New class preference--Am I alone on this?

[the Jester]

I hate hate hate redundant or unnecessary new core classes. If it isn't interesting, I'm not interested. Give me a variant instead of a new class unless there's something cool and different in there.

On the other hand, when setting up the bases classes for a specific setting, it's fine to have minor variants as entirely new classes (for instance, the OA samurai vs. the PH fighter); the key is to take out the fighter so there still isn't any redundancy.

Boring or redundant prestige classes annoy me, too, but not as much. I think it's easier to make an interesting prc than a well-balanced, interesting base class.

 

[Zoatebix]

Steveroo's post is very interesting and I can see the appeal of both approaches - putting lots of options into a broad or modular class on the one hand, and doing variations on a theme - like how the Warmain, Unfettered, and my homebrewed Gunman class are all different flavors of fighter.

One idea that can fit into both paradigms is to use more keyword descriptors to organize feats - players of generic classes choose a certain number of categories from which to draw their bonus feats to solidify their concepts, and more specialized classes are designed with bonus feats drawn from complimentary categories. If nothing else, this will save us from big feat lists (why, fighter... why!?) taking up lots of space in class write-ups.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I am very very distrustful of the chain of feats approach to character customization.

It seems to me, on the one hand, to be overly complicated, and on the other way to be really abusing what little the system of feats was put there to do.

That said, I think the Arcana Unearthed or Evolved approach where a core class gives a character a choice of a number of different sub-classes is absolutely appropos for a number of concepts.

Also in line with that, I agree that the rogue as sole effective trap finder is, at this point, a worse hijacking of character potential than the cleric.

Sure parties can use a dedicated skill user, but not too many people seem to be interested in playing that given the marked lack of variations on the concept. And those that are will find plenty of reason and value in playing one without the trap necessity to reel them in.

 

[Nazerel]

I'm rather ambivalent about adding new core classes. A few are decent, but some seem underpowered in the long run. The Scout, for example, is a very good core class, almost too good. Just when Wizards has fixed the Ranger to the point where one can conceivably play one straight for 20 levels, what do they do? Come up with a class that effectively out-rangers the Ranger with its bells and whistles, and is almost as flexible as the Fighter when it comes to the bonus feats (as opposed to the Ranger's conditional "virtual" feats). Granted the skirmish mechanic is an interesting one, but I'm still a little irked that the Ranger has yet again had its spotlight taken away.

The Hexblade, Swashbuckler, and Samurai I like if only for their flavor, but their mechanics are more than a little on the underpowered and questionable side. Min-maxers know that there's little reason to go beyond level 3 for Swashbuckler after attaining Insightful Strike (kinda like how everyone and their grandmother picked up only 1 level of Ranger with 3.0 rules just to get Track, TWF, Ambi, and Favored Enemy). The Samurai has become the defacto TWFer of 3.5, which may or may not fit some people's view of what a samurai should be. The Hexblade is the most flavorful of the bunch, but their choice of spells, bonus feats, and Fort save progression are ridiculously limited (I never understood why a d10 HD, full BAB warrior class had a poor Fort save while non-warrior classes like Cleric and Druid get a good Fort - worse yet, one of the Hexblade's class abilities, Mettle, depends heavily on a good Fort save).

Several classes that depend heavily on a higher Dex than Str and would greatly benefit from Uncanny Dodge, such as Monk, Ranger, and Swashbuckler, don't get the ability while the Barbarian (who tends to rely more on Str) does, which is just plain odd. The Spell-Thief seems overspecialized (most of their powers are useless against non-spellcaster foes). The Spirit Shaman has some flavor but I feel needs a bit more to differentiate them from Druids, particularly their spell list. The Favored Soul is just your Sorceror version of a Cleric but without Turn Undead.

In many of these cases, PCs are almost encouraged to pick up PrCs if only to plug up their weaknesses, or to attain a greater level of power than if they stuck to their core class, as opposed to role-playing reasons. In that regard, PrCs are a double-edged sword. So your Monk, Ranger, or Swashbuckler gets creamed every time they're flat-footed? Pick up a PrC that gives them Uncanny Dodge. A lot of PrCs don't even bother with organization joining requirements, and aren't even balanced when compared to each other. The 3 core classes I consider somewhat underpowered - Hexblade, Samurai, and Swashbuckler - come from a book (Complete Warrior) that also has some of the most powerful PrCs (Dervish *cough* Dervish), which makes this issue all the more apparent. I look at Arcana Unearthed, and I'm starting to like how they broke some of their core classes down (the Mage Blade seems more effective at the fighter/sorceror hybrid as a core class than a Hexblade, for one example).

 

[reanjr]

I agree. Full classes are much better than prestige classes.

 

[Bloodstone Press]

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.

I developed a system like that about a year ago for a campaign setting I'm working on. There is a Savage, a Gamin, 2 spell caster types, a fighter type, and a ranger/scout type core class. Each one has dozens of optional "feat-like" abilities to choose from and only 1 or 2 abilities that are set in stone.

I like the idea of highly customizable core classes. It has gone over well in play-testing as well.

 

[Steverooo]

In many of these cases, PCs are almost encouraged to pick up PrCs if only to plug up their weaknesses...

And this is the problem, as I see it... that, and Prestige Classes giving greater power within a tighter focus... I don't want a Prestige Class! I want Ranger (or Bard, or whatever) to BE my Prestige Class!

PrCs usually start at around level 6+ (assuming you're of a class to take the skill prerequisites, and have chosen the "right" Feats, otherwise it takes longer). PC classes should start offering more powerful boosts at around the same time. You take a PrC, you have to wait to get those goodies. You multiclass, likewise.

Given a choice between ShadowDancers' Hide in Plain Sight, and waiting until level (what is it? 15?) for the Ranger's version, who will want to wait? Of course, if you have chosen the "wrong" Feats, then you'll have to!

I think special abilities (and/or Feats) granted every level would help make less need for a great many PrCs (especially the "Archetypal" ones - things like the Gatecrasher would still exist).

I would rather see Prestige Classes be more along the lines of something like:

Knights of the Hart: Must be Human, Elven, or Half-Elven knights of noble bearing, able to wield all manner of arms, at least some forms of armor, show their mettle in combat (BAB +6 or higher), and have proven their loyalty to the King of Furyondy, or their valor in battle alongside his knights.

Requirements, without all the "mechanics" (why do ShadowDancers need ranks in Perform (Dance), anyway, besides it wastes Skill Points, and goes with the name? I always wondered that!) The racial limitations, above, are game-dependent, but the other things are pretty much what you'd expect from a Knight... You could add requirements about (say) proving skill with a bow, lance, sword, and mace, for instance. The only "mechanicky" thing about this is the BAB... No way I can see, for instance, to distinguish between 16 STR and +3 BAB and a +6...

Then again, I have never used PrCs. My PC has never seen one he would even qualify for!

Oh well... I don't write the D&D rules...

 

[Steverooo]

I like the idea of highly customizable core classes. It has gone over well in play-testing as well.

I do, too... And I don't doubt it!

 

[philreed]

I'd like to see two versions -- a core version and prestige version. That gives me the opportunity to choose which is best for me.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Depending on how you look at the game mechanics, a core class can be useful or redundant. For example, are the shaman and witch really anything more than a druid or are they their own archtypes?