Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Balancing Classes in a homebrew world
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5373803" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>Sounds like you are in a similar situation to me, trying to figure out what is really archetypal to your world so that it could be called a 'base class'. For me, the goal is that the buckets:</p><p></p><p>1) Don't overlap much. </p><p>2) Are about equal size in the sense of containing equal amounts of freedom and variaty. Or in other words, no base class should be afflicted with arbitrarily narrow flavor. </p><p>3) Don't leave gaps between them where viable characters ideas exist but lack a class for them</p><p>4) Don't have redundant buckets where the only difference between the two classes could be considered flavor.</p><p>5) Don't have two classes exist mainly because of arbitrary mechanical differences or simply to provide mechanical alternatives to a class that already has basically the same flavor.</p><p>6) Don't need prestige classes or other kludges to allow for things that the base classes either by themselves or in combination ought to be able to provide on their own. In essence, my philosophy is that you don't take a prestige class - you become one.</p><p></p><p>My base adventuring classes are:</p><p>Aesthetic</p><p>Bard</p><p>Champion</p><p>Cleric</p><p>Explorer</p><p>Fanatic</p><p>Feyborne</p><p>Fighter</p><p>Hunter</p><p>Rogue</p><p>Shaman</p><p>Sorcerer</p><p>Wizard</p><p></p><p>There are also four fairly simple NPC classes: Brute, Commoner, Expert, and Scholar (Explorer began life as an NPC class).</p><p></p><p>Of my list, only two are 'narrow' classes - Aesthetic and Feyborne - but they are narrow only in the sense that they are what in other systems might be 'racial classes' designed to capture unique abilities of a the least human of the normal PC races. In the sense of what you can do with them, they are quite broad and indeed are more 'jack of all trades' classes than even the bard.</p><p></p><p>What's probably most striking about my list is what isn't on there:</p><p></p><p>1) Paladin: The problem with this class is straight foward. You need a different class for each alignment at minimum, and probably for each god. It represent <em>a type of </em>Champion, but not the template from which all Champions can be derived. I took a big hint from the Holy Warrior class in BotR, made that class even more Cleric-like and through out the need to exactly conform to the 3.0 Paladin. The result is a generalized Champion class that is much broader even than the Holy Warrior/Unholy Warrior combo, no longer dependent on DM intervention, and much more flexible in the hands of the player. I'm quite happy with it.</p><p>2) Druid: In addition to simply being overpowered by 3.5, the problem with the Druid is that it represents <em>a type of</em> animistic spellcaster and not the general template from which all animistic spellcasters from every possible culture and setting are derivided. It's not only too northern european with its temperate forest focused spell list and northern european trappings, it's too self-referential, and it's too specific and limited in its taboos, too nature focused, and just too bloody narrow. I basically tooled up the Green Ronin Shaman class from the Shaman Handbook without the need to step on the Druid's toes and that's what I use.</p><p>3) Barbarian: This is actually the class that sparked the revolution 8 years or so ago. The problem with the class for me began with the alignment restriction. Why are all primitive tribesman from warrior cults 'chaotic'? It seemed to make the mistake of seeing all primitives as disordered and all civilized folk as lawful. But that struck me as nonsense. Why also was there an implied Northern European bias to the Barbarian? Why indeed was it primitive at all? Couldn't you be a raging warrior from the city? The result of me stripping the class down the essentials was a slightly more flexible class I called 'the Fanatic'. My current version of the class is the direct descendent of that.</p><p>4) Ranger: This is probably the worst of them all. It's basically based off a bad imagining of an archetype from 'The Lord of the Rings', that has been tinkered with until its self-referential. It's an archetype of itself as it appears in fantasy games. Third edition took a big step towards broadening the class into a true base class, but it didn't go in my opinion far enough. It kept the ranger tied to the woods, which forced the creation of special classes for 'Urban Rangers' and who knows what else. And it meant that any character that loosely met the ranger archetype, from the local sheriff to bounty hunters to seal clubbers, was also a nature mystic with spellcasting power. The class stripped of its spells and unnecessary baggage became 'the Hunter'. </p><p>5) Psion: My basic problem with Psionic classes is that they seem to be mechanical diversity for its own sake. That is, the real unique flavor of the class seems to come from its unique mechanics. The actual flavor of the class - mind over matter or telepathy or what not - seems to me to be ordinary arcane magic. I feel basically the same way about the Warlock. </p><p>6) Monk: I just don't like them. If I did want to include them, they'd be as a generalized 'Martial Artist' class of which '[eastern] Monk' was only one sort you might play (along with I don't know Duelist, Cavalier, Kensai and Gladiator). The problem with 'Martial Artist' is that every time I think about it, it seems like it ought to be captured within the range of 'Fighter'. I don't see enough space for another focused fighting class. I fully expect 'Fighter' to encompass pretty much any sort of 'fighting man' from a veteren warlord of the steppes to a tea sipping caligraphy artist who studies brush strokes to improve his karate to an illiterate gladiatorial pit fighter to a dainty but deadly fop who moves with the grace of the lord of cats. And that includes a hermit who hands are lethal weapons.</p><p></p><p>Now, you can play Rangers, Paladins, Hunters, and Druids in my game - although your mechanics might be slightly different - but if you do so, you do so as a particular instance of a broader type.</p><p></p><p>Now, when I have problems imagining a character under my rules, my first instincts aren't to invent new classes. My first instincts are to invent new feats or spells. Virtually anything that you could make a class feature, you can also make into a feat or spell and make available. In this way, you transform a base class into a prestige class according to the player's choices.