Class Granularity

[Rpgraccoon]

I must vote I have to vote..... So tempting to choose option 3.

However, I could not take that option.

I like to have as many options as possible so please give me more base classes or whatever.

 

[AZRogue]

I would have liked a "middle" option as well, but that's okay.

I imagine that we're going to get some Class bloat as time goes on just because, hey, that's what happens, but I don't think you need quite as many as we might be used to.

Consider that abilities, powers, and feats will enable characters to be vastly different from others of the same Class; factor in Paragon paths and you should be able to do quite a bit with any of the Classes.

 

[Patlin]

I chose "no clue." I like a lot of options to choose from, but I'll wait till I see the new rules before deciding whether that's done better with more classes or with more powers. It seems clear that 4e will be "fine grained" but it's not yet clear whether, for example, it will be better to add a monk class or to add a bunch of monk like powers and/or a paragon path for monks that can be taken by existing classes.

 

[jaer]

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).

That's my hope too. Nothing is worse to me than seeing you need a feat that is an absolute shaft and need it for no other reason then "we want you to burn a feat to show your dedication to taking this PrC."

It's like college saying "you need Economics 201 and Photography 103 before you can take English 315: Chaucer."

 

[Talislan]

That's my hope too. Nothing is worse to me than seeing you need a feat that is an absolute shaft and need it for no other reason then "we want you to burn a feat to show your dedication to taking this PrC."

It's like college saying "you need Economics 201 and Photography 103 before you can take English 315: Chaucer."

Ditto

 

[am181d]

I want a variety of builds for each class, and I want the ability to cherry pick features from other classes now and then. That *sounds* pretty close to what we're getting, so I'm guardedly optimistic. What'll be interesting is to see if power lists completely replace class features and talent trees...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I liked the ADnD 2nd edition approach:

- 4 "roles" (classes, rogue e.g.)
- about 2 classes for each role (subclasses: thief, bard)
- a lot of flavourfull variations of those different classes (complete bard etc)

that concept got me hooked to ADnD. It was quite easy to navigate through your many many choices.

 

[Steely Dan]

That's my hope too. Nothing is worse to me than seeing you need a feat that is an absolute shaft and need it for no other reason then "we want you to burn a feat to show your dedication to taking this PrC."

It's like college saying "you need Economics 201 and Photography 103 before you can take English 315: Chaucer."

Totally, forced punishment in a game is usually not fun.

 

[Dausuul]

I want a variety of builds for each class, and I want the ability to cherry pick features from other classes now and then. That *sounds* pretty close to what we're getting, so I'm guardedly optimistic. What'll be interesting is to see if power lists completely replace class features and talent trees...

I want a variety of options. I would prefer to avoid "builds." A "build" implies an emphasis on pre-planning one's character, and I hope we have much less need for that in 4E. Ideally, at every level you should be able to choose which way you want to go and have it work out. (I doubt we will ever see this ideal truly attained, but 4E should go a long way toward it.)

 

[Bluenose]

I'd prefer a middle option myself. What I don't want is lots of classes which all do the same thing, which a lot of 3.x warrior classes are, and which don't have much to differentiate how they do them. I'd also be against any class which has such a huge range of options that you really can't have other classes in the same general area without them feeling like a more limited version of the first type. Which means despite how much I like playing wizards, I'd rather see their spell list restricted so that an Illusionist class, say, can have something which it does which a wizard can't duplicate.