The proliferation of core and prestige classes

[wilrich]

I would rather have exactly what I want than something that's pretty darned close to what I want. And until all class features have been broken down into equivalent feats, the next best thing is to either tweak an existing class (or a couple of them), or create a new one.

I personally prefer a few exciting and useful (i.e. they fill a definite niche) new core classes to a ton of PrCs. But that's just me.

Let me add my voice to those who have already said "right on" to the quote posted above. This is the crux of the issue right here! I think that D & D is maybe 60% of the way towards what the original poster is describing, but further breaking down of more class features as feats, etc. is required before D & D is 100% there.

 

[MadMaxim]

To me, classes have always been "skill packages" as The Shaman calls them. They're usually so flexible that you can turn them into whatever you want depending on the setting. On the other hand, I don't mind new prestige classes and base classes with new abilities. I'm actually glad they try something new instead of "just" multi-classing and calling it something new. It gives people new options and that's usually a good thing.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I hear you.

I usually bring up the argument that you don't have to have a class or something in order to assume a job title when people lament the demise of Kits in D&D and those PrC's "that aren't a good substitute since you cannot start with a PrC". People often want to have a class that's called assassin in order to call themselves Assassin. Of course, you can mimic what we envision when we think about assassins with rogue or rogue/fighter. Too, you could use any class out there and just kill people on contract basis, which would make you an Assassin, too (or make a religious character with a drug addiction )


On the other hand, I have no problems with more core classes and Prestige Classes. Bring them on, I say. The more, the merrier. You just have to realize that they are nice, and useful, but not absolutely necessary (but so are every books except the three core rules)

 

[rowport]

I suppose it would be fine to play a 'ninja' concept as a monk/rogue instead of a literal 'ninja' class. But, a monk/rogue is a very suboptimal class in many ways compared to a single core class (and I do not mean from a powergaming perspective- it literally is quite weak because of the sacrifice of class ability progression). One way to help, of course, is to take one of the new feats that lets monk abilities progress with rogue levels. But, given that you object to new classes, I wonder if you would feel the same about new feats? Also, keep in mind that most (all?) of the new core classes bring a new element to the game. Specifically about the Ninja, Jesse Decker said the designers were intentionally going for a high damage/low defense class, which feels quite different than a monk/rogue for that reason.

I guess for me, as long as it is interesting and useful, I am glad for the new classes (and feats). I can always ignore it otherwise. Where is the bad here?

 

[Silveras]

D&D was founded on fantasy archetypes and that mode of thinking about classes persists. Perhaps it's maturity or gaming experience, perhaps it's something fundamental to the game of D&D - I don't have a good answer as to the reasons why. I notice this with respect to d20 Modern as well: Modern's base classes really does away with the fantasy archetype and replaces it with ability-based classes and actively encourages multi-classing to the point where there are no 20-level class progressions (i.e., everyone multiclasses at some point), yet I still hear players bemoan that they can't start off as a "soldier" since they can't take the Soldier advanced class until 4th level, perhaps unable to visualize a "soldier" as a Tough 1/Dedicated 1, a Strong 2, or a Fast 1/Charismatic 1.

Well, I think a factor in that is that in the medieval period, your profession was what you were. Family names came from professions in many cases: "Cooper" was someone who made barrels; "Smith" was, well, a smith; "Miller" was someone who owned and operated a mill. There were sumptuary laws, requiring people to dress in a uniform appropriate to their profession. The "family business" was expected to be passed on to the eldest child, and so on.

These factors are much reduced in the modern world. Society is more flexible and accepting of people choosing career options other than those of their parents, and even changing careers "mid stream".

I have long thought that D&D's class structure, in addition to reinforcing teamwork within a group, also better reflected the way a medieval society operates than a skill-based system. D20 Modern's differing themes to the classes reflects the changes in society between the medieval and the modern.

