New class preference--Am I alone on this?

[Varianor Abroad]

Both have their place IMO.

New core classes that support a widely desired archetype well (such as the mageblade - which gets fighter/magic-user types what they want) deserve to be seen and get my attention. But, a book full of less than interesting or less well done core classes and other material that I don't want does not get my purchase dollars. (Witness most of the Complete series so far.) So on that level, I'm more interested in them right now than Prestige Classes.

But in all probability that's because the PrC market is full with tons of ideas and offerings. If I want to introduce one (for much the same reason as Hellcow mentioned or for another that I'll address in a minute), I need only look to my shelf. If it doesn't contain what I want, I put a post on a message board and *poof* I have lots of suggestions. Then I often find myself writing the PrC up anyway after I've looked through the options because many don't offer exactly what I want.

In all probability, we'll see start to see threads about "too many core classes" within six months to a year....

The other reasons for prestige classes, as alluded to by many others, is to allow for development of a certain ability over 3, 5 or 10 levels. (Generally I find 5 perfect for that.) I like prestige classes that grant something unique that isn't overbalancing.

The original reason for PrCs, to have a class that represents a character with prestige in a campaign, has long since been lost. I find myself introducing such options with or without a class behind it by allowing feat choices only available to someone who joins a prestigious organization.

So yes, I'm in favor of well-done new base classes over core classes at the moment.

 

[Desdichado]

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

The Courier from the Rokugan book is pretty good. That's what I use in my setting, although all my players have opted to play something a bit more action oriented (for which I don't blame them... )

The Wheel of Time book as both a Wanderer and a Noble, each could be used to put together a pretty good Diplomat style character; one as more like an actual diplomat, one as more like a con artist type.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

The Courier from the Rokugan book is pretty good. That's what I use in my setting, although all my players have opted to play something a bit more action oriented (for which I don't blame them... )

Joshua, you just delivered to me the perfect character class to represent the Darokinian Diplomatic Corps. Thanks bunches. This is one perfect example why a big variety of base classes is a nice feature...you can pick and choose what fits your campaign nicely, if you're in a position of not having hours per day making it all up yourself.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm still a fan of the Generic -> Advanced -> Prestige Route.

Generic Classes: based on the UA model, but probably seperate the spellcaster into arcane/divine so we have four classes. You can customize Skill List, Good Saves, and scores of bonus feats/class abilities.

Advanced Classes: 10 levels. These are your more refined ideas (monk, swashbuckler, beserker, bard, ranger, assassin.) These represent a focus in your particular area.

Prestige Classes: 5 levels. Creme de le Creme. Requires usually some special initiation or unique training (archmage, purple dragon knight, Citadel Agent).

For example; a character who wants to be a knight could start as a warrior and choose heavy armor prof, knightly weapons, and a mix of courtly and survival skills. At 5th level or so, he could become a cavalier and become adept at horsemanship, a paladin to gain divine power, or even stay a warrior and gain lots of combat feats. At 10th or more, he is invited to join the Knight Protectors, an elite order whom he admires. He now gains access to the elite secrets of the order.

You could have expert/assassin/shadowdancers, mystic/druid/heirophants, sorcerer/necromancers/lords of the dead, warrior/sorcerer/spellsword/eldrich knight or mystic/sorcerer/mystic theurges to define your PC as you wish. even a level 20 warrior would be different from the others because of skill lists, saves and feats.

Best of Both Worlds.

 

[Desdichado]

This is one perfect example why a big variety of base classes is a nice feature...you can pick and choose what fits your campaign nicely, if you're in a position of not having hours per day making it all up yourself.

My thoughts exactly. There are eight base classes available to PCs in my campaign setting; but only three of those come from the PHB. And for another character, we're working up another class as we go, just a few levels at a time.

 

[Psion]

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 recall claiming that it was the be all and end all. I do beleive however, it's desireable for enough people who play D&D, especially given the "aquisition of abilities" model D&D is built around, that it is a compelling inclusion.

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.

Actually, I rather LIKE the assassin example, because it supports my position. But more on that in a moment.

As I mentioned previously in the ranger example, the problem here in not lack of sufficient core class options, but narrowly written core class options. (If there is one class that bugs me more than the 3.0 ranger when it comes to narrowness of concept definition, it is the bard. Monk's right up there.)

It directly hinders one of the whole points of one of the main design conceits of the game.

