Missing base class concepts (link?)

[Greg K]

I obviously prefer new base classes. I just tend not to like the new base classes produced by WOTC.

 

[Akrasia]

I'd love for D&D to go this route. Seriously, I'd have the warm fuzzies for a year straight.
...

If you use the 'generic classes' (warrior, expert, spellcaster) from Unearthed Arcana, you'd have a version of 3e somewhat similar to True20 (especially if you also used the 'simplified skill system in UA, which is pretty much identical to the skill system of True20).

 

[Sejs]

A social skill-monkey class that isn't the bard: no spellcasting, no music, etc. Just skills, skill-expanding class abilities, information gathering, etc. Sort of like the OA Courtier, but more setting neutral.

Essentially somewhere between the Bard, Marshall, and Courtier, with no spellcasting.

 

[Corinth]

Necromancer-as-basic-class: Secret College of Necromancy, a 3.0 Green Ronin book, has just the thing. Probably OOP by now, but just as likely to be on the FLGS shelf waiting for someone to buy it.

 

[theRogueRooster]

If you use the 'generic classes' (warrior, expert, spellcaster) from Unearthed Arcana, you'd have a version of 3e somewhat similar to True20 (especially if you also used the 'simplified skill system in UA, which is pretty much identical to the skill system of True20).

Yep, could do that. Personally I prefer True20's feat-per-level scheme as well as their magic system over Unearthed Arcana's Generic Classes. The two options do have a lot in common however.

Anyway, the main point was, like you, I'd prefer fewer classes with more customization within those classes.

-tRR

 

[delericho]

For the uninformed, True20 pares your class selection down to three base classes (Warrior, Expert, Adept) and converts all class abilities into feats. Each level, instead of gaining class abilities, you choose a feat for your character. Your class selection determines your BAB and save progressions, everything else is determined by feats.

Ick. I wouldn't go that far.

The big advantage of classes is that they provide clear character archetypes ("He's a XX" means something significant). Moving to the system you describe would seem to weaken that advantage hugely. Indeed, it might even be better to ditch classes altogether in that case, and go to a point-buy system. (Which is something I really don't want to see in D&D.)

At the moment, there are 22 base classes, if one includes the core, the Complete XX and the Expanded Psionics Handbook. Also, I think there's a niche for a Mageblade-type class. My ideal set-up would probably pare that number down to around 10, each sufficiently different from the others, but each also flexible enough to cover several concepts.

For example, there shouldn't be a need for a Swashbuckler class. You should be able to take the Fighter, strip out the unwanted heavy armour proficiency, load up on defense and mobility feats, and be there. (Maybe add a level or two of Rogue or Bard, for flavour.)

(As the game stands, there are limits to how well you can model the low-armour combat-type, due to the extreme reliance on magic armour. I think this could do with being shaken up. Broadly, I would classify all defences as either "ablative" or "avoidance". Then, set up the system so it's quite easy to get the highest AC with either type of defense, or a quite good defense combining both. Have the two trade off against each other to combat munchkinism - you can't get both a high Dodge bonus and a high Natural bonus, for instance. Oh, and classify all defences this way - so you can't get both Heavy Fortification and Displacement on your armour, because they apply to different types of device.)

 

[theRogueRooster]

Ick. I wouldn't go that far.

The big advantage of classes is that they provide clear character archetypes ("He's a XX" means something significant). Moving to the system you describe would seem to weaken that advantage hugely. Indeed, it might even be better to ditch classes altogether in that case, and go to a point-buy system. (Which is something I really don't want to see in D&D.)

Well, the easy thing to do would be to incorporate Paths, which is what Green Ronin does in Blue Rose. A Path is simply a roadmap of feats for the player to choose at each level progression. Paladins, Monks, Bards, or whatever are represented as separate paths, which conceptually isn't all that different from current D&D (when people level up in D&D they are just choosing a path with particular abilities already hardwired into the class).

-tRR


Edited for spelling and "fowl" language

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

Well, as an idea, both fighters and wizards gain bonus feats. Dropping those would be worth what?

Drop the wizard's 5 feats and familliar. Would that be worth a med BAB, D6 hp, light armor and marshal weapons?

Drop the fighter's feats. Would that be worth bardic spell progreassion in either arcane or divine spells?

Neither class is very detailed, but both were defined by feats/spells anyway. The idea is that both would still get full caster levels, which is multiclassings main drawback.

I have also been playing with an idea on the standard +1 level of spell casting offered by PrCs. What if instead of limiting it to spellcasting, it granted one level of progression in a former base class. In my current game, I have a paladin done in PrC format, from AU. Instead of cleric levels, he has levels in marshal as his base class, and gains those abilities evey other level in the PrC paladin class.

 

[helium3]

I don't know if this has been said or not, but it seems like all of the different suggestions for other base classes really indicates that the character classes creation method should be modified in such a way as to allow people to build up their own characters regardless of a specific class. I'm not suggesting a gurps style point build system, but more of a situation where the classes are a bit more generic in nature and more cumstomizeable.

 

[Nellisir]

Well, as an idea, both fighters and wizards gain bonus feats. Dropping those would be worth what?

Character Customization (http://edge.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=1828&), by Throwing Dice Games, addresses these exact questions. It's a GREAT product that I was really impressed by. The 3.5 update still hasn't been completed, unfortunately, but it's absolutely worthwhile anyways. It breaks class features, like bonus feats, down into "tracks". The wizard's bonus feats are a single track, while 4 of the fighter's bonus feats also constitutes a single track.

Cheers
Nell.