New class preference--Am I alone on this?

[Desdichado]

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.

Character evolution isn't the be all end all of playing, especially if you're used to games that last (at most) a number of months rather than a number of years. In that case, rather than "evolve" into your character concept you want to play them right away.

I'm not sure where character evolution became a desireable feature. It's just a feature; for some it's great, for others it's not.

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.

That's true, and that's also why I said I knew I was exaggerating. Clearly, a concept is more than the mechanics, and there are core class options that approximate. Let's take another example, since you didn't like my assassin one. A faceman/diplomat/negotiator type. You could do that with Rogue; certainly it's got the right skill set to choose from and the right number of skill points to really max out Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense Motive, Bluff and all the other skills associated with that lifestyle. But you've also got all these strange evasion abilities, not to mention Sneak Attack, which, while an excellent class ability, probably have nothing to do with the character concept. "So play a bard," you might say. What? Instead of a pseudo-assassin, you're recommendation is that I play a musician with an inate knowledge of history and mythology who can cast spells? How is that any closer to my concept?

The point is, the core classes represent only a very narrow selection of possible archetypes, and even then, a narrower interpretation of each of the archetypes. Since the whole point of playing a class-based system is to utilize archetypes, the fact that there are only a dozen or so base classes seems more like a bug than a feature. It directly hinders one of the whole points of one of the main design conceits of the game.

Luckily, with the newer books, there are a lot of new core classes available. Of course, within 3rd party books, we've had that all along, too.

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.

If the puctuated delivery of cool abilities delivers the wrong abilities, then that's what my problem is. You're mixing up my complaint about classes with a complaint that I didn't make about levels.

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

Methinks you're projecting your opinion out onto the masses. I've never thought there was such a thing as "too many classes", nor would I ever call such a thing a "bane" but rather a blessing.

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.

So what's your solution? Scrap the ranger? Revise him to a more generic woodsman? You say that this is why you don't like the idea of too many narrowly defined core classes that are similar, but what is the reason? You never state it. The fact that the ranger wasn't designed to deliver what gamers were obviously expecting from the archetype? I don't see how that could bring you to the conclusion that we need less core classes. More stabs at the woodsman archetype via core classes would, on the other hand, solve the problem right nicely, as everybody who wanted to play one would have an easier time finding a class that fit his vision of the woodsman archetype.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

Actually, that's a rather naive reply. I'm not making a case for building classes that allow a fully fleshed out suite of character abilities right from the get-go. This is similar to Psion's misunderstanding of my complaints about the core classes and trying to interpret that as a complaint about levels, which I didn't make, or a complaint about lack of PC power, which I certainly didn't make or even imply. The point is, if you don't have a class tailored to your vision of the character concept from fairly early, you're picking up alot of extraneous abilities that have nothing to do with your concept and not picking up abilities that should be core to the class. You're not playing a class that mechanically supports your concept, you're stuck finding a poor fit from something else that at least has some overlap, but that's an unsatisfying solution.

Don't try and make it out like I'm saying I want PCs to have all their abilities right from the beginning. That's a non sequitar that distracts from what my argument, you know, actually is.

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.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for players who are so helpless. "I have too many choices, I don't know what to do, woe is me." Please. I could use our old smily right about now...

 

[Mad Mac]

I have to jump back in here and agree that there is really something to be said about being able to play the character you want right from the start. This is what I love about say, the Soulknife. You can argue over the execution, but I like the fact that it allows me to play a guy who kills stuff with his mindblade right from level 1. I like playing a monk who runs around in half-naked and punching people in the face a heck of a lot more than playing a guy who wears chain mail and carries a longsword for 5-6 levels before suddenly transforming into a martial artist. Why? Because a monk is what I wanted to play, and like heck I'm going to torture myself with some generic warrior class I don't give a fart about for several sessions, just so I can someday talk about my characters grand "evolution" You know, if he survives that long. Or the campaign does. Or I end up actually liking him.

Want to play a Fire Mage from level 1? Use burning hands. It might not be optimal, but at least you're doing what you wanted, (burning stuff) and for players, that's often what counts. I play a lot of low-level games, and having group after group composed of the same, dull, "starter" classes for several sessions until they finally develop some individuality doesn't sound like the funnest idea ever. Not to me, anyway.

