Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rpgHQ" data-source="post: 1252393" data-attributes="member: 12219">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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />So far we have broke the base class concepts down to:warriormagic-useradventurertradesmanWarrior 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.</blockquote>

Verification