Base Classes or Advanced Classes? (AKA: The Paladin; core or prestige?)

[Xeviat]

Unearthed Arcana is quite possibly my favorite book, with Player's Handbook 2[/b] quickly becoming my 2nd favorite. As many of you have noticed, I love fiddling with crunch. Both of these books possess alternate rules, and UA is just jam packed with them.

One of the ideas in UA that intrigued me the most was presenting the Bard, Paladin, and Ranger as Prestige Classes. I call these Advanced Classes now; they are broad enough to make up a sizable portion of a population (and thus can be found in every city, just like base classes), but they represent specializations that perhaps should not be atainable at first level.

For those of you unfamiliar with the "advanced class" system, check here: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/prestigiousCharacterClasses.htm

I'm currently on the fence here. I'm not sure if I should present four of my setting's classes (Channeler, Monk, Ranger, and Templar) as "advanced classes", or if I should leave them as base classes. I really like the idea of presenting these classes as prestige classes, since they are highly specialized, but I'm not sure just how much it will change early games.

So, I'd like to hear your opinions on the matter. Tell me what you think of the system. I'll join in with my assumptions soon as well.

[beejazz]

Well, when I read UA there was one thing I really wanted to do. I wanted to mix generic classes with the "core class as PrC" idea. there was no way to build a monk in either system, though. Poor, poor monks!

[Xeviat]

Interesting; that does get me thinking. If I do impliment the advanced class system, here is the list of the classes that will be in my game:

Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Knight, Meditant (Psion), Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard. The Bard could be presented as an advanced class, but I didn't because it isn't tied to one specific non-caster. Channeler is tied to Barbarian/Sorcerer, Templar to Knight/Cleric, Monk to Fighter/Meditant, and Ranger to Rogue/Druid. Bards are associated with Wizards, though.

But as you pointed out, classes like Barbarian and Knight are really just specialized Fighters.

[Poseptune]

From what I know of your setting you probably should make them advanced classes. (I hope this doesn't throw the channeler back into redesign :P) With the amount of classes that you already have, PCs will have enough base classes to keep them happy.

Barbarians and Fighters differ in the way that they fight. Fighters are more trained, while Barbarians are more emotional. I think both should ramain seperate base classes. The Knight however (I don't think I have seen your version) could go either way.

[brainface]

The question to me is "how much does it complicate play to make classes into advanced classes?"

If a player has to jump thru a series of hoops to get to the character he really wanted to start playing at 1st level, you're not really adding fun to the game, no matter how much "sense" it makes.

A paladin kinda fits the advanced class because you go from a guy who fights well with a sword to a guy who fights well with a sword glowing with holy power.

A ranger doesn't fit near as well--in order to get the ranger skills you want, you have to take, what? a level of rogue or druid, then take a level of fighter to get combat feats... etc. It seems to me it'd basically just introduce more complexity to an archetype that didn't need it. (If, on the otherhad, there was a "wilderness scirmisher" base class, with good skills and moderate fighting ability, and a "ranger" advanced class that gave spells and an animal companion--i could see that.)

Basically--the more multiclassing required to get into an advanced class, and the more levels you spend with no abilities related to your core character concept, the more awkward and less fun it's going to be in actual play, imo.

[Túrin]

As for the ranger/wilderness skirmisher idea: that's really quite much the way it already is: spellcasting abilities and animal companion both kick in only at level 4, thus making low-level rangers very non-magical.

In general, I agree with your assessment, brainface. Keep the players' fun in mind here. Also: if their "core class" is already a prestige class, then how are they going to get to their "actual" prestige class?

[CYMRO]

If a player has to jump thru a series of hoops to get to the character he really wanted to start playing at 1st level, you're not really adding fun to the game, no matter how much "sense" it makes.

So true, which is why I am thoroughly against PrCs.  

Leave your 4 as base classes.

[brainface]

As an aside, I really, really don't like how UA's prestige classes require specific classes. You can't be a bard->ranger, or a sorcerer->paladin. Nonono. DRUID, CLERIC. no other way is ALLOWED. Nor do divine bards work (why not?--it's not like it's a power combo).

I mean, if they're gonna make something a prestige class, they might as well allow some CHOICES--otherwise the paladin prestige class is really just an alternate path in the cleric class.

[/rant]

[Xeviat]

Brainy, the paladin already utilizes more clerical spells and turn undead, both cleric mechanics. The ranger picks up a few druid-like abilities and has druidic spells. Bards are a problem, but I don't think the bard should be an "advanced class" (since it's magic seems to be more akin to a combination of cleric, druid, and wizard magic).

And again, the reason I call them "advanced classes" instead of PrCs is that they are alternate paths for the casters. A Paladin is a Fighter/Cleric, while a Ranger is a Rogue/Druid (though the PHB ranger is more of a fighter/rogue/druid, which doesn't really work well).

And no Poseidon, using advanced classes wouldn't destroy my Channeler; their nimbus ability would change to only kick in while raging.

[brainface]

Yeah, I just think there's a lot of really interesting combinations that were completely ignored with UA's prestige classes. (cleric of plants->prestige ranger, sorcerer/fighter->prestige paladin, regular bard/rogue->prestige ranger, etc.) It'd be interesting, for example, to see a cleric->prestige bard who can fulfill the bardic role of healing really well versus a sorcerer->prestige bard who's much better at enchantments and illusions, but the UA classes really only allow 1 or 2 class choices and kinda railroad you into the most default role of those three classes.

I guess i'm just more interested in prestige (advanced) classes that apply a (flavorful?) template on top of various classes or allow interesting combinations or specializations; and i don't really see the point in prestige classes that are just an alternate path of one class, or an endorsed multiclassing. (YMMV)

[Xeviat]

The fact is that the PrC Paladin all but mimics the standard paladin (and with my Cleric alterations, my Templar in PrC form can still mimic the paladin).

I also think that druids and clerics are very different.

BUT .... I wouldn't mind seeing bards as "caster level 1" in any class; bards are the JoATs. Then again .... I'm so weird that I wouldn't mind seeing bard required to be a fighter1/rogue1/wizard1/cleric1/somethingX. Heh.

[CYMRO]

BUT .... I wouldn't mind seeing bards as "caster level 1" in any class; bards are the JoATs. Then again .... I'm so weird that I wouldn't mind seeing bard required to be a fighter1/rogue1/wizard1/cleric1/somethingX. Heh.

Ah, the ol' 1st Edition Bardic ideal: to be umpteen different classes and levels before able to sing a song!
 :sosad:  :band:  :drums:  :singer:  :guitar:  :music:    :dj:

Leave the poor bard be, say I.  Except to jazz him up a bit.  Seventh level spells and so forth.

[brainface]

The fact is that the PrC Paladin all but mimics the standard paladin (and with my Cleric alterations, my Templar in PrC form can still mimic the paladin).

more complicated[/i]. If it gave different paladin abilities, or allowed some alternative/creative routes to the class I could see more of a use for it.

I'm not sure how much the complication affects your campaign of course--I mean it's not like you'll have players used to playing a channeler at 1st level who'll have to adjust to waiting until 6th.