Generic Classes from UA

[Akrasia]

Has anyone run a campaign using the generic classes from Unearthed Arcana?

They seem appropriate for a gritty, 'rare magic' campaign IMO.

I'd be curious to know how they worked out in practice.

 

[DMScott]

Has anyone run a campaign using the generic classes from Unearthed Arcana?

Not a full campaign, but I've run some sessions and done some work with them for a homebrew setting.

They seem appropriate for a gritty, 'rare magic' campaign IMO.

Not really. If you use just the Warrior and Expert, then sure, but the spellcaster as written is no slouch in the magic-slinging department.

I'd be curious to know how they worked out in practice.

They're kind of uneven - the Expert seems to be a bit weak, and the Warrior can be very strong if you allow access to all the class-ability type feats. I think it's worth doing some work on them to balance and customize them for a particular setting.

One thing I was thinking of doing was instead of offering class abilities as feats, put them into talent trees (a la d20 Modern). I think that'd offer a bit more balance in terms of class access to abilities, so you don't have Warriors with high sneak attacks and such. It'd also allow for all the missing class abilities to be accessible as talents.

A general change I've made is to bump the Expert hit dice up to d8s, and the Spellcaster to d6s. That's just to make them more survivable at low levels. I considered bumping the Warrior to d12s, but that might be better as a talent. Because I like characters to have a lot of skills, I also bump skill points across the board - base of 4 for Spellcasters and Warriors, 8 for Experts.

 

[Akrasia]

...
Not really. If you use just the Warrior and Expert, then sure, but the spellcaster as written is no slouch in the magic-slinging department.
...

Well the reason I thought that the generic classes might be appropriate for a 'rare magic' campaign is that the spellcaster only knows as many spells as a sorcerer, and casts fewer/day (IIRC).

And there would be no 'semi-spellcasters' (no rangers, paladins, bards, etc.) -- in order to cast spells at all you would have to take at least one level in the 'pure' spellcaster class.

Since spellcasters would be more specialized than in stadard D&D (as they only know a limited range of spells), and there would be no semi-spellcasting classes, I thought that the result would be to make magic (or at least spellcasting) somewhat rarer than in standard D&D.

 

[DMScott]

Well the reason I thought that the generic classes might be appropriate for a 'rare magic' campaign is that the spellcaster only knows as many spells as a sorcerer, and casts fewer/day (IIRC).

Sure, but OTOH a spellcaster can pick from any of the three major spell lists (cleric, druid, sorcerer/wizard) and can mix and match freely. So they have a pretty high degree of flexibility to make up for the somewhat lower output of spells/day. Rare magic settings (at least the ones I'm familiar with... Midnight, Conan, etc.) usually restrict magic-using classes to a far greater degree.

And there would be no 'semi-spellcasters' (no rangers, paladins, bards, etc.) -- in order to cast spells at all you would have to take at least one level in the 'pure' spellcaster class.

So instead of a Paladin class, you'd have characters with Warrior/(Divine) Spellcaster multiclass characters who put most levels in Warrior and call themselves Paladins - different in execution, not really in concept. There can still be semi-spellcasters, they'd just be constructed differently.

I thought that the result would be to make magic (or at least spellcasting) somewhat rarer than in standard D&D.

Might be nitpicking on my part, but I think there's a pretty huge range between "rare magic" and "somewhat rarer than in standard D&D". A generic class world taken by the book would fall well into the latter end of the spectrum, I believe.

 

[Akrasia]

Sure, but OTOH a spellcaster can pick from any of the three major spell lists (cleric, druid, sorcerer/wizard) and can mix and match freely. So they have a pretty high degree of flexibility to make up for the somewhat lower output of spells/day. .

While they can choose from any spell list -- and thus are flexible in that respect -- the actual number of spells that they know is limited. They are 'flexible' when choosing a new spell, but very limited in the number of spells they can know. So they only know as many spells as sorcerers (albeit they can choose from a wider range), and they can cast fewer per day than sorcerers.

