I know nothing of nameless, I just know what I read of the class and yeah it reads as a cleric/paladin build
If your gonna use exsamples, it be best if you used a link so folks know just what your talking about. Just to keep confusion down
What does that have to do with telling people how to make the classes they want using existing mechanics? Just say "I don't want Paizo to waste time on making this". Anything else is telling someone else how to play the game.If a class can be made with existing mechanics, then it needs to be made with existing mechanics, not made as a new class. It's not telling you how to play the game, it's telling you that Paizo has a budget and they're going to focus on the best uses of that budget. Making classes that are only slight variations from already-existing classes, or classes that just plain ARE already-existing classes, isn't going to happen.
Explain to me, then, why having a summoner class is necessary at all. Why can't you just take a Sorcerer or Wizard and take Augment summoning, and focus on spells that summon things?
You don't get to say that your pet character-idea needs it's own class, but then tell someone else that theirs does not. A Wuxia-swordsman is just as different from a generic "Fighter" as an FF-Summoner is from a Sorcerer or Wizard.
I know nothing of nameless, I just know what I read of the class and yeah it reads as a cleric/paladin build
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_(2002_film)
Nameless is from this movie. Likewise, Li Mu Bai could not be accurately represented by any of the base classes.
From what I read as much as he can be done under pathfinder he is a fighter.
Wuxia is not a class issue, its a system issue. Pathfinder , like most d20 systems is not a great system for that style of game.
Explain to me, then, why having a summoner class is necessary at all. Why can't you just take a Sorcerer or Wizard and take Augment summoning, and focus on spells that summon things?
Because the summon monster spells have nothing to do with what the Summoner class is. The Summoner class is the Eidolon, and there's nothing remotely like the Eidolon possible with the core classes, nor is it possible to patch it in with simple alternate class features or feats.
If the summoner was just someone with a Summon Monster SLA and a restricted (or expanded) spell list then yes, I'd agree. No need for a new base class.
The difference however is that it creates an entirely new ruleset. It isn't a spell or a new feat but a new creation entirely. the Eidolon, and the rules that expand on that idea.
If you want people to accept that X is good enough to be a base class you have to have something in it that it needs, that isn't just a feat or whatever.
What is it about an archer, or whatever it is you want to make, that is so new and ingenius and complicated that it requires a whole new system to implement?
The game did not currently have the mechanics in place to create a summoner. Thus, one was created. Now if someone wants a similar class they will have a starting point with which to build on.
Tell us what you want for whatever class it is you are looking for that requires such a write up. "he does more damage with arrows" just isn't compelling enough for a whole new class to be based upon. (to pick on the archer, as an example)
-S
|
We have 17 base classes and by my count, only 6 don't caster spells: fighter, rogue, barbarian, monk, cavalier, and alchemist. And the alchemist creates spell like abilities. That leaves 5 strictly martial types.
We also have bard, sorcerer, wizard, witch and summoner as the arcane casters, and then cleric, druid, paladin, ranger, oracle and inquisitor as divine casters.
That brings us to 6 non-casters, 5 arcane casters, and 6 divine casters. Of those, 2 arcane and one divine are 6-level casters, and 2 more divine are only 4-level casters.
It looks a lot more evenly distributed when you differentiate between the kinds of spellcasters. I'm not trying to disagree with you though! I love having more options. I just think that each new base class should fill its own niche.
What niches are out there that people don't think are properly filled? Paizo has been good about listening to us before, let's get some ideas flowing here.
|
The two empty niches for nonspellcasters that I can think of are a Swashbuckler/Unfettered style lightly armed/armored warrior (who doesn't use sneak attack) and a Marshal/Warlord style leader...I think the lightly armored / swashbuckler could be handled through the Fighter by feats...
Problem isn't taking the feats to build a swashbuckler, it's the wasted feats. If you build a Fighter, or even a Ranger, as a swashbuckler, you'll probably never use Heavy Armor Proficiency, Medium Armor Proficiency, or even Shield Proficiency (unless you go the buckler route). Now, if there were a variant class system that had alternative class skill lists and some feat choices - Weapon Finesse or Two Weapon Defence, for example, instead of Heavy and Medium Armor Proficiencies - then one could use the existing base classes to build a swashbuckler. It's be neat to see some alternative feat starting packages for Fighters that work like Ranger's combat style - pick a "style" and then certain feats go with it and certain others and excluded, or, may be selected with your every-two-levels feats.
