Do you modify classes?

Do you modify classes?

  • Yes I do

    Votes: 151 76.6%
  • No I do not

    Votes: 44 22.3%
  • I didn't even know one could do this

    Votes: 2 1.0%

Crothian said:
It seems ever now and I again I hear how limiting classes are. Like a Wizard that wants to open locks has to take a whole level of rogue and someone this level destroys the character in question. On pg 174 in the DMG it discusses modifying character classes. So, in my example we switch out or just give the wizard open locks as a class skill. That is an easy fix and the section is about altering everything.

So, do people alter the classes?

I absolutely allow it as an option. I thought it was great that they explained it and encouraged it in both the PHB and the DMG. I've had some quite flavourful changes by swapping a few spell lists round:

Justicar (ranger with paladin spell list)
Spy (ranger with assassin spell list)

were two that worked out nicely.

I imagine that many people don't do it because they are not sure how to value various elements of the classes and can't decide whether it is fair for the ranger to swap his animal companion for barbarian fast movement, or a fighter to swap his bonus feats for sneak attack (as random examples)

CHeers
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I really do not modify much, mostly prestige classes (mostly to remove racial requirements)

I houserule soem things, and I have clear ideas of what classes/concepts i will allow people to play, but I actually don't modify much. A bit weird now that I think about it.
 

I allow modifications of the core classes only on a strictly trade-off basis: if you want something more, you must accept something less.

However I prefer to use UA variants (with a few exceptions that are forbidden, they're all good) than making custom changes.
 

Well it seems I'm in a minority here... no, in general, I don't modify base classes. Oh sure, the occasional house rule here and there, but the core classes remain pretty much intact in my game. Personally, I like to see characters built via multi-classing and Prestige classes. I've dispensed completely with favoured classes and XP penalties to encourage this. My view on the wizard who wants to open really difficult locks but doesn't want to sacrifice a level of spellcasting..? Hard cheese. You can't have your cake and eat it too. d20 is class-based, and class-based it shall remain.

None of my players seem bothered by this, but then they're traditionalists and don't come waving variant rules at me all the time anyway.

Some of the PHB2 ideas may find their way into my next campaign, though, if my guys like them. It's a great book which seems very much in the spirit of D&D so I have no problem incorporating some of its suggestions.
 

i took a class in botany back in high school where we modified some of the plants we grew.

all it takes is an imagination, a bucket of dirt, and some water.

diaglo "been doing it since i could speak" Ooi
 

Gentlegamer said:
Of course, characters should be able to do anything they want at first level. :confused:

So, a first level wizard should not be allowed to place skill points in pick locks? And this isn't doing whatever they want, it's one small thing.
 



I do a lot of alterations with classes.

It is perfectly acceptable to, with GM permission, switch one Class Skill for one non-Class Skill, thus keeping the list even. The player only has to come up with an explanation for why the character would have that particular skill available to them.

In my campaigns, Rogues lost the automatic Sneak Attack, as my players wondered why every single Rogue had to be an assassain; instead this was replaced with Rogue Feat, much like Fighter Feat. We had a longish list of Feats that could be taken, including Sneak Attack as a stackable Feat -- each time the Feat is taken it adds +1d6 Sneak Attack.

There are always options. The more the players run with classes, the more they want to alter them. This probably explains why I prefer classless, levelless games.
 

To elaborate on my first post, I tweak classes and use new base classes for two reasons. First, I generally dislike the use of the multiclass rules and use of PrCs for handing concepts (cultural, literary, and occupational) that can easily be explained by initial training and are both viable for a first level character and setting appropriate. Second, I prefer classes to be the result of months or years of training (formal or informal) and, therefore, not something that should be switched easily.

From my perspective, the multiclassing rules, as written, feel like one is focusing upon one class at a given time upon leveling. If you are a multiclassed fighter/wizard, you might get good BAB, d10 hp, and have one set of skills as class skils one levels, but the next level you get poor BAB, d4 hp and another set of skills as class skills. While hd, bab, and number of skill points average out, the approach creates a feel that one is focusing on one class or another at a given time. Imo, this is fine to reflect someone trying to pick up a new class or put all their focus into one class at a given time. However, again imo, when the multiclass rules are applied to someone whose initial training combined aspects of two classes (e.g., fighter/wizard or cleric/monk) and whose development focuses equally on both classes from level to level, the development at each level has a schizophrenic feel rather than that of a unified concept. A class variant such as the battle sorcerer or new base class such as AEG's Myrmidon removes the schizophrenic development pattern as the Hit die, BAB, class skills, etc. remain consistant from level to level as with any other class,while still retaining the slower development in fighting prowess than a dedicated fighter and slower access to higher spell slots than a dedicated spellcaster

With regards to prestige classes, I think they are perfect to represent an elite order within a culture (e.g., the Glessian Berserkers, the High Druids of Valinor) or even advanced focused training. However, there are many prc concepts that are viable for beginning characters. In some instance, these concepts are simply a reflection of initial training. Sometimes the training simply reflects a deviance from the standard first level class features (e.g, class skills, starting weapons, etc.). In other instances, the concept is a a blend of two classes (e.g. Swashbuckler, Scout, Warrior mage, divine monk). Regardless, if the concept fits an archetype (cultural, literary, professional or setting specific), is viable for my setting, and is reasonable for a first level character, I prefer a class variant or new base class that makes the class viable at first level- I don't see the reason to have the player jump through hoops when it is not necessary.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top