Core Classes: More or Less? General or Specific? Static or Customizable?

[Steverooo]

"He thinks everybody's entitled to HIS opinion!"

First, some comments on the above...

10 Feats per character class? Hardly! Look at the Wizard, and try to turn him into the Fighter... How many Martial Weapons are there, at one Feat each? Another important question to ask is, how many Feats is Full/Bard-Paladin/Ranger spellcasting worth? Spontaneous casting is another Feat. Probably Paladin/Bard casting is one, to start (Bards start at level one,Paladins at level four), then they spend five (Paladin) or six (Bard) more, over the course of the class, as they acquire new spell levels.

I agree with the poster, above, that no class levels should be without a bonus ("Empty") of some sort. All classes should be more like the Druid/Monk, in that respect.

Now to the meat of the thread...

Adding things to every class will result in a general power-up. In many cases (Fighters as a prime example), there is really nothing much to be added... This is where the customization comes in.

A Fighter who wants to be a stealthy, perceptive scout shouldn't have to multiclass to become that. The military certainly has such types in it, and it seems well within the "Warrior" Archetype, IMHO. Having a Fighter Class Feat that allows, say, (4+INT) Non-Class Skills to be added to THAT FIGHTER's Class Skills List (at the cost of a Feat) would solve that problem. Sailors could take Profession (Sailor), Balance, (Climb, Jump, and Swim already being Fighter skills), Rope Use, Profession (Navigator), etc. There could even be a Sailor Feat which gave access to them. Similarly, a woodsman could take Survival, Knowledge (nature), Profession (Herbalist), Heal, etc.

At the "empty" class levels, you give the Fighter access to a Class-Only list of such Feats, which are *NOT* combat-oriented. While a few of these Feats might be shared with, say, the Paladin or Ranger, in general these Feats would be Fighter-only.

Now EACH class would get its own list of such abilities, allowing the PC who wants a Ranger who can set and disarm traps, and who has (Improved) Uncanny Dodge, to get that type of PC, WITHOUT having to multiclass Rogue in order to get there.

Each "Class" still has meaning, and the GM still knows that a 5th level Fighter or Mage has certain abilities in common, but each Fighter will also have a certain number of skills and abilities chosen by the player, and be different from the rest!

The Paladins (and Clerics) of Tulkas, the Wrestler, will have a selection of Binding and Grappling Feats (probably getting Improved Grab or Grapple early on), while Paladins of Pelor will have light powers, and Paladins of Heironeous will have honor-related powers. Each is still a Paladin, with much the same abilities, but still somewhat flexible, and able to take a bit of shape.

In some cases, this "shape" might even allow the trading-out of a class ability for something else... For instance, a Paladin of "The Walking God" might never have a summonable steed, as "The Walker" expects him to do just that... Instead, he might be given the "Ley Lines Runner" or "Seven League Boots" ability, instead. He is still a Paladin, still has MOST of the abilities you'd expect, but has no poke'mount, and can walk amazing distances, and pop up where least expected - always afoot, as a Paladin of "The Walking God" should!

So you want a spell-less Ranger? Pick an ability granted by a spell. Spend a Ranger-only Feat and give up access to a first level spell slot, and get the effects of (say) Alarm, Endure Elements, Longstrider, or Pass Without Trace, permanently, at will, as an Extraordinary ability (in place of that one spell which could have been used for anything else on their list).

The spell-less Ranger wants to heal, better than the skill allows? No problem! Spend a Ranger-only Feat, trade away a second level spell slot/day, and get the ability to cure 1D8+Ranger-level/2 HPs worth of damage, once/day... This duplicates the effects of Cure Light Wounds, but without spell casting.

Note Well: Some care has to be taken, here, as spells such as Protection From Elements shouldn't be duplicated by an Extraordinary power granted by a Feat - it is too powerful! I think spell-like or Supernatural Abilities is going a bit too far, for the Ranger. The Paladin is a different matter. YMMV.

Anyway, a boost in skill points, a new ability of some type at EVERY level, selections from a list of Class-only, non-combat Feats at every BLANK level, and some Feats (like the oft-mentioned Cosmopolitan from the Forgotten Realms) would go a long way towards customization and allowing the players to get a character more in line with what they want...

All IMHO, of course. YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary).

 

[johnsemlak]

What I think would be best is if the PHB gives the normal D&D method of doing it - as we are now seeing.

The supplemental books give the additional classes for stranger concepts - as we are now seeing.

Would you agree that D&D classes that are perhaps too strange, should be removed from the 'core' PHB and put in supplementary tomes. I'm thinking of the Monk primarily, which I think is the most frequently disallowed class in the PHB.

Of course, it deson't really matter.

 

[MerricB]

Would you agree that D&D classes that are perhaps too strange, should be removed from the 'core' PHB and put in supplementary tomes. I'm thinking of the Monk primarily, which I think is the most frequently disallowed class in the PHB.

There's a good case for removing the Monk. I like the Monk for reasons connected to its (ahistorical) inclusion in the World of Greyhawk setting, but even I don't allow it in all my campaigns.

Cheers!

