Core Classes: More or Less? General or Specific? Static or Customizable?

[Psion]

Add me to the "no d20 modern base classes for D&D" cadre. They're okay and they sort of serve their purpose in d20 modern, but the reasons for them are much weaker in fantasy.

My generally philosophy towards new base classes is:
- should not be easily replicatable with another class. This is the biggest flaw of the CW Samurai's existence. It's mostly a fighter feat chain.
- some overlap is okay, but it should have a reason to exist as a distinct entity.
- should be broad and flexible. I think some of the core base classes don't quite fulfil this criteria.
- should have a well defined concept and play a role in the campaign. I don't mind the hexblade, for example, in terms of mechanics. I am just not sure where it would fit unless I came up with a very specific campaign concept to support it.
- I'll "me too" Merric's point: It represents a calling/profession/etc. that is something the character would be from the very start. And add: if a fledleling version of the class looks a lot like another class or class combo, then it should be a prestige class.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm torn between two camps -- the really flexible d20 Modern-esque class system, or a system with a multitude of core classes each better defined to a more specific archetype than the ones presented in the core rulebooks. Either way I want to be able to play the character concept I want to play rather than the ones the game designers say I have to play, but both are diametrically opposite methods to get to that same goal.

 

[MerricB]

What I think would be best is if the PHB gives the normal D&D method of doing it - as we are now seeing.

The supplemental books give the additional classes for stranger concepts - as we are now seeing.

And Unearthed Arcana gave the options for the d20 modern method of doing it...

Cheers!

 

[Pants]

I like core classes to be as customizable as possible. I kind of want to revamp the Druid, Barbarian, and Monk to be more customizable. Perhaps the Druid could pick a type of land that he is bonded to and gains different benefits. Perhaps the Barbarian could pick different Totems that give him different benefits. The Monk and the Druid, to me, are the most narrow focused Core Classes in the game, right after the Paladin and I think that Core Classes should be broad general classes. PrC's are there to narrow your focus even more, to help define your character.

However, that doesn't mean that I'm going to dump those Core Classes, nor am I going to ignore any new base classes that come along. If a base class is cool enough (like the Hex Blade, Warmage, or the Marshal) then I will find a way to incorporate it into the campaign. If a player wants to play another base class, I'll look it over and possibly let it in, EVEN if it's something monstrously lame like the CW Samurai or the Favored Soul. As long as it doesn't break game balance there's always a chance I'll let someone play it.

 

[Wombat]

I have played around with the core classes many times. For example, with Rogues I removed Sneak Attack as an automatic skill; instead, like Fighters, they now get "Extra Feat" at those levels. If they wish to be assassins, fine; if not, they can choose other Feats from a list. (Essentially Sneak Attack becomes a stackable feat, +1d6 each time chose, with limitations on who can choose the feat and when).

Equally, I have toyed with the notion of non-militant clergy, as that would make a lot of sense -- I just have yet to find the balance I like yet, as I believe adding too many extra Domains is counterproductive. Three Domains should be more than enough!


Decipher's rpg system, CODA, is interesting -- despite how many times the creators (and adherents) try to claim otherwise, it is very, very similar to D20, replete with Skill + Stat + Roll, bonuses equivalent to Feats, etc. Rather than having straight progression charts, however, you are given 5 "Picks" each time you go up a level. Some Picks are restricted by the class you are currently in, others are wide open (it is also pretty easy to switch classes).

Maybe this is what people are looking for? I don't mean CODA per se, but rather a more generic, open approach to creating characters?

Certainly while it is pretty easy to agree what class, say, Sir Lancelot might be (although I hear many arguments about Paladin and Fighter levels...), certainly someone like Fafhrd (to take a name brought up in a recent thread) is less easy to map in D&D than in other systems.

Just food for thought.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I prefer a wide range of classes as long as those classes do not sink into oblivion by never being named again.

One of the many things that Kenzer does right is not ignore the core classes they've added to their setting and reference them in sourcebooks and other areas where it makes sense as opposed to other companies that kinda just use main stuff with a few references to a PrC or soemthing that the user might or might not have.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

Thanks for the replies! Keep `em coming!

