Campaign Setting exercise: Classes

[Li Shenron]

Just for the fun of it, I am thinking about grouping up a pool of core classes to be used in a hypothetical setting, just to see if I can make a nice set of character options without going too far from casual D&D.

Some basic keys of the setting:

- inspired by european early dark ages (e.g. 1000-1200 AD)
- technology, travel, culture and knowledge are limited
- common wars between the armies of different kingdoms
- spellcasting is available to a very minority of the people

The target is a list of about ten classes to cover all the adventurer's needs, to be compiled by (1) using some existing classes, (2) banning some existing classes, (3) modifying some existing classes and (4) introducing some new classes. The last two points should not result in a monumental work possibly...

Here's my list of classes that I am thinking about (after preliminary thought), with more explanation coming in the next posts:

• Archer
• Aristocrat
• Barbarian
• Cleric
• Druid
• Fighter
• Knight
• Paladin/Templar
• Rogue
• Sorcerer

Only 3/10 spellcasting classes to keep magic to a minority.
Aristocrat, Fighter, Rogue and Sorcerer are basically unchanged from the standard.
Barbarian is almost the same, but I'm thinking about replacing the Rage with something else.
Cleric and Druid use the spontaneous casting variant from UA, to reduce the spells known.
Paladin is heavily changed (and eventually renamed to Templar) and does not cast spells.
Archer and Knight are new classes to be designed from the Fighter.

 

[Li Shenron]

And some enlightment about those "preliminary thoughts" of mine... Especially about why I removed the other classes.

The preliminary of the preliminary is that the setting is western-based, and the Monk is not suitable at all.

So I started with the target of reducing the commonality of spellcasting. In the PHB there are 7/11 classes with spells, so I tried to see which of them could be removed safely. It was not necessary to outright ban a class, but to reduce how spells are common I had 3 ways to consider for each of those 7:

1) reduce spellcasting capabilities
2) remove spellcasting capabilities
3) remove the class completely

The first two require some extra work to give the class some compensation, but the second one is easy for the Ranger and the Paladin: some publishers have already done the job and evaluated that a Ranger's of Paladin's whole spellcasting capability is worth 4 bonus feats, to be given at those levels when they would get a new level of spells.

Eventually however I decided to let the Ranger depart completely. The concept of a "defender of nature" will be unnecessary in a setting where nature is not at all endangered, and even if it is, the Druid can cover that. The other idea associated with the Ranger, that of a skilled wilderness scout, can be covered enough by the Barbarian.

The Bard was in the middle, and not only I didn't have an example on how to compensate it, but eventually if you remove all the spells from the Bard, it is left as a sort of Rogue. The only really unique feature remaining is the bardic music, a concept which I don't have a strong reason to keep in the setting. So to ban the Bard was quite a good solution after all.

Wizard and Sorcerer went head to head to choose which one to stay. In this setting, there are no schools of magic for sure, but I quite envision the typical caster in this world to be a scholar who studies either under a master or from ancient books. The flavor of it definitely pointed towards the Wizard, but the mechanics does not fit with the target of not having hundreds of spells available to each character. For that reason, I kept the Sorcerer and gave it the flavor of the Wizard.

Because of the last choice and because of its reason, it seemed natural to allow spontaneous Clerics and Druids (UA) instead of the standars ones. I have some doubts whether these are completely balanced, and I might consider a slight correction downwards later.

I though about removing even one of them, and play just with one divine caster, it might be too extreme tho...

 

[HellHound]

I love doing stuff like this. I've been working on my own Moocockian setting in the vein of DragonLords of Melnibone for about two years. And a majority of the work hasn't been on the setting proper, but on the classes & races to be used in said setting.

 

[Stormborn]

I would point out GRs Medieval book if you really wanted to play this, but as is some thoughts:

Archer: Is this needed as a seperate class? Wouldn't it be rolled into Fighter?

Aristocrat: Which version? There are several out there, but I would only use it if the campaign was going to have a lot of roleplay, otherwise some kind of Starting Occupation or Background Feat would probablly work just fine. If not check out GR's Noble handbook.

Barbarian: I say keep rage, but limit the choices to certain regions. The barbarian as presented inthe PHB is basically the Viking Berserker for a fantasy setting.

Cleric: I think you should split this class. Have a non-castign version that would be basically an expanded Expert class to represent the average Priest, then have a Prophet/Miracle Worker class. I am thinking of the Mystic from d20 Modern's Urban Arcana, but Favored Soul might work as a base, but I would nix the wings. IIRC Dragon had an Evangelist class that might work as a John the Baptist type prophet.

Druid: Again, probablly split the class into an Expert based one and a spontaneous caster. No real good ideas here, but you could drop the spellcastign progression down to somethign comprable to the ranger and make wild shaping available earlier.

Fighter: Other than comments in other classes, not much to say. However, you might want to think of a few standrad rolls a fighter might have in the world and show how they would work. A Master of Hounds, for example, might be allowed to take an Animal Companion as a Fighter Feat.

