AFGNCAAP
First Post
Hello,
With the release of new, optional core classes in Complete Warrior, and the supposed PrC versions of the bard, ranger, & paladin classes in the upcoming Unearthed Arcana, I was wondering what ENWorld at large thought about the issue of core classes in D&D.
To a certain degree, character races seem relatively easy to add & remove in a D&D game (in comparison to core classes). If anything, the core races seem to be an added-on modifier package that modifies the classes, rather than the other way around (it's a different set of circumstances for playign lower-than-average-level monsters, but even these are referred to as "monster classes"). The number of starting skills & gained skills are based on class, hit dice are determined by class, and saves, abilities, and attack modifiers (& defense modifiers in d20 Modern) are determined by class, not race (again, some of the races with level adjustments are an exception, but those are treated more as levels in a "monster class" than anything else).
With this in mind, what do you think about the core classes? Should there be more of them, or less of them? Should they be generic, in order to fit many concepts, or specific, matching exactly with a certain concept/idea? Should they be static, gaining specific abilties at specific levels, or should they be customizable, allowing players to select which abilities/options they gain?
Well, here's my opinion on the matter:
For example, let's take the samurai class(es). The CW version is pretty much fixed on the idea of a intimidating warrior dual-wielding his daisho. However, the OA version allows for different clan-based feat trees to reflect different fighting styles, as well as introducing the concept of an ancestral/"linked" weapon that improves as the samurai does. Which is better?
Well, if you're going for the intimidating sword wielder, go with the CW version. If you're going with the honor & tradition, pseudo-mystical romanticized idea of a samurai (though not necessarily locked into 1 particular fighting style), go with the OA version.
However, I think that there really isn't the need for a samurai class, if the fighter class were a bit more flexible. I think that the fighter class should allow proficiency with all simple & martial weapons, & with light armor only. However, the fighter should gain 4 bonus feat slots, on top of the bonus feats already given to the class. Why? Because the medium & heavy armor proficiencies, as well as the shield & tower shield proficiencies, are essentially free feats in the 3.X system.
What about the ancestral daisho? Well, that can be accounted for in the rules. Samurai weren't the only ones with the concept of handed-down/inherited weapons with powers & a life of their own--the same concept could apply to a knight's sword, shield, or suit of armor passed down through his/her family. It can be a special rule set (as introduced in Dragon), or a feature of a prestige class (per CW's Kensai).
Expand the fighter's skill selection slightly, and you have the potential to cover a basic woodsman, swashbuckler (land or sea variety), samurai, knight, tribal warrior/barbarian (non-berserking type), cavalier, & any other sort of combatant (short of a mystical, devoted martial artist, ala the monk). A few levels of cleric could cover a sort of "holy knight," while a few levels of rogue could cover a "stealthy scout."
Along the same lines, a core "priest" class more in lines along the OA shaman (for starting class abilities) could work better as a generic priest rather than the "priest-militant" version seen in the core D&D cleric. Just allowing for a slightly broader skill & feat selection, as well as selecting certain special abilties at certain levels, and even particular domain choices, could allow the "priest" to cover clerics, shamans, healers, scholarly/religious "monks", and druids.
Along the same lines, rogues could be modified so that a player can build a scout, a thief, a bard (non-spellcasting, but just as inspiring), an assassin, or even a noble/courtier. A modified mage could cover the book-using wizard, free-casting sorcerer, or even some variation thereof.
But then again, having somewhat more "static" core classes makes it a bit easier to pick up & play, to a degree. No worries about whether or not a fighter can wear plate mail because the player forgot to select the heavy armor proficiency, or if a cleric can turn undead because the player selected more druid-like abilities.
Then again, I do feel that there can be too many core classes--Palladium is a fine example of this strategy. It can prove to be quite irritating to have to hunt through sourcebooks to look up a core class's abilities (and to have to make sure that said sourcebook is brought along with the core books, for reference when needed). And these core classes can be overspecialized to a certain style of play or setting (something more applicable for a prestige class than a core class, IMHO).
Personally, I like the idea of having 1 core class per stat (ala d20 Modern), with "hybrid" classes such as the bard, hexblade, & paladin being prestige classes. I also think that the core classes should be a bit more generic & malleable to cover different concepts (and possibly, acquire certain PrCs faster). Not too malleable, as they were in 2nd ed. AD&D's Skills & Powers, but just enough to allow for some degree of variety.
Here's an idea:
Strength: Fighter. Proficient with all simple & martial weapons; proficient with light armor & shields. Starts off with 1 bonus feat, plus 3 bonus feats that used to be used up by Tower Shield Prof. & Medium & Heavy Armor Profs. Slightly expand skill selection to allow for either a rural or urban-style character.
