The proliferation of core and prestige classes

[GlassJaw]

But, a monk/rogue is a very suboptimal class in many ways compared to a single core class

And this gets down to the heart of the matter IMO. Any new PrC or core class is usually mechanically better than any multiclass or role-playing combo you can create. It's power creep rearing its ugly head once again. So why play a monk/rog when you can play a ninja core class? Because it's more powerful, plain and simple. Same goes for most of the new PrC's as well.

But at the same time, D&D isn't a very modular system. There are some concepts that you just can't build with the core classes. You need more classes and PrC's. The only way to move away from the current system is to go with generic classes (like Grim Tales) for 4ED (which I hope they do).

 

[Crothian]

And this gets down to the heart of the matter IMO. Any new PrC or core class is usually mechanically better than any multiclass or role-playing combo you can create. It's power creep rearing its ugly head once again. So why play a monk/rog when you can play a ninja core class? Because it's more powerful, plain and simple. Same goes for most of the new PrC's as well.

That's not power creep. If the Ninja were better thne a straight rogue that is power creep, but to say it is better then a combination that is bad to begin with it not. First to get to the power of the Rog/monk you have to take a step down from the power of the core books, then the ninja takes a step up back to the core books. It is not going beyond them.

 

[Rasyr]

Does anybody agree with this?

IMO, D&D promotes the proliferation of core and PrC to what might be considered an absurd point. The way that the game is designed, with Classes (Core and/or Prestige) giving specific benefits for each level of progression, expects for others to create new classes, each with differing abilities. Change perhaps one ability, and poof, you have a new class.

I would rather have exactly what I want than something that's pretty darned close to what I want.

So would I. And that is one reason that I designed HARP the way I did (C'mon? Did you actually expect me to NOT mention HARP? ). In comparison, D&D and HARP both have some flexibility, but I consider HARP to have more. Why? Because D&D gives its flexibility in large blocks (i.e. classes), and you can only use those blocks to get an approximate of what you want, not exactly what you want. In contrast, HARP gives a few core archetypes (professions), which reflect the direction that your character has decided to focus his training, and everything is decided on a more granular level, which in turn allows for greater flexibility to get what you want. However, I will point out that even then, it is somtimes hard to get exactly what you want.

To do that, you would have to go with an even more granular system, such as HERO. In it, you get the ultimate in flexibility and granularity of choice. To the point that it requires you to actually build each spell as you want when you learn it (if you do not take any of the pre-packaged choices).

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.

Recently, there was a thread on here by a guy playing a Paladin, and playing him as something along the lines of a traveling pilgrim. In describing the Paladin, they ended up describing him as a monk (as in the european style monk). Another person in this person's group was playing a character of the Monk class, and pretty much got hung up on the Paladin being called a Monk, and started challenging him to unarmed combat and other foolishness.

This is, I think, an example of one of the results of the proliferation of classes (Core & Prestige). It puts too many (not everybody, so don't get your knickers twisted if it doesn't apply to you ) into the mindset where the "name" of the class seems to become its definition, both in game and out of it. Thus, a character who is not a member of the Monk Class being called a monk (i.e. an ascetic of some type) causes confusion and problems.

The discussion recorded in the first post again reflects this. Two kids saying that they cannot make a Ninja withou a class called Ninja....

Now, I don't think that this reflects the attitudes for many older gamers, but it does seem to be the case for younger, newer gamers....

Just my opinions, they are worth what you paid for them....

 

[VirgilCaine]

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

Right, and so why are you on these...class-based RPG boards?

 

[Philip]

Whatever. Prior to 3e we had a class known as 'Thieves'. No matter how I argued with fellow players and DM's, everybody that played a thief *always* had to steal something sooner or later, regardless of personality, motivation and background. And were talking older veteran players here.

Never underestimate the power of names and archetypes. The word Ninja (and a picture) can sell a book better than any package of skills and powers, and it probably did so with the two you used in your example.

 

[twofalls]

The immense ammount of material out there for the game is an amazing and wonderful thing. If you prefer not to have a prestige or core class to cover every possible adventuring concept... then dont. Choose the classes avalible to your players and state at the begining of your game that these are what is availbile in your world for this campaign.

I agree with The Shaman in his view that you can see the core classes as occupations or as skill packages, and I think he broke it down and explained it so well in his post that I don't need to add anything to it. What I will say, is the same that most everyone has when they write the introduction to the roleplaying game they have just designed. Use what you want, toss what you don't, and have fun with it.

How can more material be bad? Surely I'm not the only one here who can remember when there was a vacuum of game books in the market and every individual product release was a time to celebrate. Now there is a wonderful, brilliant, amazing glut of material out there that to the point that I've even read posts from folks whining about the quantity of it all. I hug myself in glee that our hobby has expanded like it has, and that there is something out there for everyone. I realize it wasn't the strict intent of your orignial post to complain about the large number of publishers out there wingsandsword, however my point is that the more that is out there the better. To those who say "only if its good material" I say, One man's junk is another man's treasure.

 

[fusangite]

Right, and so why are you on these...class-based RPG boards?

Same reason I'm using Explorer and running Windows as I type this: market hegemony and compatibility.

 

[Jraynack]

I agree with the original poster, however I do like some of the new core classes that have recently sprung up in the WOTC books. As a DM, I like the power of offering my players a variety of options - there is very little I restrict (very little). I feel the player is there to have fun - and what is more fun then playing what you want?

However, with that said, I do run a tight campaign world. Unless, the characters are exploring the orient - when a player playing a samurai walks into a village (Medieval Europeon) he is going to find it hard getting a drink at the tavern or move about without curious looks. A half-drow or a half-orc would also find it hard going to the same town and getting supplies before being run out. However, the players know this when they play exotic core classes or races - it also allows them to come up with an interesting background as to why they are playing these characters and offers numerous role-play situations.

Although, there was a few before, but when Monte Cooke came out with his Arcana Unearthed I told my friend and business partner, Cameron, that there will be a surge of new core classes (with third party products and eventually WOTC) as there was with the new concept of prestige classes emerged. However, this was not any different years ago, when D&D was still young (1st Edition), you had Dragon magazine publishing alternative classes ever month. Same thing happened with character kits (2nd Edition).

As a DM, however, with the already insane amount of monsters there are roaming the land - I am finding it hard to keep up with all of the crowding organizations that make up the prestige classes. The new core classes are refreshing - however, as long as they keep with a simple concept and mirror the core rulebook in playability and power.

Though I perfer my players to have a variety of things to play, I am more interested in alternatives that feed off of the original core class while giving players the ability to hone into a more specific feel:the subclass. And as a company, we prefer making these instead of additional core classes.

I do find the Ninja core class a little humorous - as a small historical sidenote: a ninja trained their entire life to each the echelons of their abilities, however when finally sent out on a mission, if successful, they returned back to their employer and master, celebrated, then committed seppuku (ritual suicide) dying with honor on a job (and just one job) well done. Drop that tidbit when a player comes to you wanting to play a ninja.

Cheers,
Josh

 

[Nighthawk]

I agree with Odhanan. I appreciate the diversity even if I may disagree with its format. This does not apply only to classes and prestige classes.

 

[Gentlegamer]

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.

I remember those! Wasn't there an outline for creating a skald using a multiclassed Barbarian/Bard?