Generic Classes Redux

[sirwmholder]

I have been toying around with the three standard generic classes a bit and came to the realization that with spells like knock and detect traps, magic, poison, etc. expert is really not needed. That's when I noticed something very odd. The Warrior and the Spellcaster ( and like wise the Fighter & Wizard, the only ones in the PHB ) start with only a 2 modifier in skill points.

So I've decided to change both the Warrior and Caster to a 4 modifier and only use those two generic classes. To make up for some of the more skill loss, do away with cross classed skills and add in a few racial modifiers based on former favored class.

I would also change HD to a scale and be based on race as well. Warriors move up one HD step and Casters move down one step. Humanoids are a d8... take a level of Warrior it goes up to a d10... a level of Caster and it becomes a d6 (averages out to a d8). Small Humanoids are a d6... Warrior = d8 / Caster = d4.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Thanks for your time,
William Holder

 

[Nifft]

You really think there's no place for a medium BAB, high skill class?

-- N

 

[sirwmholder]

Not really... if you up the skill progression of the other two classes the role can be filled. I'd allow free multi-classing with this system... with no cross-classed skills you could build a medium BAB that specialized in spells for knock and the like. It's a matter of preference I suppose.

Thanks,
William Holder

 

[Herobizkit]

If you're going to cut one of the three generic classes out, why not cut them ALL out? Make Humanoid a "class" (like back in the day when Dwarf and Elf was a race), base their saves/attack bonuses/HD on their favored class, and let everyone learn spells via feats. Heck, might as well have base skill points and allow more skill points via feats.

Heck, you might as well just let your PC's Buy The Numbers.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't think he's completely off... Even if I am not a fan of having few generic classes, his idea seems pretty clear and effective to me.

 

[sirwmholder]

If you're going to cut one of the three generic classes out, why not cut them ALL out? Make Humanoid a "class" (like back in the day when Dwarf and Elf was a race), base their saves/attack bonuses/HD on their favored class, and let everyone learn spells via feats. Heck, might as well have base skill points and allow more skill points via feats.

Heck, you might as well just let your PC's Buy The Numbers.

I've looked at buy the numbers but my group isn't quite ready for that yet. They still need some kind of chart to follow. Currently we are looking at having just two base classes one with a high BAB and larger HD the other with casting, poor BAB and smaller HD. All former class abilities can be bought as feats provided you meet the prerequisite except for (Su) or Spell-like abilities... in those cases learn the spell to do it.

The main reason this came about was due to Elements of Magic. My group loves this product. As a side effect they determined there was no longer a need for a Wizard, Sorcerer, Psion, Druid or Cleric. A Mage built the way the player wanted would give him full control over what he could cast. Soon the question came up... can we do the same for all the Fighter and Rogue variants out there? After looking the generic classes over it seemed easier to give a slight bump in skills to both the Warrior and Caster and just remove the Expert. So that's why I posted the question would it be game breaking to lose the Expert class if both the Warrior and Caster had their skill points slightly increased?

I don't think he's completely off... Even if I am not a fan of having few generic classes, his idea seems pretty clear and effective to me.

Thanks for your honesty . It helps to know that I'm not a total whack job .

Thank you both for your time,
William Holder

 

[avr]

It might be an idea to add a feat which allows more skill points though - other than open-minded, because a flat 5 skill points is the approximate equivalent of the standard toughness feat.

I don't think a minimum of 4 skill points per level is unbalancing, especially in a game which lacks rogues or their equivalent. True20 uses 3 basic classes, none of which have less than 4 skill points/level and it works for them.

 

[Herobizkit]

Now that I know you're using Elements of Magic, I start to see where you're trying to head with your Rogue and Fighter. Still, there must be SOME room for the feller who loves skills...

 

[sirwmholder]

It might be an idea to add a feat which allows more skill points though - other than open-minded, because a flat 5 skill points is the approximate equivalent of the standard toughness feat.

I don't think a minimum of 4 skill points per level is unbalancing, especially in a game which lacks rogues or their equivalent. True20 uses 3 basic classes, none of which have less than 4 skill points/level and it works for them.

Sounds cool... there are feats in place for more skills and the fact there are no cross-classed skills I think if you wanted to play a skill monkey rather than a detected Warrior or Caster it would be easy enough to accomplish.

Now that I know you're using Elements of Magic, I start to see where you're trying to head with your Rogue and Fighter. Still, there must be SOME room for the feller who loves skills...

Don't get me wrong we love skills and use skill checks in almost every encounter. It's just our group saw something innately wrong with the expert... you choose to be mediocre at combat so you could be the party face in town... which made less sense than being effective in the field... showing concern for your fellow adventurers and demonstrating great leadership which carries over from the battlefield back to the inn where your leader, who you would follow through the Grey Waste, speaks for the party.

Thanks for the help,
William Holder

 

[Herobizkit]

Don't get me wrong we love skills and use skill checks in almost every encounter. It's just our group saw something innately wrong with the expert... you choose to be mediocre at combat so you could be the party face in town... which made less sense than being effective in the field... showing concern for your fellow adventurers and demonstrating great leadership which carries over from the battlefield back to the inn where your leader, who you would follow through the Grey Waste, speaks for the party.

There you go. See, in MY group, we would all wrestle to BE the Expert, if we had to choose but one class. Experts do more than be the pretty face... they're the ones who specialize in "field work" that doesn't require force of arms or force of magic. They're the safecrackers, the alchemists, the demonologists, the sages, the facemen; they're the men and women who perform other tasks other than killing and flinging fire.

Now, that said, I do understand how many of the skills can be duplicated by magic, and that begs the question, "If I can do it by magic, why would do it myself?" This opens up a multitude of campaign ideas, obstacles, or a way to shape the daily life of your campaign world's peoples. If your answer is "I wouldn't", then sure, nix the Expert.

But... what about those poor people who can't afford magical training, or the rare individual who just CAN'T cast spells? What about someone who grew up in the woods, completely alone, with noting but his wits to guide him? What about someone who would rather study theory than actually practice magic?

In short, I'm an Expert-booster. This class loosely represents the Rogues, Rangers, and Bards of the campaign world. There is a place for them in your world, even if your players don't like them... especially if [for example] the League of Anti-Magica, a guild of Experts bound together to eradicate the taint of magic from the world, studies up and begins to hoard relics of incredible power to study and destroy.