Generic classes and modularity

[paladinm]

In 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, one of the (many) options presented is "generic classes". Essentially you have three classes: Warrior (like a fighter with more flexibility in skills), Expert (the Rogue equivalent with, again, more flexibility), and Spellcaster, either arcane or divine. the True20 game is similar, except that the Spellcaster is called the Adept, and is a master of "powers" (magic, psionics, etc.)

I'm actually liking this concept a lot, and wonder if this might be the basis for class modularity. Multi-classing could produce a plethora of "classes"; and there is so much flexibility that you can produce virtually any sort of character you want, within reason. Want a brawny fighter with some psionic ability and a few rogue skills? Go for it!

This also would allow for a more spell-centered, less combat-oriented "priest" build. The adept/spellcaster has only simple weapon proficiency and no armor. If you want a fighting cleric, take an armor proficiency feat and/or a level or two of Warrior. There are also options to tack on class features like Evasion, Smite Evil, or Turn Undead. Want a "pious rogue" who can smite evil like a paladin? Feel free!

I know that there will always be those who prefer "pre-built" classes; but for others who like to tinker, I think this should be a serious option in 5e.

Any thoughts?

 

[Mattachine]

I loved the generic class idea . . . but my players never went with it. A lot of people like picking a class that is already "built". It's a weakness of D&D, but also a great strength.

I hope that 5e does present some options like the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, though.

 

[Andor]

I know that there will always be those who prefer "pre-built" classes; but for others who like to tinker, I think this should be a serious option in 5e.

Any thoughts?

It's a perfectly good way to design a game, and one I'd like to see as an option, but I think it will at best be in an post-release supplement.

First, they've already said that every basic players handbook class from every edition will be in the PHB. So that's a lot of classes who all need to be differentiable, not much room in that stew for a broad generic approach.

Secondly, speedy character creation is an explicit design goal. Having to select several class features from a menu while juggling pros and cons is not conducive to fast play. Your choices are probably going to be along the lines of Race, Class, Theme, feat (maybe), Spells (maybe), gear (probably with prepacked kits). Fill in character sheet and boot the door!

So mulling over charts of options and trade-offs while asking other players if a bonus to saving vs box-text is worth losing "strike of the emancipated wombat" is not something they want to see right out of the gate.

 

[Yora]

The worst thing about classless systems is the almost total lack of a basic framework to build on, while class based systems (D&D is the only one I actually know about) shoehorn characters into qite specific archetypes. Generic classes make a good balance between them in my oppinion.

 

[paladinm]

I think generic classes would also require someone to enter the design process with something in mind. Developing an undead-turning psionic rogue is doable, but a player would have to have the concept in his/her head first. "Canned" classes are obviously best for people who don't have a clue of the characters they want.

Hmm.. it would be interesting to see how "theme" works into this as well..

 

[Ratskinner]

In 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, one of the (many) options presented is "generic classes". Essentially you have three classes:
<snippage>
I know that there will always be those who prefer "pre-built" classes; but for others who like to tinker, I think this should be a serious option in 5e.

Any thoughts?

Yes.

I kinda prefer the way 2e handled it with four base classes and the "real" classes were all subclasses. Nowadays, I'm feeling that 3e and True20 feats were too small a part of the character per feat. I'd rather make a smaller number of choices that had broader impact. If necessary, give classes a flexible class feature to add variety. (e.g. At levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 the Fighter may choose one of the following benefits to use with his chosen weapon.) I'm almost thinking feats need to go away entirely (not quite, but I'm getting there.)

The advanced version of this would be kinda like 2e's Skills and Powers. You could change out features from various subclasses to get the mix you like. I'm not sure how to work it will multiclassing and the possibility of prestige classes and the like.