The Trend from Prestige to Base

[glass]

In my opinion, a base class should: 1) Exist at all levels of ability. If a concept is only seen as experienced members, it's a PrC.

This is the one for me really.

I don't think your other restrictions are necessary, and they could rule out some perfectly good classes that can't be base classes by your rules, but can't be PrCs because the do meet rule 1.


glass.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I'm very simple in what I want as PrC vs. Base Classes.

If the class can be summed up in 10 levels, don't try to drag it out over 20 levels, just make it a PrC.

If the class is advanced, stronger, etc, than one of the Core classes, make it a PrC so its entered at a higher level. A 1st level ability from a PrC can be equivalent to a higher level ability in a Base Class if they can't get into it until higher levels.

Flavor-wise, I think anything could be a PrC or a Base Class. It doesn't matter. You can have a Base Class that requires vigorous training to get into (ie wizard). What should matter most is the number of levels the Class should have associated with it and that it should be stretched or shrunk just because its "supposed" to be a PrC or Base Class. That just leads to bad design.

 

[The_Gneech]

The problem with making everything feat chains, is that except for Fighters, nobody can afford to take feat chains. Using my "highly mobile archer type" that people are probably sick of hearing about now as an example, if I tried to build him using feats I'd be SOL -- acrobatic feats are virtually nonexistent, and Fighters don't have skill points.

Personally, I'd rather there were more -- and broader base classes. Maybe not quite to the degree of genericness of d20 Modern's "Strong Hero" "Fast Hero" etc., but something nudged generally in that direction ... a class that specialized in mobility (for monks, acrobats, scouts), a class that specialized in durability (for tanks), a class that specialized in lore (for wizards, bards, etc.), and so on.

EDIT: Oh, I'd also like there to be core classes that didn't go 1-20. I'm not convinced that Barbarian needs all 20 levels to fit the concept for instance, even though as written it has lots of sweet high level abilities.

While I'm wishing, I'd like to add that I wish more abilities were based on character level and not class level, while I'm at it. And that the concept of favored classes would go away.

-The Gneech

 

[Andor]

In my opinion, before 4e is published, someone at Wizards should sit down and work out a coherent strategy for what should be a base class and what should be a prestige class.

In my opinion, a base class should:

1) Exist at all levels of ability. If a concept is only seen as experienced members, it's a PrC.
2) Not be bound to a particular culture. Samurai should not be a base class. Some sort of generic 'Knight' class (including both Samurai and western Knight concepts) could be, although not with that name. Likewise, Barbarian is a poor name for a class - it should be Berserker, or a PrC.
3) Not be bound by alignment. I really like base-class paladins, but really hate non-LG paladins. The logically consistent position requires that paladins become a PrC.
4) Be sufficiently broad. Sufficiently broad is quite a difficult one to tie down, but unless you can reasonably see members of every PHB PC race taking the class, it's probably too narrow.
5) Be customisable. I would like to see the talent trees from d20 Modern adopted, so that "a druid with a bit more shapechanging" is possible without the need for a specially-designed PrC.

I have to disagree with 2. A culturally tied class will be campaign specific and thus might not belong in the core class list in the PHB I, but if it's a role that is trained from childhood (Knight, Samurai, Oracle, etc.) then why would it not be a base class? Base class <> Core class.

On that same basis I'm leery of number 4. If you mean 'A class that any race could do with training' then I agree. If you mean 'a class that fits in any culture no matter how warlike/pacifistic/magical/mundane/religous/agnostic' then what are you left with? The commoner?

 

[hexgrid]

The players in my group will barely even look at non-core base classes. One of them even insisted (twice) that Complete Divine didn't have any base classes, and wouldn't believe that it did until I showed him the pages. This was a book he owned.

They love prestige classes, though, and pretty much only view base classes as prestige class prerequisites.

 

[SWBaxter]

The problem with making everything feat chains, is that except for Fighters, nobody can afford to take feat chains. Using my "highly mobile archer type" that people are probably sick of hearing about now as an example, if I tried to build him using feats I'd be SOL -- acrobatic feats are virtually nonexistent, and Fighters don't have skill points.

