Base Classes that make no sense

[dead_but_dreaming]

What are your opinions on the meaningfulness of the base classes in the PH? Some are fine but others, like the ranger (wilderness characters are allright, but why the supernatural powers? Isn't the scout a more logical core wilderness character?), the barbarian (all "primitive" warriors are raging Conan-types?) and the monk (Shaolin martial artist as a base archetype??) seem slightly silly to me. But that's just me I guess.

My question: What do you think? Which base classes are justifiable as base archetypes and which ones should really be PrCs? Would you add any classes if you were a WotC-game designer?

[Hannes]

For Pete's sake, there clearly aren't enough base classes...

[Bears With Lasers]

I think there are a lot of mistaken assumptions about what base classes are.

Basically, they're collections of abilities. Like feat chains, except that you have to take them until the end or start new ones. They are NOT particular archetypes. Some of them are incredibly generic (Fighter, Rogue), whereas others are very narrow and could easily be represented by other classes (Barbarian could be a feat chain for the fighter; Ranger could be Fighter/Druid; Paladin could so easily be Fighter/Cleric).

They're just collections of abilities. That's all. There's no criteria for how specific or general they can or should be.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

EDIT: What Bears said, too!

In my day [cue old-school gamer blog] we had only four classes: Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User, Thief. There were no Feats or Skills to make your Thief different to anyone else's - it all came down to role-playing and equipment. Count yourself lucky that the PHB has so many to choose from!

I think that the d20 modern system of "classes" by Ability speciality may be the way forward - with bolt-on customisation through Feats to replicate the special abilities of classes, you can allow far more variation without ever having to resort to dozens of "core" classes.

Ah - except that would require a lot of thought and work on the part of a gaming group. Obviously that would be impossible.

[Bears With Lasers]

Ah, ah! Don't forget the "Elf" class!

[dead_but_dreaming]

I agree with Altair. Ultra-generic classes with endless customizability is probably the way to go.

[paigeoliver]

Bah, in my day we only had 3 classes, Fighting-Men, Magic-Users, and Clerics. Those pansy elven characters couldn't rise past 4th level and magic-users were to be feared because they could cast fireball at 3rd level.

If they ever lived that long.

In my day [cue old-school gamer blog] we had only four classes: Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User, Thief. There were no Feats or Skills to make your Thief different to anyone else's - it all came down to role-playing and equipment. Count yourself lucky that the PHB has so many to choose from!

I think that the d20 modern system of "classes" by Ability speciality may be the way forward - with bolt-on customisation through Feats to replicate the special abilities of classes, you can allow far more variation without ever having to resort to dozens of "core" classes.

Ah - except that would require a lot of thought and work on the part of a gaming group. Obviously that would be impossible.

[Theodoxus]

They did that, in a way, with the Generic classes in the UA. I don't know about modern, so I don't know how close that is to the Generics - but with only three 'base' classes and tons of feats to optimize with, i enjoy it more than every book adding another set of unique abilities to a game glutted with unique abilities.

[dead_but_dreaming]

They did that, in a way, with the Generic classes in the UA. I don't know about modern, so I don't know how close that is to the Generics - but with only three 'base' classes and tons of feats to optimize with, i enjoy it more than every book adding another set of unique abilities to a game glutted with unique abilities.

Except there weren't "tons" of feats, unfortunately. At least not in the UA.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Here's a worked example of d20 modern converted to Fantasy gaming.

[Amon Star]

What are your opinions on the meaningfulness of the base classes in the PH? Some are fine but others, like the ranger (wilderness characters are allright, but why the supernatural powers? Isn't the scout a more logical core wilderness character?), the barbarian (all "primitive" warriors are raging Conan-types?) and the monk (Shaolin martial artist as a base archetype??) seem slightly silly to me. But that's just me I guess.

My question: What do you think? Which base classes are justifiable as base archetypes and which ones should really be PrCs? Would you add any classes if you were a WotC-game designer?

Agree completely with you about Ranger. Alot of what they can do is because of holdovers from earlier editions and things that don't fit all settings. For example, in Forgetten Realms ranger are like that. In mine I use the Prestige Ranger from UA and use Wilderness Rogue as a base class.

I agree with you that all primitives shouldn't be ragers. However, I have no mechanical problem with the Barbarian class. So I changed the flavour by changing the name to Berserker and removing the illiteracy and "primitive" status, instead making them warriors that are possessed by battle-spirits.

I have no problem with monks as I base class. Many Shaolins were trained from birth. However, in many settings the flavour just doesn't sit well with me, as there is no longical reason they would come about. Or if they did, why would they use Nunchaku when rice doesn't exist in that world. If they evolved in a Western culture surely Flail would be better?

