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

[fuindordm]

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.

I agree, but when you allow swapping of class features and class skills many of these concepts become perfectly viable again--with the notable exception of the fighter/caster archetype. (But we're not here to get into a debate on that, so let it go if you don't agree with me on this point, please!)

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.

The monk and paladin being prime examples--these both should really be setting-specific classes, but they can be found in a wide enough variety of settings that they're worth including anyway. Probably any base class that has a good chance of finding a place in at least two-thirds of fantasy settings is worth including in the core.

WotC has come up with two other specialized base classes that I would definitely include in this category: the artificer and the knight. By all accounts the warlock and scout are also pretty popular.

1) I don't believe there should be a place for a Swashbuckler class... add class-based defense bonuses and appropriate feat options, and that becomes viable.

Arcana Unearthed has the Unfettered, which I think is a very good core class. But I agree that the main thing keeping players from the concept is a level-based AC bonus; the monk's is pitifully small, and something like a defense bonus should be a relativly common class ability. If need be, take other abilities away from the classes that really need it to balance them, or add feats and prerequisites (such as evasion) to simulate it!

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.

I think the Knight actually does pinpoint a missing archetype--the guardian/fighter as opposed to the tactical/fighter and meatgrinder/fighter (barbarian, usually). I'm very
happy to see it in the game.

3) Although I actually like the Warmage, Beguiler and Dread Necromancer, they really should be appropriately-built Sorcerers...

Indeed. I think that the Wizard/Sorcerer split is reasonable, if not strictly necessary, and that most fantasy settings do have room for both. There just needs to be a good, simple mechanic for 'flavorizing' sorcerers, for example a domain system similar to what clerics. Each domain would predetermine one spell per level, give a minor special ability, and influence more potent abilities at high levels that make the variants diverse enough to spaws all kinds of interesting PCs other than the mobile artillery unit. (There have been threads on sorcerer domains here in the past, which those of you who can search will find easily, and I still think it's the best approach.)

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.

I heartily agree. Prestige classes should offer either (1) unique advanced abilities that can't be obtained through the core classes (such as the dwarven defender, or arcane archer) or (2) reflect a strong social allegiance within the campaign setting.

 

[delericho]

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

I would resist this. If they're going that far, I would prefer to see them remove classes entirly, and go to some sort of point buy progression... with the 10+ examples you advocate.

That said, I would prefer they just keep the class system mostly as-is, with a widening of class niches, and a review of the boundaries between base and prestige classes. The class system is one of the great strengths of D&D, and I feel that doing away with it, or drastically reducing the number of classes, would do more harm than good.

I'm not saying you can't create a good game without classes, of course... I'm just saying I don't want D&D to go that way.

 

[fuindordm]

Just a side note:

I personally think there are far too many magic-using classes compared to the number of mundane classes. Even the assassin gets spells, for Pete's sake!

Core has:
3 mundane classes: barbarian, fighter, and rogue
1 borderline class: the monk, and
7 spellcasting classes

I generally prefer a campaign which makes spellcasters feel a little more special. In 4th edition,
I'd really prefer to see:

5 or 6 completely mundane classes: barbarian, fighter, rogue, ranger, knight, noble
(add swashbuckler or something like it if a level-based defense bonus is not generally available)

2 or 3 semi-mundane classes: monk, paladin (spell-like/supernatural abilities OK, just no
spell preparation)

2 or 3 semi-spellcasting classes: bard, mage blade (see Arcana Unearthed; the only good core class I've seen that fully supports the fighter/wizard archetype)

5 or 6 full spellcasters: cleric and sorcerer (use domains to flavor), wizard, artificer, and
druid.

As an alternative to the semi-spellcasting classes, which could easily start breeding into dozens of varieties, there could be core rules for mixing a mundane class of your choice with a spellcasting class of your choice--e.g., drop BAB one step, drop HD one step, give the class a good will save, add 3/4 spellcasting levels per class level, and strip away one useful class ability from the mundane class (e.g. sneak attack from rogue, half the bonus feats from the fighter, fast movement and DR from the barbarian, etc.)

Cheers!

 

[Storm Raven]

Although you're absolutely correct in your instincts on one level- much of Kalevala magic is based in "songs of power"- Bard wouldn't really have captured the flavor (though the KoK Spellsinger might, or possibly the ToM Binder).

You have yet to give a reason why, other than perhaps, you didn't want to write "bard" on your character sheet.

He is stealthy & mobile, but more in the woodsman sense. The skills & weapon list should be more akin to that of the ranger- like the heroes of the Kalevala, he is supposed to be largely self-sufficient, able to survive in the wilderness all alone if he has to.

