A variant approach to classes - advice gratefully received

[Imret]

Well, being in the throes of my world-building, I'm quickly daunted by how much work I'd have to do on the core classes to make them fit my vision, or alternately just how many I'd have to add to provide the variety I want. I could discuss the various alterations I'd have to make and why, but I think it'd just eat up space. So I'll simply put my idea out there and see what the GMF thinks on first glance. If it seems reasonable to people here I'll do some work on it and put it up for consideration in House Rules.

Starting with the Generic Classes variant from Unearthed Arcana, I'd expand on the list of bonus feats and possibly give them more often (I like heroes that can really shine in their element, because I don't play nice ). Within this expanding would be feats to replicate and introduce the major class features of the 'iconic' core classes (barbarians, monks, etc) while not button-holing characters.

For the spellcasters, I'd reduce the 'generic' class spell list by at -least- half and introduce Paths; a small class feature, a list of bonus spells known (1 per spell level, mostly those not on the core class spell list), and a drawback. Possibly major and minor paths; a major path defines -how- the character casts spells and is selected at 1st level only, whereas minor paths appear in the bonus feats list and subtly alter the character's spellcasting.

Combined with the Styles rules from Oriental Adventures and PrC's, there's a phenomenal amount of specificity and variety available, while making the core classes truly core.

So...what do other GM's think? Too much of a change? Too complex? Do PrC's and multiclassing make some of my ideas redundant? Is it what you've always wanted?

All advice and criticism will be gratefully received, all flames will be negligently extinguished, and all trolls will be ignominously starved. Thanks for your opinions.

 

[Catavarie]

As people on the Forge boards like to say "There is no such thing as too much change if you are starting with D20 core set".

Albeight a good standardized set of rules...which is why they are so popular for publishers to use, they are not neccesarily the best rules. If you want to change teh way magic is done then do so...not for other people but for yourself, then put it down for a wekk and move on to the next peice you want to change and forget about the magic. Then come back to the magic system and you'll either think to yourself..."This is great!" or "WTF was I thinking?!

I've been writing an RPG myself from the ground up for a few months now and although I feel that I have some great ideas I certainly don't think any of those ideas are finallized yet. I've gone completely away from all systems which are presently in use and developed my own set which is simpliest put as being a Heavily Modified d10 system. And I love the system I've come up with, the numbers are based off of logic and reasoning and their is no large amounts of math needed...hell I'm currently considering doing away with damage di totally, and instead placing in charts for each weapon based on "to Hit" rolls as to how much damag is done to something, but thats just me. I think that in d20 if I roll a critical hit then I ovbiously hit the target dead center and therefore should do my max damage to hit automatically (but I shouldn't do double damage)...as opposed to just hitting it in the arm or leg, but thats my opinon on it, I also think that a characters alignment shouldn't dictate what that character does but what that character does should dictate their alignment (kinda like Dark Force Points in StarWars D6).

So I say if you want to change things for your game world then feel free to do so, afterall it is yours...and who knows by the time your done with it you may have created something so new and so different yet so great that everyone of us here will be banging on your stand at the next big Con to shake your hand and have you sign our copies.

 

[Nyaricus]

Starting with the Generic Classes variant from Unearthed Arcana, I'd expand on the list of bonus feats and possibly give them more often (I like heroes that can really shine in their element, because I don't play nice ). Within this expanding would be feats to replicate and introduce the major class features of the 'iconic' core classes (barbarians, monks, etc) while not button-holing characters.

Neat idea for the addition or Barb and Monk-ish elements - prolly the easiest thing to do would be mnaking Rage based on a fort Requirtement, adn Fast Movement based off of Ref Save - and don't let the increases keep going and going. Go with 4 Steps in the Rage line (per the PHB barb), adn 4 in the Fast Movement (adding 10, 20, 30 and then 40 to base speed [these would overlap one-another, not stack]. You could do this with a few other things . . . . but not too many.

For the spellcasters, I'd reduce the 'generic' class spell list by at -least- half and introduce Paths; a small class feature, a list of bonus spells known (1 per spell level, mostly those not on the core class spell list), and a drawback. Possibly major and minor paths; a major path defines -how- the character casts spells and is selected at 1st level only, whereas minor paths appear in the bonus feats list and subtly alter the character's spellcasting.

Interestingh idea, just make sure it's balanced.

Combined with the Styles rules from Oriental Adventures and PrC's, there's a phenomenal amount of specificity and variety available, while making the core classes truly core.

Not too familiar with Style rules, but yeah, PrC's can make all the difference. My suggestion here is to make sure you have a lot of pidgeion-holed PrC's that have stuff that the base classes could not get anywhere else. The generic classes open up a variety of doors - but they can only do so much. I don't and wouldn't use generic classes, personally (i think that's too much pidegeon-holing) but hey, you definitively have some well-thought out ideas and such here

So...what do other GM's think? Too much of a change? Too complex? Do PrC's and multiclassing make some of my ideas redundant? Is it what you've always wanted?

Well, make suer that for spellcasters, the PrC's continue you new Paths idea and as for multiclassing - don't be worried about it. Some might take expert for skills, and then go with Warrior for fighting skills. It wouldn't be any more abused than what happens now - same stuff, different way.

All advice and criticism will be gratefully received, all flames will be negligently extinguished, and all trolls will be ignominously starved. Thanks for your opinions.

and as for ^that^ comment, it's getting added to my quoteable quotes section of my Tasty Bits Thread. Thanks for that

Hope that helps you out a bit - I'd love to see more of what you ahve layed out for use to critque, BTW.