Designing Base vs. Prestige classes

[TripleAught]

So, a friend and I were having a discussion about this topic the other day. I'll lay out the positions and then you can give feedback.

Position 1: Developing Base classes that are variations on the standards. This concept is almost like taking a Base Class package and expanding it with some different class skills, maybe some new feats or abilities, and even spells where applicable.

Position 2: Develop the same classes with skills, feats, and abilities but treat them as Prestige classes. But possibly allowing characters to take them at a lower level then typical Prestige classes.

I suppose, at the heart of it, the question is how standard are the standard base classes? Does their broad appeal make them universally useful? And does having greater diversity from the start (level 1) make the game more interesting or just more tedious?

For the record, I'm a creative person and was in favor of position 1.

 

[DwelleroftheDeep]

The D&D base classes are a little restrictive for me so personally I prefer D20 Modern as a DM though I'll play D&D without worrying about it. In other words I'd say that the normal base classes aren't universally useful enough (Especially Ranger and Paladin). I like diversity so if I was to choose one of your options it would be the first one.

 

[Vigilance]

A lot of people feel there should be a premium on Base Classes. I'm not sure why this is at all.

To my mind, the only thought process I go through is "how many levels would this archetype be interesting to play".

If the answer is 20, then it's a base class. If the answer is any number less than 20, it's a prestige class.

In other words, I don't bother trying to suss out if there's anything "prestige" about the class. I look at all classes as archetypes and go from there.

I also don't think every class should be as broad as possible in an attempt to incorporate 15 closely related archetypes to prove what a slick designer I am.

I *could* do that. You *could* do the entire game with 3 classes as has been proven many times.

But I never saw the point of that. If a very specific archetype can be extended to 20 levels as an interesting class, why not.

 

[ValhallaGH]

When approaching class design (or fundamental changes to classes) it is important to decide what you want the classes to represent.

D20 Modern classes represent problem solving approaches. Strong heroes go for the direct and simple routes, Tough heroes tend to outlast their troubles, Dedicated heroes stay true to their causes, etc.

Iron Heroes classes are fighting styles only. A barbarian champion, a noble samurai warrior and a sneaky rogue may all have the same number of levels in the same class but they are differentiated by their choices of skills, feats and sometimes class features.

True20 roles are what role you envision the character playing in the story. Is the character a combatant, a skill user or a spell caster? This doesn't mean that all characters with the same role are identicle, just that they happen to have levels in the same role.

D&D classes are all over the place. You've got fighting styles, careers, religious experiences, ancestral inheritences, and just about any other trait one can think of used to design various core classes. This makes it very difficult to decide what's actually core and what's not (making Vigilance's advice extremely useful).

Once you've decided what having levels in a class (any class) represents, you can start creating consistant and, usually, balanced class write-ups. It becomes easy to determine what is a core class, what is a prestige class, and what should just be a feat chain or even just a new use for an existing skill. Ultimately, the decision of what a class represents is the deciding factor of whether or not a given concept deserves to be a class.

 

[Vigilance]

Valhalla, these are all good points. I think in D&D a class is simply an archetype, which could be any of the above things you mention. And here by archetype, I would define it as "take a character from literature and sum him up in a single sentence".

If that single sentence has enough substance for 20 levels of class abilities, BAM! you got yourself a core class.

I think a lot of people overthink classes. They go read the Forge forums and try to decide if the class is going to represent a gamist aspect of play or simulationist? Several hours later, they've decided the class sucks, or they're bored with it and they walk away.

I think if you start with "who is this guy" in one sentence and go straight from there to mechanics, with no preconception about how many levels you're going to wind up with, you end up with a better product.

As an example, when I was designing Legends of Excalibur, I intended the Lady of the Lake to be a core class. One of the few openly female archetypes in the legends. I was bound and determined to make it core. After pulling the class entirely, I went back at it with an open mind, and wound up with a 5-level PrC that works pretty well.

Basically, I have no "design philosophy" other than "is this class interesting and balanced". And if I have to pick one, I pick the first one. I would much rather have a fun interesting class the pushes the boundaries of balance than a whitewashed class no one wants to play but everyone agrees is the epitome of balance.

For examples of designers with better pedigrees than me making similar choices, consult the core Druid class for a class that's interesting and fun despite not being quite balanced. For a balanced class that guarantees snoozing in most players, consult the Bard from the core rules.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Valhalla, these are all good points.

Thank you.

I think in D&D a class is simply an archetype, which could be any of the above things you mention. And here by archetype, I would define it as "take a character from literature and sum him up in a single sentence".

And I think that that is the core of my problem with D&D class design. So many of the archetypes don't need to be very different, mechanically, especially since they limit the creativity of the players.

Pretend for a moment that you wanted to have a D&D party that resembled a typical anime ninja team.
Fast deadly guy.
Huge deadly guy.
Powerful ninja mage.
Deadly infiltration specialist.
All four of them need to be very sneaky and the last two are probably weak in a stand-up fight when compared to the first two.

