"Generic" Classes in Unearthed Arcana

[Aus_Snow]

They're not, really. Use something like wound points, armour as DR, and/or a lower massive damage threshold for grittiness.

I guess. Or there's Conan, Grim n' Gritty, Grim Tales, Black Company, et al. You know who you are, you etals. Get pimping!

The generic classes are really just another philosophy of accessing a wide range of class abilities, by getting them through feats instead of multiclassing.

Yep. Always seemed that way to me, too.

A better implementation, IMHO, is in Blue Rose/True20. It'd take a little work to convert them back to d20 (mostly figuring out what to do in terms of spellcasting), but it'd probably be less work than balancing the UA classes.

Er, I don't quite see how it'd be less work. From True20 to D&D, or from D&D to D&D? ... why would it work like that?

 

[SWBaxter]

Er, I don't quite see how it'd be less work. From True20 to D&D, or from D&D to D&D? ... why would it work like that?

Because as I said in one of the parts you snipped, my opinion is the UA classes are not particularly well balanced. I consider figuring out the balance problems and coming up with a better approach more work than adding hit dice and a spellcasting progression to the True20 classes, YMMV.

 

[Kryndal Levik]

Thanks for the feedback, all. I think I misspoke when I said I was looking for something more "gritty;" I think I mean "realistic." Okay, I know- this is a fantasy roleplaying game we're talking about here... Even so, the classes just seemed to click for me (although, like I said, I saw some immediate balancing or min/max problems). For whatever reason, they seemed to remind me of George R.R. Martin's work (Song of Ice and Fire/Westeros). I suppose I like the idea of creating a character by true specialization of a core or generic class more than starting out specialized. I'll have to give it more thought.

All that being said- any suggestions for a system similar to that which I'm describing (which may be easier to handle or balance than the generic classes) would be appreciated, as would further feedback about the generic classes themselves. BTW- I know that there's a "Westeros" RPG coming out... I plan on checking it out, but it sounds like it will probably be too closely tied to the setting for use in another (in my case, a homebrew).

 

[Particle_Man]

UA Expert got the shaft. I suggest you add 2 skill points and 2 class skills to the expert.

Actually, if you add a few feats like (2 extra skill points + 2 extra class skills) (which I think is buried somewhere else in UA) and get rid of a few extra restrictive feat requirements vis a vis arcane or divine spellcaster, you can get by with 2 classes: Warrior and Spellcaster. Just decide whether you like the Spellcaster to cast in armour or not (I'd say not, but you can always change that with...you guessed it...more feats).

 

[Breakdaddy]

Yah, I would be much more likely to import the True20 Roles. I am actually doing this for my modern game. I might do this for a Middle Earth mini-campaign idea I've been sitting on for a while, as the True20 roles are damned flexible and would fit quite well in the setting. The damage system would also be used in the Middle Earth campaign, I like its scalable level of gritiness (just add a +2 to the base damage of any given item and things can get deadly in a hurry).

Green Ronin made use of them (good use of them) in Blue Rose and True20.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

In defense of the UA generics...

The UA generic classes are nice--I've used them for a Lankhmar campaign, & I've considered using them for a D&D game (though converting NPCs and classed monsters can be a bit of a bother). These classes are best used on their own--I wouldn't even recommend meshing the NPC classes with them (I jotted down a "Generic Commoner" class to use with them).

The key thing, IMHO, with the generic classes is that they're pretty decent at building basic concepts, esp. for a more low-magic feel (or for games without "magical" non-spellcaster classes). I wouldn't shoot for replicating standard/core D&D with thees classes, but rather your own style of game.

Prestige Classes can add something, but I'd recommend tailoring a few PrCs for this if you want to keep the # of classes down.

 

[Kryndal Levik]

Ugh, I hadn't really thought about having to convert NPCs over. When I said I was definitely "all or nothing," I was thinking about the PCs- I hadn't really thought about NPCs and/or classed monsters. I'm running a homebrew, but I have literally hundreds of existing statted NPCs; it gives me a headache to even think about converting them over.