Dexterity: Rogue. As is, but expand skill list to allow for either a more urban or rural variant. Expand class abilities to allow for player to select either a more "thief"-like rogue, a "stealthy scout"-like rogue, a "bard"-like rogue, or even a "spy/courtier"-like rogue.
Constitution: Barbarian/Ruffian/Tough. Like the current barbarian, this class would have the best Hit Die, and eventually gain Damage Resistance as a class ability (and maybe even a natural armor class bonus). However, this class could cover the wild savage as well as a burly thug, bodyguard, survivalist/scout/ranger, shock trooper, rugged frontline soldier, or any sort of hardy character. Could have the increased movement rate due to being able to push the body to extremes rather than some natural quickness. A Berserker PrC could be available to cover the "raging barbarian" of 3.X D&D.
Intelligence: Mage. A generic arcane spellcaster, whose method of spell preparation/use can be more flavor text. Could be a hybrid of the wizard & sorcerer class: may be able to know/prep a limited & of spells innately, but needs a spellbook for any spells known over the innate limit. The sorcerer (i.e., no spellbook, more spells/day than a wizard) could be a sort of prestige class able to cast more spells per day than a mage, but loses the ability to learn/keep/record extra known spells in a spellbook--he/she can only access/know/prepare the innately known spells.
Wisdom: Priest. Somewhat like the OA shaman--simple weapon proficiency, light armor proficiency, & shield proficiency. Selects 2-3 domains and certain class abilities based on deity (i.e., Deity W has "militant priests/clerics," Deity X has "nature priests/druids," Deity Y has "spirit-tribal priests/shamans," and Deity Z has "healer-sage priests"). The druid could be a PrC for a nature-themed priest, while a paladin could be a warlike PrC for a militant-themed priest, and a shaman could be a PrC for a tribal-themed priest.
Charisma: Either Psion or Bard (non-spellcasting). Psions would work sorta like the sorcerer class (but using psionic powers instead of "spells"), and would have their abilities focus off of Charisma only, instead of havinfg a different attributre per different school/discipline. Or, OTOH, Bards could be ultimate people person, able to represent an inspiring performer, a people-savvy merchant/trader, a subtle courtier, a noble, or anyone good at interaction.
Well, that's my thoughts & humble opinions on the matter--what do you think?
With the release of new, optional core classes in Complete Warrior, and the supposed PrC versions of the bard, ranger, & paladin classes in the upcoming Unearthed Arcana, I was wondering what ENWorld at large thought about the issue of core classes in D&D.
To a certain degree, character races seem relatively easy to add & remove in a D&D game (in comparison to core classes). If anything, the core races seem to be an added-on modifier package that modifies the classes, rather than the other way around (it's a different set of circumstances for playign lower-than-average-level monsters, but even these are referred to as "monster classes"). The number of starting skills & gained skills are based on class, hit dice are determined by class, and saves, abilities, and attack modifiers (& defense modifiers in d20 Modern) are determined by class, not race (again, some of the races with level adjustments are an exception, but those are treated more as levels in a "monster class" than anything else).
With this in mind, what do you think about the core classes? Should there be more of them, or less of them? Should they be generic, in order to fit many concepts, or specific, matching exactly with a certain concept/idea? Should they be static, gaining specific abilties at specific levels, or should they be customizable, allowing players to select which abilities/options they gain?
Well, here's my opinion on the matter:
For example, let's take the samurai class(es). The CW version is pretty much fixed on the idea of a intimidating warrior dual-wielding his daisho. However, the OA version allows for different clan-based feat trees to reflect different fighting styles, as well as introducing the concept of an ancestral/"linked" weapon that improves as the samurai does. Which is better?
Well, if you're going for the intimidating sword wielder, go with the CW version. If you're going with the honor & tradition, pseudo-mystical romanticized idea of a samurai (though not necessarily locked into 1 particular fighting style), go with the OA version.
However, I think that there really isn't the need for a samurai class, if the fighter class were a bit more flexible. I think that the fighter class should allow proficiency with all simple & martial weapons, & with light armor only. However, the fighter should gain 4 bonus feat slots, on top of the bonus feats already given to the class. Why? Because the medium & heavy armor proficiencies, as well as the shield & tower shield proficiencies, are essentially free feats in the 3.X system.
What about the ancestral daisho? Well, that can be accounted for in the rules. Samurai weren't the only ones with the concept of handed-down/inherited weapons with powers & a life of their own--the same concept could apply to a knight's sword, shield, or suit of armor passed down through his/her family. It can be a special rule set (as introduced in Dragon), or a feature of a prestige class (per CW's Kensai).
Expand the fighter's skill selection slightly, and you have the potential to cover a basic woodsman, swashbuckler (land or sea variety), samurai, knight, tribal warrior/barbarian (non-berserking type), cavalier, & any other sort of combatant (short of a mystical, devoted martial artist, ala the monk). A few levels of cleric could cover a sort of "holy knight," while a few levels of rogue could cover a "stealthy scout."
