New class preference--Am I alone on this?

[Estlor]

Personally, I'm leaning toward the 3 X 4 method of base classes these days:

Give me three versions of each of the four main types.

I identify the four main types of D&D character as
Warrior: He who can absorb/avoid lots of damage and deal lots of damage.
Skirmisher: He who can deal good damage in proper situations but relies on mobility.
Arcanist: He who manipulates arcane spell energy.
Divinist: He who manipulates divine spell energy.

To this end, I'm thinking the following breakdown works pretty well:
Warrior: Fighter, Swashbuckler, Totem Warrior (from AU).
Skirmisher: Ranger, Monk, Rogue
Arcanist: Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock
Divinist: Cleric, Druid, Shaman

Classes that blur the lines between the two - bard, paladin, hex blade, and so forth - become advanced classes. Prestige classes are really powerful specializations of the base/advanced classes or organization-specific classes.

Of course, I really love the bard as a specific class in D&D, but I also understand a musical rogue that could gain knowledge and magic skills after, say, 4th level via an advanced class would also fill the niche in a equally good manner, one that might actually make for a "stronger" PC in the end.

 

[JVisgaitis]

If I had my way, the core classes would present more flexible options such as allowing you to choose some of your class skills at character creation, branching skill choices as they advanced in level, etc. The monk would become just an armed combatant and wouldn't be so eastern in influence. Prestige Classes would be what they are today, specialty classes that would add specific abilities. I would cut out PrCs that had common abilities obtainable through the core set and make sure that each and every PrC had at least one unique type of mechanic to make them special.

 

[Desdichado]

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

I'm not sure it's as big as a bandwagon. Maybe the "base class over prestige class" fruitcart, though.

I'm definately on board, but I don't see what narrowness of concept has to do with anything. If I want a play a concept, I want to play that concept, not graduate into that concept in a few levels. Doesn't matter if it's broad or narrow, if that's what I want to play, that's what I want to play.

 

[Felon]

If I had my way, the core classes would present more flexible options such as allowing you to choose some of your class skills at character creation, branching skill choices as they advanced in level, etc. The monk would become just an armed combatant and wouldn't be so eastern in influence.

Well, yes, one of the monk's more..."odd" design elements is the notion that a monk should become weaker once you put a martial arts weapon is his hands. High-level monk with nunchakus is a 1d6 joke, high-level monk unarmed hits like a battering ram. Dumb. I would have the base class emphasize armed attacks, and let folks branch into empty-hand combat through a few feats and maybe a PrC.

The thing that some folks don't seem to be grasping in this thread is that Prestige Classes exist first and foremost as a carrot. A lot of players reach a point playing their character where they say "now what"? They provide an incentive and direction for players as their characters advance. Adding flavor to the campaign setting is a secondary or tertiary benefit.

 

[hong]

Well, yes, one of the monk's more..."odd" design elements is the notion that a monk should become weaker once you put a martial arts weapon is his hands. High-level monk with nunchakus is a 1d6 joke, high-level monk unarmed hits like a battering ram. Dumb. I would have the base class emphasize armed attacks, and let folks branch into empty-hand combat through a few feats and maybe a PrC.

*twitch*

The thing that some folks don't seem to be grasping in this thread is that Prestige Classes exist first and foremost as a carrot. A lot of players reach a point playing their character where they say "now what"? They provide an incentive and direction for players as their characters advance. Adding flavor to the campaign setting is a secondary or tertiary benefit.

Indeed, I said something along those lines not so long ago, and if searching wasn't down I'd dig it up.

 

[Desdichado]

The thing that some folks don't seem to be grasping in this thread is that Prestige Classes exist first and foremost as a carrot. A lot of players reach a point playing their character where they say "now what"? They provide an incentive and direction for players as their characters advance. Adding flavor to the campaign setting is a secondary or tertiary benefit.

Not grasping? That's a bit harsh, when your interpretation is not based on any comments (that I'm aware of) of any of the game designers. Whether or not they do in fact function in that regard is also beside the point; more pertinent is the question of whether or not they serve a useful function in the game, and whether or not they are the best mechanic to serve that function.

If Prestige classes are a carrot, they are an unnecessary one (Your Honor, may I present Exhibit A, which includes all past editions of the game and all other non-d20 RPGs.) In fact, it's a frustrating one at that, which means it's a poor carrot, not a helpful one. As bad as kits were in practice, at least they let you play a narrower concept right from the get-go. You didn't have this nonsense of "I want to play an assassin, so I have to play 5 (or whatever it is) levels of rogue first and then --and only then-- I can actually have mechanics that support me in my character concept.

It seems to me that there is a strange dichotomy of two competing strategies in the game design. The first strategy is the "make everyone play generic classes, then graduate into specifics." The problem with this strategy is that it sucks; (and I know I'm exaggerating here) you can't actually play anything interesting right off the bat. Meanwhile, there are a few narrower classes in the core lineup after all, showing the strategy #2 of trying to make more interesting, themed classes, ala the Ranger, the Paladin, the Barbarian, etc. The problem isn't that they exist in the same world as the more generic rogue, fighter, etc.; the problem is that there aren't enough of them, and the designers interpretation of the archetype is questionable given the player base's expectations (Exhibit B: the constant calls for revised Rangers because the 3e Ranger was so (relatively) unpopular as formulated.)