Knight: With a slightly different skill set you could just use a fighter. Remember that many, if not all, of knights are going to also be some form of nobility, even if its fairly low ranking ones. Another reason to make Aristocrat a background. Check out GRs Cavalier Handbook

Paladin/Templar: I say go with this or a Knight class but not both. Or make it a prestige class. But definitly a spellless variety. You mgiht also one to go with a 3.0 version of the mount.

Rogue: An obvious one, but could be used for lots of different roles not just the thief type. An adventuring scholar, for example, would make a perfect thief.

Sorcerer: Good, to me this really makes more sense than a wizard anyway, but you might want to give the Sor the Wiz's skill list to reflect the flavor, and make them study their spell book.

Some other possibilites:

Expert: Boost it a little for a PC. Give them a bonus feat at 1st, 2nd and ever othr level there after, but it must be Skill Focus or another related to their chosen field. This will cover a great many classes.

Check out the Monte Cook Bard in Complete Book of Eldritch Might for an entirelly different feel for spell casting. His is a better model for the Orpheous/Taliesen Bard archetype.

You really have to decide who you want to be incontrol of magic and the nature of society in general. A single hieracrchial relgious body, but one split with rival claimants and subtle variations on orthodox doctrine would fit the world you described well. One group might say magic is demonic, while another embraces it. This body has both relgious and temporal powers, and thus has divide all the nations of the continent. The PCs could either work for one of the more open groups as special agents of a Bishop, or as outsiders who are trying to end the wars or merely save the city. Mercenaries and looters are of course viable options too.

 

[Sadrik]

The target is a list of about ten classes to cover all the adventurer's needs, to be compiled by (1) using some existing classes, (2) banning some existing classes, (3) modifying some existing classes and (4) introducing some new classes. The last two points should not result in a monumental work possibly...

• Archer
• Aristocrat
• Barbarian
• Cleric
• Druid
• Fighter
• Knight
• Paladin/Templar
• Rogue
• Sorcerer

Only 3/10 spellcasting classes to keep magic to a minority.
Aristocrat, Fighter, Rogue and Sorcerer are basically unchanged from the standard.
Barbarian is almost the same, but I'm thinking about replacing the Rage with something else.
Cleric and Druid use the spontaneous casting variant from UA, to reduce the spells known.
Paladin is heavily changed (and eventually renamed to Templar) and does not cast spells.
Archer and Knight are new classes to be designed from the Fighter.

You need a bandit/highwayman. Possibly a woodsy rogue. Ranger fills the niche nicely, just remove their spellcasting like you plan on doing with the paladin.

You need a scholarly type, someone who has access to all of the knowledge skills. Giving the sorceror all of the knowledges and basing their spell casting on intellegence rather than charisma could work for this. Or you could add a more rogue-like class, with a bunch of knowledges who is more of an "explorer" or "man of the world" type, that could also definately fill that niche. Possibly removing sneak attack give them bonus feats in their place and adding all knowledges to their list of class skills, oh and they would have to automatically be literate.

Why do you have the druid? Unless you really want shapechanging to be common, even to a small sect. It might be better to just use the cleric with the animal and plant domains.

You can use a cultural template as uposed to the barbarian class. Then, you could put in an arabic-like cultural template and also create an aristacrat template. The nice thing with a template is you dont have to create a whole new class for every culture to fill every niche in that culture, you simply apply the template. They would offer them different weapon selections and add a couple of skills as class skills. For instance the barbarian template might have bola and others as a martial weapon and have run, jump, climb and survival as class skills but swords would become exotic weapons along with a host of other weapons. The aristocrat template would be the only one that begins as literate etc. The "knight" could essentially become a fighter with the aristocrat template. The barbarian could essentially become a fighter with the barbarian template.

The Archer is just a fighter that has feats in archery. Unless you envisioned something else...

Sadrik

 

[HellHound]

Archer: Is this needed as a seperate class? Wouldn't it be rolled into Fighter?

[PIMP MODE: ON]
Of course the archer is needed as a seperate class!
[PIMP MODE: OFF]

Rogue: An obvious one, but could be used for lots of different roles not just the thief type. An adventuring scholar, for example, would make a perfect thief.

I'd actually include a few rogue 'paths', so the rogue can also handle the outdoorsey bandit type suggested in the next post.

 

[Tonguez]

Archer = Fighter +Archery feats
Barbarian without Rage = Fighter + regional feats
Paladin without spells = Fighter + divine feats
Knight = Fighter + mounted combat feats

Even Aristocrat is really just a fighter with some extra skill points

so the list might read

Aristocrat (?)
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Rogue
Sorcerer

and then instead of creating new base classes ceate some funky feats (and then share them with the rest of us)

 

[Li Shenron]

The Archer must not be a Fighter with archery feats, otherwise there would not be any reason for it as a separate class.

I "multiplied" the Fighter class x3 to follow the idea that the setting possibly features long wars, and career in the armies are common. Without going too far I imagined three major types of battle roles: the footmen, the archery and the cavalry. I don't know yet what to do with those 2 new classes, if they come out to be shallow and too similar to the Fighter, I'll take them away.