Problem isn't taking the feats to build a swashbuckler, it's the wasted feats. If you build a Fighter, or even a Ranger, as a swashbuckler, you'll probably never use Heavy Armor Proficiency, Medium Armor Proficiency, or even Shield Proficiency (unless you go the buckler route). Now, if there were a variant class system that had alternative class skill lists and some feat choices - Weapon Finesse or Two Weapon Defence, for example, instead of Heavy and Medium Armor Proficiencies - then one could use the existing base classes to build a swashbuckler. It's be neat to see some alternative feat starting packages for Fighters that work like Ranger's combat style - pick a "style" and then certain feats go with it and certain others and excluded, or, may be selected with your every-two-levels feats.
That's pretty much how I've done it. I used to swap out armor proficiency for other feats for non-military clerical orders for example. I don't see a huge issue for establishing several basic feat paths for fighters. Just keep the exhanges relatively balanced and make sure there are sufficient feats to keep the fighter going down the path... seems like a good idea. In 2E I used military / cultural backgrounds which included certain weapon proficiencies etc. Sounds like material for an Advanced Players Guide :)
*edit* I still say I would keep the officer role as a prestige class. Junior officers would be fighters (etc.), as they advanced they would switch to the prestige class and pick up a different range of abilities to suit that change.
Problem isn't taking the feats to build a swashbuckler, it's the wasted feats. If you build a Fighter, or even a Ranger, as a swashbuckler, you'll probably never use Heavy Armor Proficiency, Medium Armor Proficiency, or even Shield Proficiency (unless you go the buckler route). Now, if there were a variant class system that had alternative class skill lists and some feat choices - Weapon Finesse or Two Weapon Defence, for example, instead of Heavy and Medium Armor Proficiencies - then one could use the existing base classes to build a swashbuckler. It's be neat to see some alternative feat starting packages for Fighters that work like Ranger's combat style - pick a "style" and then certain feats go with it and certain others and excluded, or, may be selected with your every-two-levels feats.The two empty niches for nonspellcasters that I can think of are a Swashbuckler/Unfettered style lightly armed/armored warrior (who doesn't use sneak attack) and a Marshal/Warlord style leader...I think the lightly armored / swashbuckler could be handled through the Fighter by feats...
You mean, do something like what they did with the classes in the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting? For example, the Fighter option presented is to sacrifice the level 1 bonus feat to gain 4+Int skill points for all Fighter levels and a handful of extra class skills (Diplomacy, K: Engineering, etc). They had a tradeoff ability like that for every 3.5 PHB class, and I'm 100% certain we'll see more of them in the APG.
|
|
You mean, do something like what they did with the classes in the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting? For example, the Fighter option presented is to sacrifice the level 1 bonus feat to gain 4+Int skill points for all Fighter levels and a handful of extra class skills (Diplomacy, K: Engineering, etc). They had a tradeoff ability like that for every 3.5 PHB class, and I'm 100% certain we'll see more of them in the APG.
Actually, that's exactly what I mean. Only problem is that I tend to play more Pathfinder Society these days than homegames, and those class alternatives aren't legal in PS. Hopefully something similar will show up in the APG and be PS legal.
What niches are out there that people don't think are properly filled? Paizo has been good about listening to us before, let's get some ideas flowing here.
"Arcane warrior" - a full BAB, weak casting class focused around using arcane magic to augment combat ability (buffs, extra damage, etc.). Something similar to both the paladin (with lighter armor) and the arcane archer (but not strictly for ranged combat).
There are ways to be an arcane caster that can fight (bard, fighter/sorcerer, fighter/wizard, arcane archer, dragon disciple, eldritch knight), but there is no way in PF RPG to have a full BAB if you cast arcane spells. The 3.5 duskblade came close, but WotC made its spellcasting too powerful (even better than the bard at high levels, when considering the number of spell slots and the spells available on the list). Tejón's Iron Mage is a better take, IMO.
