Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dazzer 05-21-07, 11:43 AM	I have noticed that more and more, prestige classes, and base classes are not ful-filling the role for which they were originally intended. A base class is meant to be a generic character type, and a prestige class is meant to take a generic type and turn it into a more specific character type. The best example, is the fighter, duelist, swashbuckler, rogue love square. In reality, love squares are bad, love triangles are good. Here is what I mean by that statement: The Fighter is meant to be able to fulfill the role of the generic warrior type. He is supposed to be able to fulfill any PURE warrior ideal. The Swashbuckler is meant to fulfill the specific warrior type that is the diplomatic fighter. He isn't generic, he is specific. It should really be a prestige class, but it isn't. The Duelist is a 10 level prestige class that brings fighting, and diplomacy, and cool weapon finesse type combat tricks into play. It is the fighter who wishes to be more charismatic. It is the swashbuckler genre when made in certain ways. It is a 10 level prestige class that brings the character closer to the goal of becoming an unarmored, swashbuckling fighter each level. By level 10, it is in theory the best swashbuckler that exists. The Rogue is meant to be the generic "outcast". He might of been trained by a military to disable bombs and get around the battle-field. He may have grown up on the streets of townsville and learned to live the way he does on the fly. He's generic, like a base class should remain. As you can see, a swashbuckler, can easily be replaced by some combination of fighter/rogue/duelist 10. In fact, the duelist is in my opinion, the better option for this kind of character. At the same time, some base classes have taken on the idea of building up to an ideal by 20th level. An example is the Dread Necromancer. At level 1, a dread necromancer knows what is coming. The eventual transformation into a lich. This is too specific. An example of where this was performed correctly, is the Walker in the Waste prestige class from the Sandstorm book. A 10 level prestige class that builds up to the goal of making the character a sand-lich at 10th level. Generic Goal - some kind of caster. Specific Goal - Immortal life and Lichdom Some prestige classes are "broken" according to many people. If you look carefully, you'll see what is wrong with these classes. A shadowbane inquisitor is literally the epitomy of the truly zealous paladin. A paladin can be that way, but not in the exact manner. This is a prestige class that is built well. The goal of a prestige class is meant to be as thus: Take a feat, class feature, or specific idea from the vast generic idea list. Concentrate on this, and build up to an excellent ability capable only of the people who have followed this feat, class feature, or specific idea to its core. The cavalier is built up the spirited charge feat. The frenzied berserker takes rage to a whole new level. The Duelist takes the idea of the swashbuckler from the many possible ideas that exist for a generic fighter. For the most part, new base classes are the offenders. They don't take a generic empty slot, and have it ready to be molded by the player or the dungeon master. They take a specific idea and work it into a base class. The beguiler is the Specialist Enchanter who took some prestige class to become more stealth oriented. The Duskblade is literally the spellsword or eldritch knight. The quintessential fighter/wizard. The warmage is an evocation specialist who went to far, just as a dread necromancer is a necromancer who is specifically inclined towards undead and becoming one. These base classes, should probably be some type of prestige class. Perhaps a dread necromancer would make an excellent, 10 or even 14 level prestige class. This issue has been spoken of before, but I still see too many people crying about these kind of things and not knowing why. So I hope I clear up some comprehension issues. Finally, here are a few links to related articles Classes, Prestige Classes, and Internal Balance http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=780998 Banning isn't the Answer http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=791037
Witch 05-21-07, 12:02 PM	I disagree on your premisses. I want to play a concept from level 1. I want to be a swashbuckler now, and be effective at it now, not in ten levels. I'm not asking much. I'm not asking to be utterly awesome at level 1. I'm asking to be able to play a swashbuckler that is as effective at every level. Multiclassing hampers this. Making base classes generic wasn't good design per se. I prefer the newer classes in that regard.
Tempest Stormwind 05-21-07, 12:07 PM	Your premises would be true if: 1) The base classes really were as flexible as they were supposed to be (i.e. similar to the generics in UA). This is often incredibly hard to do right. 2) Multiclassing between base classes, especially for spellcasting, wasn't so crippling. (The Tome of Battle approach comes close to a fix for this.) As it stands, I agree with Witch.
