Generic Classes and Core Classes?

[rgard]

Hi All, This has probably been discussed already, but can some folks give me their thoughts on using UA's generic classes (Expert, Warrior, Spell Caster) with regular core rules classes (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, etc)?

I know UA says we shouldn't use them both in a campaign, but other than that, can anybody think of why we shouldn't? I have a couple of players who want to use the UA generic classes in our current campaign.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Desdichado]

Because they're too everyman. The generic classes can do too much relative to the core classes. They're too flexible, where the core classes are (relatively speaking) quite focused.

I mean, you could do it, I suppose, but it would be aesthetically wrong!

 

[rgard]

Because they're too everyman. The generic classes can do too much relative to the core classes. They're too flexible, where the core classes are (relatively speaking) quite focused.

I mean, you could do it, I suppose, but it would be aesthetically wrong!

Hi Joshua, thanks for your input. That was my initial take on using them. I'm leaning towards saying yes, but not allowing them to multi-class with the original classes or the reverse.

Thanks again,
Rich

 

[AFGNCAAP]

I have to agree: they are a bit too flexible to user alongside the core classes. OTOH, some players may feel that the generic classes may be too lacking for the type of character build that they want; selecting a rogue is better that trying to make a rogue-like character using the Expert generic class, mainly because rogues have more class skills & a higher skill point base than the Expert class (the Expert can select most, but not all, of a rogue's class skills, and won't be able to spend as many points on skills [considering that the rogue & Expert have the same Int score/modifier to skills]). Playing a generic Spellcaster with divine spells is best suited for multiclassed generic-class PCs, since Spellcasters begin with proficiency w/ 1 simple weapon, and no proficiency in armor or shields. You'll notice lots of little details like that when comparing the 2 against each other.

However, on their own, generics are great. I think that these classes would work better with concepts/settings that don't necessarily fit into a standard D&D mold (to a degree, that is). With the generic classes, you could essentially create a barbarian that isn't a berserker, a priest that isn't a warrior-cleric or nature-steeped druid, a skilled character that isn't a rogue, mystical woodsman, or wandering musician, etc. However, using these generic classes will take a bit of work, since you may want to convert over NPCs & other characters into generic classes as well (otherwise they may have a distinct advantage/disadvatage over the generic classed-PCs).

 

[Remathilis]

The Warrior Straight-up whoops a fighter's behind. Choice of class skills, choice of ANY feat as bonus feat, choice of good save, and only lacks heavy weapon prof?

Expert vs. Rogue looses some skill points (6 v. 8) and his sneak attack is weaker (4d6 vs 10d6) but the Expert can choose more feats and other class abilities.

Spellcaster vs. Sorcerer/Cleric (the closest to the A/D divide). The Spellcaster throttles the sorcerer (larger spell selection, bonus feats) and looses out to the cleric (weak bab, d4, poor weapons, limited spell pool). The spellcaster holds his own though in being able to mix and match spell lists, so a sorcerer can learn fireball AND Cure Light Wounds, something no other class can.

Personally, if I ever use generics, I'd just make some PrCs to mimic the beserker, paladin, bard and ranger classes and maybe allow a few more class-abilities-as-feats to help simulate monks and druids.

 

[Nuclear Platypus]

Hmm. Tying in with a thread from elsewhere, what about using those 3 classes to mimic the wuxia genre instead of trying to shoehorn the standard classes in? Or would it be worth the effort?