Problem isn't taking the feats to build a swashbuckler, it's the wasted feats. If you build a Fighter, or even a Ranger, as a swashbuckler, you'll probably never use Heavy Armor Proficiency, Medium Armor Proficiency, or even Shield Proficiency (unless you go the buckler route). Now, if there were a variant class system that had alternative class skill lists and some feat choices - Weapon Finesse or Two Weapon Defence, for example, instead of Heavy and Medium Armor Proficiencies - then one could use the existing base classes to build a swashbuckler. It's be neat to see some alternative feat starting packages for Fighters that work like Ranger's combat style - pick a "style" and then certain feats go with it and certain others and excluded, or, may be selected with your every-two-levels feats.The two empty niches for nonspellcasters that I can think of are a Swashbuckler/Unfettered style lightly armed/armored warrior (who doesn't use sneak attack) and a Marshal/Warlord style leader...I think the lightly armored / swashbuckler could be handled through the Fighter by feats...
A fighter or ranger wearing a mithral breastplate requires Medium Armor Proficiency in PF RPG to avoid penalties. Not "wasted."
If the swashbuckler ranger takes the archery combat style (i.e., "musketeer"), then a buckler makes a better choice than a light or heavy shield, since it can be used with a bow or crossbow. Even if the ranger takes the two-weapon fighting combat style, he might not take the Two-Weapon Fighting feat at 1st level. Also, a fighter or ranger who takes levels in duelist loses the bonus damage from Precise Strike when fighting with two weapons, so investing in feats that are incompatible with future abilities isn't such a good idea; however, using a buckler or shield until becoming a duelist improves AC. Not "wasted."
As I stated earlier, the complaint that a class isn't narrow enough is not one that I consider tremendously valid. The complaint that a certain concept can't be well realized is one thing, a complaint that there are some "extra" abilities outside of the concept is another.
I agree. For example, I would argue that a Fighter with a 3-level dip into Rogue would make a fantastic Swashbuckler. One might argue that you're "wasting" the Fighter's heavy armor proficiency by doing that.
Really?
Really?????
|
Personally, I'd love to see a skill based core class such as the "Jack of all Trades" in the Black Company setting. High skills, bonus feats, ability to duplicate skills/feats you see others use for just an instant. Maybe for a twist, add in skill tricks. I love those guys.
I'd also love to see psionics published.
Personally, I'd love to see a skill based core class such as the "Jack of all Trades" in the Black Company setting. High skills, bonus feats, ability to duplicate skills/feats you see others use for just an instant. Maybe for a twist, add in skill tricks. I love those guys.
I'd also love to see psionics published.
They've said they'll do psionics once they know how they want to do them.
However a class that is a rogue without sneak attack and feats on every 3 levels would be fine IMO. Maybe a trait they can take that lets them ignore one stat for the prerequisites of feats so they don't have to be so MAD (for example they could choose to ignore dex prerequisites and then take two weapon fighting, improved two weapon fighting, Dodge, et al with a Dex of 10).
The complaint that a certain concept can't be well realized is one thing, a complaint that there are some "extra" abilities outside of the concept is another.Then what do you even need game mechanics for?
Are you going to make use of everything you know / can do? Probably not. Neither is your character. Life is generally not that optimized. It does leave a certain amount of wiggle room to alter your self as you go up. As for the mechanics, thet're there to cover all the bases. Think of it as contingency planning.
If you're not using it it's wasted.
See the above comment on life, optimization and changes of mind.
And when I don't I lose it. Realistically features you don't use often should atrophy. If you're going to argue from the example of Real Life, as you do here:
The fine edge of things you might lose. The broad skill? No. And a minimum of practice can usually put you back on the bicycle.
then it makes not sense to pick and choose which elements of it you use. Unless you don't really care. Which I highly doubt is your case.
Conditions and beliefs govern your choices. Those conditions and beliefs may change. It's simpler in a game of course. No spread sheets for character generation in real life. Still, most of my players end up, over time, with different characters than they originally envisioned. They don't dump a charachter and say "he's not what I wanted". That *is* pretty much like "real life".
Life doesn't always leave wiggle-room.
Sometimes not. Especially if you don't look for it. If you do, sometimes the surprise is pleasant. And, of course, sometimes your just fu -- er, stuck.
Life also doesn't always leave contingency plans.People can become highly specialized, way more specialized than the base classes presented. And they can do it without ever reaching the level of a Prestige Class.
