Balancing Classes in a homebrew world

[Aus_Snow]

Ideally I'd like it as "edition neutral" as possible.

I would suggest not bothering with "classes" in a purely "fluff" sense. They just tend to be so intertwined with system, IME.

Like, if I were to, say, publish an Orean Compendium-type of Sourcebook and all you had was that book and your dice, your group and knowledge of whatever edition you like to play. Do you think suitable options are there to entertain and spark the imaginations of most types of players?

Well, no. Or possibly. But the problem here is that a group will need to try to adapt your classes to whatever system they have chosen. For starters, most RPGs don't have classes. Then, the ones that do? I would wager they will differ from those in your Compendium. Most likely, rather considerably.

Unless you opt for a very broad and simple selection, such as Warrior/Adept/Expert or the like.

I mean, good luck with it, but yeah, I can't see classes (very much a D&Dism in the first place, and largely unsuitable for many a setting anyway) being a whole lot of use, when divorced from system context.


Good concise plain English descriptions of groups, individuals, traditions, abilities and the like, might go further towards being useful, for a GM to translate into any given system (D&D included).

 

[steenan]

So what do we think of these sorts of classes?
I can't imagine making up individual stuff like this for every permutation of a fighter-type class....swordsmen, archers, tribal spear throwers, swashbucklers, bounty hunters, knights, bounty hunters (though I am thinking of specifying a Orean "Bounty Hunter" class that would essentially be a simple rework and name change cuz I think "Urban Ranger" is an oxymoron.)

If you go with the narrow class approach, you won't create "swordsmen, archer, spear throwers". The classes you described above are clearly defined social groups and you should go the same way with others. Bounty hunters and knights are good examples - they define not only abilities, but also professions and social standing. Soldiers would also fit, as would bandits.

An alternative way is to limit yourself to a few archetypal classes and use feats, stunts or whatever kind of "special ability" your system offers to describe the specific groups. For example, a Soraryn would be a Woodsman (archetype) with Nature magic (class talent) and Soraryn training feat that replaces some of woodsman's class abilities and nature magic spells with something psionic and paladin-like.
This approach is, IMO, much easier to balance. You only create a few classes that need to be of equal power. There are group-specific feats, but they all act as power-swaps, replacing certain abilities with something else of similar usefulness. It is also much less work, as you don't have to create multiple complete classes that often only differ in something minor.