I've been seeing a lot of complaints recently about the new classes coming out from Wizards; mainly of the type that "that class isn't generic enough!"
I understand the reasoning, but, honestly, it is very similar to the idea that an elven wizard should be limited to a maximum 12th level or that dwarves can't cast arcane spells, or that psionics suck: it isn't universally applicable.
D&D 3E, more than previous editions, is about providing a set of tools and options that can be used in many different ways. If you don't like a particular class, prestige class, feat, spell or whatever, then you don't have to have it in your campaign.
Let's examine what a class is, at its most basic:
A character class describes the abilities the PC has at each level of experience.
That's it. Anything else is just there to help you integrate the class into your campaign and to help you understand what you could use it for. At times, these might be very divergent from the actual purpose you put it to, but anyway...
In theory, you could create a class for every character concept. In practice, it is too much work.
So, what next? How do you expand the range of character options without having to create more classes?
Multiclassing is the result.
Multiclassing allows you to combine the abilities of two or more classes to create a new set of abilities.
Multiclassing really works well for combat classes, as I'm sure everyone here is aware. And rather less well for classes with strong special abilites and spell-use...
Whenever you create a multiclass character, you are demonstrating that there isn't really a single class that fits your character concept. Multiclassing is a very, very powerful tool. It doesn't allow all combinations to work, but it widens the range of interesting D&D play significantly.
Furthermore, it opens up another possibility for customising characters: Prestige Classes.
Prestige Classes are packages of character abilities that may be attained when a character reaches a higher level.
A prestige class can be visualised as the abilities a normal class gains between levels 7-16, or 11-20, or 6-10 or similar. However, they do not rigidly dictate the abilities gained beforehand or after, as opposed to a normal class.
Prestige classes are an extension of multiclassing. Multiclassing's primary flaw is that it only gives the abilities of the first few levels of a class. Thus, a Ranger 10/Rogue 10 has only the abilities gained for the first ten levels of each class.
Prestige classes allow the "capstone" abiliites (normally gained above 8th level) to exist.
One might wonder at classes like the Mystic Theurge and Eldritch Knight, but, in fact, the "capstone" abilities of wizards and clerics are the abilities to cast spells of 6th-9th level, and those two classes provide those "capstone" abilities.
The secondary flaw of multiclassing is that it does not allow the improvement of class features that are not saving throws, base attack bonuses or skills.
Although you can multiclass Wizards, Monks and Bards, you are giving up a lot when you do so. Perhaps there will eventually be a way of writing other abilities so that they can continue improving even when you're multiclassing, but that is currently not available.
Now, returning to the original impetus for this essay: some classes aren't "generic" enough. In truth, very few classes are generic in nature. I would rate that the Fighter as the most generic of all the classes and adaptable to the most purposes (due to a feature of 3E that I haven't discussed but should have - the Feat), and the Rogue close behind.
However, classes like the Bard, Monk and Paladin (and indeed, probably the Ranger and Druid) are also extremely strict in their roles and abilities. Why are these classes rather than prestige classes?
In truth, almost any class could be represented as a prestige class. It is not always desirable, however. The key indicator of whether a class is unique on its own comes from the first five levels. If these can be duplicated by multiclassing then there may be a case for making it a prestige class.
However, if this is not the case, then the class status is likely well-deserved.
The actual rationale for the class in the campaign is secondary. The argument about the Prestige Paladin is entirely that - it's about how you fit the role of the Paladin into the campaign world. In traditional D&D, the Paladin is "called" from early training and is always in that role; in other campaigns the call of the Paladin is heard later in the adventuring life - this is where the Prestige Paladin comes into its own.
The reason that the rationale for a class is secondary - and, I feel, often irrelevant - is because individual games vary so much. (One can see that simply in the discussions over whether the Monk is a good part of the D&D game!)
The personal opinions as to rationale should not cloud the actual real game mechanical benefit of using either a 20 level class or instead multiclassing (and prestige classes) to achieve the goal of a viable and interesting character for use in the game.
There is the possibility of a class where the first five levels are identical to a multiclass progression and then diverges later. If the divergence would then make a 15 level prestige class, it may indeed not be too much more work to cast the entire thing as a class, anyway!
In those cases where you see a class and say, "that should be a prestige class" it may be well worth considering taking the capstone abilities of the class and then recasting it as a prestige class.
Ultimately, I think that both normal classes and prestige classes provide for different ways of approaching the game and expanding the enjoyment of it for different people.