I will do the new classes at the end. Some ideas are on the top of my head already.
The Archer really needs only to have Precise Shot as a bonus feat at 1st level. Instead of just bonus feats, to make it differ from a Fighter I will give him something unique, from simple straight bonuses in ranged combat, to more complex tricks which could be inspired by Iron Heroes.

The Knight could be both the best mounted combatant and the leader in battle. Some ideas could include a non-divine special mount (sort of more natural than supernatural bond) and something like leadership. Plus of course something to make it the best mounted character.
He's definitely going to have some nobility lineage but shouldn't overlap with the Aristocrat, which instead covers the role of diplomat (which version of it I haven't thought yet).

 

[Li Shenron]

Some more comments.

Barbarian: I say keep rage, but limit the choices to certain regions. The barbarian as presented inthe PHB is basically the Viking Berserker for a fantasy setting.

The reason why I want to replace the Rage is just that it's always the same ol' trick, and since this is an exercise I'm just trying to think what would the game lose without it

OTOH, the ability to Rage could be just removed from the class and turned into a feat available with some special prerequisites.

Cleric: I think you should split this class. Have a non-castign version that would be basically an expanded Expert class to represent the average Priest, then have a Prophet/Miracle Worker class. I am thinking of the Mystic from d20 Modern's Urban Arcana, but Favored Soul might work as a base, but I would nix the wings. IIRC Dragon had an Evangelist class that might work as a John the Baptist type prophet.

I'm not sure yet how to model religion in this setting, but the Cleric is probably going to be a very special individual in the church. Not a priest for the sunday's mass, but more in line with the idea of a Favored Soul. However I am still not sure, it doesn't have to be "blessed" to cast spells, it could be just learning spells from the highest hierarchy of the church.

Druid: Again, probablly split the class into an Expert based one and a spontaneous caster. No real good ideas here, but you could drop the spellcastign progression down to somethign comprable to the ranger and make wild shaping available earlier.

Druids could be organized in a world-spanning brotherhood but be also divided in different groups. In general they are few and secretive (like a secret society) and they are more worhippers than defenders of nature. I thought about replacing Wild Shape also, just because it's quite a cliche', and eventually it could belong to only one of the groups.

For instance there could be:
- Druids of the forests : the less secretive ones, living hidden in the woods, experts in plants, wildlife and potions
- Druids of the marshes : more of the traveler type, who roam the world in search for natural knowledge
- Wild Druids : embracing wildlife more fully, the only ones with wildshape
- Druids of the elements : more scholarly and radical type, the most secretive, study the basic of nature and elements
- Druids of the waters : a special type which may be living underwater or almost

Paladin/Templar: I say go with this or a Knight class but not both. Or make it a prestige class. But definitly a spellless variety. You mgiht also one to go with a 3.0 version of the mount.

They aren't noble, they aren't mounted, they aren't leaders and they don't go to war. They usually either go to quests for their church or stand and defend the temples.
That's why I thought they should be different classes.

 

[Li Shenron]

Paladin/Templar

Please take a look at the following modifications to the Paladin class. It has been renamed Templar because it may be of any alignment, as long as it is compatible with the faith in question. The role of the class is that of serving a temple, church or religious hierarchy, usually in the form of defending a holy site (hence the name of the class) or going on a specific quest. A Templar typically does not hold power in the religious hierarchy.

The class keeps the same HD, BAB, ST, skills and the following special abilities: Divine Grace, Divine Health, Lay on Hands, Aura of Courage, Detect Evil* and Smite Evil*.
*eventually switch to Good/Law/Chaos depending on the faith

The Divine Mount and spellcasting are removed, and to make it simple I was thinking of 4-5 bonus feats as a replacement. They shouldn't be just fighter bonus feats however, I'd like to keep the class as far as possible from the Fighter. Other non-magical replacements can work as long as they aren't too complex to balance, but magical replacements aren't what I want (still trying to keep magic capabilities limited).

Remove Disease is going to be generalized in the sense that a Paladin of a certain faith can cast a spell-like-ability equivalent to one 2nd-4th level spell in the same way. The ability is determined by the deity and has something to do with the Templar's job at the holy site, which is usually defensive or that of a hospitaler. Some examples:

(hospitaler-type)
Remove Disease (3rd): Lathander
Cure Serious Wounds (3rd): Ilmater, Chauntea

(defender-type)
Animate Dead (3rd): Velsharoon, Kiaransalee
Spell Immunity (4th): Mystra
Charm Monster (4th): Sune, Eilistraee, Ehlonna

Do you think it's best to have this ability fixed on a deity basis? Or is it better to "default" it to something like: Remove Curse, Prayer or Divine Might (player's choice)?

Last but not least, Turn Undead is removed. In a way similar to Rage and Wild Shape, I want to see what happens without it, or better when it is not the only choice. To what could it be replaced? I'm thinking of replacing it with the use of a single divine feat, following the same rules. Again there is the question whether this should be defined on a deity basis or instead by player's choice...