New class preference--Am I alone on this?

[BryonD]

I have evolved from being opposed to new core classes to being a big fan of them. There are plenty of class concepts that work very well but should be accessible from level 1.
I find feats are great for fleshing out characters, but they don't offer nearly the freedom that a new class does. Green Ronin's Shaman and Witch are examples that I would find very dissatisfactory as feat builds but are great new classes.

It is a balancing act between having a unique class for every unique character and having way to many rules getting in the way of the game. In general, the latter tends to be a much bigger threat to game play. And, as such, most new classes don't work that well. But the good ones are an excellent addition.

 

[Psion]

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.

I am 180 degrees out of phase with you here. To me, 20 level core classes should be broad and something I could realistically expect to see an apprentice version of... prestige classes are advanced specialties. To me, that makes it much more accomodating to allow new prestige classes than core classes.

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 can see that. I sort of think the paladin itself is too specific. Which is why Green Ronin's (Un)Holy Warrior works for me. (I hope to see a full 3.5 conversion of the Holy part of the class someday.)

I'd rather the assassin be a full class, like the rogue.

That, I'm not with. You go more general than an assassin (which would justify it being a core class IME), it would be a rogue.

 

[IronWolf]

I prefer the prestige classes to an onslaught of base classes. As others have already mentioned I think base classes should be broad categoried. Let people use the wild array of skills and feats to tailor the feel of the general, broad based class to the more specialized version they see. To tailor these broad classes a little more is where the prestige classes come in. I see no need to try to pigeon hole the base classes into being overly specialized.

 

[Mad Mac]

I agree, but I think it's largely a reaction to having become numb to Prestige Classes after being drowned in them over the years. Still, if I'm going to play a certain kind of character, I do think I'd rather play a base class than a prc.

 

[der_kluge]

Actually, I find that I prefer more and more generic classes that I can customize. It seems like I'm always coming up with oddball character concepts that don't fit into the molds very easily. So, I don't know that I favor one over the other.

 

[Aus_Snow]

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?), and one has even seen use for a PC already: the 'Sentinel' Paladin variant. The character in this case really couldn't have started as anything else. No standard base class and PrC combination could have done the trick.

So, bravo! to those columnists, designers and so on who manage to continue to create usable, interesting new base classes / class variants.

 

[Rystil Arden]

If I see a class I like, whether its a new base class or a new prestige class, I'll use it. I don't really have too much of a preference, but I like things that are new and off-the-wall but compelling enough to represent a character concept (such as the warlock or spellthief) to be a base class, and the things that would be added on to a character as part of a guild membership or status (a la Fochluchan Lyrist or Archmage) to be a prestige class. I've created both prestige classes and base classes for my home campaigns to fit my needs, and I think that its silly to refuse to use one of the two mechanics in favour of the other in all cases. That said, there are so many prestige classes already out there that I find myself creating base classes more often. For example, one character wanted to play a berserker character who was originally an apprentice wizard who was horribly disfigured by magic, causing him to convert the energy of spells that he saves against into a frenzy. I could have told him to multiclass Wizard and Barbarian and then take levels in Rage Mage, but not only didn't that fit his character concept, but even if it did, it would have left him bereft of the flavour he desired for many levels. So I whipped out the Whirling Frenzy variant from Unearthed Arcana (with the requirement that he save against hostile magic to activate it), sprinkled in some of the Spelltouched feats from the same to replace some of the barbarian abilities, made the class literate, added minor magic which couldn't be used in the frenzy, (in case he was attacked without being hit with spells) and created the Spellfrenzied (I wound up creating something very similar to the Spellthief called the Dweamoureater in this way).

 

[Jolly Giant]

I agree, but I think it's largely a reaction to having become numb to Prestige Classes after being drowned in them over the years.

Agreed. That and the fact that all the good arch-type PrC's has long since been done.

 

[mearls]

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).

 

[DarkWhite]

New Base Classes!

I hated Prestige Classes ever since they were introduced in 3rdEd. I like the idea in concept, creating unique campaign-specific roles, qualifying for organisation membership, etc. However, Prestige Classes are totally useless to low-level characters who are stuck with the Basic Classes.

A rogue advancing to qualify for an Assassin Prestige Class would probably still identify himself as an assassin, because that's what he does, kills others for profit. Perhaps Prestige Class descriptions could do more to support characters advancing toward qualifying. For example, provide roleplaying concepts for low-level Assassin apprentices, or Substitution Levels, so the player feels like he's advancing toward his goal, feels the part, and receives appropriate flavour / rewards for doing so.

There are some good Base Classes. Shaman, Witch, Wujen, Samurai, Ninja, Swashbuckler, etc. Sure, these could all be created from base classes by choosing appropraite skills, feats, weapons, spell lists, roleplaying background etc. However, if you're playing in a specific setting (Oriental, African etc), or have a specific character type in mind, then having appropriate Base Classes right from the start helps players (esp. new players) by building theses components right into the Base Class description so the player doesn't have to spend as much effort customising these to fit his concept, and not having to wait until level 6 before playing the part.