Cheers!
I understand the reasoning, but, honestly, it is very similar to the idea that an elven wizard should be limited to a maximum 12th level or that dwarves can't cast arcane spells, or that psionics suck: it isn't universally applicable.
D&D 3E, more than previous editions, is about providing a set of tools and options that can be used in many different ways. If you don't like a particular class, prestige class, feat, spell or whatever, then you don't have to have it in your campaign.
Let's examine what a class is, at its most basic:
A character class describes the abilities the PC has at each level of experience.
That's it. Anything else is just there to help you integrate the class into your campaign and to help you understand what you could use it for. At times, these might be very divergent from the actual purpose you put it to, but anyway...
In theory, you could create a class for every character concept. In practice, it is too much work.
So, what next? How do you expand the range of character options without having to create more classes?
Multiclassing is the result.
Multiclassing allows you to combine the abilities of two or more classes to create a new set of abilities.
Multiclassing really works well for combat classes, as I'm sure everyone here is aware. And rather less well for classes with strong special abilites and spell-use...
Whenever you create a multiclass character, you are demonstrating that there isn't really a single class that fits your character concept. Multiclassing is a very, very powerful tool. It doesn't allow all combinations to work, but it widens the range of interesting D&D play significantly.
Furthermore, it opens up another possibility for customising characters: Prestige Classes.
Prestige Classes are packages of character abilities that may be attained when a character reaches a higher level.
A prestige class can be visualised as the abilities a normal class gains between levels 7-16, or 11-20, or 6-10 or similar. However, they do not rigidly dictate the abilities gained beforehand or after, as opposed to a normal class.
Prestige classes are an extension of multiclassing. Multiclassing's primary flaw is that it only gives the abilities of the first few levels of a class. Thus, a Ranger 10/Rogue 10 has only the abilities gained for the first ten levels of each class.
Prestige classes allow the "capstone" abiliites (normally gained above 8th level) to exist.
One might wonder at classes like the Mystic Theurge and Eldritch Knight, but, in fact, the "capstone" abilities of wizards and clerics are the abilities to cast spells of 6th-9th level, and those two classes provide those "capstone" abilities.
The secondary flaw of multiclassing is that it does not allow the improvement of class features that are not saving throws, base attack bonuses or skills.
Although you can multiclass Wizards, Monks and Bards, you are giving up a lot when you do so. Perhaps there will eventually be a way of writing other abilities so that they can continue improving even when you're multiclassing, but that is currently not available.
Now, returning to the original impetus for this essay: some classes aren't "generic" enough. In truth, very few classes are generic in nature. I would rate that the Fighter as the most generic of all the classes and adaptable to the most purposes (due to a feature of 3E that I haven't discussed but should have - the Feat), and the Rogue close behind.
However, classes like the Bard, Monk and Paladin (and indeed, probably the Ranger and Druid) are also extremely strict in their roles and abilities. Why are these classes rather than prestige classes?
In truth, almost any class could be represented as a prestige class. It is not always desirable, however. The key indicator of whether a class is unique on its own comes from the first five levels. If these can be duplicated by multiclassing then there may be a case for making it a prestige class.
However, if this is not the case, then the class status is likely well-deserved.
The actual rationale for the class in the campaign is secondary. The argument about the Prestige Paladin is entirely that - it's about how you fit the role of the Paladin into the campaign world. In traditional D&D, the Paladin is "called" from early training and is always in that role; in other campaigns the call of the Paladin is heard later in the adventuring life - this is where the Prestige Paladin comes into its own.
The reason that the rationale for a class is secondary - and, I feel, often irrelevant - is because individual games vary so much. (One can see that simply in the discussions over whether the Monk is a good part of the D&D game!)
The personal opinions as to rationale should not cloud the actual real game mechanical benefit of using either a 20 level class or instead multiclassing (and prestige classes) to achieve the goal of a viable and interesting character for use in the game.
There is the possibility of a class where the first five levels are identical to a multiclass progression and then diverges later. If the divergence would then make a 15 level prestige class, it may indeed not be too much more work to cast the entire thing as a class, anyway!
In those cases where you see a class and say, "that should be a prestige class" it may be well worth considering taking the capstone abilities of the class and then recasting it as a prestige class.
Ultimately, I think that both normal classes and prestige classes provide for different ways of approaching the game and expanding the enjoyment of it for different people.
Cheers!