So instead of a Paladin class, you'd have characters with Warrior/(Divine) Spellcaster multiclass characters who put most levels in Warrior and call themselves Paladins - different in execution, not really in concept. There can still be semi-spellcasters, they'd just be constructed differently. .

Okay I see your point here. But in contrast to the standard semi-spellusers (rangers, paladins, bards), it seems that in general it would be a rather 'bad deal' for a warrior to take a few levels in spellcaster. Especially given that the spellcaster uses the sorcerer spell progression rate (no 2nd level spells until level 4).

Might be nitpicking on my part, but I think there's a pretty huge range between "rare magic" and "somewhat rarer than in standard D&D". A generic class world taken by the book would fall well into the latter end of the spectrum, I believe.

The latter is what I meant (well, kinda). I did not mean to suggest that using the generic classes would result in Hyboria. Rather, I think they might be appropriate for a world in which the majority of adventurers are not be spellcasters (at any level), and spellcasters are generally somewhat rare (i.e. unlikely to exist in any town under 2000 people, etc.). I guess I have in mind something in between 'standard' D&D, on the one hand, and Hyboria/Middle-earth on the other. (Maybe something like Jack Vance's Lyonesse setting.)

I may have been imposing some of my own houserules here as well (according to which, there has to be a very good story to justify a character taking a level in a spellcasting class after 1st level).

Anyway, this minor debate aside, why did you decide to use the generic classes for your homebrew setting? What was it about your setting that made these classes appropriate?

 

[Andre]

They're kind of uneven - the Expert seems to be a bit weak, and the Warrior can be very strong if you allow access to all the class-ability type feats. I think it's worth doing some work on them to balance and customize them for a particular setting...

A general change I've made is to bump the Expert hit dice up to d8s, and the Spellcaster to d6s. That's just to make them more survivable at low levels. I considered bumping the Warrior to d12s, but that might be better as a talent. Because I like characters to have a lot of skills, I also bump skill points across the board - base of 4 for Spellcasters and Warriors, 8 for Experts.

Interesting. I'm trying to tweak the generic classes for a new campaign adventure and I've come across many of the same problems. The Expert is definitely too weak compared to the Warrior. I made the same modifications you did to skill points and hit dice. In addition, I gave the Expert all good saves and a few bonus feats. Essentially, the differences between my Warrior and Expert are:
Full BAB vs. 3/4 BAB
d10 HD vs. d8
4 skill points vs. 8
one good save vs. three
lots of bonus feats vs. some bonus feats

Seems fairly balanced to me, maybe a slight edge to the Expert.

I'm going a different direction with the Spellcaster than Akrasia suggested - plentiful magic. I'm eliminating the arcane/divine distinction completely, spells can be selected from wiz/sor, cleric, and druid core spell lists, and they get d6 hit die. In addition, the spells known can be changed from day to day (ala Arcana Unearthed). This will make the Spellcasters very flexible - if they know which spells to prepare for any given day. Add in a good selection of metamagic feats (but no Quicken Spell IMC) and you can see that Spellcasters will be able to hold their own with the beefed up Expert and the Warrior. If any spell combos become game-killers, we'll house rule those as needed.

Once I convince my players to actually give it a try I'll post the results.

 

[Akrasia]

The Expert class appears to be the loser of the three.

Why not just get rid of the Expert class altogether?

Give both warriors and spellcasters 6 skill points/level. Allow them to exchange a feat for 4 skill points at any given level.

Actually, since I would prefer a 'lower/rarer' magic setting, I would also replace the spellcaster's spell charts with those of the bard, but still allow them access to all (permitted) spells. To compensate for the fewer spells (and slower rate of acquisition), I'd give the spellcaster a d6 HD and automatic proficiency with light armour (and no spellcasting failure with light armour). Essentially, they would be like bards, but minus the songs and extra good save, but plus a wider/better selection of spells.