 

[Felon]

Actually, that's a rather naive reply. I'm not making a case for building classes that allow a fully fleshed out suite of character abilities right from the get-go. This is similar to Psion's misunderstanding of my complaints about the core classes and trying to interpret that as a complaint about levels, which I didn't make, or a complaint about lack of PC power, which I certainly didn't make or even imply. The point is, if you don't have a class tailored to your vision of the character concept from fairly early, you're picking up alot of extraneous abilities that have nothing to do with your concept and not picking up abilities that should be core to the class.

All it sounds like you're making a case for is a classless system, because classes will always be tailored to someone else's notions of what features it will offer (unless you get a job at WotC). And that invariably means offering stuff that you don't want and denying you stuff that you did want.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for players who are so helpless. "I have too many choices, I don't know what to do, woe is me." Please. I could use our old smily right about now...

Yes, derisiveness is an excellent counter-arguement.

Your sympathy or lack thereof is irrelevant. The fact is, not everyone sitting down at the gaming table has a fully-defined concept and they want character creation to be relatively simple and straightforward...at least more simple and straightforward than having to choose from a menu of hundreds of classes at first level. If you are attempting to propose that there's a better way for D&D to be handling classes than the extant method, then you should address the possibility that a lot of people would be alienated by your way. And your solution should be better than simply dismissing them, which would not be a practical consideration if you were actually making the decisions at WotC. Is your mousetrap actually better?

 

[Hellcow]

I feel that each have their place. The Blackguard is effectively a paladin of a different alignment, so it makes sense for it to have a full 20 levels like a paladin. But I think there are a lot of ideas that can be handled in brief. The Eldeen Ranger in Eberron is not supposed to be entirely different from the ranger; it's a slight variation of the ranger reflecting a highly skilled individual trained in Eldeen traditions. In my opinion, a full 20-level version of the Eldeen Ranger would be a waste of space: for the most part, it would end up being a ranger.

I like PrCs that represent actual prestige - the training and benefits that come from being a member of an elite organization. These shouldn't be 20-level classes because a 1st-level character shouldn't qualify for it; if someone is an agent of the Citadel, that alone tells you that he's someone you don't want to mess with. On the other side of things, you have the dragonmark heir, where the idea just isn't broad enough to cover 20 levels: it's about increasing the power of the dragonmark, and there's only so far to go with that (at least, only so far I'd like to go).

Of course, I prefer 5-level prestige classes to 10-level PrCs. So I want broad ideas - like the blackguard - to be core classes; but I like PrCs that are small, tightly focused, and actually carry a sense of prestige or meaning within the game world.

 

[Mad Mac]

That's an excellent point. And the ECSB is a great example of it, since it easily has some of the best 5 levels prestige classes around, and you can't deny the coolness of the artificer. I love the race and organization based feats in that book as well, since they allow for interesting avenues of character development. Somebody did pretty good with that book.

I think it's odd that there's so few 5 level Prc's out there though, considering how useful they can be. I guess it's just easier to create broader, "new class" style prcs.

 

[Felon]

I think it's odd that there's so few 5 level Prc's out there though, considering how useful they can be. I guess it's just easier to create broader, "new class" style prcs.

Yes, I like the 5-level PrC's like tempest, master thrower, and evangelist, which are not so much "prestige classes" as they are "specialist classes".

 

[Desdichado]

All it sounds like you're making a case for is a classless system, because classes will always be tailored to someone else's notions of what features it will offer (unless you get a job at WotC). And that invariably means offering stuff that you don't want and denying you stuff that you did want.

I like classless systems, but classes have their place too, and I like games that have classes. I don't like games that have overly restrictive classes, only a few options, or overly heavy-handed interpretations of what archetypes should be like, which has always bugged with about D&D. Ideally, I'd like a class-building primer from WotC; the mechanics of how to build them (assuming that there are hard and fast mechanics for doing so, that is) but I'm not even asking for that. All I want is lots of choices.

And I'm not even asking for that. I don't have to. Clearly, that's the direction WotC is already going, and even before they did, like I said, I had tons of options in other d20 sourcebooks.

Yes, derisiveness is an excellent counter-arguement.

