Generic Options

[AFGNCAAP]

Hello,

I'm currently working on 2 settings that will use the Generic Classes from UA instead of the standard PHB core classes. I've been doing a bit of brainstorming/designing,& I was wondering if I could get a bit of opinions/comments/feedback on some of the general ideas/concepts/etc. that I'm working on.

Generic NPC Classes:
Now, with the use of the generic PC classes, what are some feasible options for NPCs in such a system? I'm not sure that the Warrior NPC class, Expert NPC class, and Adept NPC class would work well with the generic classes--actually, just using the generic PC classes for any NPCs who'd fall into these categories would work just fine, I'd think.

However, there are 2 NPC classes that I'm not too sure about: the Commoner & the Aristocrat. Commoners have no good saves, poor BAB, d4 Hit Die, a skill point base of 2, and only has proficiency with 1 simple weapon. However, he has 10 class skills. The Aristocrat is sort of a mix between an PC Warrior & a PC Expert: d8 Hit Die, a skill point base of 4, 1 good save (Will), proficiency with all simple & martial weapons, proficient with all armor & shields, & 17 class skills.

(Note that the # of class skills is higher since they're fixed--there probably would be fewer class skills if the DM/PC were allowed to pick & choose what skills are class skills for the classes [sort of like with the Expert NPC class, with just any 10 skills as class skills].)

So, should there be NPC generic classes (to cover characters such as landed nobility & common folk)? If so, how would you work them out?

Generic Psionics:
Well, the Spellcaster's a good way to account for any sort of spellcaster (arcane or divine) using the Generic Classes, but what about psionics? Would they just be another form of Spellcaster (basically switching out spells with psychic powers)?

Then again, would there really be any point in having something like this (due to the spontaneous nature of the Spellcaster class)?

Expanding the Spellcaster:
As for the spellcaster class itself, how would you work other options for the method of spellcasting? For example, what if you want to have spellcasters prepare their spells ahead of time (like a cleric or wizard)? Would you drop the "spells known" limit for the spellcaster, but have them pray for spells ahead of time or keep a spellbook?

How about specialist spellcasters, or domain spellcasters? Would you keep the bonus abilities granted by cleric domains (lilke +1 caster level, making certain skills class skills, free feats, etc.)? Would they be more like the Wizard Domains from UA, granting 1 additional known spell/level?

Generic Prestige:
Okay, though things could be kept really simple by only allowing the generic classes, I think that Prestige Classes made for use with the generic classes could expand the options available to these characters; PrCs could also cover unique setting-specific characters (like the Red Wizards & Purple Dragons do for FR).

Also, some PrCs for the generic classes could cover class abilities/concepts that could not be recreated with the generic classes, like a raging barbarian, a monastic unarmed combat master, etc. These PrCs could be major, 15-level PrCs like the Paladin, Ranger, & Bard as presented in UA, simple 5-level PrCs that cover a basic concept, or even a typical 10-level PrC much like the typical PrCs in D&D or the Advanced Classes in d20 Modern.


Well, what do you think? Any ideas/opinions/comments on the matter?

 

[Aezoc]

My only experience using the generic classes thus far is in a new homebrewed rare-magic world with a custom generic spellcaster, but I'll mention the things I've discovered thus far.

NPC Classes: Fortunately I've been able to avoid actually statting out the NPC classes thus far, but in the spirit of generic classes, I'm thinking that the NPC classes should simply consist of watered-down versions of the warrior, expert, and spellcaster. IMO creating commoner or aristocrat NPC classes goes against the spirit of generic classes, since levels in either class implies a bit about the character's history or background. I think that a 0-level NPC expert would represent the average commoner nicely, and multiclassed NPC warrior/experts would work nicely as aristocrats, as you mentioned.

Expanding the Spellcaster: My homebrew spellcaster is a fair bit different than the default generic one, but I think the same concepts apply. Again, in the spirit of keeping the base classes as generic as possible, I created different methods of spellcasting (runecasting, song magic, etc) but tried to balance them against one another without necessitating other differences between the subclasses (such as HD, skills, etc). You might not be able to recreate the core spellcasting classes exactly with this method, but you should be able to come pretty close. I would say that if a character chooses to limit his spellcasting ability upon taking a level in spellcaster (by preparing spells ahead of time, requiring a spellbook, or whatever), allow him to pick up one of the other core spellcaster abilities as compensation. Just be careful to keep the advantages/disadvantages system in check, or it will quickly go the way of 2e Skills & Powers.

Generic Prestige Classes: Personally, I've found that making prestige classes fairly specific is a nice counterbalance to the generic classes. I dislike the idea of having open-ended prestige classes because I feel like most of the time they can be closely mimicked by the core classes by (at most) adding a new feat or two. Also, I chose to take most of the core class abilities (including the two you mentioned, unarmed combat and the barbarian's rage) and turn them into feats. Although the characters are still very low level, thus far it seems to be working nicely. For raging, I just made every improved version of rage a separate feat along the same chain. For unarmed combat, I made improved unarmed strike a feat that can be taken multiple times to improve the character's unarmed damage. The second time it's taken, the character gains the flurry of blows ability, and it improves when taken the third and fourth times. It's not quite as elegant as I would have liked, however it's the best way I've found so far to preserve the feel of the generic classes, which I love.