Creating New Base Classes

[Tinker Gnome]

How often do you find yourself creating a new base class because you feel that the current classes available are not what you are looking for either as a GM or as a player?

 

[Aus_Snow]

Been there, done that, well and truly. And for them's that wanna do that, more power to them!

These days, no. However, I do modify classes, without any hesitation, if they don't seem right for the campaign(s) / setting(s) I have in mind. Sometimes, they end up quite different indeed, but still, you'd know what they are straight away (e.g., a non-caster Ranger, albeit with another name.)

Reason being, I much prefer fewer classes to more. I'm quite OK with two or three, even!

 

[Dykstrav]

Very rarely. Ever since 1E, I've made some version of the assassin for 2E and 3E since they were an important character type in my homebrew.

In 4E, I made a necromancer base class that my players seem to love, but I'm not sure that I want to devote a lot of time and effort into making new classes. Most of my players prefer old favorites and aren't really looking to expand beyond their preferences, so it's time I think could be better spent elsewhere.

 

[RangerWickett]

In 4e I think it's too much effort. Initially I let players just refluff however they wanted, and to take any power from any class, but that led to paralysis by options, so I designed one single class that can do everything, with a simple structure. It doesn't have powers with as many fiddly details, but it captures the flavor of most any character concept well enough.

Honestly, the use of 'powers' for classes is one of my least favorite parts of 4e. Everything else is good or great, but the powers don't fit my play style.

 

[Crothian]

From scratch? Never. There are enough base classes out there that I can just modify one to get what I want.

 

[SiderisAnon]

The only edition I did this in was 3.5. I ended up replacing all classes with six generic ones which could be combined to create basically any role you wanted. (Caster, fighter, skill monkey, plus the three halfway between those.) The players adapted to it well and seemed to really like it. It also made character creation a little more simple.

In general, I find that when there's a dozen or more classes, they end up too super specialized. I also liked that the six classes I created were more well balanced to each other, so there was no "best" class.

 

[the Jester]

I've done it plenty, but I haven't done any for 4e.

Really, the archetypes I want are pretty well represented in 4e already.

 

[karlindel]

It depends on what you mean by "created". In 3.5 I sometimes made major changes to base classes, some of which effectively made them new classes, but I never built one from the ground up. I was also a fan of using third party material for new classes or for abilities to add to other classes to improve them.

In 4e, I think the currently available classes enable plenty of options, and reflavoring powers a bit takes care of most people's needs, particularly with multiclass feats and the like. I wouldn't be interested in making up an entirely new class, as I think it's more trouble than it's owrth, but I'm open to new powers, feats, etc.

 

[Sanglorian]

I designed one single class that can do everything, with a simple structure. It doesn't have powers with as many fiddly details, but it captures the flavor of most any character concept well enough.

Have you posted this anywhere? I'd like to check it out.

 

[Nifft]

I did this a bunch in 3.x, but 4e has made it a lot harder, since I don't have access to the internal WotC cheat-sheet for power creation.

Cheers, -- N