Generic Classes and Normal Classes? [3.5]

[Empedocles]

Are the UA generic classes compatible with non-generic classes? My first thought would be yes, but that any generic class would have more potential options then a class it can replicate (so a warrior generic class wouldn't work that well with a fighter or barbarian, but it might be more compatible with, say, an initiator?).

Also, is there a potential tier ranking for the generic classes? Obviously, 1 for the spellcaster, but it seems like the others would be hard to determine because of all the potential things you could do with them.

[TuggyNE]

Are the UA generic classes compatible with non-generic classes? My first thought would be yes, but that any generic class would have more potential options then a class it can replicate (so a warrior generic class wouldn't work that well with a fighter or barbarian, but it might be more compatible with, say, an initiator?).

They are explicitly not compatible:

If you use these generic classes, you shouldn't also use the standard character classes (or variants of those classes).


Also, is there a potential tier ranking for the generic classes? Obviously, 1 for the spellcaster, but it seems like the others would be hard to determine because of all the potential things you could do with them.

Hmm. I would guess that some Expert builds would be solid Tier 3, and more would be T4.

And actually, given that the Spellcaster is spontaneous limited-list, I would guess a high T2.

The Warrior isn't massively improved over the stock Fighter, but it's probably somewhat more practical to reach T4 with it. Still, the naive builds are likely T5, and scoring T3 would be ... tricky.

[Namfuak]

The expert could be tier 3, since he can put UMD and UPD on his list and gets enough bonus feats and skill points to probably optimize that quite well. As a 2-level dip, the warrior could arguably be better than a normal fighter because you can add any feat, not just fighter bonus, and you can also add evasion, sneak attack, or uncanny dodge if you want on any other class, while retaining full BAB (as well as UMD and UPD, as with the expert). As its own class the warrior is definitely could be T3, but again it would be assuming the person was basically focusing on UMD/UPD and using it as more of a Gish character, and making all the right choices. If the DM allowed Divine Grace to be taken as a "Bonus Feat," 2 levels of warrior could give two levels of paladin a run for its money for Sorcadins, since it would let you add UMP/UPD to your list, along with 4 more skills.

My opinion:
Spellcaster - Tier 2, 1 if you use it for list/UMD/UPD shenanigans (like the Walker in the Waste early entry trick).

Warrior - On its own, T5. Focusing on UMD/UPD, T3 at best, more likely T4.

Expert - On its own, T4. Focusing on UMD/UPD, T3.

Quick note: I'm assuming that the Warrior and Expert are at some point going into prestige classes as well, otherwise they would never be T3.

[Empedocles]

They are explicitly not compatible:

I'm aware that WotC says that they shouldn't be used together. Frankly, that means absolutely nothing to me. In practice, many things WotC says - such as that the fighter is the best combatant in D&D - don't really hold up in gameplay. If even the spellcaster is only Tier 2 I'd actually be leaning towards saying that they could be compatible, but I wanted to hear other people's opinions on the matter.

[Quintessence]

i would say that spellcaster is actually a low-mid tier 1, the fact that he gets access to pretty much any spell tips things in his favor quite a bit along with being able to be INT and still spontaneously cast.

[Empedocles]

She may select her spells known from the cleric, druid, and sorcerer/wizard spell lists.

Looking at that, the spellcaster is definitely Tier 1 (especially if you make it divine, so it's casting off of all the spell lists and still can cast in full armor).

That might be a mistake on behalf of the SRD or a typo in UA though...

In any case, it doesn't seem to me that there would be an issue running at least a generic warrior or expert alongside normal classes.

EDIT: The only real benefits are that you could switch among being able to smite, sneak attack, and have favored enemies (none of which is great tacked on to a tier 4/5) and the skill list. I could see an expert being high Tier 4 with UMD, UPD, and Iaijutsu Focus (plus abusable skills). Still nothing gamebreaking though, and a factotum is strictly better.

[Yorrin]

I allow both in my games. I've had no problems thus far. Usually my players have just dipped Warrior or Expert for bonus feats and/or getting to choose their skill list to qualify for a PrC. Spellcaster VERY rarely gets used, but my players aren't big on full casters anyway...

[eggs]

Looking at that, the spellcaster is definitely Tier 1 (especially if you make it divine, so it's casting off of all the spell lists and still can cast in full armor).
That's in character creation. It doesn't have any more flexibility at a time than a Sorcerer or Favored Soul (and neither of them ever has to squander a spell known due to insufficient powerful options). Definite T2.

