Why adhere to the "core" classes? Why not deconstruct for flexibility?

[Driddle]

In future incarnations of the D&D game design, which would you prefer?:

1. the PC class structure be maintained, which sometimes requires extensive multiclassing to reach the player's concept for his character ("I like the ranger, except I want more focus on animal magic...")

2. the current classes be deconstructed to so players can pick specific components of the class (skills, feats, certain abilities) within preset bounds -- ex. choose between combat feats every other level or backstabbing bonuses every other level; choose between animal companion or familiar; choose which of your three saves will be higher than the other two; choose six class skills; etc.

Or in other words, why load up on tons of supplement and variant products to get a PC's aspects *just right* when you could build the character to spec from the git-go?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I want my classes, at least for D&D. Some refinement and tweaking to get a(n even) better set of core base classes, and maybe doing away with multiclass restrictions.

I have no problem with multiclassing to get what I want. That's what multiclassing is there fore.

In fact, I'd like to improve on the multiclass system by giving out fractional attack and save bonuses (so the rogue/druid won't have a worse BAB than a straight wizard at level 2) and maybe doing something for multiclassing spellcasting classes (base caster level or something)

I think that classes are one of the defining aspects of D&D.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

The farthest I'll go away from classes with d20 is with Modern's simplified ones. Beyond that...if you're going to get rid of classes and try to play D&D, you might as well be playing GURPS.

Not that I don't LIKE GURPS, but the classes are definitely something that should always stick with D&D. Its one of the few 'sacred cows' that I think is truly sacred to the game.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

I like levelling, new abilities and all that classes bring. GURPSifying d20 would make creation take longer and it wouldn't necessarily bring about better character creation. I find that if players want to customize their PC, I can work with them within what D&D already has to get something reasonable.

 

[Mercule]

Keep the classes. The classes are there to provide, promote, and manage certain strong archetypes that run through the genre. If you want Fantasy without the archetypes enforced, go play HERO, but leave them in D&D.

Now, if WotC tweaked the classes a bit to unify or strengthen some of the archetypes some, I'd be all sorts of happy. I'd also like to see all the major archetypes hit. Swashbuckler is not done well by core rules, but there is also no reason a Swashbuckler and a martial artist couldn't be combined. It's utterly impossible to build anything resembling what I'd call a Ranger under the current system, too.

But everyone has their peeves. It would be no simple task to build a good archetype system. It would have to use broad enough archetypes to fit a range of characters, but narrow enough to give them definition. Of course, it'd have to have enough options to be able to play with archetypes not stereotypes.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Now, if WotC tweaked the classes a bit to unify or strengthen some of the archetypes some, I'd be all sorts of happy.

Yes, it can use some tweaking:

Get rid of the sorcerer as it is today. Warmage is a good replacement.

Druids (and rangers) should cast spells without preparation.

Better unarmed combat for non-monks.

And so on.

 

[M.L. Martin]

My own preference:

Keep a broad selection of classes in the PH.

Include a solid, well-balanced class-building system in the DMG.

Matthew L. Martin, who likes both class-based and point-based systems.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I, too, like both Lvl & Point based systems.

However, there's nothing wrong with making a fusion of Point based and Lvls...

They did it in 2Ed Player's Option- why not in 3Ed/3.5Ed?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Personal preference: I like classes in D&D. I'm all for flexible systems for character creation in other games, and I wouldn't even mind it existing as an optional rule* for D&D, but I want my classes.

*(It would have to be very optional. The last thing I'd want is some player telling me I "had" to let him swap out this ability for that because the point-buy system says they're equal.)

Business reality: Never going to happen. Classes are a much more profitable way to set up an RPG.

Seriously. All else being equal, any system that requires new products to expand is more profitable than one that allows great flexibility without the need for new products.

This is not a slam at WotC. This is not a slam at the current design of the game. It's simple numbers. WotC is a business, and I just don't see them changing a core aspect of the game that A) works very well as is, and B) allows for a substantial amount of supplementary material.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Moo. Amen.