As I've said before I'll say again:
If you don't want Paizo wasting time making classes you don't think are necessary then say that. Constantly trying to argue away someone else's belief in the necessity is a waste of your time and their's because you both see the issue from different and incompatible points of view.
Hmmm. No contingency plans if you don't make them. Or your just too rigid to take advantage of the possibilities.
Of course people can specialize. Hopefully if they're going to put all their eggs in one basket they have done a good job of it.
Who said the class, any of them, is a waste? Personally 4 of them have a solid place in my game world and I'm going to try hard to fit the other 2 into some odd corner that will let PCs encounter and play them. Your view is your own. I'm just pointing out some other considerations. Apologies if I offended, that was not the intention.
One thing I'd like to see is a reintegration or reformation of the Hexblade class.
The complaint that a certain concept can't be well realized is one thing, a complaint that there are some "extra" abilities outside of the concept is another.Then what do you even need game mechanics for?
So that it's more than just "playing pretend." The mechanics provide the structure of "natural laws" to the shared imaginary reality of the game; they define what can and can't be done, how difficult it is, and the methods that can be used to obtain certain results.
If you're not using it it's wasted.
So, are you a professional game designer? If not, then learning to play an RPG is "wasted" when it comes to earning a living...
Even when it comes to your career, are you completely focused on a single specialty within your chosen field, or do you have some ability to perform at some level of competency in related specialties? You can probably see where I'm going with this...
|
|
Non Casters: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Cavalier, and Alchemist.
Arcane Casters: Bard, Witch, Wizard, Sorcerer, Summoner, (Alchemist could count here.)
Divine Casters: Cleric, Oracle, Inquisitor, Ranger, Druid, Paladin
So what I'm seeing is 6 non casters (one of which I could see being counted as an arcane caster and thus making it 5 non casters), 5 arcane casters (6 depending on opinion), and 6 divine casters.
So no I don't see some terrible disparity here, in fact it seems we have an even split.
Non Casters: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Cavalier, and Alchemist.
Arcane Casters: Bard, Witch, Wizard, Sorcerer, Summoner, (Alchemist could count here.)
Divine Casters: Cleric, Oracle, Inquisitor, Ranger, Druid, Paladin
So what I'm seeing is 6 non casters (one of which I could see being counted as an arcane caster and thus making it 5 non casters), 5 arcane casters (6 depending on opinion), and 6 divine casters.
So no I don't see some terrible disparity here, in fact it seems we have an even split.
it depends on how you split the baby as they say. I see 5 or 6 noncasters and 11 or 12 casters and that is not even
I split it by caster, semi caster, and non caster Or full 9 levels spell list, Partial 6 or 4 levels spell list, and no spell list.
non-caster: Barbarian, Cavalier, Fighter, Monk, Rogue (5)
Semi-Caster: Paladin, Ranger, Bard, Summoner, Alchemist, Inquisitor (6)
Caster: Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer, Witch, oracle, Druid (6)
This break down seems more balanced to me though 1 more non caster would balance it better at 6 each.
Looks fine to me, the 5 none casters cover most basic concepts, not much left to fill
"that class has too much" isn't really a good reason to make a new class.
If you want an official new class you need to come up with some new mechanics that require the new class in order to accomplish it.
The ranger for example gets more than just a free feat chain. He gets a free feat chain (that he doesn't have to qualify for) as well as a relatively unique mechanic for treating his special enemies.
The paladin isn't just a cleric with a sword. He too has his own special abilities from a unique spell list, to smite good, to his lay on hands.
If you have some concept whether it be caster or not, you need to come up with some /reason/ why it should be its own class. If all it really is is a fighter with his feats tweaked slightly in a different direction then make a feat. If the same can be done to any class out there by jut creating a feat then create a feat.
The difference between a concept and the 6 new classes is that each one actually introduces entirely new mechanics into the game- from Eidolons to familiars holding spells to challenges to Oaths or whatever.
If you can do it with an existing class, even with stuff left over, then you are just going to have to. I very seriously doubt they are going to give you "fighter variation 12.5" as a base class when you can just use the figher and tweak it to get the same thing.
-S
Okay aside from too many spell casters vs non casters, why this fascination with new base classes?
Would these concepts be impossible to make using Prestige Classes?
Or has the concept of Prestige Classes just fallen out of favor and been replaced with Base Classes instead?