[Empedocles]

That's in character creation. It doesn't have any more flexibility at a time than a Sorcerer or Favored Soul (and neither of them ever has to squander a spell known due to insufficient powerful options). Definite T2.

The quote I used makes it seem to me at least that they can cast spells from all of those spell lists...which is extremely good.

[sonofzeal]

The quote I used makes it seem to me at least that they can cast spells from all of those spell lists...which is extremely good.
But they're a level behind, and aren't spontaneous can't change their spell list. They're categorically superior to Sorcerers, but lack the elements that make Cleric, Druid, and Wizard T1... and the Sorcerer already has full access to the Sor/Wiz list, which is definitely the best of the three. So it's more flexible than Sorcs, but not necessarily all that much better. I'd put them high-T2, low-T1.


As to your original question, I highly endorse combining them. However, I'd limit or remove the "class features as feats" option if I was going to do that, as there's some potentially funky combinations. The classes themselves are fine. Their power is equivalent to normal classes, they scale the same way, and the only thing exceptional is how bland they are. I can't see any problems there.

[Namfuak]

The quote I used makes it seem to me at least that they can cast spells from all of those spell lists...which is extremely good.

Wow, I was going to correct you, but it looks like you are right:



A spellcaster must choose at 1st level whether to be an arcane spellcaster or a divine spellcaster. This choice has no impact on the spells that she may learn, but affects what kinds of scrolls she can use and which ability score controls her spellcasting. An arcane spellcaster may designate either Intelligence or Charisma as the ability score that determines the highest-level spell she can learn or cast, and the Difficulty Class of her spell's-saving throws. A divine spellcaster must use Wisdom to determine the highest-level spell she can learn or cast, and the DC of her spell's saving throws.


That's just ridiculous. It even explicitly says that she can still take arcane and divine spells, it's not ambiguous. The problem is that as long as a spell is on your list, you can use a magic device that uses it - whether it is arcane or divine is inconsequential. So, I think that someone screwed up on that one, since the statement "affects what kinds of scrolls she can use" is pointless.

[Empedocles]

As to your original question, I highly endorse combining them. However, I'd limit or remove the "class features as feats" option if I was going to do that, as there's some potentially funky combinations. The classes themselves are fine. Their power is equivalent to normal classes, they scale the same way, and the only thing exceptional is how bland they are. I can't see any problems there.

Alright, this sounds pretty accurate. What funky combinations though? I don't really see any potential ones.


Wow, I was going to correct you, but it looks like you are right:



That's just ridiculous. It even explicitly says that she can still take arcane and divine spells, it's not ambiguous. The problem is that as long as a spell is on your list, you can use a magic device that uses it - whether it is arcane or divine is inconsequential. So, I think that someone screwed up on that one, since the statement "affects what kinds of scrolls she can use" is pointless.

Yeah, it re-read it like 80 times trying to figure out where they messed up. And I agree that at least part of it was a mistake especially judging by the UMD/scroll redundancy.

[Darth Stabber]

Generic spell caster can get anything it wants off the cleric, druid, and sorc/wiz list, which is pretty impressive. True they have limited spells known, but they don't need UMD for spell completion items (since their spell list is so expansive). Getting it above tier2 would be a pain in the butt, but the class is better than sorcerer in almost every way (oh boy, one less spell slot at every level, you'll live). And you can set it to INT, which is a much better stat than CHA (since int gives you skill points, where as charisma gives nothing other than bonuses to skills, and every stat gives bonuses to skills). Even wisdom is a better casting stat than charisma (since it buffs will saves, unlike charisma's "I don't do crap unless you focus on me"). If we were to look at stats in a vacuum (as in without taking into account classes) they would look a little something like this:
CON > INT or DEX > INT or DEX > STR > WIS > CHA. Now there is an arg

Now since there are no CON casters (totemists almost count), we see why INT based casting is preferable. Now spellcasting is one of the most powerful things out there, and If you are in a class that says "spell casting based on charisma" suddenly it LEAPS to the top of the list, but we are no longer looking at in the vacuum.

[sonofzeal]

Alright, this sounds pretty accurate. What funky combinations though? I don't really see any potential ones.
It's mostly when you start multiclassing that things get odd. Combining the Sneak Attack feats with actual Rogue levels is a little cheesy. Mostly it's PrC entries that cause problems - Evasion as an easily-accessible feat makes Fochlucan Lyrist a whole lot better, and it's not the only one. A lot of the feats give the sorts of things that are routinely used for level or class checks on PrC entry, meaning a character with levels in Generic classes, or who otherwise can access Generic feats, can get entry a whole lot easier than they would otherwise.