With D&D class design you'd need four new core classes and probably a brand new magic system to make this very simple and cool archetypal team; the Ninja core class covers the fourth archetype but not the others, all of whom are equally ninja. If one could be a stealthy Barbarian then we wouldn't need a core class for the second archetype, but alas that can not be. The third archetype might be doable with a sorcerer if they could be stealthy and sneak attacky. The first archetype might be able to get by with a Swashbuckler but I am skeptical.
With some other systems you just need to have the characters pick up a few weapon proficiencies and various stealth skills and you would be ready to roll.

I prefer the approach of other systems, as it provides a simple tool kit that can guide me down the path the designer envisioned but still leaves me with the option to twist it to my own archetypes and inspirations. The guidance is the advantage of a classed system over a classless one, and the advantage of about ten classes instead of three, while the flexibility is the advantage of allowing classes to be flexible enough to cover concepts and archetypes beyond the original vision without having to write tomes of new rules. I like that I can use the IH Berserker for a cool and focused samurai as easily as I can use it for a savage and uncontrolled wilderness warrior; extremely different archetypes with very similar rules mechanics allows me to get a lot done with very few rules books.

However, that's my personal preference. I understand that some people would faint at the very suggestion of using a single class to cover a wide variety of archetypes. I understand that some people can't differentiate between a character's concept and the name of his class. Those people are free to do as they please with my blessing, support and occaisional help. I just don't want them to tell me that I'm playing the game the wrong way.

 

[Vigilance]

Fast deadly guy.
Huge deadly guy.
Powerful ninja mage.
Deadly infiltration specialist.
All four of them need to be very sneaky and the last two are probably weak in a stand-up fight when compared to the first two.

All of them need to be sneaky to a degree.

This is what multiclassing is for.

One thing d20 realized, brilliantly, is that free-form multiclassing allows hybrid archetypes in all sorts of combinations. It effectively removes class as a barrier to character development, and this is the critical part: at the discretion of the player.

No, it's not *AS* free form as a true point based system, especially not at 1st level where the hybridization of archetypes can't take hold (though it can very early, by 2nd level for a lot of concepts).

But in my experience, this is a good thing. Brand new players aren't usually ready to absorb a lot of options.

So what d20 does, is it allows you to "buy" abilities in one-level package deals, selecting from a possible BAB increase, skill points and lists, possibly spells. Add in feats and you get even more options.

For my money, d20 is a nice balance of options and ease of use that ranks up there with the best of the point based systems: GURPS and Hero.

Chuck

 

[ValhallaGH]

First, I find your analysis of D&D class creation and design to be accurate and insightful. I appreciate the sharing of your wisdom and experience; not only was it interesting but it's given me another perspective to look at D&D from. Thank you.


Second, Woops! I seem to have been unclear. For that I appologize.

I like d20; I feel that the core concepts of it are excellent and translate well into most of the game types I look forward to playing. I like classes and levels, they guide character design and development while still leaving plenty of room for customization and uniqueness.

I have some issues with core d20, specifically D&D, with regards to the way classes are conceptualized and designed as well as the way multi-classing is handled (favored classes and experience penalties really get my goat).
Because of those issues, I prefer d20 based systems other than D&D for the ways classes should be conceptualized and designed. These other systems appeal to me because of their consistant and non-redundant classes that can easily cover a multitude of archetypes with a single class yet still allow for other classes to cover that same archetype with a completely different mechanical, and flavorful, approach.

In my previous post I mentioned an anime ninja team as inspiration for an adventuring party. I covered how complex it would be to create such a team in D&D. In Iron Heroes I would use the 1) Executioner, 2) Berserker, 3) Arcanist and 4) Thief, and I would need no special house rules or extraneous effort despite the fact that only the Executioner was remotely designed with the ninja archetype in mind. Alternatively I could use 1) Harrier, 2) Armiger, 3) Arcanist and 4) Man At Arms; or I could use a couple dozen other class combinations to achieve the same archetypal results. Each team will be different because each character emphasizes different parts of the archetype but each team will still fill the four roles of that archetype.
The fact that I can cover the desired archetypes with minimal fuss using pre-existing, heavily playtested, classes even though they weren't designed for my specific archetype tells me that Iron Heroes class design works better than D&D class design.
The only thing in D20 Modern that slows me down is the existence of cross-class skills. I've got houserules to fix that, but it was also one of my main complaints with D&D classes, making it an arguemental deathblow for D20M.

I give D&D a lot of props. It got me into this wonderful hobby, it introduced me to many fine people, it has entertained me for years and it has some really great ideas. On the other hand, I think there are better ways to do many d20 things than the D&D way. Classes, skills, grappling and magic are four big areas where I think things could be done better. Various third party materials have fulfilled my current hopes and expectations for some of those areas. I am still searching the works of others and my own abilities to manipulate the ruleset for those remaining areas.

I'm hopeful that some of my experiences and discoveries will be as helpful to others as Vigilance's experiences and explanations have been to me.

 

[TripleAught]

Thanks for the feedback. Both of you have made some interesting points about class creation.

I'll have to sit down and try to work out a third position now, so I can incorporate your comments and suggestions.