 

[rpgHQ]

I was amused when i began reading this thread as I broached the subject several weeks ago on a mailing list I am on as a side ramble barely related to the subject of the original post.

I am part of 3 playgroups locally that use a shared campaign cosmology and we are working on minimizing the base classes and introducing some type of feat tree (talent sets, paths, whatever you want to call it). I never brought it up on enworld for fear of things getting too heated. but so far this thread seems polite enough

So far we have broke the base class concepts down to:
warrior
magic-user
adventurer
tradesman

Warrior covers all combative types, melee, ranged, hand to hand, but not any special abilities or feats that allow for supernatural or spell like ability

Magic-User covers all spell casting classes, cleric, druid, wizard, sorcerer, psion, basically there is numerous energies that can be harnessed to cast spells but like the monk you have to be able to harness your KI to cast spells, the type of energy you can use is determined by the feat branch or template path you choose, that is what energies oyur KI can harness. Psions being the ultimate magic-user, using only their own KI to a degree the others cant, the typical monk class of D&D could start out in this class or warrior depending on how they wished to develop/progress their character and abilities. Of all the base classes this one allows more access to supernatural abilites and spelllike effects than the others, without having to take a prestige class.

Adventurer(jack of all trades) covers rogues, and even rangers and bards and druids, even though the two classes above could cover ranger, bard and druid.
They have access to feats/abilities beyond extraordinary same as magic-users, but to a lesser degree, this base class recieves the most skill points and as stated is able to harness their KI like magic-users but to a lesser degree. Players wanting more combat oriiiiented druid, ranger, bard types would probably take this class. While those focusing on magic ability (casting or item creation)and ability to have mystical animal friends(companion, familiar or whatever you want to call animals you have supernatural bond with) would take magic-user base class.

tradesman is a really rough working name(not sure what to call it yet) to cover most of the npc type classess, people with skill in a trade, craft, profession, philosophers, and some nobles. They get good skill points, but no real feat selection, no real extraordinary abilities or beyond. Most feats will deal with skill enhancement. Most players wont take this class as a base class unless their wanting to work towards a specific prestige class that requires the large skill point base this class gives. A magic-user might take a level or two of this sometime after 4th or 5th level to open up a a tree of feats to enhance skils needed for certain prestige classes.

Beyond those 4 base classes, and outside of the magic-user base class the player will need to pick prestige classes to open up feats and abilities that go beyond extraordinary, a player with a warrior who is a martial artist type might multi into magic-user or select a specific prestige class to allow them to play a character more like the typical monk of D&D for example.

Paladin for example is not a base class that is a 10 level prestige class, or a player could take levels in warrior and magic-user and simulate a paladin by taking the required abilities/feats.

It requires us to modify the preqs of many of the feats and of course most class abilities are easy enough to turn into a feat, but we have to assign them classifications of mundane, extraordinary, supernatural and so forth.

We package the feats into trees, and of course theres overlap of some of the feat trees, and some feats/abilities being in several trees, and a feat/ability tree has a base feat you must take to open it up to you. Several of the trees are available to multiple base classes, but due to the preqs of the base feat for a tree and even the feats within a tree not all classes will be able to acquire some feats/abilites within a tree or must wait till higher levels than another base to meet the preqs. Our campaign will have many more 3 and 5 level prestige classes than most books and settings have, but there will also be numerous 10 level prestige classes. Obviously the prestige classes open up stuff to the character more rapidly than staying in a base class or even multi-classesing only in base classes. The 3 and 5 level PRC's wont be specialists but more generalized 'packages' allowing players to develop their characters in a very flexible way, allowing them to make them what they want, the 3 and 5 level PRC's are a means to getting access to groups of feats/abilities faster then sticking with base-classes, though the preqs will be harder to meet. And the 10 level prestige classes will be even more powerful, but more specialized than ever, sacrificing flexibility and large numbers of feats/abilities for a limited range of feats/abilities but more powerful in their function.

Right now we are still developing the feat trees and skill packages, each class will have small default class skills, though there will be different groups of skills designated class skills based on some feat trees and also can be acquired by taking feats/abilities whose sole purpose is to give a class skill group.

So someone wanting to play a druid or ranger for example could start out in any of the base classes, most likely warrior, magic-user, or adventurer and by mid level have a really fleshed out character who is that players concept of what a druid or ranger should be, their happy, so therefore the GM is happy. Myself for example I dont think a ranger should have spellcasting ability, though having an animal companion or two works for me(if I want to be an outdoorsy type and cast spells thats what a druid is for), my concept of the woodland warrior, scouting about in the hinterlands can be acheived in a detailed manner now. Where before I had to either u se the ranger class and be stuck with abilities I dont want(spells) or take a warrior or rogue and select skills, feats to simulate a ranger but then not have that special animal friend, but never really have the character and his abilities be what I want. On the other hand maybe the player beside me thinks of the ranger as a shamanistic/mystic warrior, defending the wildlands side by side with his animal friends while transformed and one with nature, and he too can work towards his 'dream' ranger the same as me without getting stuck taking levels of druid, sorcerer, and ranger yet never really having what he wanted.

d20 is about templates this and templates that, thats what the base classes and prestige classes are along with all those 'racial' templates, so why should the list of base core classes have specialized classes, I thought thats what PRC's are for? To me, paladins, barbarians, bards, druids and rangers are all specialized classes, and rogue is a misnamed class, thats your typical adventurer, jack of all trades, indiana jones type guy. But as stated before it would be too hard for new players to jump into things if you had a single base class with templates (or talents or trees or paths or whatever oyu want to call it). So our 3 playgroups who right now comprise 17 people figured narrowing it down to four base classes would be a good compromise, so we wont scare off too many new gamers or even those who already play when they join our playgroups.

