PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Generic Classes



Tetsubo 57
2009-06-15, 10:02 AM
Does anyone have any experience running campaigns using the generic classes?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm

I like the idea, especially if combined with the prestige Bard, Paladin and Ranger.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/prestigiousCharacterClasses.htm

I think I might increase the number of feats though. Have one at 1st level and one additional feat on every odd level (3rd, 5th, 7th, etc.).

I like the idea of simple, generic classes that have a good deal of flexibility. I also really like the ability for the player to pick his own skill list.

Any thoughts?

Jeristo
2009-06-15, 01:32 PM
Well, I haven't played any of these classes yet, but I don't think many have. I did drool over the whole sneak attack feat group when I thought you could multiclass rogue/expert...or even rogue/warrior. Adding in 7d6 of sneak attack damage with two levels of generic-ness seemed ridiculously broken, but I wouldn't mind if I could take it. :smallbiggrin:

Overall, I like the versatility of the classes. You can be very selective. However, there are huge jumps in power on the feat levels, and after that, you pretty much see little progression, so that portion of it kinda sucks. I'd rather have a class that has a smoother progression of power.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-15, 01:38 PM
If you like the Generic classes, switch to a class-less system. That's what the Generic classes are trying for, even if they don't admit it.

Human Paragon 3
2009-06-15, 03:33 PM
I had a cohort who was a generic warrior in a campaign that was otherwise non-generic, and I was very pleased with the results. He was a sneaky warrior who used sneak attack with a staff to fight two-handed. He wasn't overpowered, but he had a great skill selection (since I picked the class skills) and a great feat selection (since I was able to pick from any feat in existence plus the special generic feats, which supplied formidable sneak attack dice).

J.Gellert
2009-06-15, 03:36 PM
If you like the Generic classes, switch to a class-less system. That's what the Generic classes are trying for, even if they don't admit it.

Precisely... though I don't think I've seen any decent, easy-to-use classless systems for D20.

I had toyed with the idea of Generic Classes myself until I decided it's just not worth it if you are still going to have any classes (and I would keep PrC's, of course).

(Overall, I prefer skill-based over class-based, but I just can't be bothered to switch from d20).

AmberVael
2009-06-15, 03:43 PM
Precisely... though I don't think I've seen any decent, easy-to-use classless systems for D20.
...mutants and masterminds?

Mutants and Masterminds, IMO, does classless d20 quite excellently. It does have some balance issues (but what game doesn't?), but a wise DM will be able to handle it.

J.Gellert
2009-06-15, 03:56 PM
Don't know it... is it something that can be adapted/used with more traditional fantasy?

AmberVael
2009-06-15, 03:58 PM
Don't know it... is it something that can be adapted/used with more traditional fantasy?

Technically it's supposed to be a superhero-comic type setting, but the rules are extraordinarily versatile (possibly because of the type of setting it is supposed to have), so yeah, you could really easily adapt it to traditional fantasy.

J.Gellert
2009-06-15, 03:59 PM
Technically it's supposed to be a superhero-comic type setting, but the rules are extraordinarily versatile (possibly because of the type of setting it is supposed to have), so yeah, you could really easily adapt it to traditional fantasy.

Figured as much from its title, that's why I asked. I am intrigued.

Kroy
2009-06-15, 04:02 PM
Baron Corm made a very nice generic class system that is as close to classless as I've seen work in d20. Here it is (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5727144#post5727144)

Cedrass
2009-06-16, 12:43 AM
I had a cohort who was a generic warrior in a campaign that was otherwise non-generic, and I was very pleased with the results. He was a sneaky warrior who used sneak attack with a staff to fight two-handed. He wasn't overpowered, but he had a great skill selection (since I picked the class skills) and a great feat selection (since I was able to pick from any feat in existence plus the special generic feats, which supplied formidable sneak attack dice).

Which makes me wonder why I still see people trying to play Fighters. The Warrior generic class is so much better :smallannoyed:

Ravens_cry
2009-06-16, 01:00 AM
Which makes me wonder why I still see people trying to play Fighters. The Warrior generic class is so much better :smallannoyed:
Because there is a creature *shocker* called the newbie. Not the newb, the newbie, who needs something fairly basic and easy to manage, and at least at low levels, hits things well.

Human Paragon 3
2009-06-16, 01:29 AM
And, in fairness, you are trading heavy armor proficiency for your better feat and skill selection. Not an incredibly big deal, but at lower levels the AC difference is noticeable.

FMArthur
2009-06-16, 12:21 PM
Uh, and that this is one variant that needs to be specifically enabled by the DM, because it's not supposed to operate alongside normal classes. The class not existing is a surprisingly large factor in people not being able to play it instead of a fighter. :smallannoyed: