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

[EricNoah]

If nothing else, classes are very helpful for DMs -- you know, pretty much at a glance, what a "ranger" is or what he might be capable of at, say, 5th level. Feats are a nice way to get flexibility without making it so flexible that the DM has a major chore every time he needs an NPC.

On the other hand, I wouldn't mind playing the UA variant with three core classes (warrior, spellcaster, and oh gosh what's the other one -- expert?) that has the basic class features statted out as feats.

 

[Corinth]

I would like the Monk and Barbarian to be rolled back into the Fighter as a set of Talents (as d20 Modern) and Feats. I would like the Sorcerer rolled into the Wizard in a similiar manner. I would like Druid to likewise be rolled into the Cleric. Move the Ranger, Paladin and Bard into Prestige Classes (tweaking the Unearthed Arcana versions to fit). This puts the core basic classes to: Cleric, Fighter, Rogue and Wizard.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I would like the Monk and Barbarian to be rolled back into the Fighter as a set of Talents (as d20 Modern) and Feats. I would like the Sorcerer rolled into the Wizard in a similiar manner. I would like Druid to likewise be rolled into the Cleric. Move the Ranger, Paladin and Bard into Prestige Classes (tweaking the Unearthed Arcana versions to fit). This puts the core basic classes to: Cleric, Fighter, Rogue and Wizard.

Heh. Seems I'm doomed to spend today disagreeing wit you in various threads, Corinth. Ain't nothin' personal.

I don't care for this notion. They tried in 2nd edition, and I don't think it worked there, either. A druid isn't just a variant cleric, and I'm not a proponent of the "all paladins are prestige classes" theory, either.

I like core classes. I like having a lot of core/base classes. I'm always more excited about new base classes than new PrCs in new books. Given the option, when contracted for a project that involves new classes, I prefer to write new base classes to new PrCs.

While I agree that some concepts don't necessarily require a core class--I agree with you that the barbarian might serve better as a series of feats--for the most part, I think that grouping core classes together too heavily is counterproductive.

 

[Belen]

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...")

I like the classes as is. They are a part of what makes D&D....D&D. If you want a point-based system, then there are plenty of alternatives. The other choice just makes the game needlessly more complex.

Not all abilities and options are balanced against one another. Hence, the problems with GURPS and super cheesy monkey force hyper team smurfs.

Classes are what I want. If that changes, well....I just will never make the switch.

 

[DMH]

Bloodstone's Savage pdf is almost perfectly #2. The skills are preselected, but the class features (which the savage gets many) are feats or features turned into feats (like rage).

As much as I like Buy the Numbers from ST Cooley, I think the generic classes in UA are better.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

If nothing else, classes are very helpful for DMs -- you know, pretty much at a glance, what a "ranger" is or what he might be capable of at, say, 5th level. Feats are a nice way to get flexibility without making it so flexible that the DM has a major chore every time he needs an NPC.

On the other hand, I wouldn't mind playing the UA variant with three core classes (warrior, spellcaster, and oh gosh what's the other one -- expert?) that has the basic class features statted out as feats.

I agree with this, but I think there are some interesting implications touched on here. UA opened up a lot of possibilities for a 4th edition, and made a precedent for even more. What I mean is, 4th edition could be a combination of sacred cows and flexibility. Provide the classes as they've been in the core, but include rules for class construction in the DMG. The current classes could then be there, intact, for those who don't find messing with game construction to be fun, but those who like flexibility could have it.

 

[The Shaman]

I like classes, but I would say the next step in the evolution of D&D should follow either UA-style generic classes with lots of options or d20 Modern-style basic classes with AdCs and PrCs.

 

[The Shaman]

Another thought: while increasing character options is good for players, it can be hell for GMs. Any changes in the direction of more options needs to consider this as well.

I'm waiting on Castles and Crusades to arrive at my FLGS for that reason.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Another thought: while increasing character options is good for players, it can be hell for GMs. Any changes in the direction of more options needs to consider this as well.

Putting class creation options into the DMG would solve that, as would DMs stiffening their spines when it comes to outlining what is or isn't allowed in ther campaign.

 

[Nellisir]

Joe Muchiello had a nice idea in his Character Customization pdf. Instead of classes OR feats, he found a middle ground, where you could swap out different "tracks". The rage abilities, for instance, are a single track, as are the barbarian's improved hit die and damage reduction. The fighter had (at least) two tracks worth of bonus feats, so you could build lose some of the bonus feats and gain DR and a d12 hit die for your fighter, or limited spellcasting. I thought it worked pretty well.

Cheers
Nell.