Two quick thoughts about all these new fangled base classes . . .

[delericho]

2. I also remember back in 2001, talking with some AD&D 1e/2e grognards (of which I was one, I confess) about how the great thing about D&D 3rd edition (heh heh--it wasn't yet rebranded "3.0"--heh heh) was the flexible multi-classing rules, that allowed you to create ANY class concept imaginable by combining the eleven standard classes!

They were mistaken. There are some valid concepts that cannot be built using the 11 PHB classes in combination... and there are more valid concepts that cannot be constructed in a manner that would be viable when played alongside single-classed characters of the same level.

However, I'm inclined to feel that many of the new classes exist because the existing classes are a little too inflexible, and too many of them cover too narrow a niche.

In particular:

1) I don't believe there should be a place for a Swashbuckler class. The Fighter class (perhaps multiclassed with some Rogue and/or Bard, depending on the desired flavour), should be sufficiently broad to allow this. It isn't, but add class-based defense bonuses and appropriate feat options, and that becomes viable.

2) There should not be both a Knight and a Samurai class, and in fact I believe both should be Fighters with appropriate feat choices (probably multiclassed with a beefed-up Aristocrat). The CW Samurai is particularly disappointing - at least the OA version had the 'imbue weapon' ability that made it interesting.

3) Although I actually like the Warmage, Beguiler and Dread Necromancer, they really should be appropriately-built Sorcerers. (That said, in a new edition, I would include the Sorcerer in the PHB, then produce an 'aspects of magic' book containing eight specialist classes, with the recommendation that the Sorcerer be removed from the campaign in favour of the specialists... oh, and I'd remove specialist Wizards at the same time.)

4) Far too many of the Prestige Classes are "a C with a bit more F", where C is a given class, while the F is a class feature. So, the Shifter is "a Druid with a bit more Wild Shape". Such classes should not exist - implement the 'ability trees' from d20 Modern, and players can build their own Shifter.

 

[delericho]

The proliferation of base classes is cludgy in the same way that 1st and 2nd edition became unwieldy. It was easier and more profitable to keep printing supplements than it was to fix the core problem.

Fixing the core problem requires a new edition. Oddly, I don't hear much of a demand for one.

I put my money on Paladin. BotR's Holy Warrior is a good example of what sort of path they should have taken the Champion in.

I really dislike the notion of a "non-LG Paladin". That said, it is becoming increasingly hard to justify the existence of the Paladin itself, certainly as a base class. What does such a character give you that a Fighter/Cleric does not?

These days, I'm inclined to the position that base classes should not have alignment restrictions (except that Clerics must be within one step of their deity... but that doesn't count, since you can still have Clerics of every alignment, just not Clerics of every deity of every alignment). Likewise, I don't believe base classes should carry excessive cultural baggage (Barbarian, Druid, and esp. Samurai), directly restrict race (so, no Bladesinger base class), or be too narrow in scope (the Aged Martial Artist).

I think the base classes in my ideal PHB 4.0 would be: Bard (would like a better name for this), Cleric, Druid (rename), Duskblade, Fighter, Noble, Pugilist (renamed and redesigned Monk), Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer/Favoured Soul (possibly one class called Adept, or possibly two), Wizard (but no specialists)

Each would need to be widened in scope. And the list isn't fixed - ask me in a week and I would probably provide a slightly different set of eleven.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I don't mind new base classes...

What I do mind is a new base class that is a duplicate of an existing class with a slightly changed skill list and a twist on some of the class abilities.... since in Core you can do that with the base classes anyway

I am one of those guys who thinks you can build pretty much any character concept with the core rules and the creative invention of new feats and options.

 

[Elemental]

I love the new base classes. I think they actually decrease munchkinism, because you don't need to know the rules so well to build characters that bridge classes (such as the Beguiler or Duskblade).

A new class is too specific? Okay, so do you also have objections to the Ranger, Paladin and Monk? Because those can all be clumsily emulated by multiclassing with other classes.

A new class is too powerful? Really, so you're saying it can kick the ass of a wildshaping, Natural Spell-wielding druid?

I for one am looking forward to the new base class 'Angsty Swordwielder with Samurrii Eyebrows, Cat Like Grace, and Cool Gothy Clothes' with baited breath. I can't wait to hear some munchkin peer up over the side of the table and tell me how he's got the coolest backstory, his parents were murdered by orcs, and he was raised by a martial arts master who taught him the secrets of killing with his bare hands, simpering good looks, and frustrated sexuality.

I'm sure he's going to tell me how he never could have built his concept out of core classes from the PH.

