Generic or Specific Class Preference?

[JoeGKushner]

We have D&D. Classes are designed to handle certain rolls.

We have d20 Modern. Classes are designed to handle a wider variety of rolls.

Unearthed Arcana provides generic fantasy classes.

Grim Tales provides generic classes suitible for any genre or level.

Which do you prefer?

I tend to still favor the specfic. Feels more archtypical.

 

[Desdichado]

I prefer specific classes I think too. However, I'm not really all that fond of the implementation of them in the PHB. That's the problem with specific classes; if you use them, you need to either get the specifics exactly right, or offer a ton of options.

Luckily, the OGC has come to my rescue.

 

[The Shaman]

I'm fond of the d20 Modern class system.

I like that there are no character archetypes - when I first started playing D&D many years ago, I liked playing "the ranger" or "the druid," but now I prefer to create a character concept and arrange my classes and skills to fit it.

I'm also put-off by what's happened in the years since 1e AD&D in that the core classes are more defined by certain key abilities (ranger TWF or druid wild shape, for example) rather than offering a variety of options, like the Modern talent trees - two Tough heroes or two Strong heroes may be very different characters depending on the talents they chose, while any two druids or paladins are likely to be much more alike, varying mechanically only in stats and feats.

The generic classes of Unearthed Arcana are an improvement - the only reason I haven't given these a try is that I haven't invested the work to create a truly comprehensive abilities list for players to choose from.

I hear great things about Grim Tales, but I'm iffy on the idea of 20-level progressions using the Modern bases classes - I rather like that a d20 Modern character is required to multi-class given that no base or advenced class offers more than 10 levels. I understand that GT characters can do the same thing, but I don't know how wild I'd be about a character investing 17 levels in Strong - I wonder how well-developed the character concept for such a PC might be. I think multi-classing offers more potential for interesting, complex characters.

 

[Psion]

Would it be fair to say I like them generic but find D20 Modern too generic?

I think classes should be role based, but I think that the basic classes should be flexible enough that you could realize a lot of characters with that class.

I think some D&D classes, like Paladin, Bard, and Monk, represent something too specific, but can picture spins on those class that would be more culture-neutral that could encompass the given classes and more.

But of course, that just complicates things, gives players more choice, people start complaining about the game being too complicated, blah blah blah. But that's they way it would be if I had my ruthers.

 

[Desdichado]

I think classes should be role based, but I think that the basic classes should be flexible enough that you could realize a lot of characters with that class.

I think some D&D classes, like Paladin, Bard, and Monk, represent something too specific, but can picture spins on those class that would be more culture-neutral that could encompass the given classes and more.

Monte Cook's AU works a lot like that. Within the confines of a single class, the Totem Warrior, for instance, or the Witch, there are a multitude of subclasses that represent differing ways of running the class. Midnight also did that fairly well with their alt.monk and alt.ranger; the Defender and the Wildlander. Both have class abilities that you choose from an a la carte menu. If I have my druthers, 4e will be constructed much more like that. Then again, since I can already get that if I go to a little work to expand my game with d20 options, I guess it's not really an issue...

 

[Psion]

Monte Cook's AU works a lot like that. Within the confines of a single class, the Totem Warrior, for instance, or the Witch, there are a multitude of subclasses that represent differing ways of running the class.

That's exaclty the sort of thing I am talking about. Do up a bard like the witch, so you can make it a lorekeeper or oral historian or diplomat from any of a variety of cultures, I would be so into that.

Of course, the Paladin redone as a holy warrior approrpaite to a variety of religions has already been done. I just wish Green Ronin would get on with their 3.5 version...

 

[fusangite]

I'm a fan of classes that are more generic. However, this runs into real difficulties as soon as one moves into magic. Until the D&D magic system is updated the way skills and feats have been, I don't think the D20 Modern style of class design will be appropriate for D&D. Hopefully, this is one more incentive for a D&D 4.0 that seriously revamps the magic and alignment systems so as to bring the whole game into the 21st century.

 

[EricNoah]

I like pre-set classes that offer some choices. Kind of how the Monk gets a choice of this or that every few levels. I also like to tinker with the pre-set classes (example: I'd like to drop the wizard's familiar and instead give him a pool of crafting points like the Eberron artificer). I don't think I want every single class ability available as a feat (for use in a generic class type of setup).

 

[Crothian]

When my group played d20 Modern we quickly found that we didn't like the classes. They seem versatile but players had a hard time adapting them to their concepts. I haven't tried the classes from UA yet, but we've always had fun with the basic PHB ones.

 

[swrushing]

Since i believe the main benefit from classes is telling the players about the world, i much prefer setting/genre specific classes based on archtyopes for the setting over generic classes/toolkits.

DND, Midnight, Black Company are all examples of archtypes, and i consider the latter two to be exceptionally good ones. When we did the modern thing, no one liked their characters all that much. They all felt out of sorts, able to do somethings that made no sense and not able to do some things that could. (I especially liked it when the doc/researcher got frustrated and took the binoculars from the military guys because she had a far superior spot skill.)