D&D General Your Core Classes if The Core 4 Aren't Allowed

[jmartkdr2]

Hmm.

I think you still need warriors and mages and such, but we need to arrange them totally differently?

Warriors are broken out by fighting style: no general "fighter", but specific classes like swashbuckler, knight, assassin, gladiator, etc.

Rogues as in skill-focused non-combat classes are out; all warriors are also skilled at a bunch of stuff. Roguish concepts use finesse-based weapons andlight armor is all.

Magic-users are going to be elementalists, and we'll make our new magic system both distinct and generic by using the classic elements as the base. Just 4 so there's lots of variety within each. (Necromancy exists, outside of the four elements, but isn't a default player option. Maybe in a GM guide or some later edgy supplement.)

My favorite way to do gishes would be to assume all pcs will have an Archetype in the vein of Pathfinder 2e Archetypes, except it's assumed everyone gets one. Magical warriors pick a warrior class and a basic elemental archetype (or a caster base and a melee-enabling archetype.) The archetypes can also cover stuff like special backgrounds, dabbling in different fighting styles, animal companions, etc.

For ancestries, I'm torn between two options:

1. By default, all pcs are human. Nonhuman pcs might come up in supplemental materials as archetype options, but the core rules assume y'all're just people. Oops misread the OP, this doesn't fit the assignment.

2. Making it a furry game and use animal people for everyone. Pick a "beast feature" off a list to represent the animal you are.

The latter working or not depends hugely on the art direction.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well my problem is more that I do not like the "simple martials" which just do basic attacking, I did not mean the fighter specifically. So I think there needs to be some simple classes, but it should not be too dumb and not martial ownly.

Yeah its hard to make simple classes that dont primarily lean into basic weapon strikes.

Well I dont think its realistic to become the top dog, but it still makes sense to try to make sure even a broad variety of players can play the game. I know its a bit stupid but losing players just because there is no "human"y thing they can relate to, is not worth it.

I kinda disagree, but also gnomes and goliaths and shifters and such are 'humany'. They have human faces, after all.

I found the small races life halfling and dwarfs never even in the slightest interesting. If I would do a small race it would be something like a gummibear. Not just a smðall human / football with legs.

I would much rather have a few human but xyz' folk than humans.

Hmm.

I think you still need warriors and mages and such, but we need to arrange them totally differently?

Warriors are broken out by fighting style: no general "fighter", but specific classes like swashbuckler, knight, assassin, gladiator, etc.

And archer, maybe knife thrower, for sure.

Rogues as in skill-focused non-combat classes are out; all warriors are also skilled at a bunch of stuff. Roguish concepts use finesse-based weapons andlight armor is all.

I cant get behind this. all classes should have combat and noncombat juice, sure, but having some focus more one way or the other makes sense imo.

Magic-users are going to be elementalists, and we'll make our new magic system both distinct and generic by using the classic elements as the base. Just 4 so there's lots of variety within each. (Necromancy exists, outside of the four elements, but isn't a default player option. Maybe in a GM guide or some later edgy supplement.)

My favorite way to do gishes would be to assume all pcs will have an Archetype in the vein of Pathfinder 2e Archetypes, except it's assumed everyone gets one. Magical warriors pick a warrior class and a basic elemental archetype (or a caster base and a melee-enabling archetype.) The archetypes can also cover stuff like special backgrounds, dabbling in different fighting styles, animal companions, etc.

For ancestries, I'm torn between two options:

1. By default, all pcs are human. Nonhuman pcs might come up in supplemental materials as archetype options, but the core rules assume y'all're just people. Oops misread the OP, this doesn't fit the assignment.

2. Making it a furry game and use animal people for everyone. Pick a "beast feature" off a list to represent the animal you are.

The latter working or not depends hugely on the art direction.

Making it thematically consistent like this can def work