Its actually been pretty enjoyable despite some of the headaches developing it as everyone in the 3 groups is participating in hashing it all out.

I am just glad to see this thread as it tells me theres others with similar ideals/thoughts on having less base classes and more flexibility and getting away from the stereotyped classes of D&D.

One of the biggest reasons our playgroups are doing this is because our cosmo encompasses more than just medeval fantasy, theres no outerplanes but world and star systems where the demons and devils and celestials and gods live and theres hi-tech along with the low tech. different parts of the universe might limit tech effect or magic but trimming the base classes down gives us more flexibility, each playgroup can use the same shared cosmo yet allows for one GM's campaign in a hi-tech, low divine/arcane magic area to use the same rules and base classes as the other two groups, just characters from within the area of his campaign dont have access to certain feats/abilities or their feat trees. And vice versa the GM whose campaign is in a high magic area can limit hi-tech stuff but is still using the same base classes and rules as the other GM's. That celestial is still the same creature with the same stats, skills, levels, abilities from one GM's game to the next, since the 'outsiders' supernatural abilites are based on their KI and their ability to harness it rather than divine or arcane magic. Adimittedly some creatures CR would need to be changed depending on if the GM's game is in area that suppresses magic but then again their not likely to use those creatures that dont fit in their campaign, but we're going thru and messing with all the monsters too anyhow, making all their spell-like abilities based on pure KI (psionic like energy) rather than on the normal fantasy setting magic and of course you have classes, which allows you to tailor the baddies to each GM's campaign.

Well I am rambling here now and too tired to keep typing, just I am glad others see things if not exactly like myself and my playgroup atleast I can agree with their concept of fewer base classes with more flexibility in progression.

 

[MerricB]

Personally, I feel that such developments are an excellent thing, and should be encouraged.

However, it should also be said that I really don't want them as part of core D&D. I would rather that they form the basis of the d20 Fantasy game, leaving the archetypes of D&D intact.

Cheers!

 

[Maldur]

MerricB has a point there. For a D20 fantasy game different base classes are perfect. But It wont have the "feel" of D&D. I would love to see a "generic" d20 fatasy game, but it should not be confused with D&D, that is has fantasy flavour of its own.

In herowas/hreoquest the characters are created froma combination of society, Magic and profession.

 

[darklight]

While I love D&D/d20 I have always been a big fan of class-less systems (like GURPS) for the unlimited character costumization possible. On the other hand, the sheer number of choices available would be daunting for new players, so some sort of middle ground would be preferable.

I think every ability, including spellcasting etc., should be 'bought' at character creation and when you gain a level you can 'buy' whatever you like (and the DM allows.) The classes should be 'standard archetype packages' that new players can choose, which gives them every ability they need, and tells them how it works, including the standard choices to pick when you level up.

This way experienced players can costumize as much as they like, and new players can jump right in, by chosing one of the 'standard archetype packages.'

darklight

 

[Desdichado]

MerricB has a point there. For a D20 fantasy game different base classes are perfect. But It wont have the "feel" of D&D. I would love to see a "generic" d20 fatasy game, but it should not be confused with D&D, that is has fantasy flavour of its own.

Depends on what you consider the feel of D&D to be; lots of folks say that CoC d20 feels like D&D. But I agree with you; to me, the classes themselves and the way they work (i.e., the arcane/divine Vancian magic) is the primary driver of the D&D "feel."

 

[Psion]

There's a good case for removing the Monk. I like the Monk for reasons connected to its (ahistorical) inclusion in the World of Greyhawk setting, but even I don't allow it in all my campaigns.

So the monk shouldn't be included because you don't use it in your campaigns? Am I getting this right?

 

[TiQuinn]

I have so many conflicting views on this subject, that I don't know where to begin. I think what it boils down to is that I love the customization available through feats and multiclassing, that I hate it when all I see are new prestige classes and new core classes. To me, these should be exceptions. I'd much rather see a new feat added that allows characters to perform a certain action rather than create a PrC that grants it as a special ability.

Regarding special abilities, it seems like it's a major point of contention. Are rangers stealthy? Are they monster slayers? Are they archers? Are they two-weapon wielders? Paladins. Do they have mounts? Do they all have to turn undead? Do they all have to have remove disease? Same question about Monks and their abilities. In the future, I'd love to see a system that broke down special abilities for the various classes into choices, similar to feats and more robust than the current Archery Vs. Two-Weapon wielder string that Rangers have in 3.5.