The base class that really bugs me, however, is Bard. Little things about it gets to me. For example, they're Arcane Casters, yet can heal. What's with that? Also, culturally, what do they represents. Medival wandering troubadours, Celtic Lorekeepers, or something else?

[Dan_Hemmens]

In response to "classes are just collections of abilities". They aren't. A class is a shorthand way of telling the world about your character. We know roughly what a Fighter, a Ranger, a Druid or a Cleric will look like.

"Generic classes plus customisation" is - IMO - the worst of all possible worlds. You have the pointless arbitrary nature of a class-and-level system, with none of the benefits of an archetypal character base.

[dead_but_dreaming]

Amon Star, I agree about the bard. They are magic users but still almost universlly considered scoundrels. I really enjoy the notion of a more "primal" spellcaster (that's what I think that bards should be), but why the trickster-thing?

[dead_but_dreaming]

Dan_Hemmens: I think I agree with you to. Perhaps it should be either no classes or many classes.

[Bears With Lasers]

In response to "classes are just collections of abilities". They aren't. A class is a shorthand way of telling the world about your character. We know roughly what a Fighter, a Ranger, a Druid or a Cleric will look like.

No, it's not.

Some classes are more specific, because their collections of abilities are more specific, than others. You know what a character with a certain ability set will look like. That doesn't make classes anything more than collections of abilities.
You can't tell me what my fighter will look like. All you know is that he'll have a lot of feats.

[Orzel]

It's less that the base classes make no sense and more that they only make sense in certain settings.

In the setting I'm currently playing in, classes are "levels" of "education". Because of this feature heavy classes like rangers, bard druids, paladins, and monks make lttle sense. Most of the features of these classes were stripped of and "3.5 rangerized" (givens styles). The class would keep the "required courses" and have options on what electives they want. Rangers, for example, keeped FEs, evasion, and their wilderness features (all buffed up). Rangers then had ranged, TWF, animal companions, rogue feats, and spellcasting as electives and chose any 3.

This feels like a good way to make classes fit into more settings. Each class keeps their main features and then choose their tweaking options. DMs can add and delete options as they wish. Players can make sensable characters. WoTC can srew out books with additional option for money. Everyone wins. "Generic classes plus customisation" is boring. You'll lose the archtypes and gain nothing in return mentally.

[Ramza00]

I think there are a lot of mistaken assumptions about what base classes are.

Basically, they're collections of abilities. Like feat chains, except that you have to take them until the end or start new ones. They are NOT particular archetypes. Some of them are incredibly generic (Fighter, Rogue), whereas others are very narrow and could easily be represented by other classes (Barbarian could be a feat chain for the fighter; Ranger could be Fighter/Druid; Paladin could so easily be Fighter/Cleric).

They're just collections of abilities. That's all. There's no criteria for how specific or general they can or should be.

Now a days it may be like that, but it wasn't that originally in the old old days of D&D, then the classes were archetype, but from the progression to D&D to AD&D to 2.x to 3.0 to 3.5 base classes have become more about mechanics and less about archetypes. I am glad for this, it makes the rules of mechanics simpler and more consistent while not stopping roleplaying.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Some classes are more specific, because their collections of abilities are more specific, than others. You know what a character with a certain ability set will look like. That doesn't make classes anything more than collections of abilities.
You can't tell me what my fighter will look like. All you know is that he'll have a lot of feats.

A fighter will be heavily armed and (unless his player is deliberately nerfing his character) heavily armouered. He will probably fight with a double-handed or reach weapon, dual wielding is best left to the rangers. He will have limited social skills, relying largely on his combat abilities to see him through.

If what you wanted was a list of abilities, you could just use a pure points-buy system. The point of a class is that it will give you a particular *type* of character.

[Bears With Lasers]

A fighter will be heavily armed and (unless his player is deliberately nerfing his character) heavily armouered. He will probably fight with a double-handed or reach weapon, dual wielding is best left to the rangers. He will have limited social skills, relying largely on his combat abilities to see him through.

Oh. See, I was thinking of a lightly-armored Fighter with high dex and a bow, who cross-classes Sense Motive, Knowledge Nobility, Bluff, and Diplomacy, getting an entirely tolerable Diplomacy modifier through +6 synergy, cross-classed ranks, and a good Charisma score.
I guess you can't tell me about my fighter just from knowing his class.

If what you wanted was a list of abilities, you could just use a pure points-buy system. The point of a class is that it will give you a particular *type* of character.

I could, yes. But then it wouldn't really be D&D. Lots of classes is somewhere in between strict archetypes and point-buy; however, classes clearly don't give you a particular type of character, since, say, a Fighter or a Rogue could turn out any one of dozens of different ways. The only things they'll have in common are...yep, their class abilities.