As to the original point, though:
I do not mind proliferation of classes, nor of feats, because I exercise selectivity. I review each feat or class before deciding if it will be allowed in my game. I like to think of it in comparison to an artist and the availability of various colors of paint. If you are going to paint a night scene, you do not need a lot of bright colors, but you do need many shades of blue, violet, and other dark colors. Likewise, of you plan to paint a sunny meadow, you do not need 31 shades of blue, but you might need a lot of shades of yellow and green. So, as a DM, I allow those classes and feats which fit the world I am running, and disallow those which are inappropriate.

 

[Klaus]

One of my favorite 3e books dealt almost exclusively with adding spins to character classes, based on races. For instance, an elf ranger could be a Silver Sword, who rides about elven lands trying to keep peace and justice (kinda like a Jedi Knight). No new class, no prestige class, just a prestige role.

That so-often-criticized book, my first ever 3e purchase, was of course the Hero Builder's Guidebook, and the main inspiration for the Oddballs gallery in my website.

 

[fusangite]

Well, that's what you get for talking to teenage boys in a gaming store. They probably thought you were hitting on them.

I think I first noticed this back in the days of 1E when Fantasy Gamer published a class based on the Indian Thugee order. This was back in the days of titled levels and burned into my brain for the rest of time will be the level 9 title: "Grand High Holy Strangler."

Class-based games just do this. That's why most remotely sane games are skill-based.

Of course it doesn't help that WOTC has figured out that with the addition of infinite prestige classes in splatbooks, D&D can get the same kind of buying behaviour Magic: The Gathering facilitated: "If I spend more money, I can give myself new powers."

 

[Psion]

Does anybody agree with this?

Definitely. I don't think that you should be making core or prestige classes if you can acheive the concept with existing classes.

One of my first 3e characters was a "scout" -- a ranger/rogue, that is. I find mechanical tweaks that would be non-sensible in the mileu aren't necessary to make a "scout" -- or a number of other concepts, for that matter. Needless to say, I dislike the scout core class (and ninja core class, etc.)

Where I do find class variations or new classes acceptable is when they make something more general of existing class concepts that are too specific to fairly act as "building blocks." A good example is in your post. Should a ninja really have to be a LE monk/rogue/assassin? Perhaps a very specific and well ordered sect. But really, I like Goodman Games' Martial Artist class for this purpose -- it acheives a martial artist archetype without being as burdened with as many concept assumptions, which makes it a better building block. The ninja is a much more flexible character concept when you construct it with the martial artist.

This is one of the primary reasons I reject so many of the new core class concepts... many of them are way to specific to make good building blocks. Unfortunately, some PHB classes like Monk and Bard share this malady.

 

[DragonLancer]

Are you making a prestige class because it does something you can't do with base classes and existing PrC's or makes an organization really unique, or just so you can write a new word on the "class" line of your character sheet or a nice way to power-up your character?

Does anybody agree with this?

I agree with your whole post. You don't need a funky new PrC with kewl new powers to play a concept. All concepts are doable with the core classes.

Play the concept not the rules.

IMC I use few PrC's and then when I do add one its got to fit my setting and not be a knockoff of something that is doable with just core class multiclassing.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Many people are unable, unwilling, or simply haven't thought of the idea of creating character types from existing classes. Because it says "Elder of the Inner Circle" or "Grand Dragonmaster Monk" or "High Priest of Grummsh" on their character sheet they can play that character, but the idea of using multiclassing, or even just a single class and some good roleplaying (and feat/skill selection) eludes them. I like the flexibility in classes that 3.x has given us, but starting gaming under earlier editions made me learn how to do more with less I guess, and not need a special class for every single character concept.

I agree with your whole post, but this is the heart of it, I think. Early on after 3e appeared, Dragon ran some really good, fascinating articles by James Wyatt on how multiclassing and good selection of feats and skills could be used to create any number of character concepts. Those articles quietly disappeared, unfortunately, as the deluge of Prestige Classes hit. Many gamers really seem to think it's what something is called that is important, and they simply don't see how customizable the game really is. I guess it takes more effort to plan out a character concept using multiclassing and feats, which explains the proliferation of new classes.