"Modding" classes vs multiclassing

[gamecat]

I honestly can't stand alternate classes... it makes the idea of PrC's kinda defunct in that you just monkey with your core class and laugh at the players who have to qualify for unique abilities.

The core classes give you plenty of paint in your palette to depict your character. I allow the Class Feature Removal hindrance from the Dusk Campaign Setting, so there is some degree of flexibility.

If you have some area of your character that you need to express, design a PrC and run it by your dm...

 

[Desdichado]

And I'm not that fond of prestige classes. I realized last night that my preferred method was to have a core class that does what I want and stick with it throughout the entire character life.

 

[Henry]

Each has its advantages, and modding a class in particular gives a stronger more archetypal feeling to what you are pursuing. But take, for example, a Magister from AU. You can't get that thing, no matter HOW you slice a Sorcerer/Cleric. Warmains, Totem Warriors, and Unfettered are nothing more than different ways to Mix Fighters, Rogues, and Barbarians - but you still have strong divisions in the roles that multiclassing can't blur enough.

 

[Tsyr]

The core classes give you plenty of paint in your palette to depict your character.

See, I disagree. I think there are several concepts that you can't really portray even with with core classes, and I don't think Prestige Classes are supposed to be a natural growth path of a character... The whole word "prestige" and all, ya know.

For example.

Finess Fighter
Non-Asian-Themed unarmed fighter
Mage/Fighter (which sucks with normal multiclassing)
Non-Ass-Kicking Priest
Knight in Shining Armour
Noble (I can't stand the DMG idea of a noble as a player class)
Hedge Wizard
Witch


All of these are major character concepts in fantasy literature without adequate representation in the standard 11 core classes, yet are not really suited for a prestiege class.

Off the top of my head, were I do pick one class done properly for each of these, I would pick, in order...

Unfettered from UA
Can't remember the name, but there is an unarmed guy from Midnight
Mageblade from UA
Don't know off-hand if this has been done or not... I think it has, but I can't remember where.
Samurai from OA, just rename it, or the Knight class from the book of the same name.
Either the Cortier from OA or the Noble from Wheel of Time, depending on what type of noble the character wanted (both are very different).
Hedge Wizard from the book of the same name
Witch from "The Quintessential Witch"

Which isn't to say that every major fantasy archtype needs a new class.

Pirate, for example. IMO, a pirate is just a rogue or a fighter that spends skillpoints on Profession: Sailor.

So why, you ask, don't I think the Knight in Shining Armour is just a fighter that spent ranks in Knowledge: Heraldry? Because there are specific features of the Knight in Shining Armour archtype that don't get adequetly represented by just a fighter. Ancestral weapons are a common theme, for example. Generaly more worldly. Things like that.

They aren't true prestige classes, though, because there is nothing particularly exceptional about them, as compared to any of a hundred knights you could find.

On the flipside, these are what I think of when I think of prestiege classes:

Knight Protector of the Great Realm
Order of the Bow Initiate
Harper Scout
Red Wizard
etc etc. Things that have meaning behind them.

 

[WizarDru]

I suppose it's a measure of degrees. If you're going to tinker with the core classes, make sure that you don't undermine one class in the favor of another 'pet' class you've changed. The core fighter, for example, doesn't have 'wasted' class abilities, necessarily. Being able to take advantage of every piece of armor and most weapons that you find as treasure is not worthless, and being able to follow long feat chains with much less sacrifice than other classes is a nice talent.

The trick, of course, is to make sure that you understand the full ramifications of such tinkering on the metagame, and down the line. Joshua plays a version of D&D that's so modified from the core as to barely resemble the game I play, for example, which is a stylistic choice. I prefer, rather, to grant or create Prestige classes and offer the flexibility to a PC for his development.

If I were to use alternate core classes (other than broad archetypes which differ from the core, such as the Samurai), I would probably use the suggestions put forth in the more recent issues of Dragon, with it's alternate fighters...or I would consider AU's alternate classes...but in the latter case, I would swap them in in toto rather than cherry-pick.

 

[Desdichado]

I suppose it's a measure of degrees. If you're going to tinker with the core classes, make sure that you don't undermine one class in the favor of another 'pet' class you've changed. The core fighter, for example, doesn't have 'wasted' class abilities, necessarily. Being able to take advantage of every piece of armor and most weapons that you find as treasure is not worthless, and being able to follow long feat chains with much less sacrifice than other classes is a nice talent.

They're not wasted if you want to have your fighter be a tank. If you want your fighter to be a swashbuckler, you've got baggage. You can't do some of the things you want to, yet you can do things you don't want to. Hence, the swashbuckler archetype gets short shrift in D&D, because in order to play it, you have to accept a lessening of your effectiveness. I'm not saying the swashbuckler should undermine the fighter, certainly, but he should be just as effective as an option.

The trick, of course, is to make sure that you understand the full ramifications of such tinkering on the metagame, and down the line. Joshua plays a version of D&D that's so modified from the core as to barely resemble the game I play, for example, which is a stylistic choice. I prefer, rather, to grant or create Prestige classes and offer the flexibility to a PC for his development.

