New class preference--Am I alone on this?

[Turjan]

I'm just wondering how severely I'm in the minority on this.

Although I was originally against a multitude of base classes - and many of the early attempts at new and unique base classes showed me that I was right with this notion - I came to the conclusion that base classes have their niche for everything that requires multi-classing with spellcasters. The current multi-classing system fails completely as soon as any spellcaster class is included in the mix. That's why we see prestige classes like the Mystic Theurge, which was a one of the first attempts to get out of this dilemma, and now base classes like the Hexblade or the Warmage. Prestige classes with their multi-classing requirements before the player can take them are a bit clunky in achieving a similar result, and most of the time this approach fails, because casters are always hurt by missing out on caster levels. Btw, that's why I see the Bard filling a valid niche (and Ranger and Paladin failing ), although the execution is still far from satisfying.

I think that Arcana Unearthed shows nicely that there is the possibility of producing quite a few base classes with a unique feel to them.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I do prefer base classes.

Though I love 3 and five level prestige classes. I think that's the perfect range for giving a character a little bit of specific flavor.

But most of the tens are so archetypical anyways that I don't understand why they aren't core classes.

Plus, I think core classes do a lot more to establish base line flavor for a setting. You can see the implications of a base class moving throughout the society a lot more readily than you can through prestige classes.

For more core are for world flavor and prestige are for character flavor within the world.

 

[Jdvn1]

Depends. I like both.

I'd just like the Soulknife to be a prestige class, like in 3.0.

Agreed! My 3.0 psion/soulknife just didn't work in 3.5.

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

It just depends... some of the new base classes I really like, despite the fact they are really "niched" (I know...I just made it up)... the Soulknife and Warlock are good examples of this, I think. The Hexblade I like, as well as the Scout and the Spellthief (another niche class). PrC's... sooooo many... enough! I'd like to see more rules (and clear ones) on creating them "as needed" instead of cranking them out like mad.

Variants on existing classes I like (the variant paladins, clerics, and necromancers from Dragon Magazine were great!) and the variants on existing classes in Hamunaptra are really good, as well, demonstrating how a base class would differ from culture to culture. I just received the Hamunaptra set as a gift, and was pleasantly surprised to learn that Mouseferatu had so much to do with it. Great job!

 

[pogre]

IMHO, the key design difference between a core class and a prestige class comes down to a simple divide.

A core class should explore new design space that offers viable room for growth across 20 levels, has obvious synergies for feats, fits into one of the five class silos*, and can do something interesting that none of the core, PHB classes can do.

If the concept doesn't fit all of those points, it should be a prestige class.

NB: I believe that under my definition, the current ranger and bard don't fit the criteria needed for a full, core class. I've redesigned both (or re-re-redesigned them, considering 3.5 and Monte's versions) and maybe I'll slip them into a project one of these days.

As with all things that tumble through my keyboard, YMMV.

* The four basic food groups (fighter, arcane caster, divine caster, trap finder) plus the fifth wheel, any class that works best as the fifth member of a party that covers all four food groups (the monk is the best example).

I'm right with you until you hit the fifth "silo" - it seems to work against the rest of this fine post - AKA stuff I agree with

 

[Mouseferatu]

I much prefer new base classes, and variants on old ones, myself. I quite like some of the ones in DMs 310-312 too (which one did you write, incidentally, Mouseferatu?)

The alternate clerics in issue #311. My first appearance in the magazine, in fact.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

If an archtype (or character type that's not archtypical enough to be an archtype) has abilities weak enough to be accessible at 1st level, it should be a base class.

At 4th level, an advanced class.

At 8th level or higher, a prestige class.

AdCs and PrCs are like rarity and high mana costs on a Magic card or higher typing and points for a Warhammer model - restrictions on when and how it becomes available to a player.

The 3.0 DMG introduced so many preconceptions about prestige classes - starting with the word 'prestige.' Most of those preconceptions damage the utility and playability of the concept, which boils down to this:

A PrC replaces levels a to b in a base class, where a is higher than 1 and b is at least one higher than a (although I can't think of a two-level prestige class).

Since level 15 provides more benefits over level 14 than level 5 does over level 4, a class designed to start at level 15 can provide more powerful options than one designed to start at level 5. A 'prestige class' limits use by forcing a player to meet certain requirements (just as a 5UU Rare spell limits use by forcing a player to have 7 mana, two of which are blue, and to get the card in the first place, and a 900 pt Lord limits use by forcing a player to pay more and expend a lord choice).

