The Trend from Prestige to Base

[Garnfellow]

I certainly want to echo a lot of sentiments already expressed in this thread. I find the proliferation of so many new base classes in WotC products worrisome on a philosophical level and rather disappointing on an implementation level.

I think Psion and delericho really nailed a list of philosophical criteria for what should constitute a new base class. In general, base classes ought to be broad and readily customizable. And I think the original 3e designers shared a similar vision, but lately I see an awful lot of new “official” core classes that completely flunk this acid test.

Too many of these new classes are (1) so narrowly focused (either culturally or conceptually) that they really ought to be, by definition, prestige classes, (2) based on some entirely new subsystem of rules that I have no interest in introducing to my game (like incarnates or soulmelds), or (3) exist purely to address mechanical limitations (and most often, limitations with multiclassing rules) in the game (swashbucklers, duskblades).

I am probably most sympathetic to new base classes designed to address multiclassing limitations. Like many other people, I also have been frustrated by trying to build a non-magical ranger type using the existing base classes. And so forth. But I also suspect that many of these issues could be addressed by a few new feats along the lines of Practiced Spellcaster. A feat based solution would be far more versatile than a base class solution, but then again it probably wouldn’t sell as many books, either.

So much for my philosophical objections. On a more specific level, I find the new base classes very hit-or-miss in terms of new game mechanics and flavor. For every scout or warlock it seems like there are four or five CW samurais. And it’s not just WotC that have a terrible batting average here -- I was equally underwhelmed by most of the new base classes in Paizo’s Dragon Compendium.

I’m not opposed to all new base classes; I love the scout and warlock. And doubtless there are many conceptual and mechanical niches that are just waiting to be filled by shiny new base classes. I just think WotC has gone a little nutty on this front and should really pull back on the new core classes.

 

[iwatt]

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.

Check out Iron Heroes. Classes are about schticks and not so much about specialized niches. They also get more and cooler feats.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

If the class has no interesting abilities that can be balanced at ECL 1, it should require a higher ECL or a higher number in specific abilities. If it has no interesting abilities worth getting past ECL 10, it should end at ECL 10.

Words like "base," "core," and especially the loaded "prestige" confuse the issue. ANY class is a suite of abilities roughly balanced for a particular level, and making it anything else is poor mechanical design. Going back and adding suggested flavor after the fact (or even having suggested flavor that inspired the class in the first place) is no problem, but is insufficient justification for a class.

Personally, I like the new base classes WotC has been putting out, and (some) of the new prestige classes. None of the former scream 'no interesting abilities at level 1,' so they're fine.

 

[Knight Otu]

I recently posted my thoughts on new base classes elsewhere, and I came to a conclusion that was quite surprising to me (especially considering that, back in the day, I thought from the names alone, that many AU classes should be PrCs) - there aren't too many base classes. Of course, they have to add something to the game. In my opinion, a new base class should do one of the following:

* Provide an ability set that was not seen yet.
* Provide a mix of abilities that is hard or impossible by multiclassing between base classes.

1) Exist at all levels of ability. If a concept is only seen as experienced members, it's a PrC.

That's a given. If I can't figure out how to give a low-level character access to other planes in a balanced way, I shouldn't create a planeswalker base class. Waiting until about 3rd level should be the maximum to get a defining class ability, and that's stretching it very much.

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.

Those two I somewhat disagree with. In a Player's Handbook type book, sure, it should be the case, but, for example, in a setting, you could have quite interesting choices (say, Red Wizards of Thay). I feel you'd restrict yourself unnecessarily using these rules.
And even if a class is named "culturally," that does not mean it always has to be used that way - a setting-neutral Red Wizard may be an Arch-Specialist.
(And yes, I'm aware that Red Wizard isn't an ideal example, but I feel it illustrates my points well enough).

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.

That I can agree with to an extend, but a broadness in the sense of "every race can advance in it" can fall into the same trap as the previous two. Used in a sense that it can be used to create different types/flavors of characters, then yes, that's more like it. But even then, if a setting might call for an "Elven Leafgatherer" base class, I wouldn't mind its existence. Base classes should be as broad as possible, but shouldn't be too afraid from some narrowness.

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.

A big yes. Non-customizable base classes breed clones, which runs counter to the idea that base classes should be broad. If the customization is not built-in, provide some other means of customization (such as special feats).

 

[Remathilis]

1) Exist at all levels of ability. If a concept is only seen as experienced members, it's a PrC.

Too Vague. There are plenty of low-level thieves in a thieves guild, so would that prevent a Nightsong Enforcer-like thief?

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.

Semantics. Not every culture has a "cleric", very few have a "wizard". That would also get rid of druid, bard, paladin, and monk. If thats your intent, thats fine. Goes back to why Monte Cook came up with those ridicuous names for his AU classes...

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.

That removes paladins (LG), Druids (N-something), Barbarian/Beserker (Nonlawful), Monk (lawful), Bard (nonlawful) Knight (lawful), Warlock (Chaotic or evil), healer (good) hexblade (nongood) etc...

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.

Can't see dwarves or half-orcs being wizards, so does that make wizard a PrC?

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.

All your points seem to lean toward a "generic" system like d20, Grim Tales, or even the generic classes in UA. Its hard to argue with 3-4 highly customizable classes like warrior, expert, and spellcaster/adept. However, does that superficially-generic-but-highly-customizable element belong in "traditional" D&D? Thats a different debate, I guess.

I think you are on to something though, what makes "druid" a unique, full-fleshed out 20 level class that seems to fit in almost any campaign, vs "samurai" with its very stereotyped role and narrow focus. What makes an "assassin" a class anyone can jump into but a ninja a "start-at-level-1" affair? Can that line be drawn? Is it WotC's job to draw it?

 

[Elephant]

To Vague.

Can't see dwarves or half-orcs being wizards, so does that make wizard a PrC?

Where's Vague?

Half-orc wizards..."Duh, me cast spell! Magic Weapon! Me GOOD at wizarding!"

 

[MerricB]

I want them all, because then we have a choice.

Paladin as class AND prestige paladin? Sounds great to me.

Cheers!

 

[Ranger REG]

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.

I'll only agree if Paladin is not a base class.

 

[Remathilis]

Where's Vague?

Half-orc wizards..."Duh, me cast spell! Magic Weapon! Me GOOD at wizarding!"

Grrr... Too Vague...

Viable point though... I wouldn't have thought halfling barbarians but as a joke till I saw Eberron...

 

[Remathilis]

I want them all, because then we have a choice.

Paladin as class AND prestige paladin? Sounds great to me.

Cheers!

But can a paladin qualify and take levels in prestige paladin? Does that make him more-paladin-than-paladin, or merely holier-than-thou? ;-)