Not so prestigious classes

[Desdichado]

While tinkering around with campaign ideas (a side effect of the WotC contest, I suppose) I was struck by the thought that many of the core classes really look more like prestige classes with roleplaying requirements that you just happen to be able to take at first level.

I decided to see what I could do with this idea, strengthen it, and make some "core" classes only belong to specific organizations. This is what I came up with:

True core classes include fighter, rogue, sorceror, barbarian (I actually removed the cultural background that goes along with this: as written it's a pseudo-prestige class itself) bard, OA shaman, Ken Hood's Bushfighter and possibly monk (I might want more than one order of these, actually, although it makes a good pseudo-prestige class as written.)

As pseudo-prestige classes, that you can only take if you are a member of a specific organization (presumably one that trains you as a child or young adult) I include paladin (a secular order of crusaders and law-keepers), samurai (a rival organization similar to paladins), rangers (another rival organization who's efforts are more concentrated in rural areas and other areas that need "crusading" to bring them up to speed), clerics (militant holy warriors), druids (the more mystical branch of the ranger's organization) and wizards (who all must train at a single Academy.

Thinking this way really made my campaign take on a life of it's own. I never really realized that built-in assumptions that I had in relation to some of the classes, and divorcing myself from them, I could really see them as something else. That's why I added the OA Shaman (a more generic divine caster than the cleric or druid) the samurai (an organization to rival the paladins) and the bushfighter (a more generic woodsman.)

 

[Nightfall]

Uhm no offense Josh but while I understand people's dislike and/or innate need to make paladin and ranger pr-classes, I don't see that with cleric and/or druid. Shaman, yes should be a core class. But the other two, serve decent roles SINCE not all of them deal with spirits. Druid deal in NATURE, as whole, not as mere "spiritual" being (Btw, I despise the OA shaman. Much prefer GR's. In fact screw OA, just not bother with monk and the rest. That however is just my opinion.) Clerics are servants of POWERS, not merely spirits. Spirits may be beyond mortal kenning BUT they are still just by-products of human consciousness. Gods are above that, since they deal in IDEALS as well as hopes and dreams, not merely consciousness.

Anyway that's my rant for you Josh. Please don't be offended, just giving you my opinions.

 

[Desdichado]

No, I realise that. Clerics are intended to be generic divine spell-casters.

However, I don't think they really are. They are warrior-priests, and that, IMO, is a much more rare thing in any fantasy setting not designed for D&D. That's why I decided to make them a pseudo-prestige class and have the OA shaman be the regular divine spellcaster.

However, I'd tweak the Shaman. Mine wouldn't call on spirits, he'd serve a god and pick from the god's domains the way a cleric does. He just wouldn't be a real warrior the way clerics are.

Nightfall:
Spirits may be beyond mortal kenning...

No, cheap campaign settings all over the place use kennings to name their spirits, I'm afraid.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

I guess I would agree that clerics & paladins could be a prestige class (in the way you use the term), but I would really have to disagree with the idea of rangers being used as such.

Rangers are meant to be outdoors-ey types (whether or not 3e actually captures that is another, tired, argument for another thread); but why would you need to be part of a group, club, or organization to be such a character? I guess the same could be said of druids, who I tend to look on as loners, servants of nature itself, not of man.

The wizards idea makes sense, but my first reaction is that knowledge (of magic) would have to be contained by such a guild, which strikes me as unrealistic. However, you could have 'rogue' wizards, whom the guild actively pursues and hunts.

Just some thoughts...

 

[Desdichado]

But rangers aren't generic woodsmen, they're mystical woodsmen with strange powers. Ken Hood's Bushfighter core class is a better generic 'ranger' than the ranger itself.

 

[mikebr99]

But rangers aren't generic woodsmen, they're mystical woodsmen with strange powers. Ken Hood's Bushfighter core class is a better generic 'ranger' than the ranger itself.

Hi Joshua.

Is it possible for you to post some of all of this class? Or point me in the right direction?

thanks...


Mike

 

[Wolfen Priest]

regarding rangers:

I just don't know how 'mystical' or 'strange' they are in a world of wizards, clerics, sorcery, etc. etc....

 

[Desdichado]

That's part of the point: I dislike strongly the idea that most of the character classes available feature some kind of spell-casting ability. Besides, the non-magical woodsman, ala Robin Hood, Strider, etc. is a better archetype than the mystic warrior of the woods.

Ken Hood's Bushfighter can be downloaded here: http://www.sleepingimperium.rpghost.com/

Just for the record, I'd also use Monte's alt.sorceror and alt.bard.

 

[Al]

Well, I find it strange that cleric, wizard and druid are 'prestige' classes, but monk, sorceror and bard are 'normal' classes.

The argument that clerics are 'warrior-priests' and are therefore rare is a contradictory one. Monks, as 'warrior-monks' are far more rare, especially in a non-Oriental campaign. You proceed to say that

I dislike strongly the idea that most of the character classes available feature some kind of spell-casting ability

, but yet the monk has an incredible list of spell-like, supernatural and extraordinary abilities (even it's movement is at high levels).

Similarly, sorcerors should probably be rarely than wizards. I don't know how large this academy is, but suffice to say if it's of reasonable size than it should outnumber the sorcerors. That's still ignoring 'rogue' wizards, defectors and the like. Sorcerors should be incredibly rare (in most campaign worlds): if any arcane class should be prestige, the sorceror is far more likely.

As for the bard, does it not follow from a specific concept, with spell-like ability? Bards were in medieval times, but (very) few (indeed) had spellcasting (a specious point perhaps, but if the ranger is shunted to prestige territory for having fourth-level spells, how much more the bard with his sixth-level spells?)

Sorry to criticise, but why some of the slightly 'weird' classes, and not all? You cannot go part of the way- it is illogical. The only sensible solution is to go the whole hog and make every class bar the fighter, rogue, barbarian, Bushfighter and OA shaman (don't have OA, so I'll take your word on it) 'prestige'. The current compromise doesn't make sense.

 

[Randolpho]

Al --

In Joshua's defense...

He does think the Monk might be good as what he calls a pseudo-prestige-class. I personally agree that the Monk might be better as a pseodo-prestige-class than as a normal class because Monks come from monastic orders, which fits his definition of a pseudo-prestige-class.

As for sorcerers, I agree 100% with Joshua by his definition of pseudo-prestige-classes -- sorcerer do not come from any form of a society at all, they are innate spellcasters, often shunned from society, who develop their powers and skills alone, without any formal training.

As for Bards, I suppose it depends on how you view bards, and how they work in your campaign setting. If bards are part of some bardic order that teaches them the ability to weave magic through music, then you're right, they should be pseudo-prestige-classes. If, however, they are just wandering minstrels without formal training who have innate abilities (a la sorcerers), then they should not be.