Most adventurers would be 'warriors', but there would be a great varity amongst them: wilderness warriors (i.e. nonspellcasting rangers); thieves (i.e. warriors with thief-like skills and abilities); holy warriors (i.e. nonspellcasting 'paladins'); knights (i.e. warriors that specialize in mounted combat, leadership, and diplomacy); and even scholar-soldiers.

(Okay, these ramblings might belong in the houserules forum ... If I have anything more thoughts on them, I will post them there.)

-------------------

My houserule ramblings aside, I'm still curious to know whether anyone out there has used the generic classes (as presented in UA, or modified) in a campaign.

 

[DMScott]

Anyway, this minor debate aside, why did you decide to use the generic classes for your homebrew setting? What was it about your setting that made these classes appropriate?

I'm aiming for a somewhat later historical period than standard D&D - up to the early-mid Renaissance, say 1650 or so. That meant that there was a wider range of cultures available (since the European-equivalent cultures are exploring and empire-building) and also a wide range of technologies and civilizations - everything from swashbucklers with rapier and wheellock pistols to stone age tribes to feudal knight- (or samurai-) type cultures. I figured I either needed a lot of classes to reflect this sort of diversity, or a few classes that allow a wide range of customization. The latter approach seemed to make more sense (and less work), and the generic classes give me a good starting point.

I also thought I might try a d20 Modern-style class structure, in which there are Basic classes that are fairly broad, Advanced classes that are a bit more specialized, and Prestige classes with the most specialized abilities... in that set up, the generic classes are "basic". But that gets back to being a lot of work.

 

[DMScott]

The Expert class appears to be the loser of the three.

Why not just get rid of the Expert class altogether?

It's nice to handle character concepts that don't fit into the other two - diplomats, merchants, civilian scouts, non-spellcasting priests, that sort of thing. Depends on the world, of course, but not everybody is either good in a fight or good at magic.

Give both warriors and spellcasters 6 skill points/level. Allow them to exchange a feat for 4 skill points at any given level.

Actually, since I would prefer a 'lower/rarer' magic setting, I would also replace the spellcaster's spell charts with those of the bard, but still allow them access to all (permitted) spells.

It seems to me the logical approach for a low/rare magic world would be to remove the spellcaster entirely, and control access to magic by non-class ability methods. One method (Midnight-style) would be to require characters to use feats to gain spellcasting ability. Another (d20 Modern-style) would be to restrict spellcasting to one or more prestige classes.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

I like `em, & I've used them in a 3.5 D&D conversion of Lankhmar. I think they're fine as is, but I do think more class abilities need to be converted over into feats (some kind poster has done a fair amount of this in the House Rules section a while back).

I've added 2 feats (1st-level PCs only): 1 that allows 1 of these characters to increase their base Hit Die by 1 step (d4 -> d6; d6 -> d8; d10 -> d12); and 1 that allows to increase their skill point base by 2 ( 2 skill points -> 4; 6 skill points -> 8).

I've also created Flaws (1st-level PCs only) that allow a character to decrease their Hit Die by 1 step (which spellcasters can't choose, since they can't drop below a d4), or their skill point base by 2 (which spellcasters & warriors have, since their skill point base is 2).

One annoying issue that I have w/ these classes is the lack of an expanded list of class-ability "feats" for generics to select from (since there's a lot of class-based abilities that aren't covered); I'd also like to see generic classes-focused PrCs, as well; maybe even 1 or 2 generic NPC classes (for any non-adventures--I've written up a generic commoner NPC class for use in Lankhmar).

The only problem I'm having is for an adaptation of a story/campaign concept that I have. The spellcaster essentially works for that world's school-trained mages, except that they wouldn't have any limit on the # of spells known. It brings up a power/balance issue that I'm not sure how to handle at the moment. I might make the non-limited mages a special PrC (available only to mages who don't multi-class as a warrior, expert, or in any other PrC), while the standard spellcaster class would be for those "multi-tasking" mages (i.e., multi-classed).

But, all in all, I really like these classes. I'm very tempted to have my main D&D game use them instead of all of the core classes.