For those that have tried- I take it the conversions would be absolutely necessary? I'd think that the generic classes would be a bit underpowered by comparison, but I could be wrong.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

Ugh, I hadn't really thought about having to convert NPCs over. When I said I was definitely "all or nothing," I was thinking about the PCs- I hadn't really thought about NPCs and/or classed monsters. I'm running a homebrew, but I have literally hundreds of existing statted NPCs; it gives me a headache to even think about converting them over.

For those that have tried- I take it the conversions would be absolutely necessary? I'd think that the generic classes would be a bit underpowered by comparison, but I could be wrong.

I'd say so. It'd be a bit difficult to build a ranger, monk, paladin, druid or many other "flavorful" classes using the "plain vanilla" rules that are the generic PCs. Sorcerers have more spells/day than a spellcaster, wizards have much more selection, druids have special nature-based powers, and clerics are better combat-wise. Warriors need to burn a feat to start off equal to a fighter, & skill point-wise, they're behind barbarians and rangers. Experts are behind rogues skill-wise and magic-less compared to bards. Monks are another paradigm altogether. Don't ask about psionics.

With generics at least, you can pick yoor class skills, which means you can go for most any some of basic concept you want (hedge wizard healers, non-combatant priests, noble knights, agile swashbucklers, learned scholars, craftsmen, etc.). And, I'd recommend tossing out multiclassing restrictions/XP penalties when using these classes--not really much point since there's fewer classes to choose from.

Oh yeah, I created a couple of feats & flaws for use with the generic classes--I think it helps them out a bit. Makes a couple of options w/ the core classes, like a higher skill point base or hit die, possible.

Feats
Increased Hit Die [General]
You are much tougher than other members of your class.
Benefit: Increase the Hit Die for your character class by one type (for example, a d4 is now a d6; a d6 is now a d8; and a d10 is now a d12). Use this new Hit Die to determine your character?s Hit Points, starting at 1st level.
Special: You may only takes this feat as a 1st-level character.

Increased Skill Points [General]
You are more skilled than other members of your class.
Benefit: Increase the base skill points for your character class by two (for example, a skill point base of 2 increase to 4; and a skill point base of 6 increases to 8). Use this new base skill point value to determine your character?s skill points, starting at 1st level.
Special: You may only takes this feat as a 1st-level character.

Flaws
Decreased Hit Die [General]
You are weaker than other members of your class.
Benefit: Decrease the Hit Die for your character class by one type (for example, a d6 is now a d4; and a d10 is now a d8). Use this new Hit Die to determine your character?s Hit Points, starting at 1st level.
Special: You may only takes this feat as a 1st-level character. You must have a d6 Hit Die or higher to take this flaw.

Decreased Skill Points [General]
You are less skilled than other members of your class.
Benefit: Decrease the base skill points for your character class by two (for example, a skill point base of 6 decreases to 4). Use this new base skill point value to determine your character?s skill points, starting at 1st level.
Special: You may only takes this feat as a 1st-level character. You must have a skill point base of 4 or higher to take this flaw.

But, that's only for NPCs with character classes. Monsters shouldn't be a problem at all.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Personally, I would just allow the Expert class, added to the normal D&D classes.

This is exactly what I've been considering. Does anyone have any experience at actually doing this? How has it gone?

 

[ham2anv]

I ran a very successful campaign using the generic classes, from 1st-level to around 16th. I should say that it was successful from the players' points of view; they liked it so much that they begged me to bring it back from an extended hiatus it had gone on when they hit 10th. It grew to be a headache for me to plan for, as the flexibility of the classes meant the party could handle just about anything at their level, and even a majority at APL+1 or +2, with ease. And making leveled NPCs was a major ordeal, especially spellcasters, as they could pull from three different spell lists.

One thing I noticed about the generic spellcaster is that there is pretty much no reason to play an arcane caster, since divine casters don't suffer arcane spell failure but can take the same spells arcane casters can. This prompted me to create an area of the campaign world where divine magic was outlawed, which has been an interesting process, and likely will be the setting of my next homebrew game.