Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AFGNCAAP" data-source="post: 1455690" data-attributes="member: 871">A voice for an as-is use of genericsI like the generic classes, &amp; I'm using them in 2 settings that I'm working on currently (1 is a conversion of Lankhmar; the other is a homebrew based on personal writings).&nbsp; I'm debating using them for my main homebrew campaign as well.I personally think that the expert is okay as is, however, that's mainly based on the concept that the expert has access to a larger array of class skills, starts with a much larger beginning pool of skill points (24 for an expert, vs. the 8 for a warrior or spellcaster), and is able to maintain good skill ranks in various classes as he/she progresses, and would be able to qualify for certain class-based feats (like Sneak Attack) without needing to devote his/her only skill points to the required skills (a warrior could have Sneak Attack &amp; the related feats, but would have to sacrifice developing other useful skills in the process).I've created a few 1st-level character-only feats/flaws for the generics that can boost/drop the base Hit Die or the skill point base for a character--just another form of class ability translated into a feat/flaw, if you will.I think some PrCs can work well with the generics, &amp; some PrCs could be created to accomodate old core classes &amp; their abilities (like raging barbarians, shapechanging druids, &amp; the like).&nbsp; NPC Classes, like core classes, shouldn't be used with generic classes.&nbsp; However, I think a generic NPC class is needed--essentially a generic Commoner class, with no good saves, poor BAB, 1 simple weapon prof., sparse feat acquisition (like the spellcaster's 1 bonus feat per 5 levels, or maybe even 1 bonus feat per 6 levels), a skill point base of 2, and a max of 6-7 skills that can be class skills.&nbsp; It's bassically an option for a non-combatant, non-adventuring generic class (adepts can = Spellcasters, experts = Experts, warriors =&nbsp; Warriors, &amp; aristocrats = Warriors, Experts, or multi-class Expert/Warriors).That's my 2¢ on the issue.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AFGNCAAP, post: 1455690, member: 871"] [b]A voice for an as-is use of generics[/b] I like the generic classes, & I'm using them in 2 settings that I'm working on currently (1 is a conversion of Lankhmar; the other is a homebrew based on personal writings). I'm debating using them for my main homebrew campaign as well. I personally think that the expert is okay as is, [I]however[/I], that's mainly based on the concept that the expert has access to a larger array of class skills, starts with a much larger beginning pool of skill points (24 for an expert, vs. the 8 for a warrior or spellcaster), and is able to maintain good skill ranks in various classes as he/she progresses, and would be able to qualify for certain class-based feats (like Sneak Attack) without needing to devote his/her only skill points to the required skills (a warrior could have Sneak Attack & the related feats, but would have to sacrifice developing other useful skills in the process). I've created a few 1st-level character-only feats/flaws for the generics that can boost/drop the base Hit Die or the skill point base for a character--just another form of class ability translated into a feat/flaw, if you will. I think some PrCs can work well with the generics, & some PrCs could be created to accomodate old core classes & their abilities (like raging barbarians, shapechanging druids, & the like). NPC Classes, like core classes, shouldn't be used with generic classes. However, I think a generic NPC class is needed--essentially a generic Commoner class, with no good saves, poor BAB, 1 simple weapon prof., sparse feat acquisition (like the spellcaster's 1 bonus feat per 5 levels, or maybe even 1 bonus feat per 6 levels), a skill point base of 2, and a max of 6-7 skills that can be class skills. It's bassically an option for a non-combatant, non-adventuring generic class (adepts can = Spellcasters, experts = Experts, warriors = Warriors, & aristocrats = Warriors, Experts, or multi-class Expert/Warriors). That's my 2¢ on the issue. [/QUOTE]

Verification