There's a simple fix of banning multiclassing back and forth, but I'd rather just allow the classes and take out the special feats. D&D has enough feats as it is.

[Quintessence]

But they're a level behind, and aren't spontaneous. They're categorically superior to Sorcerers, but lack the elements that make Cleric, Druid, and Wizard T1... and the Sorcerer already has full access to the Sor/Wiz list, which is definitely the best of the three. So it's more flexible than Sorcs, but not necessarily all that much better. I'd put them high-T2, low-T1.


As to your original question, I highly endorse combining them. However, I'd limit or remove the "class features as feats" option if I was going to do that, as there's some potentially funky combinations. The classes themselves are fine. Their power is equivalent to normal classes, they scale the same way, and the only thing exceptional is how bland they are. I can't see any problems there.

spellcasters clearly state that they are spontaneous.

[sonofzeal]

spellcasters clearly state that they are spontaneous.
Sorry, wires crossed. Yeah, they're spontaneous, but they're confined by Spells Known - unlike Clerics, Druids, and Wizards. They can't change their spell list, and don't have enough Spells Known to handle every contingency. Thus, they don't quite match the definition of T1 power. Any given Generic Spellcaster, just like any given Sorcerer, will have a very set number of ways of jumping the rails. A T1 caster doesn't have that limitation. As such... I think high-T2 is appropriate for them.

[Yorrin]

The fact that they are spontaneous is what keeps them in tier 2. T1 casters are T1 by virtue of having access to their entire spell list on any given day. Spellcaster has the best spell list in the game- but being spontaneous means that as a class (ie- without a specific build to get around the limited spells known/spells per day) it's stuck at the top of T2.

[Wings of Peace]

They are explicitly not compatible:



If you use these generic classes, you shouldn't also use the standard character classes (or variants of those classes).

Bolding for emphasis. They are explicitly not recommended to be used in parallel, they are not explicitly incompatible.

As for how they play with others, I'd say they play fine. Expert and Generic Spellcaster are strong but not Tier 1 status by any means. As for Generic Warrior, I'm fond of using it as a replacement for the Fighter.

[Dumorimasoddaa]

The fact that they are spontaneous is what keeps them in tier 2. T1 casters are T1 by virtue of having access to their entire spell list on any given day. Spellcaster has the best spell list in the game- but being spontaneous means that as a class (ie- without a specific build to get around the limited spells known/spells per day) it's stuck at the top of T2.

It's the limited spells know, spontaneous is better than perpetration any day. It's why the rainbowwarsnake is t1 build spontaneous casting of all Cleric spells+3 domains plus as blaster icing (if you need it) the warmage spell list. Hell I've seen that cheesed out to cast all but druid spells spontaneously off one list. Requires funky reading of the Sword of the Arcane Order feat but even with out that. It's still a stellar t1 build once you get to power. The only limit is spells known, in fact not having to prepare is still a boon. Plus you just take anyspell, limited wish , miracle and wish. Sure it's not optimal but now you have access to any other spell (more or less) plus it's just 4 spells known and you get (get out of jail free I really need X situation as hell spell) is also cheaper (like it matters) and you don't need it in a spell book and 15 minuets to perpare that one use spell, nor do you need to pick what you might need for a day.

[Wings of Peace]

It's the limited spells know, spontaneous is better than perpetration any day. It's why the rainbowwarsnake is t1 build spontaneous casting of all Cleric spells+3 domains plus as blaster icing (if you need it) the warmage spell list. Hell I've seen that cheesed out to cast all but druid spells spontaneously off one list. Requires funky reading of the Sword of the Arcane Order feat but even with out that. It's still a stellar t1 build once you get to power. The only limit is spells known, in fact not having to prepare is still a boon. Plus you just take anyspell, limited wish , miracle and wish. Sure it's not optimal but now you have access to any other spell (more or less) plus it's just 4 spells known and you get (get out of jail free I really need X situation as hell spell) is also cheaper (like it matters) and you don't need it in a spell book and 15 minuets to perpare that one use spell, nor do you need to pick what you might need for a day.

Spontaneous casters also can't Quicken spells off the bat which has a major impact either on their action or feat economy.

[sonofzeal]

Spontaneous casters also can't Quicken spells off the bat which has a major impact either on their action or feat economy.
...they can, however, cast Swift action spells like Greater Mirror Image, and have them still be Swift action. The loss of Quicken isn't all that crippling.