How dare that insolent, uppity player find a character class that suits what he wants to play! He must have done it solely for reasons of powergaming, when he could have gone with a sensible, balanced core class like the cleric or druid.

More seriously, it never ceases to be amusing when someone condemns a game company for trying to (gasp!) make money. It's as if GM's are compelled to allow absolutely everything into their games, and can never resort to saying "No, that doesn't really fit."

 

[Darklone]

I still would love to see less base classes and more options... similar to the Ascetic feats to multiclass effectively without prestige classes.

 

[RangerWickett]

I do hope 4th edition makes three very basic base classes - Expert, Mage, and Warrior - that have tons of options and flexibility, designed to let you multiclass them to create almost any character idea; and then include 10+ classes that examples of premade progressions of those abilities, and maybe 2 or 3 classes that are examples of bending the rules a bit because not everything can be codified into generic classes.

Core Three
Expert - gets lots of skill options. For this to work, skill checks need to be more useful than magic a lot of the time; make knock and spiderclimb not automatically open locks or succeed climb checks.
Mage - gets lots of magic options, and can either cast spells (of various varieties - arcane, divine, natural) or have innate supernatural abilities.
Warrior - gets lots of combat options, ranging from fighter feats to barbarian rage to some of the low-key Book of Nine Swords stuff.

Ten Examples
Berserker (warrior with rage feats)
Cleric (mage/warrior with divine magic)
Druid (mage with nature magic and a variety of supernatural abilities)
Fighter (iconic D&D warrior, with heavy armor and no flash)
Mageknight (mage/warrior with arcane magic)
Monk (warrior with mild innate supernatural abilities granted via the mage class)
Rogue (iconic D&D expert, with dungeon-delving feats)
Swashbuckler (warrior tweaked out for nimbleness)
Warlock (mage with no spells but lots of supernatural abilities)
Wizard (iconic D&D magic-user, with spellbook and familiar)

Three Oddities
Artificer (expert who has the ability to create magic items)
Bard (pseudo-mage/expert with a unique musical ability)
Champion (powerful mage/warrior with bonus defenses as long as he is morally pure)


The problem is, modularity doesn't sell sourcebooks. Sourcebooks want you to not create your own things.

 

[shurai]

The interesting thing about the new proliferation of base classes and the constant explosion of prestige classes, to me, is that the game seems to be converging on something that D&D has always been dead-set against: Not having any classes at all.

Hear me out.

As the number of base classes (and prestige classes, feats, and spells) grows, the number of ways to define a character increases. Eventually, one reaches a point at which a character can have just about any combination of traits, with the only restrictions being those nominally enforced by the character's level. It's total freedom, provided you're willing to navigate the large and expensive collection of crunchbooks.

So, at that point, when your class really doesn't matter at all anymore, do you still have a class?

 

[Storm Raven]

The core concept was a cleric from a Northern warrior culture based on Finno-Russian legend, particularly from the Kalevala.

As a result, he could not have flashy offensive magic. At all.

Magic from those legends- at least, from the heroes- was protective, elemental/nature based. This eliminates a lot of big divine spells- no Flame Strikes, no Creeping Dooms. Instead, you might take on an animal's strength, or ward your allies against harm. Perhaps, if you were powerful and had friends among the 4 winds (air-elementals), you could fly. Even the healing magic was greatly subdued. In game terms, most of what the PC had access to on the clerical side was capped at 3th level- those he had Major Access to were largely the "less powerful" spheres like Guardian or Travellers.

Because of his culture, he was as home in the woods as anywhere else- think somewhere between Fafhrd & Strider. Thus, his fighting skill was better than the typical Cleric, but since he depended upon stealth & mobility, he could only wear lighter armors- nothing better than chainmail or hide.

Because of his duties to his people in time of war, he Inspired Rage rather than Turned Undead...and by rule, that required 3 rounds of chanting.

(Inspire Rage was a bit of a stretch- it had no analog in Finno-Russian legend, but Undead are completely absent from what I've read of their legends, and there was no more appropriate use for the character build points. There were no more Spheres or Schools appropriate to the concept, heavier armor was inappropriate, and he already fought as well as he could.)

Lets see. Light armor. Stealth and mobility as options, non-flashy magic. Some healing, but not as much as a standard cleric. Inspirational abilities. That sounds like he should have been a bard in 3e terms, or maybe some sort of bard multiclass. Sure the bard class is not explicitly religious, but the arcane/divine split is just flavor for the most part anyway.

 

[Storm Raven]

I really dislike the notion of a "non-LG Paladin". That said, it is becoming increasingly hard to justify the existence of the Paladin itself, certainly as a base class. What does such a character give you that a Fighter/Cleric does not?

