New class preference--Am I alone on this?

[Mouseferatu]

I've realized something over the past year or so.

All things being equal, I'd much rather see a new full class (that is, 20 levels, no prerequisites) than a new prestige class.

Obviously, this doesn't work all the time. Many concepts are too specific to be 20-level classes, and of course those are best served by PrCs. But with any concept that can reasonably function as a full class, I'd prefer it to be one. For instance, I'd rather the blackguard be a full class, like the paladin. I'd rather the assassin be a full class, like the rogue. (Yes, I know they're almost the same thing. Nevertheless...) Assuming a viable concept and equal quality across the board, I prefer articles in Dragon, and new features in 3rd party products, that present full classes. I prefer writing full classes. I liked the articles back in Dragon 310-312 that presented new variants on the standard classes, but did so with all 20 levels. (Leaving aside, for a moment, the fact that I wrote one of them. )

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

 

[Arnwyn]

In a generic product? I'm abivalent... I couldn't care one way or the other (as I would likely ignore both).

In a product for a published setting (say, FR)? No way - I'd rather see a prestige class.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

I like new core classes, if well thought out.

I like the Hexblade, Favored Soul, Warlock, and Scout.

Others are "eh". I'd like to see a Blackguard core class.

 

[pdkoning]

I do also like 'full' classes over prestige classes. The Blackguard is a good one, I also think that an archer base class is cool.
In my opinion prestige classes do not fit when someone wants to play some character that is not fully covered by a base class but only by a prestige class.
Let's say a character can not hit the prerequisites for a prestige class until level 8, than that character can not be what the player wants it to be for a very long time. (assuming you start at level 1) I know certain abilities things take training, but you can grant minor powers to the low levels of an alternate base class. (As with every base class).

 

[Ravellion]

I'd rather see the Paladin etc. as prestige classes (if at all). So no. But then, I basically want 4 core classes, lots of feats, and then let players pick their special abilities through those.

Rav

 

[Darkness]

Depends. I like both.

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

 

[TerraDave]

Uh no. I would prefer the PrCs: I like the idea that charecters become more specialised through time, and I think a lot of fantasy archtypes are of the "prestigious" sort.

But core classes should be more flexible, making a good number of new base and prestige classes (more) reduntant

 

[Crothian]

I perfer Prestige classes, but I will agree that some of them like the Assassin and Blackguard really can be core classes.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I'm on the "base classes over prestige classes" bandwagon, myself-- except that I like tranformational classes to be prestige.

However, I don't agree about the Assassin-- it shouldn't be either. Rogue covers it entirely.

 

[Mercule]

Both have their place. Broader archetypes work better as base classes. Narrower or refined archetypes work better as PrCs. Paladins are one base class that is pretty much a poster child for PrCs. In truth, Monks should be a PrC, too, with a base class that allows for lighter armed/armored fighters than the Fighter class allows, including a monk.

I know that there is at least one PrC from CW(?) that I felt should be a base class.

Truthfully, I'm getting tired of both base classes and PrCs. I've pondered what you're pondering, and realized that the only reason base classes looked better was because I hadn't seen 15 new ones every couple of months for the last 4 or so years.