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 5373803, member: 4937"] Sounds like you are in a similar situation to me, trying to figure out what is really archetypal to your world so that it could be called a 'base class'. For me, the goal is that the buckets: 1) Don't overlap much. 2) Are about equal size in the sense of containing equal amounts of freedom and variaty. Or in other words, no base class should be afflicted with arbitrarily narrow flavor. 3) Don't leave gaps between them where viable characters ideas exist but lack a class for them 4) Don't have redundant buckets where the only difference between the two classes could be considered flavor. 5) Don't have two classes exist mainly because of arbitrary mechanical differences or simply to provide mechanical alternatives to a class that already has basically the same flavor. 6) Don't need prestige classes or other kludges to allow for things that the base classes either by themselves or in combination ought to be able to provide on their own. In essence, my philosophy is that you don't take a prestige class - you become one. My base adventuring classes are: Aesthetic Bard Champion Cleric Explorer Fanatic Feyborne Fighter Hunter Rogue Shaman Sorcerer Wizard There are also four fairly simple NPC classes: Brute, Commoner, Expert, and Scholar (Explorer began life as an NPC class). Of my list, only two are 'narrow' classes - Aesthetic and Feyborne - but they are narrow only in the sense that they are what in other systems might be 'racial classes' designed to capture unique abilities of a the least human of the normal PC races. In the sense of what you can do with them, they are quite broad and indeed are more 'jack of all trades' classes than even the bard. What's probably most striking about my list is what isn't on there: 1) Paladin: The problem with this class is straight foward. You need a different class for each alignment at minimum, and probably for each god. It represent [I]a type of [/I]Champion, but not the template from which all Champions can be derived. I took a big hint from the Holy Warrior class in BotR, made that class even more Cleric-like and through out the need to exactly conform to the 3.0 Paladin. The result is a generalized Champion class that is much broader even than the Holy Warrior/Unholy Warrior combo, no longer dependent on DM intervention, and much more flexible in the hands of the player. I'm quite happy with it. 2) Druid: In addition to simply being overpowered by 3.5, the problem with the Druid is that it represents [I]a type of[/I] animistic spellcaster and not the general template from which all animistic spellcasters from every possible culture and setting are derivided. It's not only too northern european with its temperate forest focused spell list and northern european trappings, it's too self-referential, and it's too specific and limited in its taboos, too nature focused, and just too bloody narrow. I basically tooled up the Green Ronin Shaman class from the Shaman Handbook without the need to step on the Druid's toes and that's what I use. 3) Barbarian: This is actually the class that sparked the revolution 8 years or so ago. The problem with the class for me began with the alignment restriction. Why are all primitive tribesman from warrior cults 'chaotic'? It seemed to make the mistake of seeing all primitives as disordered and all civilized folk as lawful. But that struck me as nonsense. Why also was there an implied Northern European bias to the Barbarian? Why indeed was it primitive at all? Couldn't you be a raging warrior from the city? The result of me stripping the class down the essentials was a slightly more flexible class I called 'the Fanatic'. My current version of the class is the direct descendent of that. 4) Ranger: This is probably the worst of them all. It's basically based off a bad imagining of an archetype from 'The Lord of the Rings', that has been tinkered with until its self-referential. It's an archetype of itself as it appears in fantasy games. Third edition took a big step towards broadening the class into a true base class, but it didn't go in my opinion far enough. It kept the ranger tied to the woods, which forced the creation of special classes for 'Urban Rangers' and who knows what else. And it meant that any character that loosely met the ranger archetype, from the local sheriff to bounty hunters to seal clubbers, was also a nature mystic with spellcasting power. The class stripped of its spells and unnecessary baggage became 'the Hunter'. 5) Psion: My basic problem with Psionic classes is that they seem to be mechanical diversity for its own sake. That is, the real unique flavor of the class seems to come from its unique mechanics. The actual flavor of the class - mind over matter or telepathy or what not - seems to me to be ordinary arcane magic. I feel basically the same way about the Warlock. 6) Monk: I just don't like them. If I did want to include them, they'd be as a generalized 'Martial Artist' class of which '[eastern] Monk' was only one sort you might play (along with I don't know Duelist, Cavalier, Kensai and Gladiator). The problem with 'Martial Artist' is that every time I think about it, it seems like it ought to be captured within the range of 'Fighter'. I don't see enough space for another focused fighting class. I fully expect 'Fighter' to encompass pretty much any sort of 'fighting man' from a veteren warlord of the steppes to a tea sipping caligraphy artist who studies brush strokes to improve his karate to an illiterate gladiatorial pit fighter to a dainty but deadly fop who moves with the grace of the lord of cats. And that includes a hermit who hands are lethal weapons. Now, you can play Rangers, Paladins, Hunters, and Druids in my game - although your mechanics might be slightly different - but if you do so, you do so as a particular instance of a broader type. Now, when I have problems imagining a character under my rules, my first instincts aren't to invent new classes. My first instincts are to invent new feats or spells. Virtually anything that you could make a class feature, you can also make into a feat or spell and make available. In this way, you transform a base class into a prestige class according to the player's choices. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Balancing Classes in a homebrew world
Top