[nedz]

Spontaneous casters also can't Quicken spells off the bat which has a major impact either on their action or feat economy.

I guess this may be one advantage that Sorceror might have over the Generic Spellcaster? They can use the rapid metamagic ACF, and cast the Arcane Fusion spells: all of which are Sorceror only.

[Darth Stabber]

I guess this may be one advantage that Sorceror might have over the Generic Spellcaster? They can use the rapid metamagic ACF, and cast the Arcane Fusion spells: all of which are Sorceror only.

Doesn't make up for cleric and druid list access, and considering you swap it to divine (without changing any spells on your list), and grab turn undead and divine metamagic. This is something sorcerer need to jump through a lot of hoops for. Now you might argue that incantrix is better metamagic reduction (and it might even be true), but it uses no class levels, letting you use all those crazy divine prcs, while still having your side of metamagic cheese.

[Yorrin]

Dumorimasoddaa's correction to my post is a valid one- spells known is the major/primary difference. Action economy is easy enough to break with a feat or two.

But back to the issue at hand- allowing Generic classes with normal classes. I think what it all boils down to is how comfortable you feel with it as a DM. If you've enough discernment it's not a problem. At the very least I'd say give it a shot and see what problems you encounter- you'll grow as a DM as a result.

[Darth Stabber]

Dumorimasoddaa's correction to my post is a valid one- spells known is the major/primary difference. Action economy is easy enough to break with a feat or two.

But back to the issue at hand- allowing Generic classes with normal classes. I think what it all boils down to is how comfortable you feel with it as a DM. If you've enough discernment it's not a problem. At the very least I'd say give it a shot and see what problems you encounter- you'll grow as a DM as a result.

Probably some truth to that. I guess I'm lucky as a GM in that my current batch of players still think that TTS with a DN in the party is a cool trick, and psycrystal+sharepain+vigor is the cutting edge of optimization (you'd think that the DN's slaymate would be, except the DN has 0 metamagic feats, she just thought that picture was cute and rolled with it). So for me this debate is purely academic (because none of these jokers will GM anything).

[Roguenewb]

The problem I have conceptually, is that you are using a system designed to replace the class system, alongside the class system. What's the flavor of the generic spellcaster? Wno is he? You can use him to make a cleric, a sorcerer, a druid, but when played next to them, who is he? It seems like pure optimization, and if that's what you want in your campaigns, I guess it's fine.

From a mechanical standpoint, I find the generic spellcaster to be superior to almost any other base class for a "secondary caster", someone who uses spells and such without being dedicated to magic as a primary option.

[Yorrin]

The problem I have conceptually, is that you are using a system designed to replace the class system, alongside the class system. What's the flavor of the generic spellcaster? Who is he? You can use him to make a cleric, a sorcerer, a druid, but when played next to them, who is he? It seems like pure optimization, and if that's what you want in your campaigns, I guess it's fine.

From a mechanical standpoint, I find the generic spellcaster to be superior to almost any other base class for a "secondary caster", someone who uses spells and such without being dedicated to magic as a primary option.

You'll hear this a lot on these boards: fluff is what you make of it. Not every Wizard is going to be a "I studied books my whole life and am really smart, ergo I cast spells" the way WotC fluffed it. I had a player once who's Wizard was fluffed more like a Sorcerer- he came from a wealthy family with a genetic predisposition toward the arcane. Ultimately, it's up to your player how they want to fluff their character, and if using the generic classes allows them to mechanically fit that fluff better than one of the other classes I say more power to them.

Generic Warrior is an excellent example of this. What happens when you've got a character who is basically a Fighter but is highly educated/grew up in the wilderness/has acrobatic training/etc? Warrior allows your player to pick up the necessary skills to fit their story while maintaining the basic feel of the Fighter. If your players are trying to abuse the system it's not the fault of the system- they'll abuse whatever they're given. That's a DMing problem (or in certain cases the problem of a recalcitrant/incorrigible player).

[Chronos]

Wands don't care about arcane vs. divine, but scrolls do. Thus, any generic spellcaster could use any wand (or at least, aside from spells that appear only on the Assassin or Wu Jen or similarly obscure lists), since almost all spells are on their class spell list. And any arcane generic spellcaster could use any arcane scroll, and any divine generic spellcaster could use any divine scroll, but an arcane generic spellcaster couldn't use a divine scroll without UMD, and vice-versa.