That would be the "possibly a bard multiclass" part of my statement. What makes this anything more difficult than having the character multiclass his bard levels with some ranger levels mixed in? Also, other than Survival and possibly Spot, what "outdoors" skills is the standard bard class missing?

A mighty warrior as well as spellcaster.

A spellcaster should not be a "mighty warrior" as well. That is for those who specialize in, you know, being mighty warriors. If he was really high level, then he would be a mighty warrior, even if he was a bard. From the perspective of averyone except 15th level fighters, rangers, paladins, and other combat oriented classes, a 15th level bard or a 10th level bard/5th level ranger (or cleric, or rogue, or whatever) is pretty much a "mighty warrior".

Essentially, you can't be superlative at everything, and it sounds like that is what you are asking for. In which case, I think you are just being unreasonable.

As for the arcane/divine split, most people in our group- myself among them- don't consider the divide to be trivial.

In what way is the arcane/divine divide anything but flavor?

 

[Storm Raven]

As an alternative to the semi-spellcasting classes, which could easily start breeding into dozens of varieties, there could be core rules for mixing a mundane class of your choice with a spellcasting class of your choice--e.g., drop BAB one step, drop HD one step, give the class a good will save, add 3/4 spellcasting levels per class level, and strip away one useful class ability from the mundane class (e.g. sneak attack from rogue, half the bonus feats from the fighter, fast movement and DR from the barbarian, etc.)

There already are such rules. They are called "multiclassing".

 

[Storm Raven]

I think the Knight actually does pinpoint a missing archetype--the guardian/fighter as opposed to the tactical/fighter and meatgrinder/fighter (barbarian, usually). I'm very happy to see it in the game.

Why is a seperate class needed instead of simply having a "defensive" oriented set of feat trees to choose from?

 

[fuindordm]

The class system in D&D right now is a little confused. You basically have the same system covering three different things.

A) Portraying the gamist abilities of a character whose role may have little to do with the actual classes involved. (D20 modern)

B) Portraying the gamist abilities of a character whose role and class are the same thing. Almost all of the spellcasting classes fall into this category. This is oldschool D&D approach.

C) Fleshing out the gamist abilities of a character who supplements his primary role with some supernatural powers.

A lot of internet arguments are spawned by these different roles and which one you think should be dominant.

This is also a very good point. For myself, I think core D&D as it currently stands has no choice but to adopt choices B or C for all base classes. This is mainly due to two factors:
1) The skill system (class/cross-class distinction and penalty)
2) The multiclassed spellcaster problem (falling behind in max. spell level too quickly)

Removing all restrictions on skills and skill point spending would go a long way towards giving the core classes more flexible roles. A human fighter with Int 13 could then be a noble, a scout, a soldier, a guardsman, or a hermit and have the mechanical skills to back up their role-playing choice. The more I play D&D, the less utility I see in placing restrictions on skills.

I do believe in the concept of niche protection, but magic is so powerful in D&D that skills actually play a very minor role in specializing characters.

In an earlier post I suggested a solution to point 2.

 

[fuindordm]

A final note:

This could become a very interesting discussion if nobody pollutes it with further arguments about the viability of a particular character concept. I think it is clear that one can always find certain things which any given RPG system will have a very hard time emulating, and it is indeed true that the 2nd edition 'Divine Spheres' concept does not map very well to any 3rd edition mechanic.

Ben

 

[teitan]

There are people who are still convinced you can create any concept by multiclassing the 3E PHB classes together. I'm not one of them, but they do still exist.

You can. I still believe it. I hate the proliferation of classes.

 

[fuindordm]

Why is a seperate class needed instead of simply having a "defensive" oriented set of feat trees to choose from?

(The above comment was with respect to the Knight core class)

I haven't seen one in play yet, the Knight offers a new core class ability (the Knightly Challenge, which itself has been controversial) that seems to be significantly stronger than a feat tree. It would be appropriate for a D20 Modern talent tree.

You're right, having a sufficient number of feat trees to support the fighter would also go a long way towards reducing the number of base classes needed.

On the other hand, neither should be everything be made a feat--each core class should have something to offer that is unique (niche protection) and only available through multiclassing.

In response to another comment of yours (not quoted), I personally would argue that spellcasting is a special case--the cost of multiclassing is too high compared to the benefit obtained. I am well aware that opinions on this matter vary widely, I have participated in discussions on this in the past, and I hope that this thread doesn't get derailed on this point.

I am very interested in a discussion on what criteria should be used to draw the line between 'do it by multiclassing' and 'make up a new core class', and on what core classes have really brought something new to the table.

Ben