For the most part, I'm happy with the current incarnation of D&D as it is. I still have fond memories of the rather boiled-down system of OD&D as presented in the Rules Cyclopedia (barring the Weapon Mastery stuff).

However, I think I'd prefer core classes not to focus on certain aspects such as social class, location (i.e., urban/rural/wild), or similar aspects. That's why (in a way) I wouldn't mind a sort of core-class-per-stat system (like the one I mentioned above). Then again, for something more extreme...

Basically, D&D seems to have 3 key aspects/elements to classes: feats, skills, & magic (which includes arcane & divine magic, as well as psionics). Thus, the real core classes could be boiled down to:

Fighter: the feat-intensive class

Rogue: the skill-intensive class

Mage: the magic/power-intensive class (Divine magic, arcane magic, & psychic powers would all be lumped into 1 system/list. Of course, the mage could specialize in certain aspects at the expense of losing access to others.)

There could also be "fused" classes that have some focus in 2 or more aspects, but of course, their ability in each aspect is comparitively weaker than of a class that solely focuses on 1 aspect (like fighters, rogues, & mages).

Additional core classes could include:

A feat/skill-focused class;

A feat/magic-focused class;

A skill/magic-focused class; &

A feat/skill/magic-focused character (able to do a bit of everything, but weaker than either a dual-focus class or a single-focus class).

These fused classes could have a slight twist/tweak that couldn't be achieved by merely multiclassing single-focus classes (perhaps better than average hit dice, saves, attack bonuses, or a higher overall average # of skill points/feat slots/spell levels than a straight "even" 10-level/10-level multi-class of 2 single-focus-classes would provide, etc.).

PrCs for such a system could be much more focused--they could cover classes such as druids, rangers, paladins, bards, martial-artist monks, pseudo-mystical monks, militant priests/clerics, healing-intensive mages (healers), combat-intensive mages, etc. Also, core classes could lack any sort of AL requirements, while PrCs could include race, class, AL, & other requirements/limitations for characters.

On a related side note, Keeping AL requirements to PrCs only (and rather specific AL-related abilities to boot) could allow players to opt for the degree that AL takes place in their game, whether it's as somehwat clear-cut/absolute as the current "compass" system in D&D (Good/Evil, Law/Chaos), more based on a single concept (ala the Honor system in OA), or if it's a bit more ambiguous & adaptable (ala d20 Modern's Alliegiances system).

Maybe in such a system (even more so than the class-per-stat one mentioned above), it could be easier to build characters along certain concepts. Even with the fair number of core classes, I've still encountered player frustration at being unable to start of with a certain concept of a character at 1st level (granted, sometimes the player is just thinking too high on the power scale, but other times the player has a good, solid concept that couldn't be executed in the rules as is).

I'm not looking for one uber-system to cover all sorts of concepts & genres (ala GURPS), but it's be kinda cool to play a fantasy game that could cover various kinds/types of fantasy settings, & not just one style/brand of fantasy: the LotR RPG is, well, a LotR fantasy game; D&D covers D&D-style fantasy great, but not other kinds (such as LotR, Lankhmar, Conan, or Wheel of Time). I think that the d20 system has that potential, but it could be taken a bit further (not to the mutliclassing extremes of d20 Modern, though).

Like I said, I like what's available in D&D--doesn't mean that I'll allow it all. However, I'm concerned that in the drive for more "crunch" in the game, more "core" races, classes, & other material will be produced.

Well, keep those responses coming! It's a pretty nice discussion, & a rather even-keeled one, too (I was a bit concerned that it'd get a bit heated).

 

[Gez]

I like to have lots of classes, and the more customizable they are, the better.

By that I mean classes with subclasses, like what Monte Cook did in Arcana Unearthed: There's a witch class but you don't play a mere witch, you play a wood witch or an iron witch or a winter witch. There's a Totem Warrior class, again with several totems. There's a Champion class, with different causes.

In D&D, you have that also, but that's more slight. Cleric (of different gods), specialist wizards, psions.