Unfotunately, it's not as simple as you make it out to be. You make an erroneous assertion that there is a single design criteria the game is built around. There are several, and finding the right combination of characteristics is a tradeoff.

The game is designed with a certain activity in mind. This is a weakness and a strength. The archetypes are written to the central activity that the game is conceived with. This means that the support for those activities is good, and facilitates those sorts of games when GMs design with those in mind. You get out on the periphery, the support is less good.

I beleive a good archetype based game should chose its archetypes to fit the default activity carefully, and make those options as flexible as possible while addressing that activity. Inundating the players with divergant options and hope they make the right choice seems a suboptimal option to me by way of comparison.

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.

They are conflated; you're ducking the issue;. The premise of our current dispute was the suitability of prestige classes in defining concepts versus the slathering on of new, only mildly different core classes. Your complaint was, you don't get to step right into the concept you want. Okay, the same goes for a straight fighter. He wants to be able to play (say) a sturdy swordsman who can hew down the opposition like wheat. Nice concept, but it's not going to happen at first level.

Now lets take the assassin example. He wants to hide in the shadows and kill with a single well placed blow. Nice concept too, but again, probably not one for first level. It is my contention that a fairly design first (character) level assassin would and should look like a first level rogue anyways.

Methinks you're projecting your opinion out onto the masses.

If it's a liberty I am guilty of taking, it is one that you are guilty of taking too, as in your earlier assertion that the glut of classes approach is generally accepted.

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.

You are addressing two different issues here. I agree with you on the problem but not the solution. I was only addressing what you are saying is a problem with lack of classes; I am saying I agree on the problem (namely, ther ranger is not a good fit for a wide variety of player concepts for wilderness oriented characters.) Creating a vareity of wilderness oriented classes seems a sloppy solution to me. You have to manage a wider variety of classes and buy a wider variety of books/house rule docs/whatever. I would rather have the classes themselves include a wider degree of player choice.

Again, the ranger class is not the only one guilty of this. The cleric was, in fact, the first 3e class to raise my ire in this way, since it does not do a good job of representing clergy who aren't trained in heavy armor.

You seem to ask what my solution is. I have two answers to this. My ideal solution and my practical solution.

My ideal solution would be that the core classes take a step or two towards GRIM TALES' d20 modern inspired model. Not the stat based classes per se; rather, the aspect of customizing characters. Going all the way to Grim Tales' solution would probably be too much; I wouldn't want to invite the level of low level selection that GURPS or HERO have. I find that having ability selection in the context of archetypes assists in balance and makes it easier on the player. But a bit more customization is good.

My practical solution: obviously, WotC and third party publishers have a lot of support for existing classes and the playstyle that they are designed to. Deviating too far from that model would be abandoning a lot of good support. So what do I actually do? I use the existing core classes. I only allow new core classes or variants that strongly resemble existing classes if they are a more general version of the existing classes. I am resistant to inclusion of more narrowly defined core classes, as they only replicate the problem.

Examples of rules/variants I do use related to this principle:
Ranger - The "non-combat" combat styles and non-spell using variants in Wildscape
Priest - The priest class from AEG's Good
Monk - The more general martial artist class from beyond monks.
Rogue - The version if UA that allows bonus feats in the place of sneak attack.

 

[Desdichado]

Unfotunately, it's not as simple as you make it out to be. You make an erroneous assertion that there is a single design criteria the game is built around. There are several, and finding the right combination of characteristics is a tradeoff.

Actually, no, I don't make that assertion. I say that it is indeed a core design criteria of d20, hence the reason it's class-based. I don't know why that means anything at all about other design criteria around which the game is also based.

The game is designed with a certain activity in mind. This is a weakness and a strength. The archetypes are written to the central activity that the game is conceived with. This means that the support for those activities is good, and facilitates those sorts of games when GMs design with those in mind. You get out on the periphery, the support is less good.

Not so much anymore. When 3e was initially published, and for a while prior to that before third party (and even WotC for that matter) felt comfortable stretching the capabilities of d20 a bit, that was true, but it's not anymore.

I beleive a good archetype based game should chose its archetypes to fit the default activity carefully, and make those options as flexible as possible while addressing that activity. Inundating the players with divergant options and hope they make the right choice seems a suboptimal option to me by way of comparison.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the right choice." The right choice is what the player wants. The more options he has, the more likely he is to find one that clicks with him. I do agree that more flexible and open structure classes are certainly desirable, and that does (to a certain extent) reduce the need for more base classes. But I never presented the two options as mutually exclusive.

