Generic Warrior - Best Class Ever?

[Emirikol]

Just play a spellcaster and call him a psion.

Agreed. The Spellcaster class really takes out the unnecessary complexities of the game (like seperations of divine/arcane/psionic magic).

I'm starting to lean that direction too! Might be a good chance to get rid of all the redundancy.

jh

 

[Nightfall]

Could I get that in posts instead?

Same day I get some from Crothy.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Same day I get some from Crothy.

LOL! You are a funny guy Nightfall, a funny, funny guy!

 

[Dragonhelm]

Just play a spellcaster and call him a psion.

The only thing I don't like about that (and it's a good idea!) is that I'd want a progression like the psion's. So I guess adding the psion isn't all that bad in this case. Maybe just change how the feats and skills work to match would do it.

Don't see why not Trampas. I mean if people don't want to use Pr-classes, that's one thing. But considering the proliferation of such things, it would stand to reason a generic warrior could go into a prestige class without too much hassle.

I'm considering using this for Dragonlance, where PrCs are almost mandatory in some instances (i.e. Wizard of High Sorcery and various knighthoods).

I also noticed how nicely the warrior would work for iconic characters like Tanis Half-Elven. The big debate all these years is whether Tanis is a fighter or ranger. He can multiclass and be both up to a point, but after that, ranger doesn't fit. And then his skills are mostly cross-class skills. So with this system, Tanis could be a warrior, pick Track and Leadership as bonus feats, and all is good.

Plus, I can modify my house feat document to include class abilities I like and drop ones that I don't.

(And no more pesky spells prepared!).

I may toy with this some and make a few tweaks, but right now, I'm really digging it. Thanks for all the enthusiasm with the warrior. It may have just changed the way I run my games.

 

[Nightfall]

Fru,

I have my moments.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Fru,

I have my moments.

You certainly do.!

 

[Nightfall]

Trampas,

What ever feels works best for you. Me I always picked Tanis as a ranger/fighter. 2nd or 3rd edition.

He just happened to be naturally charismatic.

 

[frankthedm]

Just a quick question. PrCs are still allowed for the generic classes, right?

Those classes are for simplified gaming, not getting PRC prerequirements at an accelerated pace. PRCs if used with the base classes should have changed entry requirments or the UA varient where the character goes through ordeals where he will wish he had the written prerequirements, but does not have to posess them.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Those classes are for simplified gaming, not getting PRC prerequirements at an accelerated pace. PRCs if used with the base classes should have changed entry requirments or the UA varient where the character goes through ordeals where he will wish he had the written prerequirements, but does not have to posess them.

You are right of course, but the water won't flow that way. If you go generic you probably want less rules/work and changing the way PrCs work will add some instead...

 

[Dragonhelm]

Those classes are for simplified gaming, not getting PRC prerequirements at an accelerated pace.

I'm not looking at the generic classes as a "cheat" to get into PrCs faster. I'm looking at it in terms of finding a rules-light system that still allows use of D&D conventions. Of course, I might just make PrC abilities into "feats" like they do with this variant anyway, and allow the base classes to choose them.