 

[Corinth]

While I would prefer that the class structure (and the six basic classes) of d20 Modern be adapted to D&D in a future version of the game, I know that this is not likely to happen. Therefore, what I would like to see is that those elements that would most benefit the game be transported over: Talents, Reputation, Defense (Armor Class) Bonus Progression.

Talents would go a very long way towards reducing the need for massive basic and prestige class proliferation; a new (or variant) Talent tree would be sufficient for most existing classes outside the Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric quartet, and other abilities could be--and I say, should be--organized along similiar lines (such as spell lists) as required.

For example, a Sorcerer could be a Wizard with a variant Spell-casting Talent tree that grants spontaneous spell-casting at the cost of restricting spell acquistion to the manner akin to progressing along a Feat tree. Rangers, Barbarians and Paladins could all be reduced to Fighters using special Talent trees that can't be accessed unless you spend a Feat to unlock them; the Talents would be more powerful to compensate. Clerics and Wizards may be rolled together, requiring a decision (Feat expediture not necessarily required) when taking the class as to the sort of magic accessed. (You could roll Psions into this as well.)

Mind you, I'm speaking entirely in the hypothetical here.

A basic class shouldn't have dead levels for any reason; no class should, basic and prestige alike.

 

[I'm A Banana]

THE KAMIKAZE MIDGET'S BIG LIST O'CORE CLASSES
Core Rules
* Barbarian: It's a niche and an archetype -- lightly armored strongman.
* Bard: It's a good jack-of-all-trades
* Cleric: The archetypal armored medic is an essential part of a party.
* Druid: Shape-shifting elementalists are a good niche
* Fighter: The archetypal armored warrior is an essential part of a party. [I use Gez's variant for this, more flava.]
* Monk: A mystical unarmed specialist is strong enough.
* Paladin: Could be a PrC, but too much work for too little benefit.
* Ranger: Decent 'stealthy warrior' archetype.
* Rogue: The archetypal sneaky skill specialist is an essential part of a party.
* Sorcerer: A good way to represent a rapid-fire spellcaster
* Wizard: A good way to represent a scholarly spellcaster.
Psionics HB
* Psion: It's a good generalist spellcaster
* Psychic Warrior: Could be a PrC, but too much work for too little benefit.
Oriental Adventures
*Samurai: N/A. Play a Paladin with the Ancestral Weapon feat for the same thing, nearly.
* Shaman: A good priest for a less militant division
* Shugenja: excellent spontaneous divine spellcaster
* Sohei: A great defensive warrior class.
*Wu Jen: N/A. Play a wizard, with the X/day metamagic rules
Complete Warrior
* Hexblade: A nice wielder of 'bad luck.' Fills a niche well!
*Samurai: Play a fighter, with an 'intimidating warrior' PrC.
* Swashbuckler: A useful 'agile fighter' archetype.
Final Fantasy d20
* Archer: Ranged fighter that inflicts status
* Berserker: A rager who messes with minds, and shifts form
* Black Belt: Unarmed warrior who uses ki spells
* Caller: A summonner of phantoms and beasts
* Dragoon: A jumping warrior who uses spears and dragon magic
* Gambler: A user of luck and randomness to great advantage
* Geomancer: A user of land-magic that differs based on terrain
* Knight: Warrior who shatters equipment
* Knight, Pearl: Holy warrior who uses sacred sword skills
* Knight, Shadow: Evil warrior who uses cursed sword arts
* Magician, Black: Casts destructive spells
* Magician, Blue: A warrior who casts the spells of monsters
* Magician, Gray: Casts curses, space, and time spells
* Magician, Red: A warrior who casts curative and destructive spells
* Magician, White: Casts curative spells
* Mechanist: A manufacturer of items
* Mimic: A user of others' abilities
* Ninja: Two-weapon wielding illusionist-rogue
* Samurai: A lightly armored sword artist
* Songweaver: A singer/dancer who can bless and curse
* Thief: A stealer of hearts, minds, and gil.
SECRET
* [censored]: A specialty priest who focuses on domain powers.
END

That's a load and a half of core classes, and some of them are repetative (Pearl Knight almost = Paladin), and some could make better PrC's (like the Psychic Warrior), that's the current list my PC's can choose from...any archetypes I missed?