The assassin must be a PrC because its signature ability (Death Attack) is considered too powerful for a 1st-level character. It could delay getting Death Attack, but that's practically the whole point of the class, and a-1 levels would either dillute the point or be annoying and worthless.

 

[mearls]

I'm right with you until you hit the fifth "silo" - it seems to work against the rest of this fine post - AKA stuff I agree with

The fifth silo is definitely something that bugs me to no end, but I still can't quite shelve the monk in an effective place. He isn't as good a fighter as a fighter, paladin, or barbarian, he can't find traps or fill as many skill holes as the rogue, and he obviously isn't a spellcaster.

Yet, the monk is an effective character class. It's main strengths are its speed, defensive abilities, and special attacks. The warlock is very similar - it's not quite so good at filling any of the four niches, but it's a very useful class to have around.

Part of me thinks that 4e should dump the game's dependence on rogues as the only trapfinders. In that case, the rogue's silo and the "fifth wheel silo" could merge together into the "supporting fighter" silo, or characters who aren't necessarily powerful fighters but who work wonders when paired with a fighter-type (rogue flanks for sneak attack, a monk stuns a BBEG and gives the fighter time to hit him without risk of injury, the warlock lays waste to monsters as long as someone can keep him protected, etc.)

 

[mearls]

The assassin must be a PrC because its signature ability (Death Attack) is considered too powerful for a 1st-level character. It could delay getting Death Attack, but that's practically the whole point of the class, and a-1 levels would either dillute the point or be annoying and worthless.

That's a good way to look at them. Iit makes a lot of sense from a design standpoint, especially with PrCs that represent the intersection of story and mechanics material.

 

[Steverooo]

Actually, I find that I prefer more and more generic classes that I can customize.

Exactly! THIS is what I think 3.5/4e needs, not more Prestige (or other) Classes. Feats and new abilities at EVERY level. Specific Class-Only Feats, which only certain classes can take, granting specific abilities, chosen from a "pool" of Feats only available to that class. Nearly all classes have some room, and the Druid/Monk could be allowed to trade some out.

The "Paladin" Class should remain, but be expanded, by alignment. The Blackguard (renamed "Destroyer") would be the CE version, the Paladin the LG version, the "Liberator" the CG, etc.... (See the "Alignment" section of the PHB). Each gets powers in accordance with its alignment.

Rangers, too, should stay as a core class. They should get access to some Fighter Feats (especially new ones that allow better AC in Light Armor, ala Swashbuckling), as well as sharing some with Barbarians and some of the lower level Druid ones (not Shapechange, but Traceless Passage, for instance). Rangers should also get good Will saves (poor Reflex), and Uncanny Dodge instead of Evasion... Survival is very often more a matter of Will (rather than Reflexes), and Rangers need to keep their DEX bonus to AC to make them at least equal to Rogues in scouting. This would also help to make them different from both the stronger but weaker-willed Fighters, and the more-agile but less-hardy Rogues and Monks. Hence, Survival is their "niche". They use (and resist) spells better than a Fighter, track, and have knowledge of the wilderness.

Fighters should get some Knowledge Skills (I think they're currently the only ones who don't get any). I suggest Knowledge (History), for info on ancient battles, and Knowledge (Architecture & Engineering), for info on sapping & mining, defensive fortifications, etc. They also need new choosable Feats, such as Swashbuckling, Canny Defense, etc., and a couple of Feats that let them acquire new skills as Class Skills. Perhaps "Commander" would grant Diplomacy & Knowledge (Nobility & Royalty), for instance, or "Sentinel" would grant Listen & Spot, "Sensitive" would grant Sense Motive & Bluff, or whatever...

Feat chains for each Classes' special abilities should be nearly unique. The Fighter has his list of Feats, but should have some new ones added, some of which might be shared with a few other classes, but most of which should be available only to Fighters (like "Commander", above). A few Feats might be shared with other classes, like "Swashbuckling" with Bards, Rangers, and Rogues, or a Barbarian's Fast Movement with Druids and Rangers, or some Monk Abilities (such as bonuses to Unarmed Damage or AC) with Fighters... This is allowable, as long as the classes share similar focus, with respect to those Feats (Barbarians, Druids, and Rangers all needing to move quickly through the wild, carrying their gear, for instance).

With enough work, the 3(.5)e Classes would become flexible and general enough that the need for Swashbucklers, Tempests, etc., would be gone. This seems like a better solution, to me; YMMV.