Along the same lines, a core "priest" class more in lines along the OA shaman (for starting class abilities) could work better as a generic priest rather than the "priest-militant" version seen in the core D&D cleric. Just allowing for a slightly broader skill & feat selection, as well as selecting certain special abilties at certain levels, and even particular domain choices, could allow the "priest" to cover clerics, shamans, healers, scholarly/religious "monks", and druids.
Along the same lines, rogues could be modified so that a player can build a scout, a thief, a bard (non-spellcasting, but just as inspiring), an assassin, or even a noble/courtier. A modified mage could cover the book-using wizard, free-casting sorcerer, or even some variation thereof.
But then again, having somewhat more "static" core classes makes it a bit easier to pick up & play, to a degree. No worries about whether or not a fighter can wear plate mail because the player forgot to select the heavy armor proficiency, or if a cleric can turn undead because the player selected more druid-like abilities.
Then again, I do feel that there can be too many core classes--Palladium is a fine example of this strategy. It can prove to be quite irritating to have to hunt through sourcebooks to look up a core class's abilities (and to have to make sure that said sourcebook is brought along with the core books, for reference when needed). And these core classes can be overspecialized to a certain style of play or setting (something more applicable for a prestige class than a core class, IMHO).
Personally, I like the idea of having 1 core class per stat (ala d20 Modern), with "hybrid" classes such as the bard, hexblade, & paladin being prestige classes. I also think that the core classes should be a bit more generic & malleable to cover different concepts (and possibly, acquire certain PrCs faster). Not too malleable, as they were in 2nd ed. AD&D's Skills & Powers, but just enough to allow for some degree of variety.
Here's an idea:
Strength: Fighter. Proficient with all simple & martial weapons; proficient with light armor & shields. Starts off with 1 bonus feat, plus 3 bonus feats that used to be used up by Tower Shield Prof. & Medium & Heavy Armor Profs. Slightly expand skill selection to allow for either a rural or urban-style character.
Dexterity: Rogue. As is, but expand skill list to allow for either a more urban or rural variant. Expand class abilities to allow for player to select either a more "thief"-like rogue, a "stealthy scout"-like rogue, a "bard"-like rogue, or even a "spy/courtier"-like rogue.
Constitution: Barbarian/Ruffian/Tough. Like the current barbarian, this class would have the best Hit Die, and eventually gain Damage Resistance as a class ability (and maybe even a natural armor class bonus). However, this class could cover the wild savage as well as a burly thug, bodyguard, survivalist/scout/ranger, shock trooper, rugged frontline soldier, or any sort of hardy character. Could have the increased movement rate due to being able to push the body to extremes rather than some natural quickness. A Berserker PrC could be available to cover the "raging barbarian" of 3.X D&D.
Intelligence: Mage. A generic arcane spellcaster, whose method of spell preparation/use can be more flavor text. Could be a hybrid of the wizard & sorcerer class: may be able to know/prep a limited & of spells innately, but needs a spellbook for any spells known over the innate limit. The sorcerer (i.e., no spellbook, more spells/day than a wizard) could be a sort of prestige class able to cast more spells per day than a mage, but loses the ability to learn/keep/record extra known spells in a spellbook--he/she can only access/know/prepare the innately known spells.
Wisdom: Priest. Somewhat like the OA shaman--simple weapon proficiency, light armor proficiency, & shield proficiency. Selects 2-3 domains and certain class abilities based on deity (i.e., Deity W has "militant priests/clerics," Deity X has "nature priests/druids," Deity Y has "spirit-tribal priests/shamans," and Deity Z has "healer-sage priests"). The druid could be a PrC for a nature-themed priest, while a paladin could be a warlike PrC for a militant-themed priest, and a shaman could be a PrC for a tribal-themed priest.
Charisma: Either Psion or Bard (non-spellcasting). Psions would work sorta like the sorcerer class (but using psionic powers instead of "spells"), and would have their abilities focus off of Charisma only, instead of havinfg a different attributre per different school/discipline. Or, OTOH, Bards could be ultimate people person, able to represent an inspiring performer, a people-savvy merchant/trader, a subtle courtier, a noble, or anyone good at interaction.
Well, that's my thoughts & humble opinions on the matter--what do you think?
Each class has it's own list of Class Abilities which are, in essence, class-specific feats that you pick up as you advance. This idea inspired by Modern d20's classes a little and expanded upon from there. I'm currently using 4 broad classes - the Warrior, the Rogue, the Talist (basically a wizard) and the Arthaen (basically a... uh, I really have no idea what to call it. A druidesque-elementalist?)
I use templates for certain quick archetypes - a typical Hunter, a Viking sailor, a Mounted Warrior, a Battlefield Commander, a Weapon Master, etc.
