes there are. What I want is to be able to sketch out really quickly the "build" of a character in a few words.
In first edition, you could say "LG Male Dwarven Fighter 12" and you had most of the character done -- maybe five minutes of additional work, and then choose equipment, and you were done.
This wasn't true of wizards, of course, but the principle is there.

As you allow character customization, this goes away, but by having specific names ("classes") for types of builds, you can encapsulate a lot of this customizability. That's a good thing, a very good thing -- maybe you can write "LG Male Dwarven Armiger 12" or "LG Male Dwarven Swashbuckler 12" or "LG Male Dwarven Fighter:Shield Tree 12" or something, because there's a happy medium of what classes should mean, and right now they're FAR too much on the underspecified side of that divide, for me.

 

[Aristotle]

First. I think a middle option would cloud things, in my experience everyone but the extremists vote for the middle when it exists. I wanted numbers representing the extreme that folks would most willingly accept, or want the game to strive for, knowing that in the end the middle is where the two sides will have to meet.

That said. I'm pretty neutral. I don't feel the need to include every class that gets published. I also don't agree that having more classes slows down game play or makes the game harder to run or understand, so long as they all make use of common core mechanics. I do however have a slight issue with an abundance of classes I don't want taking up precious page count in every book I buy. I hope to see that trend slow down a little.

I like the idea of a generic class, as I feel it gives me more options, but its possible that supporting mechanics for multiclassing will keep options open. For instance, if my Wizard character can take class training in Illusionist, Necromancer, and Sorcerer to represent dabbling in other magical fields, I'll be more apt to except limitations on the core class as it allows me to play a wider character concept that hasn't been very viable for me in previous editions/systems.

For now I personnaly vote for lower granularity, with the knowledge that I'll have to accept middle ground and the ability to accept that reality so long as things don't slide too heavily to the high granularity side of the scale.

 

[jaer]

I know where you are coming from with this but (and maybe this is just me) I have always liked to develope my characters as I play, so if my characters' adventures lead them to use their sword play skills a lot, then as they rise in levels I deploy my 'experience feats/skills' as such. If they end up hiding behind their shield a lot then likewise it is this area that I aim to deploy their experience. Now this forces me to do two things: a) think about the adventure and how my characters skills fit into it in more depth. b) really roleplay my character into using the skills I want them to develope.
As I say, this is just the way I like to do my roleplaying though, and I really can see the powerplay problems that have arisen in the past. I am just hoping with the new mechanics that they are just that, a thing of the past.

I think we are exactly on the same page, here.

In my mind, the choices of powers and abilities better fits in with your style. You develope the character and can base your choices on the selection given as you level up. At 12th lvl, your character might not look the way you thought they would when you started out at 1st level, but that is the way the campaign shaped that character, and that is awesome.

PrCs, in my mind, go against this because you need to plan they out and force them along the way. At 1st level, certains skills and feats were picked, and the trend continues on as you rise towards that PrC; because it was decided at 1st level that this character would take x, y, and z and be in this PrC by 8th lvl, the mentality is there to continue in that direction even if it doesn't fit the character anymore. And likewise, it is not often a character just randomly has the skills, feats, and what-not required to enter a PrC without planning.

The best example of PrCs not flowing freely is the Blackguard. Pre-req Imp Sunder? What PC paladin has Imp Sunder naturally? Any paladin who has it, though, the other PCs must be thinking "is he planning on going blackguard?" (which is, to me, stupid...I realize the player can plan on having his character go bad without the character planning on going bad, but it just seems like bad form!).

While I realize D&D is mainly for good characters and typically it is not meant for the PC's Paladin to go bad, but if it should happen, if the situation is perfect that the paladin should go bad, why does he need to slog through a few more levels until he meets the Blackgaurd PrC?

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

I prefer lots of classes and good multi-class rule for that little ulterior personalization

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

either option

both are fine for me, as long as players don't have to plan their characters out from level 1 anymore.

Ken

 

[xechnao]

4e is going with many classes, partly so they can sell more splats. To make this work it's essential the broken AD&D class system be completely rewritten to give each a distinctive niche.

I have no preference for few or many classes, but I do have a preference for systems that work. 1e-3e didn't, it looks like 4e will.

Classes are about style. Too much style and it gets too much focus in your game. You need something flexible and not overbearing either as classes and as adventure hooks. Too much classes is like a too linear adventure.

I don't care if WotC wants to make splatbooks. If they want to make a good game (other than a good product) they need to provide direct flexibility. Not granularity.

 

[Dausuul]

I think we are exactly on the same page, here.

In my mind, the choices of powers and abilities better fits in with your style. You develope the character and can base your choices on the selection given as you level up. At 12th lvl, your character might not look the way you thought they would when you started out at 1st level, but that is the way the campaign shaped that character, and that is awesome.

PrCs, in my mind, go against this because you need to plan they out and force them along the way. At 1st level, certains skills and feats were picked, and the trend continues on as you rise towards that PrC; because it was decided at 1st level that this character would take x, y, and z and be in this PrC by 8th lvl, the mentality is there to continue in that direction even if it doesn't fit the character anymore. And likewise, it is not often a character just randomly has the skills, feats, and what-not required to enter a PrC without planning.

The best example of PrCs not flowing freely is the Blackguard. Pre-req Imp Sunder? What PC paladin has Imp Sunder naturally? Any paladin who has it, though, the other PCs must be thinking "is he planning on going blackguard?" (which is, to me, stupid...I realize the player can plan on having his character go bad without the character planning on going bad, but it just seems like bad form!).

While I realize D&D is mainly for good characters and typically it is not meant for the PC's Paladin to go bad, but if it should happen, if the situation is perfect that the paladin should go bad, why does he need to slog through a few more levels until he meets the Blackgaurd PrC?

Ugh, yes. This is one of the things I really, really hate about the elaborate prerequisite systems in 3.5E--not just for prestige classes, but often for feats as well. It's like somebody deliberately sat down to craft a system that would crush all the vitality and personality out of player characters and reduce them to a lot of numbers on a page.

It's not that PrCs in and of themselves hinder roleplaying. In fact, they have the potential to enhance it. But when you have to plan your character from day one to reach the PrC, and take a slew of feats and skills that have nothing to do with your character concept, it's death to character development.

(For me, at least, it also sucks the joy out of levelling up. Instead of a broad vista of possibility opening before me as I contemplate my choices for the new level, it's just another step on a road I already know from beginning to end.)

PrCs should have at most one or two prereqs, and those should be no-brainers that anyone going into that PrC would naturally have. It's fine to require Two-Weapon Fighting if you're going into the Tempest PrC, or to require arcane spellcasting if you want to become an Archmage, or sneak attack for an Assassin. But one should never balance a PrC by requiring bizarre, irrelevant feats or weird skill allocations.

I really hope there aren't any prerequisites for paragon paths and epic destinies in 4E (or if there are, they're no-brainers as above).