The Ultimate Class Cheatsheet

[SouthpawHare]

Hello everyone.

This might seem rather spontaneous and random, but I've had an itch I've been meaning to scratch for a while: making a standardized chart to look at all the basics of all the classes at a glance. So, that's exactly what I did. I broke each category down into Very Low - Very High descriptors, and then elaborated on what those exactly translated to in a key. Since I am a fan of the fan-made d20 Rebirth (as seen on the homebrew board), I included any differences between it and the core rules, listing it as a second number as well as color-coding according to these revisions. I did all of the core classes, as well as a few others that I tend to allow in the campaigns I run for one reason or another (personal favorites of myself or friends). So without further ado, check it out:


http://i560.photobucket.com/albums/ss46/SouthpawHare/DDCheatsheet-2.png



http://i560.photobucket.com/albums/ss46/SouthpawHare/DDCheatsheetKey-1.png


I hope everyone likes the idea as much as I do. Please tell me if you find any mistakes as well (including Rebirth information, which may be out-of-date).

[HalfDragonCube]

Currently it is screen-stretching. Could you please spoiler it?

Good work, by the way.

Edit: Oh, and druids are full casters.

[Amnestic]

Interesting, though it doesn't really tell you much about the rest of the class. Plus "Spellcasting" doesn't end up quite so simple when you add in Factota (Factotums? Factotum?), Warlocks and Dragonfire Adepts.

[Eloel]

Also, Sorcerers and Wizards get different spellcasting tags, but Bards get the same thing with Rangers? Kinda iffy. Good idea otherwise!

[joca4christ]

*sniff sniff* The scout got no love??? :smallfrown:

[SouthpawHare]

Oh, and druids are full casters.

Indeed, they are marked Very High / Low, with the first descriptor being vanilla, and the second one and the color-coding being according to rebirth. Although I only glanced at it, it seemed that all their abilities were replaced with class abilities and supernatural powers in d20r.


Interesting, though it doesn't really tell you much about the rest of the class. Plus "Spellcasting" doesn't end up quite so simple when you add in Factota (Factotums? Factotum?), Warlocks and Dragonfire Adepts.

Oh, I know. You can't really get down all the details, or do justice to all of the special abilities and properties of all the classes. It's not really designed such that you won't need to look at the class in the book anymore. It's more of a general comparison table for things that are easily comparable.

...and I always thought it was Factotii :smalltongue:


Also, Sorcerers and Wizards get different spellcasting tags, but Bards get the same thing with Rangers? Kinda iffy. Good idea otherwise!

That's actually a good call... I might rethink that one.


*sniff sniff* The scout got no love??? :smallfrown:

I might add some more if they're wanted. I see no reason not to throw in the Scout, it would be easily enough.

[Bovine Colonel]

Factota is correct, I think.

On topic: Might it be a bit misleading for someone just taking a quick glance to say that Fighters have "low" spellcasting? Maybe low spellcasting could be Paladins and Rangers, whereas non-casters have Spellcasting: None?

[Heatwizard]

Factota is correct, I think.

All the dictionaries I can find say it's just factotums.

[GoblinArchmage]

That seems useful. I think that you confused the weapon proficiencies of the Sorcerer and Wizard, though. It should say that Sorcerers have "medium" and that Wizards have "low."

[Lateral]

No, it's Factotums. It's an english word, not a Latin word (although it may have originated from a Latin command.)

[Welknair]

Shouldn't class features be listed somewhere in there?

[Drglenn]

On topic: Might it be a bit misleading for someone just taking a quick glance to say that Fighters have "low" spellcasting? Maybe low spellcasting could be Paladins and Rangers, whereas non-casters have Spellcasting: None?
Same for Sorcerers/Wizards and Armour Prof, you might wanna just put the best armours they're proficient with in there as it'll take up pretty much the same space as low-v.high and won't need a seperate legend

[Greenish]

I'm not sure how the sheet is supposed to be useful, but mabe I'm missing something. None of that is the sort of stuff you'd need a quick reference for, and with a long table it's hard to follow the lines. Mixing two systems doesn't help, either.

Maybe I'm just missing something.


On a more amusing note, you'd have to file duskblade under "low" for weapon proficiences, since it doesn't fit to any other category. :smalltongue:

[SouthpawHare]

That seems useful. I think that you confused the weapon proficiencies of the Sorcerer and Wizard, though. It should say that Sorcerers have "medium" and that Wizards have "low."


Same for Sorcerers/Wizards and Armour Prof, you might wanna just put the best armours they're proficient with in there as it'll take up pretty much the same space as low-v.high and won't need a seperate legend

Yep, these are both fixed now. Although it doesn't say the armor type, what they mean is pretty intuitive now: low = light, medium = medium, high = heavy.


Shouldn't class features be listed somewhere in there?

I don't think so. The purpose of this chart is to categorize things that are standardized - class features are generally exceptions, and not as clear-cut.


I'm not sure how the sheet is supposed to be useful, but mabe I'm missing something. None of that is the sort of stuff you'd need a quick reference for, and with a long table it's hard to follow the lines. Mixing two systems doesn't help, either.

Maybe I'm just missing something.


It's supposed to be useful for someone who doesn't fully understand the system or formulas - it would be less useful for someone who does. The point is, if an inexperienced person looks at, say, the base attack bonus progression with a bunch of numbers, they might not know the significance of it. Is it good, or bad? They might not even know that there are only three different progressions, and might be intimidated by all the complicated numbers. This makes it easier to understand, hopefully.

[Savannah]

It's supposed to be useful for someone who doesn't fully understand the system or formulas - it would be less useful for someone who does. The point is, if an inexperienced person looks at, say, the base attack bonus progression with a bunch of numbers, they might not know the significance of it. Is it good, or bad? They might not even know that there are only three different progressions, and might be intimidated by all the complicated numbers. This makes it easier to understand, hopefully.

As someone who's taught a lot of newbies to play, I don't think it's anywhere near as hard to understand as you think it is (and, quite frankly, I always find suggestions to "make things easier on the newbies" insulting to the newbies' intelligence). There's a table at the front of the Classes chapter in the PH that explains what the various BABs, saves, etc are, anyway, so I'm not sure what your table can do that it can't (sure, it doesn't include things like spellcasting, but those really aren't hard to figure out).

[Hiro Protagonest]

I don't like this, it makes wizards and sorcerers look weak, and it makes barbarians and fighters look like the best thing since sliced bread.

[SouthpawHare]

As someone who's taught a lot of newbies to play, I don't think it's anywhere near as hard to understand as you think it is (and, quite frankly, I always find suggestions to "make things easier on the newbies" insulting to the newbies' intelligence). There's a table at the front of the Classes chapter in the PH that explains what the various BABs, saves, etc are, anyway, so I'm not sure what your table can do that it can't (sure, it doesn't include things like spellcasting, but those really aren't hard to figure out).

Well, I don't mean to be insulting. It seems, however, that the people I play with tend to be more intimidated by numbers and formulas. I know several players who have been playing for years and still don't know the base attack bonus formulas, even for fighters (which is a simple as counting), and consider it "scary" to even look at the tables you refer to. I'm not saying everyone is like this... I know other people who have learned essentially every detail of the system after about 1 week after being introduced to it. But people who would use this chart do exist, and I'm confident it will help some.