Classes, Prestige Classes and Multiclassing

[Estlor]

Perception plays a large role when it comes to introducing new core classes and whether this is a problem or not.

I think what we're seeing here is a divergence between the implicit goals of the new base classes (and let's not confuse a base class with a core class) presented in the Miniatures Handbook and the Complete series and the implicit demand of a segment of the gaming population. It sounds like people here are wanting base classes to be more general in nature, covering a broad spectrum with abilities that allow the player to create more of a niche character through mixing and matching of possible class benefits. It sounds like the UA method, reducing the class set to a spellcasting class, a fighting class, and a skill using class. (Of course, to finish this method, you would need to turn all the core classes and Complete base classes into prestige classes as necessary to supplement the base three.)

It seems like what the designers were really trying to do was 1) Fill a niche they felt was un(der)represented in 3.5e, 2) Overcome a character concept that is crippled by current rules, or 3) Give us kewl new asian-themed classes. You can argue (rather successfully) that this is the same exact function of a prestige class, but in some instances it would make sense to have this option open to you before 5th-7th level. I think that's the motivating factor behind the swashbuckler, for example. Likewise, the Miniatures Handbook classes were created to give a rules-based grounding for concepts that work well in tabletop strategy games but were missing from the D&D pen and paper rules. I am slightly disappointed that many of their choices are just reprints of base classes from other locations (wu-jen, shugenja, favored soul) instead of fresh perspectives on classes.

What I think would be interesting is a campaign made up entirely of these variant classes. Some of them fall rather nicely. Swashbuckler, Hexblade, and Marshall are your warrior classes, Scout and Spellthief are your expert classes, Mystic (from DL) and Spirit Shaman are your divine classes. The only thing you're really weak on is arcane spellcasters, and a Warlock, Wu-Jen, Warmage grouping isn't quite as broad in scope as a Sorcerer/Wizard can be. A campaign with this sort of class breakdown seems to scream Reniassance era technology in a world torn by constant war where divine spellcasters use the power of superstition and religion to make arcane spellcasters heretics.

 

[Nessin]

The thing I like about bringing in specialized core classes is that you just can't do everything with a base class, and some people simply don't want to wait until you reach the level required for a prestige class (especially when a lot of games don't even get that far).

Of course, the fact that they are bringing in a core class in a supplemental book completely defeats my argument. I mean, hell I can make any theme of fighter I want assuming I have access to supplemental material, but if I just take a plain fighter from the core three rulebooks, I have to a fighter, that's it. Sure, I can choose between a Sword Fighter, Knife Fighter, Bow Fighter, etc... but that's it. Case in point, what if I want to be a purely defensive character. My goal is only to defend whatever in the hell I set myself in front of. With some of the extra material I have, I can make that work easily, but what about from the SRD? I can't do it, unless I play a Dwarf and take the Dwarven Defender prestige class.

So, attempting to make this build, what do I have? A fighter with a crapload of feats solely designed to beat down the opponent, not prevent them from beating me down (unless I have the dex requirement for a few feats which would be nice but I'm a fighter meant to stand still and soak it up, ergo I shouldn't have a dex bonus (or it will be very small), let alone enough dex to meet the requirements for those few feats). Best option is I go with Full Plate and a tower shield with a weak one-handed weapon. There arne't any feats that will help me assist someone else, none that might let me prevent an opponent from hurting the person I'm defending, no skills to do any of that either, and I want to be a fighter, not a spellcaster.

Sure, it's easy for most people to sit there and say "Well, you can always make this archetype with just the base classes." And it that somehow fails, you can always add in prestige classes, but that doesn't work either until you actually get the prestige class.

 

[Psion]

The thing I like about bringing in specialized core classes is that you just can't do everything with a base class, and some people simply don't want to wait until you reach the level required for a prestige class (especially when a lot of games don't even get that far).

If the class is well designed, you should have already begun sculpting your character into the concept with feats. The PrC is only there to take you beyond what the class and feats can do.

 

[Thanee]

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

Like the d20 modern approach with the advanced classes.

I don't really like the class system (for another reason), but that part is quite well done.

Bye
Thanee

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I agree with the original poster's conception of the role of classes, multiclassing and prestige classes.

A base class represents a suite of level 1-20 abilities.

A prestige (or advanced) class represents a suite of, say, level 7-16 abilities. Or 11-20, 10-14, or 4-13, or whatever.

Unfortunately, the 3.0 DMG didn't present PrCs in this light, and the word "Prestige" certainly doesn't help. For an archetype-accustomed D&D crowd, "Prestige" class screamed organizations, tie-ins to the campaign world and a bucketload of fluff.

Now, I recognize the benefits of a class-based system: ease of use and simple character identification (mostly for new players), and (generally) superior game balance. I like a class-based system.

d20 Modern's compromise, much as I love it, is a problem because it loses one of the three key benefits (character identification) and doesn't clearly increase customization. I do prefer it to the Grim Tales all-classes-are-generic system, though.

 

[Psion]

Unfortunately, the 3.0 DMG didn't present PrCs in this light, and the word "Prestige" certainly doesn't help. For an archetype-accustomed D&D crowd, "Prestige" class screamed organizations, tie-ins to the campaign world and a bucketload of fluff.

Though I see the frothing of those who are convinced that is the only use for prestige classes as misplaced, one must admit that some "bending of a green stick" was warranted here...