This has been my thinking since 3e came out. It seems to me, that with the ease of making multiclassing choices in 3e and the feat system, there is little need for the various "semi-caster" classes that had been part of the game until then. Is a paladin, in terms of flavor, significantly different than a 3e fighter/cleric (yes, the paladin gets a handful of abilities that the cleric/fighter would not get, but it seems to me that this could be solved by a feat chain of some sort). What is a bard that makes him significantly different than a spellcaster/rogue? What truly differentiates a ranger from a fighter/druid? Given the robust multiclassing system coupled with feat options, there should be no real need for these hybrid classes as base classes. And there is certainly little need for add-ons like the hexblade (fighter/sorcerer), or the swashbuckler (rogue/fighter) and so on.

Ideally, I'd collapse all of the base classes down to four (or even three) - fighter, rogue, arcane caster, divine caster (and possibly combine the arcane/divine caster strains) and cover the various class abilities currently provided by things like barbarian, bard and so on as feat chains of some sort. The UA generic classes are close to what I'd like to see, but I think they need a little tweaking to make the system work fully.

 

[Celebrim]

Funny you should mention the Cleric- the PC I had in mind was actually a Player's Option cleric I ran in 2Ed. It is, as yet, untranslatable into 3.x.

Oh brother. I'm not going to complain for the reason that you think. It's not that I'm worried about the fact that the character may have been twinked. The problem is that you and I have such a different idea of what a character concept is, that we are never going to remotely agree on this.

The problems that bar the translation of the concept would probably not be soluable via feats, since it would involve swapping out certain base features of the class (like Turning Undead) for others, as well as eliminating a huge number of spells and adding others.

Hogwash. The exact spell list might be difficult, but the rest of what you mention is easy.

The closest analogue would be a Cleric of Fharlanghn with fewer cleric spells (but more than 2 domains), access to arcane Abjuration spells, Chainmail, a Maul, and a Bow who could Inspire Rage.

Which is not I would note actually a concept. You are defining a character by what he does, not who he is. No system is, especially for a given power level of the character, going to be able to support a player bringing any given shopping list of abilities to the table and coming away with exactly what he wants. He'll either have to settle for a portion of the shopping list, or else wait until he has more 'points' to spend on the character. That's just the nature of things.

That said, I see no reason at all why you couldn't come very close to that with a base cleric, the right feats, and a better system of player options, advantages and disadvantages. The only thing that I would be skeptical of would be that the exact spell list could be recreated in large part because giving up access to a selected list of class skills and spells and getting anything at all in return is highly abusable. The way clerics handle spell lists with domains is about as ideal as flexible spell access can be made. But something which gave a divine spell caster access to a whole arcane school of spells sounds to me to be right out simply because the access to a presumably stronger spell list is the only thing arcane spell casters have going for them.

So, probably something like Human Cleric of Fhalarghan + Optional Culture Trait (cultural traits (among other things) change the weapon classifications for a character, moving weapons between the exotic, martial and simple classes,) + Cleric Option (giving up turning undead for inspire rage ability) + Character Disadvantage (Reduced spell list, giving up two schools of magic) + Character Trait (Extra Domain Access, giving you the spells from another domain) + possibly spending a feat to gain access to the long bow. With the exception of the giving up turning undead for inspire rage, you could do that in my campaign as it is using just the house rules I've already got, and I while I'd have to think about it giving up turning undead for inspire rage sounds close to balanced so I'd happily consider that a new player option.

But none of that is a concept nor do I see how any of that is essential to a concept. It sounds to me alot more like a shopping list of abilities.

Complaining that you can't recreate the abilities of a character from a previous edition is just short of ridiculous though. I can't ever port my elven thief/M-U into 3rd edition, because I was giving up basically one level of spell casting ability for full rogue skill and class ability progression. I'll never be able to make a character of X level that backstabs as a X level rogue, AND has the skills of a X level rogue, AND has the spell casting ability of a X-1 level Wizard. Plus, I won't be playing a race which is inherently superior to human. There is no way I could balance all of that now that skills really matter, and even if I could it wouldn't be an exact port. The only reason the character was even close to balanced was that after about the 3rd level, thieves were so inherently inferior to other classes in 1st and 2nd edition that giving up one level of M-U was (especially at higher levels) just about (though not quite) balanced.

If you can't port something over identically from an earlier edition don't be suprised. Odds are even if you made a base class for your (very narrow 'concept') it wouldn't be balanced with existing classes, and if it was, it wouldn't be an exact port.