Quite probably true, but in this case, not necessarily germaine to the discussion. A swashbuckler is a common archetype in all kinds of games that players way want to play, regardless of the level of "modding" to the system as a whole. So is the Robin Hood-esque ranger, for example. None of the solutions: multiclassing, prestige classing, etc. really offer an adequate solution to these archetypes, IMO, yet they are universal archetypes that someone may very well want to play in something as quintessentially D&D as "Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil."

If I were to use alternate core classes (other than broad archetypes which differ from the core, such as the Samurai), I would probably use the suggestions put forth in the more recent issues of Dragon, with it's alternate fighters...or I would consider AU's alternate classes...but in the latter case, I would swap them in in toto rather than cherry-pick.

To be fair, I prefer that as well, when possible. And when I do mod classes, I typically do things very minor, like swapping around class skills, or minor class abilities. I'd be unlikely to create an all new or mostly new core character class from scratch.

 

[Voadam]

Its funny, I'm more likely to allow in a full alternate class than allow a DMG approved modification of a core class in my game.

As a player I am more likely to look at the dozens of existing classes and prestige classes and look for what would be a cool character concept inpsired by the mechanics and flavor of the classes than to come up with something conceptually from a story angle and try to modify classes to fit that concept. Even when its something like skill swapping for a core class (in the game I'm playing in rangers get all the favored enemy skills as class skills) it feels more off than doing a straight third party class (so I waited until I picked up Eldritch Knight to get sense motive).

It depends a little on how comfortable you are in modifying the base versus adding onto the base of the core system.

 

[Magius del Cotto]

Personally, I like to go with alternatives/mods with the character classes to get the concept I want instead of multiclassing. Why? Because keeping track of the character is a lot easier that way (without having to monkey around with multiple skill sets). Most of the tweaks I make are changes to the skill lists, and a couple of times I've played around with the starting feats, but that's it. When you multiclass, you not only get into the base save/BAB silliness, but you get an additional skill set that you need to perform a balancing act to get right. Don't believe me? Try modeling a stealthy "Robin Hood of the City" type character using Fighter and Rogue. You can do it, but you have to do a lot of finicky tweaks to the skills, and if the DM doesn't let you carry skillpoints over, then you're sunk. Now take the Unfettered. You can do the same thing with it, and you don't have to worry about overbalancing on your skills to get it to work either.
Prestige classes come in when you want a character to specialize in one area. I don't think that modding the base classes overrules this idea. Certainly, you can mod the classes to be more presentable to the prestige classes, but as long as the prestige classes fit a specific role, they'll still be taken.
That is all.
Magius out.

 

[Umbran]

That's the point, isn't it? A fighter/rogue multiclass, because of his "baggage" isn't as powerful as a fighter or a rogue straight-class because much of what he picks up is useless and makes lots of sacrifices for his flexibility.

But flexibility, when properly used, is power. So, the equation gets somewhat vague - exactly how much power one has depends upon long-term application. The issue isn't how well the character will do in any particular conflict, but how well the character will do long term in a campaign. It is easier to measure the first, less easy to estimate the second.

The Unfettered, on the other hand, is balanced with both the fighter and the rogue, while incorporating many of the best features of both. Multiclassing tends to make you less powerful.

Again, I haven't seen the Unfettered, but by description is isn't balanced with the fighter and rogue. If the Unfettered has lost baggage, and replaced it with things it will use, it will be mopre powerful than the fighter or rogue, who has not gone through the same process. Losing an ability you choose not to use, and replacing it wiht one you will use isn't balancing, it's boosting.

 

[Desdichado]

Again, I haven't seen the Unfettered, but by description is isn't balanced with the fighter and rogue. If the Unfettered has lost baggage, and replaced it with things it will use, it will be mopre powerful than the fighter or rogue, who has not gone through the same process. Losing an ability you choose not to use, and replacing it wiht one you will use isn't balancing, it's boosting.

But the Unfettered isn't more flexible than the fighter or the rogue, it's merely a different concept. While the Fighter class is poor at emulating a swashbuckling type of fighter, the Unfettered class is likewise poor at emulating a knight in shining armor, or any other type of tank class. The Unfettered isn't boosted in relation to the Fighter or the Rogue by itself, it's boosted in relation to the Fighter/Rogue multiclass, but the boost gets it to the same level as the Fighter or the Rogue. Like I said, I believe a Fighter/Rogue multiclass is less powerful than a Fighter or a Rogue by itself. I'm also dubious about the flexibility=power argument. The Fighter class, or any other class, works best when used exactly as intended, which naturally limits the flexibility in regard to its power unless that's also the concept you want to play. Power level is really a minor portion of the argument; I want to play concepts not power level, but at the same time, I don't want to sacrifice power level to get the concept I want.

Also, keep in mind, the Unfettered was originally designed to go with AU, which lacks both fighters and rogues as character classes (although the Warmain class is very similar to the fighter class.)