your experience with generic classes?

[mhensley]

Has anyone run a campaign with the generic classes from UA? How did it go? Were there any problems created by their use?

 

[Crothian]

It works best with players that really make characters that come alive then with people that just kind of play what they have.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

Has anyone run a campaign with the generic classes from UA? How did it go? Were there any problems created by their use?

I have, somewhat. I like them a lot. I'd prefer that 4E would use the generics as base classes, then have Prestige Classes for a lot of the specific concept classes (paladin, knight, samurai, specialty priest, etc.).

If you're going to use the generic classes, then they should be the only base classes that you use--they aren't going to measure up well with the other core classes in the game. You may want to expand or throw out multiclassing restrictions as well, since there's only 3 classes to multiclass between.

But, on the flip side, you can pick what class skills the character has, pick what good saves & poor saves they have, and even select what class abilities they can get (via Feat selections); so you can have a Warrior with Use Magic Device and the Trapfinding ability of a rogue, or a Spellcaster with Uncanny Dodge.

 

[Wik]

Like gestalt classes, they're good for smaller groups. Unlike Gestalt Classes, they're probably a bit weaker than standard D&D classes.

One thing that's going to be a problem with generic classes is the fact that divine spellcasting sort of gets the shaft. As a rule, divine spells are maybe a bit weaker than an arcane spell of the same level... or, rather, using the core rules, there are more "useful" arcane spells for a sorcerer like character to choose from than there are divine spells. In any case, a generic character trying to make a divine caster is really going to suffer - he'll be MUCH weaker than a cleric of the same level, whereas the arcane caster won't be.

D&D assumes that all four "roles" in a party will be covered, but generic classes only effectively cover three of those roles - arcane caster, warrior, and skill-user. Playing a focused divine caster with Generic classes is... difficult.

I really think you'd be better off just scratching most of the buff/heal spells on the divine list, re-writing a few choice divine spells as arcane, and using reserve points to keep the PCs alive. In any case, I think that rule would help make the game more "sword and sorcery" in feel.

 

[Remathilis]

D&D assumes that all four "roles" in a party will be covered, but generic classes only effectively cover three of those roles - arcane caster, warrior, and skill-user. Playing a focused divine caster with Generic classes is... difficult.

Interesting. What about a fourth "divine" generic class. Label something like "priest" and make him somewhere between an expert and a spellcaster (slightly more spells known, better at combat, but restricted to "divine" spells only?) He'd still be customizable as the others, but it would re-instate the arcane/divine split again?

 

[Galethorn]

If I remember correctly, Adepts/Spellcasters can take either Divine or Arcane spells. For a more martial cleric type of priest, throw in a few warrior levels.

 

[Wik]

If I remember correctly, Adepts/Spellcasters can take either Divine or Arcane spells. For a more martial cleric type of priest, throw in a few warrior levels.

Right. But let's consider something.

A generic caster that specializes in arcane spells isn't really that far behind a sorcerer of equal level.

A generic caster that specializes in divine spells, though, *is* behind his cleric equivalent. He has no proficiency in armours, is proficient with only ONE simple weapon, and knows far less spells than a cleric (whose strength is typically found in the versatility of buffs and heals available). Not to mention that the divine caster has a d4 for hit points (2 less hit points per level on average than the cleric), crappy saves, and a worse attack progression.

Remember, a wizard gets arcane spells and little else. A cleric gets divine spells, and a bunch of other things. Using the idea that all classes are equal, this logic assumes that divine spells can be assumed to be "less powerful" or "less useful" than their arcane counterpart.

Now, using the rules as written, a spellcaster can simply select a few divine spells and cast them as arcane spells. After all, he isn't limited to just ONE spell list to choose from. But I think it's kind of lame to have a spellcaster's spell list look something like this at, say, 5th level:

SPELLS KNOWN
0th: Detect Magic, Disrupt Undead, Read Magic, Acid Splash, Mage Hand, Cure Minor Wounds.
1st: Cure Light Wounds, Produce Flame, Silent Image, Ray of Enfeeblement
2nd: Web, Bull's Strength.

In short, the character simply selects the "best" spells from the list and keeps them. What's worse, if you read the rules carefully, the character can choose to cast these spells all as divine spells, meaning he can wear armour while casting them!

***

Were I going to use the generic rules, I'd scrap the ability to cast spells as divine altogether, get rid of most cleric and druid spells on the list, tailor the spell list available a little bit to better suit the world I'm trying to create, and use reserve points and maybe even action points to replace clerical classes.

The idea of creating a divine caster generic class isn't a bad one, either. But one specific spellcaster class is, to me, the big weakness of the generic class system.

In

 

[Aus_Snow]

(. . .) [T]he divine caster has a d4 for hit points (2 less hit points per level on average than the cleric) (. . .)

Aye, and 4 less at level 1.

Pretty thorough assessment there. It does seem a tad weighted toward the arcane, yep.

I would only use 'generic' classes in True20, as things stand.

 

[Wik]

Aye, and 4 less at level 1.

Pretty thorough assessment there. It does seem a tad weighted toward the arcane, yep.

I would only use 'generic' classes in True20, as things stand.

I think the big problem is that they were trying to put so much in UA that they couldn't really spend more than a page or two on generic classes. They should have either dropped the divine/arcane spell descriptor and flat out said all spells are cast as arcane spells (choose your ability modifier, even if it's wisdom, it's arcane), or they should have thrown in a divine class with d6 hit die, 4 skill points, middle BA, two good saves, and access to the cleric & druid list (whereas the arcane variant would have access to the wizard and bard lists - barring curative spells or something).

Ah, well. It's really pretty easy to fix.

 

[DreadArchon]

I find generic classes horribly annoying. The Spellcaster is flat-out better normal Sorcerors and Wizards, the Warrior is normal fighter, and the Expert is a gimped version of the rogue (fewer special abilities, even accounting for feat abilities being rolled together, and fewer skill points). Plus, I don't want to be generic, I want to be quirky and specialized!

So yeah, I hate them. But apparently I'm not in the majority here, so... meh.