I wasn't trying to construct a counter argument. Some statements don't need to be argued against; they stand (or fall, in this case) on their own merits. Too many options indeed. There's no such thing. That's a farcical statement. A DM can always limit options for his own game, but I don't need some DM coming to my game and saying, "well, I've got all I want, so hey, everybody, stop publishing more options. From now on, more options is a bad thing." More options is always a good thing. You may not need any more options. I may not need any more options. But I'm still glad more are available, and more are being made available everyday. Heck, I've now got three d20 Sanity systems. And I'll take a look at another in a heartbeat.

Your sympathy or lack thereof is irrelevant.

Agreed. As are your statements. It's clear from the content of the various Complete X books that several new base classes are being introduced despite your misgivings about the strategy.

The fact is, not everyone sitting down at the gaming table has a fully-defined concept and they want character creation to be relatively simple and straightforward...at least more simple and straightforward than having to choose from a menu of hundreds of classes at first level. If you are attempting to propose that there's a better way for D&D to be handling classes than the extant method, then you should address the possibility that a lot of people would be alienated by your way.

Well, a few things things. 1) I don't care what a lot of people do with their game. I care about my own game. More classes benefits me, so naturally I support it. 2) It doesn't matter what either of us says, really; clearly WotC have settled on a strategy regardless of whatever we say. 3) Exaggerating by saying "hundreds" of base classes doesn't really help matters much in terms of making you argument appear stronger than it is. 4) Of course there's a better method, although I can't take credit for it. It's already been implemented. Take a look at Midnight or Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed for great examples of classes that are built much like a la carte menus. A single class can be mechanically very different in implementation from one character to the next. The other solution is to release a dozen or so "core" classes in the PHB, and then expand that number to two, three or more times it's number via supplemental books. And hey, that's being done already too.

 

[Orius]

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.

Well, you're a game designer, right? Write up some product detailing new core classes. There, problem solved!

Seriously though, I don't really agree. I don't think the game really needs more core classes beyond what's in the PHB/SRD and even some of those classes might night even be really necessary. I'm the kind of guy who prefers seeing character developed through skills and feats rather than what kind of classes the character takes.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

In a way, I'm more on the "full classes please" side than on the "prestige classes/multiclassing" side. For the simple reason that, over time, it has evolved into a powers-grabbing party, to stack classes, prestige classes and templates on one character to a degree that the actual character gets lost beneath layers of character-concept supporting powers. And yes, that's just my impression, and I'm probably wrong where half the gaming community is concerned, but that's why all here are just saying their opinion, right?

I prefer a handful of base classes that let me build the most well-known archetypes for "generic" fantasy gaming, like warriors with differing fighting styles, priests of different religions (something the cleric blatantly fails in, compared with the specialty priests of 2E), the sneaky rogue-ish character who knows the shadows, and the "dabbler in forbidden arcane mysteries" .

After that, I love setting-supporting base classes that show the respective flavour of a certain campaign background. If I have a swashbuckling setting, I want to keep the generic fighter, of course. I also want a swashbuckler class that shows how, in the big cities, the heavily armed and armored warriors have dropped out of fashion and rich people send their sons to fencing schools instead. And I want feats that enable the other classes to pick up fencing style without having to multiclass him into the swashbuckler class, or some duelist prestive class, because in a way the basic swashbuckling and fencing stuff should be trainable without having to completely switch your class for it...of course the swashbuckler has to be better at it, comparing to a fighter who trained it later on, or even a wizard.

Prestige classes, in my eyes, should offer a focus, something special, something that makes them unique, and actually give the character something to be prestigious about. They should also be a tad broader in prerequesite tolerance, so not every player has to plan his character's career from level 1 on, but has a chance to meet somebody of that PrC and slip into it without having to wait another 4 levels.

For my taste, 3E had the right tool for character customization with feats and skills, and didn't run with it to the last, and best consequence. Instead, they chose to blanket-bomb the topic with too easy multiclassing rules. Granting limited access to other classes' abilities via feats instead of making somebody pick up a whole level of another class would have been a better way to go, in my opinion, while keeping easy multiclassing to prestige classes...and it's what I'm trying out by now. Beside creating setting-specific base classes, class defense bonus and armor as damage conversion rules, but that's beside the point.

Now if somebody could point me to a good Diplomate base class build...