Ultradan wrote:
Now this is only my opinion, but I think that there's actually too many classes for my tastes. Think about it... You could have three fighters in the same group but they could be totally different in the way they fight, act, and play. It really depends on what the player brings to the table. Do we really need more prestige classes? Again, their not so prestige if every person in the group is playing one.
Example of a REAL prestige class (if it were my way)... Your character could start out as a Cleric. Then after some adventuring he would aquire certain skills and feats and would gradually be called a Paladin, depending on his passed actions. Same thing goes for Fighters, who could become Rangers, or Defenders (if they happen to be dwarves). Do you really need a "Pirate" class, or could you just be a fighter with an interest for feats and skills that pertain to the sea. And if you start robbing merchant ships, people WILL call you a pirate.
What I'm trying to get through is that at first level, most characters should resemble each other, as they were just commoners before, and gradually differentiate themselves as they gain experience.
Am I making any sense?
Ultradan
It makes sense to me. Actually Wotc is one step ahead of you. Check out Unearthed Arcana. They have a "prestige" paladin, ranger, and bard. They even have variant paladins and rangers that don't cast spells at all. I've found that book invaluable in getting just that right feel for my characters.
Monte's Iron Heroes takes a step in the right direction in allowing more maleability in your characters. I'd like to see a classless system myself (similar to mutants and masterminds as a previous poster mentioned). Some in my group argue that if you take the classes away you totally change the feel of d&d. That may be true but I may like the new feel better than the old.
gunsnammo