I think some ideas need a base class to do them justice, others work well as a prestige class. Some could go either way.
Classes that have significant new class abilities, especially those that have new mechanics, need a base class to "unfold" the ability over time. That would include most of the APG classes (although you could argue the necessity). Prestige classes were overdone in 3.5 but, imo, are useful in presenting variations in base classes (i.e. an officer / commander class), unique organizations or specializations. I think that a commander type and most specialist mages, for example, could be done as prestige classes. Too many base or prestige classes and they crowd each other and provide a confusing number of similar options. Each class, base or prestige, needs a niche to fill in the game world or some special mechanic to justify it.
Some argue a minimalist approach, reducing the number of classes in favor of feat paths, basically bolt on abilities, but at a certain point that becomes... inelegant. Too many classes / prestige classes presents the problem of "clutter". You have to have clear ideas about the need for new classes / prestige classes. So far, I'd say Paizo is doing well.
Hmm... I'm getting wordy, vague and philosophical. Agh! I'm turning into a politician! Time to stop before the process goes too far :D
Okay aside from too many spell casters vs non casters, why this fascination with new base classes?
I am a big believer in having options, but ones that make sense. New base class should be unique not just glorified multiclasses. But I like as many unique things as possible
Hmm... I'm getting wordy, vague and philosophical. Agh! I'm turning into a politician! Time to stop before the process goes too far :D
Once down that dark path you start ... forever will it dominate your destiny.
---
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Once down that dark path you start ... forever will it dominate your destiny.---
Sorry, couldn't resist.
I see it's dominated yours.
In all practicallity I like the six new classes that Paizo decided to release, each one does bring a unique concept to the game.
However I do want to state that I don't think we have enough spellcasters, we need to think of a competative market here.
How else are we going to oppress the noncasters into doing our dirty work? :p
----
I do agree that 3.5 did go a little overboard by releasing base classes and prestige classes with just about every book, but they did have some concepts there that I felt were fairly creative.
I.E.
Baseclasses:
Hexblade
Spell Thief
Scout
Warmage
Warlock
Shaman
Favored Soul
Duskblade
Dragon Shaman
Prestige Classes:
Alienist
Arcane Heirophant
Beastmaster
Bladesinger
Bloodmagus
Chameleon
Combat Medic
Contemplative
Dervish
Dread Pirate
Dungeon Delver
Elemental Savant
Enlightened Fist
Evangelist
Fatespinner
Fortunes Friend
Frenzied Beserker
Frostmage
Frostrager
Geomancer
Geometer
Gnome Giant Slayer
Halfling Outrider
Hulking Hurler
Invisible Blade
Justicar
Kensai
Knight of the Chalice
Legendary Captain
Mage of the Arcane Order
Master Thrower
Mindspy
Nightsong Enforcer
Nightsong Infiltrator
Occult Slayer
Pious Templar
Rage Mage
Rainbow Servant
Ravager
Ruathar
Sacred Fist
Scarlet Corsair
Shadowbane Inquisitor
Shadowbane Stalker
Shifter
Spellsword
Tempest
Thief Acrobat
Warshaper
Wayfarer Guide
Wildmage
We have 17 base classes and by my count, only 6 don't caster spells: fighter, rogue, barbarian, monk, cavalier, and alchemist. And the alchemist creates spell like abilities. That leaves 5 strictly martial types.
I should point out that maybe what will help you isn't *more* classes. It's *less*.
Our new campaign that will start in the future will *not* have wizards, clerics, druids, rangers, bards, paladins and barbarians.
It will have all the new classes, fighters, and thieves.
Okay aside from too many spell casters vs non casters, why this fascination with new base classes?
Would these concepts be impossible to make using Prestige Classes?
Or has the concept of Prestige Classes just fallen out of favor and been replaced with Base Classes instead?
I think a generic concept for class requires a full class. Prestige classes are more campaign specific niches like Hell Knights and Pathfinder Prestige class. So these classes could be done as a prestige class but they'd be tied to specific points in a game that would make them restrictive. A Full Class means they are usable any where any place and offers different paths into existing prestige classes.
I do agree that 3.5 did go a little overboard by releasing base classes and prestige classes with just about every book, but they did have some concepts there that I felt were fairly creative.
I.E.