Karzach 05-21-07, 04:45 PM	Also, I believe the Duskblade is necessary in this case, or at least a fighter mage base class. Core DnD is built with the assumption that you will either be swinging a sword, or casting spells in any given round, not both. The duskblade is a necessary fix because it allows a character to be a fighter mage from round to round, rather than being a fighter this round and a mage the next. Now, whether or not that's simply a design flaw in the spellsword/bladesinger PrCs is another discussion. The other issue is that multi-classing doesn't always leave you on par with a straight class. The real problem is, when you multiclass, the strengths you take from each of the classes is thinned, but you still generally have to accept the brunt of all of your classes weaknesses. A fighter 1/wizard 1 doesn't have as much combat ability (or hitpoints) as a fighter 2, or as many spells per day as wizard 2, but he still has to deal with the fact that his fighter levels are ONLY good for fighting, and his wizard levels have problems if he starts wearing armor (which his fighter levels depend on for fighting).
Dazzer 05-21-07, 04:51 PM	What I am suggesting here is not a solution to some of the other problems that exist within the games system. It is true, that the Fighter class cannot fulfill the roles it was meant to be able to fulfill as well as a cleric or whatnot. I have however noticed the trends that many new classes follow. They can do many things, and fulfill many roles at once. The Factotum is a prime example of this type of class, it is meant to be a jack of ALL trades. What wasn't mentioned is that the BARD is supposed to be the true jack of all trades. Failing that a Rogue is also meant to be a jack of many trades. All the new prestige classes and base classes coming out recently, are only adding to the current problems because of this, one of a few, design flaws. They aren't doing what is expected of them. Base classes are meant to be blank sheets with Warrior/Arcanist/Divinedude stamped at the top. No more. The barbarian exists because it is the wildman, the ranger exists because it is the hunter. These aren't necessarily fighter types but are generally associated with them so they made them into base classes. Beguiler doesn't have Arcanist written all over it. It is, I'm an enchanter/illusionist who works his entire career from day 1 as a trickster and illusion master. That sounds like a Rogue/Enchanter/[Insert Beguiler Prestige Class]. I agree, these classes help for campaigns that do not go above 7th level, since multiclassing at that point sucks for most classes. For high levels campaigns, sure having -3 or -4 caster levels sucks. Guess what, you have other things to rely on, you aren't meant to be perfect, if you were why are you adventuring with those poor imperfect sobs (points at the other PC's).
windscar18 05-21-07, 05:06 PM	The problem here is that people aren't as imaginative as you might be. A more common situtation is that if you have the class "Fighter", but in actuality, you are some untamed, wild, "RAWR, SMASH YOU", freak of nature, a Fighter name does nothing for you and its abilities seem hardly relevent. A Barbarian on the other hand is perfect for you. So, imagine if wizards took your approach and didn't make the Barbarian. What then? Where would all those people who wanted to play the "Smash You", wild type go? It doesn't matter how much the player goes into their backstory, a fighter just feels like a generic warrior to a good amount of people. What people want is the feeling that their character is matching their character concept. A Prestige Class helps to some extent, but when some poor guy looks at fighter/duelist and looks at his partner's character sheet and sees swashbuckler/duelist, he might just be very annoyed that his partner's character just seems more like the duelist type he always wanted. This means attempting a multitude of options across the board to attempt to shore up every possible character concept. This includes classes. Sure, wizards won't complete this task any time soon, but why not try?
