Classes, Prestige Classes and Multiclassing

[Thanee]

However, I totally reject the idea that designers should stop creating new classes or prestige classes because there are some players that don't need any more.

Agreed. Everyone can choose what to use and what not. Though, I do think they are getting less creative over time... but that just means it takes longer to get another few really cool ideas...

If that idea had been taken up, we'd still be with oD&D with no supplements.

There's at least one person alive, that would love that!


I also see the Core rules (PHB, DMG, MM) as the base and every other book as expansions/supplements, which only have limited use (except for the campaign setting, of course). In my PbP I told the players to favor the Core rules, if there was some choice between a Core or a supplemental rule piece (i.e. feat, spell, etc). It's not a hard rule, of course, but it leads to the desired effect, that most stuff is taken from the Core rules and anything beyond that has a certain "special" feel to it.

Bye
Thanee

 

[MerricB]

The related issue that GlassJaw discusses is that of class customisability.

In theory, one could have only ONE class, and just plug in elements to customise the class as you see fit. We have this already in the Fighter class, although limited in scope, and likewise in the Sorcerer and Wizard classes (spell selection being the customisable elements).

However, one drawback is that you lose the archetypal nature of classes.

I believe this is a severe drawback. One of the great strengths of D&D is that you can point to someone and say, "You're playing a Cleric" and have a pretty good idea of what their capabilities will be.

An even more important is what the player sees: he or she can understand the basics of the class (or prestige class) very quickly indeed, and use it to immerse himself or herself in the game.

If someone looks at the Shadowdancer prestige class and says, "I want to be that!", it immediately gives them a well-defined goal to strive towards, and a role to assume. Especially with new players, this benefit of D&D cannot be underestimated.

Conversely, you have what could be termed the GURPS approach, which requires you to begin with a strong conception of a character and then to build it from the pieces provided.

D&D 3e provides for the GURPS approach to some extent with its multiclassing rules (d20 Modern probably provides for it more so, and UA gives a further D&D version of that).

Neither approach is wrong, but one of the chief reasons I play D&D instead of GURPS is because it primarily uses the archetypal class system, rather than a menu system.

Cheers!

 

[maddman75]

I think the real problem is that we have two different, sometimes conflicting mechanical goals set into one mechanic. Are classes groups of skills and abilities, or are they roles within the campaign world? We don't need to look to suppliments to answer that - clearly the Fighter and Rogue are of the first kind, while the Paladin and Monk are the second. I think the system might have been better off seperating the two - make all the specialized classes into PrCs.

 

[MerricB]

I think the system might have been better off seperating the two - make all the specialized classes into PrCs.

I quite understand that desire - I'm suspicious of how it might have been achieved, of course.

One of the big drawbacks of a Prestige Class is that you have to multiclass beforehand - and, especially with skills, that can be a real pain. The skill bonus a first level character gets is vital to the capabilities of the ongoing character. If some of the skills you need are Cross-Class, the effect can be to warp your character drastically.

It is one reason I love the Swashbuckler class in CW. Here is a fighter class with Diplomacy and other related skills as Class Skills, so I can specialise them from the start. However, I'm not getting irrelevant abilities (trapfinding, sneak attack) and I am getting the full attack bonus and good hit die I need. A Fighter/Rogue is not the character I want to play - the Swashbuckler is.

Of course, if you opened up skill selection, then things might improve - though the archetypal bonuses you get then begin to fade.

Cheers!

 

[Psion]

Are classes groups of skills and abilities, or are they roles within the campaign world?

I (pretty much literally) thought of them as groups of skills and abilities of major roles in the campaign world.

 

[Psion]

I quite understand that desire - I'm suspicious of how it might have been achieved, of course.

Do you own the Warcraft D&D RPG? That's a step towards what that might look like. Things like scout and healer are core classes; ranger and druid are prestige classes.

 

[GlassJaw]

However, one drawback is that you lose the archetypal nature of classes.

I believe this is a severe drawback. One of the great strengths of D&D is that you can point to someone and say, "You're playing a Cleric" and have a pretty good idea of what their capabilities will be.

And I think it's great. To each their own.