Baseclasses:
Hexblade
Spell Thief
Scout
Warmage
Warlock
Shaman
Favored Soul
Duskblade
Dragon Shaman
I basically agree, although the scout is basically a ranger/rogue and I was never a bug fan of the Warmage. The Hexblade would have been better served as a PrC. The Favored Soul is much better now as the Oracle
I agree with the Hexblade.
It coulda been better as a prestige class but the concept was what I enjoyed most.
Just the fact of saying "oops your luck's run out."
So I have a question; what do you want a new non-caster to be able to do? There are only so many ways to kill a critter without spells really.I think it would be brilliant if we saw more non-spellcasting classes introduced in the future. We have far too many options for spellcasters already. To reverse the argument, what is there that wizard cannot do? Why do we need so many spell casters when simply selecting the correct feats and spells allows for a completely new concept? If we can create so many variation spellcasters we can do the same for non-casters.
I agree! if the wizard is the ultimate class after you get past the low levels, he should have no problems filling every role these other arcane caster class do. What is gained by adding more? Just about any answer given for this could be used to justify non-spell caster classes.
Hmm... I'm getting wordy, vague and philosophical. Agh! I'm turning into a politician! Time to stop before the process goes too far :DOnce down that dark path you start ... forever will it dominate your destiny.
---
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Yeah, but my son still thinks there is some good in me :D
|
If I was designing a new fantasy RPG system, I would have a total of FOUR classes: Warrior, Priest, Mage, and Thief. A fifth would be introduced in supplementary material: Psionic. That would be it. No others needed. Within those five archtypes any character concept can be created. They would be very customizable, with "points" to buy various different options. That's how the Warrior could be customized as being a savage barbarian or a courtly knight.
At a much higher price in the "points" you could buy options from one of the other classes, effectively multiclassing, although limits would be put on just how far in another classes powers you could advance.
I would definately want both levels and classes. I would just like for there to be more customization options. And I feel that having too many classes actually ends up being counter productive.
If I could figure out how to use the PM function on here I wouldn't have to do this, but here's a system that's what you describe:
The rules are a bit obscure at times, and the GM has to do most of the setup on their own, but it's interestinf to say the least
I would definately want both levels and classes. I would just like for there to be more customization options. And I feel that having too many classes actually ends up being counter productive.
Wandered into the wrong forum then I'd say. This one is about adding new classes to a system that already has more classes than you like. If you want three core classes, or roles as I believe they are referred to, that are customizable to create most characters, try True20 by Green Ronin. It has the bonus of being OGL and using reasonably familiar mechanics.
In the end if you have to customize characters too much from a base class then you might as well have more classes. It becomes more complex to have too few classes with numerous options than it does to have many more classes with more limited options for each. Especially for the DM. My 2 cp.
Good luck.
|
|
I wasn't suggesting that Pathfinder should do that. I was just saying that if I was starting my own RPG from scratch that's what I would do.
But I do think there's a bit too much of a tendency to want to create new classes (base or prestige) for concepts that could very easily be realized within the existing classes. That was actually one of the things that bogged down 3.5...there were literally dozens and dozens, if not hundreds, of prestige classes. They had become an easy way for WotC to pad a book. The actual useful rules in the Environmental series, for example, would have been hard pressed to fill ONE book. But it introduced a dozen or so prestige classes that were so overly specialized that nobody would ever really want to play them.
I wasn't suggesting that Pathfinder should do that. I was just saying that if I was starting my own RPG from scratch that's what I would do.
But I do think there's a bit too much of a tendency to want to create new classes (base or prestige) for concepts that could very easily be realized within the existing classes. That was actually one of the things that bogged down 3.5...there were literally dozens and dozens, if not hundreds, of prestige classes. They had become an easy way for WotC to pad a book. The actual useful rules in the Environmental series, for example, would have been hard pressed to fill ONE book. But it introduced a dozen or so prestige classes that were so overly specialized that nobody would ever really want to play them.
I can see that. Personally I think there is a balance to be struck between having too few classes that have to be customized for a million roles and too many classes that step all over eachother's toes. If you ignore the splatbooks, which given they are WotC property is necessary, then there are niches to fill with, hopefully, balanced and well thought out classes. WotC certainly went overboard, especially with prestige classes, but I suspect they were a popular feature or it wouldn't have been done.