Well, sure, the system as it stands is designed around the idea that cool abilities would be foisted off into prestige classes so the base classes other than the fighter by and large aren't designed for that kind of flexibility. I'm just saying that given the opportunity for a ground-up overhaul, that's the direction I'd go. Giving classes the number of feats necessary is actually a previously solved problem - d20 Modern goes most of the way (and Grim Tales takes it the rest of the way), True20 does it that way, even the generics in Unearthed Arcana take a stab at going the abilities-as-feats route. With varying results, obviously, but it doesn't look impossible to make the concept work.

Personally, I'd rather there were more -- and broader base classes.

Those two notions seem incompatible to me, unless by broader you just mean removing some of the fluff and role-specific abilities, so that the rogue becomes the skilldude base class rather than having a strong thiefly tilt (for example). I actually think that D&D could get by pretty well with three base classes if the multiclass rules were improved (i.e. if multiclass spellcasters didn't suck). d20 Modern's 6-class apporach is also pretty feasible, add a seventh spellcasting base class or template and it'd be good to go.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

4) Be sufficiently broad. Sufficiently broad is quite a difficult one to tie down, but unless you can reasonably see members of every PHB PC race taking the class, it's probably too narrow.

This one I don't agree with. A base class having a narrowly defined nich is fine - if it would drastically change a character's play style as a PrC.

[Opens can of worms] The example I'm thinking of in particular is the Soulknife. Many believe it should be a PrC because it is a very narrow concept and doesn't fill a regular role in fantasy (light armored mobile fighter - but haw many of those manifest mental weapons?). I can see this complaint about it but do not agree with the solution.

I think this concept is fine as a full class. Once a player gets their PC to have weapons that appear and disappear at thought, their entire play style is going to change. Sure, a Soulknife player would likely have a dagger or something as a backup weapon just in case, but why spend the money on a good sword when it will become meaningless in a level anyway? You won't want to spend your feats to improve your weapon skills if your weapon is going to change soon so this means that only after they get their new toys does the player gets to pick up feats like Weapon Focus to improve their attacks.

In this example (and there may or may not be more examples of this out there) I think a narrow class if fine as a base class. A Super-Duper-Uber-Archer who excells in firing their bow on windy days while blindfolded shouldn't be a base class (for many reasons). It is almost as narrow a concept as the Soulknife but it doesn't change the fighting style as much between levels 5 and 6.

To anser the original question: I don't think PrCs are migrating to Base Classes. Some may show up as such (a more evenly progressing mage/thief for example) but I don't think it is a full blown trend yet.

 

[Psion]

The problem with making everything feat chains, is that except for Fighters, nobody can afford to take feat chains. Using my "highly mobile archer type" that people are probably sick of hearing about now as an example, if I tried to build him using feats I'd be SOL -- acrobatic feats are virtually nonexistent, and Fighters don't have skill points.

As has been mentioned, there are many d20 spinoffs that feature class features or feat selections at every level, and is really looking like the "shape of things to come" to many.

Indeed, even those who play D&D/d20 fantasy are finding making feats more common a popular variant. See this thread for further discussion:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=162508

But still, even if one goes that route, there is a certain amount of appeal to having a certain portion of your abilities pre-selected in a class like structure, to limit the design choices, decomplicating making characters to fit a given concept.

 

[The_Gneech]

You could even write up a certain batch of abilities as a "package deal" and then give character who take them bonus abilities to encourage their use!

Oh, wait, that's the HERO System I'm thinking of, isn't it?

-The Gneech

 

[SWBaxter]

You could even write up a certain batch of abilities as a "package deal" and then give character who take them bonus abilities to encourage their use!

Oh, wait, that's the HERO System I'm thinking of, isn't it?

4th edition. 5th no longer gives a discount for package deals, they're now just examples of how to go about doing things for those who don't want to build 'em themselves.

GURPS, True20, and probably lots of others go the latter route, too. Heck, one could argue that 2ed AD&D's kits were another expression of the same concept. Of course, the "2ed is EVIL" marketing strategy followed in the early days of 3E means that pointing out that sort of similarity probably kills any chance WOTC will go down that route, but I'll take that risk.