YellowKnight 05-21-07, 07:21 PM	There's something else that I don't think has been pointed out fully. In some campaigns, these much more specific classes become the norm to such points that they can be considered the fighter, the barbarian, the ranger, etc. For example, if your DM is running a Pirates of the Caribbean-type game for you and your friends, characters like Swashbucklers certainly might make more sense, and could theoretically replace the Fighter as the standard for that type of character. Sure, you can use the Fighter class to make something similar, but if they're similar enough they're interchangeable and whether or not one of said classes is specific enough becomes less of an arguable point. Same thing with Clerics and Favored Souls, or Archivists. There's a possibility that if you were playing, say, a historically-based D&D game (except with all of the neat-o monsters, magic items, and spells), those high priests you see at the church could very well be Archivists, not Clerics, and deal primarily in all of those wicked undead-annihilation, divinations, Dictum/Word of Chaos/Blasphemy/Holy Word/etc. spells, Miracle, etc. instead of Divine Power, Righteous Might, etc. that current clerics seem to favor to wade into melee alongside the fighter. If they are the kind that get into combat often, they may just be warrior-types with totally awesome Diplomacy and Knowledge (Religion) scores, multiclass warrior/Archivists, or PrC-based characters. Personally I sort of agree with both sides here. I honestly think that to stop all of this ridiculousness that the core classes in the future should be moderately more specific, and could even number in the 20's. However, I think the number of spellcasting ones that come out in the Completes etc. is kind of ridiculous. I don't see the use of the hybrid ones like Beguilers, Hexblades, and Spellthieves, but some like the Knight, Swashbuckler, Favored Soul, etc. are pretty cool.
Treantmonklvl20 05-21-07, 07:58 PM	Perhaps the inclusion of new more specialized base classes speaks to the ultimate failure of PrC's to do what they were designed to... Example: Currently I have begun a new campaign where my character will eventually become a Bear Warrior...I am looking forward to the time when he will be taking his first level of that PrC...likely 6 or 7 sessions away...after that, we might play another 6 or 7 sessions before the campaign winds up. For the first half of the campaign I will be playing a Barbarian/Fighter. I swing a greatsword, rage in combat, all those things that anyone who has played this game alot has done many many many times before. Naturally I have given the character a different personality and style than I have for previous Barbarians I have played, but it is the Bear Warrior I am looking forward to...not because I think it is more powerful than if I stuck with Barbarian/Fighter and got a kick-A magic greatsword, but because it is NEW (for me). I would have more fun with this character if there was a Bear Warrior base class...not sure what a balanced design would be, but something different from what I have done time and time again with the Barbarian. Is that really what PrC's are supposed to do? Make the first half of your campaign less fun than it could be? If so, mission accomplished. More base classes allow for us to try something new WITHOUT playing the standards for the first half (or quarter, or sometimes ALL) of the campaign. That has to be a good thing. PrC's are great, but most campaigns begin at low level (for me, usually level 1)...more options at the beginning works for me. As long as everything gets playtested beforehand. That said I do agree with your point that these classes to not fit the generic ideal for which base classes are explained by the designers themselves, but as far as I'm concerned, that ideal needed some re-evaluation. New things need to be tried in order to improve something. The ultimate failure or success of more specialized base classes will likely help the designers in the planning of new projects.
Thunder Dragonbane 05-21-07, 08:24 PM	You really think that WotC playtests anything anymore? I personnaly have always wondered if they ever have. If they did we would not need thousands of pages of these forums asking how things actually work in game as compared to on paper.
navar100 05-21-07, 08:59 PM	I'll go with monk too. For more evidence, bards cannot be lawful. Monks have to be lawful. Edit: Aack! Please ignore. This was meant for another thread. I must have been distracted by my job interfering with my reading and posting. Sorry.
Treantmonklvl20 05-21-07, 09:24 PM	You really think that WotC playtests anything anymore? I personnaly have always wondered if they ever have. If they did we would not need thousands of pages of these forums asking how things actually work in game as compared to on paper. Can't say for sure, they certainly used to. Playtesting has never ironed out all the kinks of a rulesytem. Look at previous editions, these were definitely playtested by the designers, yet there were lots of problems that later had to be ironed out. I don't think playtesting is a perfect way of checking whether things work as intended, but it is certainly better than nothing.
Vharuck 05-21-07, 09:34 PM	I agree that base classes should be generic and mutable, prime tools for creating the concept you want with leeway. However, I ask you this: come up with 3 concepts for a new base class that are generic and have not already been done. Now pretend you're asked to do that five times for new books by a certain deadline or you're fired, and you'll know why the designers made the classes they did. I just ignore them.
Timbo35918 05-22-07, 12:36 AM	The thing I hate most about PrC is the waiting, and then the sudden change. Sometimes it makes sense to mold a character into a PrC, but sometimes you want to start off as something.