I was sort of excited about the new "specialist" fighter core classes that the latest Dragon magazine presented. A nifty and fairly reasonable flexibility that should allow anyone to craft a weapons-focused character to suit their tastes.
And then I thumbed over to the non-lawful good paladin variants. And it began to sink in...
The D&D class system is destined to (d)evolve into a generic build-your-own-class structure. In the case of variant fighters, for example, it's a matter of: Pick X number of skills and a list of feats slightly trimmed from the original fighter class; offer a few new feats (you can call them 'abilities' if you like); garnish with unique background; and serve with a class title like "Fencer." ... Take a look at the paladins, too: In each case, the paladin picks up some sort of critter companion at 5th level similar to a the paladin's mount. ... And in v3.5 PHB, they already started down this route with the new combat style attached to the ranger: At levels X, Y and Z, you can pick special feat option A or B.
We're looking at vague recipes wherein the class is defined by certain element slots that are filled in -- if you pick a d4 hit die spell caster class, for example, you can define your own big spell list; but if you pick a d6 hit die spell caster, you can define a spell list that has only 10 spells or so per level. If you don't like the saving throw combo of strong Will/weak Reflex/weak Fortitude, this class allows you to swap them around so that you can have a weak/weak/strong combo instead. ... that sort of thing.
I predict even more of the same in v3.9999 one of these days. The only thing that's missing is a point-buy system for class abilities.
My question: Is this a good thing overall, or is it better to have, say, only 11 very clearly defined core classes?
And then I thumbed over to the non-lawful good paladin variants. And it began to sink in...
The D&D class system is destined to (d)evolve into a generic build-your-own-class structure. In the case of variant fighters, for example, it's a matter of: Pick X number of skills and a list of feats slightly trimmed from the original fighter class; offer a few new feats (you can call them 'abilities' if you like); garnish with unique background; and serve with a class title like "Fencer." ... Take a look at the paladins, too: In each case, the paladin picks up some sort of critter companion at 5th level similar to a the paladin's mount. ... And in v3.5 PHB, they already started down this route with the new combat style attached to the ranger: At levels X, Y and Z, you can pick special feat option A or B.
We're looking at vague recipes wherein the class is defined by certain element slots that are filled in -- if you pick a d4 hit die spell caster class, for example, you can define your own big spell list; but if you pick a d6 hit die spell caster, you can define a spell list that has only 10 spells or so per level. If you don't like the saving throw combo of strong Will/weak Reflex/weak Fortitude, this class allows you to swap them around so that you can have a weak/weak/strong combo instead. ... that sort of thing.
I predict even more of the same in v3.9999 one of these days. The only thing that's missing is a point-buy system for class abilities.
My question: Is this a good thing overall, or is it better to have, say, only 11 very clearly defined core classes?