In my opinion, the solution isn't to cling to solution #1 and get rid of the Ranger and Paladin (as someone suggested above) because then folks are stuck playing generic concepts that aren't nearly as interesting, and can only start really playing their concept --at least supported by mechanics, anyway-- until they qualify for the prestige class. The solution is to expand the range of more narrowly focused themed core classes so folks can have a wider selection of concepts that they can play right away.

And whether or not my little analysis of game design strategy here is right or not, that's exactly what WotC has been doing with the Complete books, and others. We've had tons of new 20-level base classes, and the concept, it seems, (if not always the specific classes themselves) have been widely accepted.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

If Prestige classes are a carrot, they are an unnecessary one (Your Honor, may I present Exhibit A, which includes all past editions of the game and all other non-d20 RPGs.) In fact, it's a frustrating one at that, which means it's a poor carrot, not a helpful one. As bad as kits were in practice, at least they let you play a narrower concept right from the get-go. You didn't have this nonsense of "I want to play an assassin, so I have to play 5 (or whatever it is) levels of rogue first and then --and only then-- I can actually have mechanics that support me in my character concept.

Amen! Preach it!

A carrot within the setting, that I can get, it's cool when my reward for helping out the king is to become a knight of the hexagonal table. But otherwise I am attending at the church of minister Dyal.

 

[Psion]

If Prestige classes are a carrot, they are an unnecessary one (Your Honor, may I present Exhibit A, which includes all past editions of the game and all other non-d20 RPGs.) In fact, it's a frustrating one at that, which means it's a poor carrot, not a helpful one. As bad as kits were in practice, at least they let you play a narrower concept right from the get-go.

Bug, not feature. If you decide that you want to style your character an assassin (or more pertinently, some new kit that was published later that seems a good fit for your concept) after first level with kits, you were out of luck. You were shackled with your choice at first level for the life of the character. The whole concept is anthithetical to character evolution, and using new kits required you to play new characters.

You didn't have this nonsense of "I want to play an assassin, so I have to play 5 (or whatever it is) levels of rogue first and then --and only then-- I can actually have mechanics that support me in my character concept.

I don't buy it. A rogue gets sneak attack and stealth skills, arguably a rogue already has the basic skill set of an assassin; the prestige class just a better refinement of the path you might have already been going down assuming you were allocating your feats and skill points in a way to make you better at that task.

It seems to me that there is a strange dichotomy of two competing strategies in the game design. The first strategy is the "make everyone play generic classes, then graduate into specifics." The problem with this strategy is that it sucks;

It seems to me if you have issues with interesting character capabilities being withheld, you are playing the wrong game. The level advancement mechanic is all about punctuated delivery of cool abilities.

The problem isn't that they exist in the same world as the more generic rogue, fighter, etc.; the problem is that there aren't enough of them,

Having lived through the era of "a new core class every dragon issue", methinks you quickly forget the bane of too many classes.

and the designers interpretation of the archetype is questionable given the player base's expectations (Exhibit B: the constant calls for revised Rangers because the 3e Ranger was so (relatively) unpopular as formulated.)

That's merely a case of the designer failing to interperet a given archetype in an appealing manner. I do think, however, the ranger was a symptom of what is wrong with over specialized core classes -- it only satisfied a very narrow concept. It is possible to write core classes to cover variations of the concept. In fact, this is why I don't like the idea of too many narrowly defined core classes that are too similar to existing classes... or for that matter, prestige classes that could be built with existing classes.

 

[Felon]

In my opinion, the solution isn't to cling to solution #1 and get rid of the Ranger and Paladin (as someone suggested above) because then folks are stuck playing generic concepts that aren't nearly as interesting, and can only start really playing their concept --at least supported by mechanics, anyway-- until they qualify for the prestige class.

See, there's something naive in that comment that I want to address. Requiring that a player meet a few prerequisites doesn't represent some massive delay. In D&D, a low-level character is sufficiently weak and light on class features that it isn't the exact concept you want it to be anyway. If someonw wants to play a fire mage, they aren't going to feel that their 1st-level "flamemaster" or "burnlord" or whatever is any more complete than a 1st-level wizard. What they're envisioning is nuking the hell out of monster hordes, and that's just not going to happen right away. It takes time to get a fireball, regardless of your class (although granted, no doubt there is some old Dragon magazine class that gets fireball at first level ). Prestige classes can generally be jumped into around 6th-8th level, and that's about when a class starts to fill out.

The solution is to expand the range of more narrowly focused themed core classes so folks can have a wider selection of concepts that they can play right away.

This is a pretty old arguement. Some players have a personal vision of what they want to play and resent not being able to have it right away. Other folks don't know what they want right away and don't want to feel so drowned in options that it takes forever to decide what to play and odds are they will make a choice they'll regret.

 

[Felon]

*twitch*

Is that a good twitch or a bad twitch?