[MrNexx]

The base class that really bugs me, however, is Bard. Little things about it gets to me. For example, they're Arcane Casters, yet can heal. What's with that?

Why does it bother you more that they're arcane casters that can heal, than that arcane casters cannot heal?

[Thomas]

I agree with Altair. Ultra-generic classes with endless customizability is probably the way to go.

No, skill-based systems with even more freedom of choice are the way to go.

Oh. See, I was thinking of a lightly-armored Fighter with high dex and a bow, who cross-classes Sense Motive, Knowledge Nobility, Bluff, and Diplomacy, getting an entirely tolerable Diplomacy modifier through +6 synergy, cross-classed ranks, and a good Charisma score.
I guess you can't tell me about my fighter just from knowing his class.

You freak. I was thinking of a Fighter with Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, and armor spikes, high Strength and Constitution, going into the Reaping Mauler prestige class and taking a level of Barbarian for the rage.

Or a Fighter multiclassing Swashbuckler and Duellist, wearing no armor, wielding a rapier with Weapon Finesse, and having a much better AC than any heavily-armored character...

[pestilenceawaits]

I like the base classes in the PHB and look forward to more with every expansion book. I also agree with bears that they are generally just preset chains of feats and abilities that people can choose from. But that is what is great about them it lends itself to multi-classing and prestige classes and that is the greatest addition to the game from earlier additions. Yes I think earlier editions of the game were more about playing archetypes but then games like final fantasy for example came out where you got to mix and match skills and change jobs this created a customized character unique to you. So the new version of DnD is less about archetypes and more about creating the character you want to play.

[Person_Man]

I've observed that for younger/newer D&D gamers, class = personality. They decide "I want to play someone like Aragorn." Aragorn is a Ranger. So they pick the Ranger class. And for them, playing a Ranger means being an archtype. If they want to play a different archtype, they play a different class.

But as most gamers play more D&D, they realize that they could have built their Aragorn like character dozens of different ways. Maybe their take on a Ranger doesn't have spells or an animal companion. Maybe his abilities are more like a Fighter with certain feats. Maybe he's a Marshal who excels at leading men (and adds his Cha bonus to Dex checks). Who knows.

The point is, you can build your class however you want, and then roleplay his character. And unless there's some built in alignment restriction in the class, you can roleplay that character almost any way you want to. I've even seen some very counter-intuitive builds (a buffed Wizard who acted as frontline melee types and called himself a fighter when people asked what he did, a Paladin with high Int, light armor, and the right feats and Skills selection, that lead a commando squad called "The Rangers."

But for some players, class will always = the fluff associated with it. And that's fine. But don't expect everyone else to agree with your take on what a Ranger is.

[Roderick_BR]

A company here tried a 3-basic classes thing... it looked awful... I should try to get me a copy of UA.

[Telonius]

Of the base classes in the PHB, Paladin is the one that makes the least sense to me. Trying to be a Cleric and a Fighter, but weaker than one, the other, or a combination of the two. I think that its iconic niche (honorable knight in shining armor) is filled better, flavor-wise, by the Knight base class. Even a lawful Good aligned Fighter or War Cleric would do the job better.

Bard started out as a prestige class, but became its own class. I really like the flavor of it (wandering minstrel, keeper of lore, jack of all trades). There's quite a few fantasy worlds where they were created through music, Middle Earth being one of them, so it makes sense that there would be people trying to get back to that original song. Doesn't make sense in every setting, but there's almost always some god that's related to song and storytelling. What bothers me about the bard is that it's mechanically inferior to any of the other base classes in the PHB.

I think the Ranger's mechanical problem is that the spells they get aren't very useful by the time they get them. The flavor problem is that it doesn't really make sense to their archetype to get spells in the first place.

[Golthur]

I'm a "fewer, more generic classes" guy. My ideal system would probably be a skill-based classless system (although I'm aware of the balancing issues there).

As is, I use a heavily tweaked version of the UA generic classes - with more "build your own" mashed into them.

[Glyde]

For Pete's sake, there clearly aren't enough base classes...

I'm working on an engineer base class in a homebrew game with my DM. Still in the process of figuring out abilities and such, but I think it'll be pretty interesting.

[dead_but_dreaming]

Golthur: I think you said something about this in my "Skill based magic system?"-thread, but why don't you elaborate?

[Legoman]

I'm working on an engineer base class in a homebrew game with my DM. Still in the process of figuring out abilities and such, but I think it'll be pretty interesting.

As fun as homebrewing is, save yourself some time and go with the Artificer out of Ebberon.

[Bears With Lasers]

But, uh, be careful. It's only the most powerful class in the game, CoDzilla included.