I'll be the first to admit though that the system presented in Grim Tales is for a more advanced player. It's much easier for a new player to choose a very specific, and sometimes sterotypical, archetype. I'm at the point now though that when I hear "You're playing a cleric" I roll my eyes. *yawn*

The Midnight classes strike an excellent balance I think. The intention and scope of the classes is easy to identify with but customizable enough so that you can make the class your own.

On the subject of "is WotC making too many classes and PrC's", it's easy to say "if you don't like it, don't use it". But what if you want to keep your game rules-light or can't invest in a ton of books? There are just some things you can't do with the core classes. It seems the more I play, the more I want the game simplified, though not necessarily the rules themselves but with the amount of resources I need to consult to acheive my vision as both a player and DM. I don't want to have to scour piles of books to find something that fits my concept. I want one book that's powerful enough to create anything my little brain can conjure up.

Midnight and Grim Tales especially have acheived what I believe to be the "one book only" concept. I only need one book to make whatever character or NPC I want. It's all in one source. This is a beautiful thing. But I also understand this is something WotC will never do because it's an extremely poor business model. They would have to rely on more fluff for their products. In most cases, Crunch = money. As much as people complain about the new classes and PrC's and poor editing of their materials, WotC is still and will remain on top.

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

The problem I see is that most of the new classes are less generic than their names imply.

In specific, I'll talk about two of the new classes that draw the most heat for being overly specialized: the swashbuckler, and the samurai.

The swashbuckler, as a concept, is fairly generic mechanically, as is the samurai. Both imply certain thematic elements, but each is broad enough to support multiple mechanical expressions of the theme.

Each one is a gem with many facets, I suppose you could say.

The problem for me is that each of these new base classes takes a broad theme, and ties it directly to one specific implementation of the theme. To use the previous analogy, each is designed to acknowledge only one facet of the whole gem.

This is especially notable with the samurai, in part because of the breadth of possibility the Oriental Adventures samurai enjoyed, and in part because of the way that Rokugan d20 showed how one class could be developed hundreds of different ways. My Crane Iaijutsu duelist fought with precise, measured grace, and he was built using the samurai class. But another player had a Crab bushi who was the archetypal, club wielding thug, and he was built using the samurai class too.

But the samurai of the Complete Warrior does not provide the same luxury of customization. It's the same generically-thematic name, but now it's tied to very specific class abilities that do not acknowledge the full range of expressions of the theme "Samurai".


People complain that the ranger is too specific now, but imagine how much they'd grouse if the class had the same abilities but was named "the Woodsman." Same with the paladin and "Holy Warrior".


To sum up: The names of each class are thematically one step removed from the generic, and mechanically two or three steps removed.

 

[Psion]

People complain that the ranger is too specific now, but imagine how much they'd grouse if the class had the same abilities but was named "the Woodsman."

Isn't that more specific?

That said, I lurve (for example) the remixed "fighting" styles for rangers in Wildscape.

Same with the paladin and "Holy Warrior".

Already use -- and strongly prefer -- Green Ronin's Holy Warrior.

i.e., "Bring It!"

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

Isn't that more specific?

That said, I lurve (for example) the remixed "fighting" styles for rangers in Wildscape.

I guess it might be, but I see woodsman as a more generic term, one that would make people gripe even more about the ranger's specific mix of class abilities.

Already use -- and strongly prefer -- Green Ronin's Holy Warrior.

i.e., "Bring It!"

That's sort of what I'm talking about. The Holy Warrior's mechanics match the thematic broadness of the class' name.

The Holy Warrior as a concept is one step less generic than the Fighter, just as "samurai" is one step less generic than the fighter.

But the mechanics of the Holy Warrior, as I recall, match the broadness of the class' name - you can do a lot with the holy warrior, and explore many archetypes.

The Complete Warrior samurai, conversely, does not have mechanics to match the theme. It takes a broad thematic concept - the samurai - and channels it into a very specific, very narrow mechanical concept. The name samurai brings to mind many different archetypes, but the mechanics only serve a single one of those archetypes.

That's where I think the CW Samurai fails, and the OA samurai succeeds.