They are conflated; you're ducking the issue;.

Only because you are trying to force them to be so. They are actually two completely different issues, and I'm not ducking it at all, I'm just ignoring the issue that is irrelevent to my point.

The premise of our current dispute was the suitability of prestige classes in defining concepts versus the slathering on of new, only mildly different core classes. Your complaint was, you don't get to step right into the concept you want. Okay, the same goes for a straight fighter. He wants to be able to play (say) a sturdy swordsman who can hew down the opposition like wheat. Nice concept, but it's not going to happen at first level.

Actually, he can hew down the opposition like wheat at low level. Assuming the opposition is similarly endowed with ability. I've seen 1st and 2nd level fighters and barbarians and other fighterish classes mow down kobolds or goblins easily, and I'm sure you have to. That's because, from the get-go, those classes are oriented towards combat, especially melee combat. He's not getting abilities like minor spells, or bonus to his hide check, or diplomacy, or anything like that that isn't part of his character concept, he's right away focused on a concept. Sure, he'll continue to grow that concept as he progresses in level, but you're assertion that he's not already doing that concept from the very beginning is in error, I believe.

Now lets take the assassin example. He wants to hide in the shadows and kill with a single well placed blow. Nice concept too, but again, probably not one for first level. It is my contention that a fairly design first (character) level assassin would and should look like a first level rogue anyways.

Well, I agree, actually. In fact, it's a problem with the rogue that the class really ought to have been called assassin or something like that from the beginning. That's the concept that it's actually best at, in most respects, at the expense of flexibility in other areas.

If it's a liberty I am guilty of taking, it is one that you are guilty of taking too, as in your earlier assertion that the glut of classes approach is generally accepted.

Perhaps. At least, though, I have the recent strategy of WotC themselves of publishing a half dozen or so new base classes in many of their recent supplements to back me up. I'm not completely taking that liberty without some backup.

You are addressing two different issues here. I agree with you on the problem but not the solution. I was only addressing what you are saying is a problem with lack of classes; I am saying I agree on the problem (namely, ther ranger is not a good fit for a wide variety of player concepts for wilderness oriented characters.) Creating a vareity of wilderness oriented classes seems a sloppy solution to me. You have to manage a wider variety of classes and buy a wider variety of books/house rule docs/whatever. I would rather have the classes themselves include a wider degree of player choice.

Oh, I would too. Hence my recommendation upthread of Midnight with the Wildlander who is exactly that same concept. Or Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed with the totem warrior, although that's also a narrow concept that's been given flexibility to have a variety of very different builds, which is different. I don't see how having Ken Hood's Bushhunter, or Wheel of Time's Woodsman, or Path of the Sword's Hunter or Outdoorsman, or any of the others I have, added to that is suddenly a problem though. Because it's harder to keep track of more books that way, you say? That's not really much of an issue. Heck, my current Eberron character is using the Ranger and the Barbarian class sections printed off the SRD (because I never bought the 3.5 pHB) and the shifter stats photocopied from my copy of the ECS. In that case, I'd need two books; it turns out that I don't really need to keep track of any; just half a dozen sheets of paper.

Again, the ranger class is not the only one guilty of this. The cleric was, in fact, the first 3e class to raise my ire in this way, since it does not do a good job of representing clergy who aren't trained in heavy armor.

Quite right. It's a problem with D&D across the board. All the classes are too focused on being D&D-isms, at the expense of the way other folk may want to play, i.e., not dungeoncrawling in a strange pseudo-medieval world with classes and magic that make little sense with pseudo-medievalism. That's part of the reason I want more core classes; I don't really like the D&D default assumption of what kind of game I'm going to be playing, or what kind of setting I'm going to be running.

My ideal solution would be that the core classes take a step or two towards GRIM TALES' d20 modern inspired model. Not the stat based classes per se; rather, the aspect of customizing characters. Going all the way to Grim Tales' solution would probably be too much; I wouldn't want to invite the level of low level selection that GURPS or HERO have. I find that having ability selection in the context of archetypes assists in balance and makes it easier on the player. But a bit more customization is good.

I agree and have also stated as much. In fact, the inclusion (or not) of this feature may very well decide for me if I buy the 4e books whenever they come out.

