Already done: Generic classes in 5e?

[Bogwoppit]

D&D 3.x had an option in Unearthed Arcana for generic classes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm). There were three classes, roughly equivalent to Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and most of the class features of the core classes were turned into feats that you take, instead of being available only to certain classes.
They weren't especially popular, as they were a bit weaker than the more optimised choices - but it seemed to me that they were supposed to be a replacement for the existing classes, rather than an addition.

My questions is, being a newbie to D&D 5e, but being a fan of more generic and customisable classes - has anyone produced an equivalent set of generic classes for our latest version of the game?

[djreynolds]

You mean like warrior, expert, and adept and noble and so forth?

[Bogwoppit]

You mean like warrior, expert, and adept and noble and so forth?
No, I don't think so - those are the NPC classes, right?

The link in my OP goes to the 3.x SRD where the topic is explained - but in short, what I'm looking for is whether anyone has made customisable classes for 5e, where you get a very basic class, but where the class features of the standard classes can be added in as feats (or an equivalent mechanism).

So you could have, for example, a warrior who can inspire like a bard, or a fighting caster who goes into a violent frenzy.

[MrStabby]

Yeah, from time to time these spring up.

I have even done one myself (although just for martial classes) - grouped "feats" into major, minor and ribbon allocated these out at fixed levels. Pick one from the lists open to you at each level. The lists open to you might include caster (effectively advancing your casting as a 1/3rd or half caster), a divine theme, a nature theme, a training theme (for monk/battlemaster) and so on. Each class gets two themes. The aim was that the system should be able to pretty much build existing classes by selecting the themes appropriately. For example the paladin could be made by picking the divine and the casting themes and selecting their "feats" from these.

[HidesHisEyes]

Yeah, from time to time these spring up.

I have even done one myself (although just for martial classes) - grouped "feats" into major, minor and ribbon allocated these out at fixed levels. Pick one from the lists open to you at each level. The lists open to you might include caster (effectively advancing your casting as a 1/3rd or half caster), a divine theme, a nature theme, a training theme (for monk/battlemaster) and so on. Each class gets two themes. The aim was that the system should be able to pretty much build existing classes by selecting the themes appropriately. For example the paladin could be made by picking the divine and the casting themes and selecting their "feats" from these.

Are you able to share yours or anyone else's? I would really like to play 5E this way.

[BW022]

D&D 3.x had an option in Unearthed Arcana for generic classes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm). There were three classes, roughly equivalent to Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and most of the class features of the core classes were turned into feats that you take, instead of being available only to certain classes.
They weren't especially popular, as they were a bit weaker than the more optimised choices - but it seemed to me that they were supposed to be a replacement for the existing classes, rather than an addition.

My questions is, being a newbie to D&D 5e, but being a fan of more generic and customisable classes - has anyone produced an equivalent set of generic classes for our latest version of the game?

Sounds like the basic rules (http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/PlayerBasicRulesV03.pdf) or SRD. Skip the optional rules (feats and such), and you only have the starting four classes, simplified races, and sub-class/domain/path/oath/etc. per class. If you are completely new (or don't own the rule books), it is a really simplified system.

[Cybren]

Sounds like the basic rules (http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/PlayerBasicRulesV03.pdf) or SRD. Skip the optional rules (feats and such), and you only have the starting four classes, simplified races, and sub-class/domain/path/oath/etc. per class. If you are completely new (or don't own the rule books), it is a really simplified system.
Well, except generic classes weren't meant to be _simpler_, you still had all the class features in a 3.5 game, they were just turned into feats. The complexity of figuring out mutliclass builds was removed, but you wound up making more choices with regards to features and abilities you gain

[Specter]

The easiest one to pull would be the heavy martials, using subclasses as a full class. The class could be named 'fighter', and the subclasses could be 'champion', 'barbarian' and 'paladin', for instance.

[HidesHisEyes]

I did set out to do exactly this, with four classes: Warrior, Rogue, Priest and Mage. It turned out to be a lot harder than I expected. 5E's classes are so different from one another. They barely share a basic standard design at all; each one is built from the ground up with its own unique mechanics, and the features of each class really define its feel. It makes for brilliant, but necessarily specific, classes. Generic classes in 5E may be possible but I can personally state it wouldn't be as simple as cutting out the class features and putting them on the table as feats.

If I embark on another ambitious homebrew project it will probably, at this point, involve turning D&D into a wishy washy narrativist system where the classes are named after Jungian archetypes and the core mechanic uses a tarot deck.

[Cybren]

I did set out to do exactly this, with four classes: Warrior, Rogue, Priest and Mage. It turned out to be a lot harder than I expected. 5E's classes are so different from one another. They barely share a basic standard design at all; each one is built from the ground up with its own unique mechanics, and the features of each class really define its feel. It makes for brilliant, but necessarily specific, classes. Generic classes in 5E may be possible but I can personally state it wouldn't be as simple as cutting out the class features and putting them on the table as feats.

If I embark on another ambitious homebrew project it will probably, at this point, involve turning D&D into a wishy washy narrativist system where the classes are named after Jungian archetypes and the core mechanic uses a tarot deck.

i was thinking about doing generic classes where the three generic classes are Warrior, Expert, Spellcaster. Warriors get lots of fighting styles/proficiencies (which are probably folded into a single mechanic along with things like extra attack, sneak attack etc), Experts get the most skill/tool proficiencies & expertise, spellcasters get full casting using int/wis/cha of their choice.

[HidesHisEyes]

Sounds like the basic rules (http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/PlayerBasicRulesV03.pdf) or SRD. Skip the optional rules (feats and such), and you only have the starting four classes, simplified races, and sub-class/domain/path/oath/etc. per class. If you are completely new (or don't own the rule books), it is a really simplified system.

Generic classes were different. Instead of having fighter, barbarian, paladin and ranger you had "warrior", with a whole lot of feats to choose from, some of which were the class features (Rage, Smite Evil etc.) of those classes. The point was to make character generation more customisable, not simpler.

There was a game called True20 which shortly before 4E came out, which was genre agnostic and did the same thing with warrior, expert and adept. Adepts could be Gandalf or Magneto, experts could be Robin Hood or James Bond, and so on.

[HidesHisEyes]

i was thinking about doing generic classes where the three generic classes are Warrior, Expert, Spellcaster. Warriors get lots of fighting styles/proficiencies (which are probably folded into a single mechanic along with things like extra attack, sneak attack etc), Experts get the most skill/tool proficiencies & expertise, spellcasters get full casting using int/wis/cha of their choice.

'Tis a grand and noble goal. The main problem I ran into was that if you just want to make character creation more customisable but keep the same style of gameplay, then you can't really give players too much freedom. For example, all 5E's classes have a way of dealing more damage. You would need to ensure all players got something for dealing extra damage - but not too much.

[paladinn]

Casting "Resurrect Thread".. lol

WotC has just released an Unearthed Arcana article on "Sidekicks".. basically the 5e equivalent of the 3.x NPC classes (Warrior, Expert, Spellcaster). I believe these could be the basis for 5e "generic classes" like what we had in the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana.

All we'd have to do is get WotC to define spell-versions of abilities like Turn Undead, Divine Smite and Wildshape.

Has anyone looked at these yet? Any thoughts?

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: I am afraid this thread has been dead for too long for a spellcaster of your level to resurrect!