My practical solution: obviously, WotC and third party publishers have a lot of support for existing classes and the playstyle that they are designed to. Deviating too far from that model would be abandoning a lot of good support. So what do I actually do? I use the existing core classes. I only allow new core classes or variants that strongly resemble existing classes if they are a more general version of the existing classes. I am resistant to inclusion of more narrowly defined core classes, as they only replicate the problem.

Examples of rules/variants I do use related to this principle:
Ranger - The "non-combat" combat styles and non-spell using variants in Wildscape
Priest - The priest class from AEG's Good
Monk - The more general martial artist class from beyond monks.
Rogue - The version if UA that allows bonus feats in the place of sneak attack.

Your practical solution, if you don't mind my saying so, seems kinda arbitrary. First of all, what support do you need? What support do you get? Looking at my 3e and 3.5 class splat books, it seems you get feats that are "geared" towards a certain archetype, i.e., character class, and would therefore work just fine for any alt. versions of the same archetype, so that's a non-issue. You get prestige classes that narrow in on a tighter archetype, but anyone in a similar archetype is likely to qualify for the same class just as easily, so it's also a non-issue. Besides the whole point of the thread was to state a preference for base in lieu of prestige classes anyway. You get new uses for skills, which apply to anyone regardless of class. You get equipment that anyone can use. You get spells, and this is the only one that actually has some merit, although just about any d20 spellcasting class can utilize any d20 spell if the DM says so, so it's not much of one. Not only that, your own examples are arbitrary breakings of your own guidelines, since they have the same "problems".

In other words, you keep stating that it's a problem that there are too many base classes, but you've never stated why, other than essentially, just because. You've mentioned keeping track of a lot of books, but that's a pretty weak excuse, and you've mentioned lack of support for alternate classes, but not only is support not needed, but pretty much all the support I've seen would work just as well for more narrow visions of the archetype as for the generic one, so that's not even a real issue as near as I can tell. Other than that; if there's more than you just don't want more core classes for reasons of taste, I haven't heard much. If it's true that you don't want more base classes just because you don't like 'em, that's absolutely fine, but say so and don't try to pretend there's some universal problem or solution out there that isn't so. Or if I'm missing some really compelling reason to limit base classes that I haven't yet heard, please tell me so. I'd love to hear it.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

And this is (again) the perfect example of two eloquent people with different views of the same game clashing.

Which always reminds me of the true beauty of D&D...and incidentally, any other RPG: I can make it what I want, as soon as I paid the money for the books. And the nicest part in the D&D DM's Guide, in my opinion, is the part that tells me how to modify a base class so it does fit a certain concept without having to fiddle too much with it. Want a dedicated chevalier from the fighter class? No problem. Want a specialty priest from the cleric? Not much of it either.

I can only say that I like it when a specific campaign setting presents some base classes to me that are intended to capture the flavour of the setting in 20 levels. A campaign setting that sets a focus on some part of the genre should present some base classes that act within this focus, or rather are focussed through the same lens themselves. Of course, the core base classes should work, too, as they are pretty generic...with a few exceptions, granted.

In my eyes, some more focussed character concepts simply are good enough to fill a 20 level progression and stay as interesting as the broader core base classes. The concept of a fighter who goes lightly armored, with quick weapons, and relies mostly on nimbleness, flashy moves and witty repartee. Sure, you can do that with a fighter/rogue combo...but why shouldn't that be done with a 20 level base class, instead?

 

[Gez]

I'll go on a slight tangent and say that, all things considered, I prefer a new class variant to both a new base class and a new prestige class.

That's one of the things I like in Arcana Unearthed -- the witch, totem warrior, and champions are classes that are easy to customize. You can make variants and variants and other variants.

In core D&D, you don't have much classes that allow such variants. You have the wizard and its specialists, but you need UA to make the specialist wizards real variant classes. You have the Ranger and its puny two combat styles. (Wildscape from FFG offers a lot more, and that's good.) The cleric, in a way, with its different domains. And, uh, that's all.

Some classes gets choices for customization, foremost amongst them the fighter, but that's not class variants.

 

[weasel fierce]

To be honest, I cant think of anything that really requires a new class, as opposed to just roleplaying your character, and picking the right stuff as you advance.

Even among the core classes, theres redundancy (barbarian is the main offender, but the sorcerer and bard are hardly needed either), and the prestige classes are almost entirely redundant.