Generic classes

[paladinn]

Hola all,

I was looking through the 3e Unearthed Arcana, specifically the "generic classes": Warrior, Expert and Spellcaster. The conventional wisdom is that these classes are less powerful than the PHB (and other) classes, mainly due to the loss of class-specific features. But I personally think that the generic classes have the potential to be nearly as powerful and even more flexible. A warrior who wants to be a paladin-type can come close given how some class features were made into feats. S/he can take Turn Undead and Smite Evil as feats and load up on other combat feats to make him/her almost as formidable as a fighter. A ranger-ish warrior can take Favored Enemy and a few skills and be close to a real ranger. Or s/he can take Favored Enemy And Smite Evil and be the total scourge of the undead.

A spellcaster (or I would use the True20 term, "adept") can learn both arcane and divine spells, take Turn Undead as a feat, and be a pretty awesome "White Mage." And an expert can load up on all the skills s/he wants, and take feats and such as wished.

Has anyone done much with the generic classes? Are there any particular upsides or downsides? How have you made use of all the flexibility?

Thanks in advance!

[Smegskull]

The big advantage with the generic classes is the custom class skills list that can make early entry into some PrCs easy.
Also the spellcaster can access both arcane and divine which with duel casting PrCs (+1 arc "AND" +1 div not "or") doubles spell progression which is broken AF.

[AvatarVecna]

The big advantage with the generic classes is the custom class skills list that can make early entry into some PrCs easy.
Also the spellcaster can access both arcane and divine which with duel casting PrCs (+1 arc "AND" +1 div not "or") doubles spell progression which is broken AF.

This is incorrect. PrC Casting Advancement is based on what kind of casting you have, not what lists you have access to. Any individual Generic Spellcaster is going to be Arcane or divine, not both simultaneously.

The actual strength of Generic Spellcaster is twofold: first, you get to pick your casting type and casting attribute. If you pick Divine, you're Wis-based, if you pick Arcane, you're Int or Cha based (your choice). Secondly, regardless of those choices, you can pick your spells known from the cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, or wizard lists in whatever mix you please. You are essentially playing a sorcerer that picks their casting attribute, gets bonus feats, and who gets to cherry-pick their favorite cleric/druid spells.

Edit: The main downside to the Generic classes is that by default they kinda can't mix with non-Generic stuff. There's a soft-ban on taking Generic and non-generic classes in the same build, and a softer-ban on taking PrCs in general. It mentions the possibility of theurging in the caster description which is something. Ultimately though, it all ends up deepen "ask your DM" territory. And since the default is "it's probably not allowed", it limits what weird abilities the class can interact with at all, so they don't get as much attention in forum theorycrafting.

[Luccan]

Personally, I like the generic classes. I'm not really sure Spellcaster takes a hit compared to Sorcerer, especially since they can pull any spell from any list. That said, the Expert and Warrior fall out because they don't get enough feats to replace having class features. They come out more as alternate fighters than anything else and are probably worse off for it in a strict power sense.

I have half-finished homebrew of a couple more classes to fill some of the material (a generic psionicist and a general initiator), plus some buffs to Expert and Warrior (and a nerf to Spellcaster) to bring everything more in line.

[Zarvistic]

I've not played it myself, but I've seen the generic spellcaster in play. It looked stupidly powerful in that game, a lot more powerful than any regular spellcaster with prcs.

[Vaern]

I wonder if their intention was to use the generic classes as a base for homebrewing prestige variants of the core base classes. That could be an interesting change of pace.

[AvatarVecna]

Personally, I like the generic classes. I'm not really sure Spellcaster takes a hit compared to Sorcerer, especially since they can pull any spell from any list. That said, the Expert and Warrior fall out because they don't get enough feats to replace having class features. They come out more as alternate fighters than anything else and are probably worse off for it in a strict power sense.

I have half-finished homebrew of a couple more classes to fill some of the material (a generic psionicist and a general initiator), plus some buffs to Expert and Warrior (and a nerf to Spellcaster) to bring everything more in line.

I'll agree with this on the expert, but not Generic Warrior.

Fighter has 7 pre-selected class skills (including Craft), 2+Int skill points per level, d10 HD, full BAB, good Fort, bad Ref, bad Will, and the Fighter Bonus Feat Progression, as well as a litany of (mostly pretty generic) ACFs. Generic Warrior has 7 class skills (Craft, and then 6 of your choice), 2+Int skill points per level, d10 HD, full BAB, one good save of your choice, and a bonus feat progression identical to the fighter's...except they can choose any feat instead of just fighter bonus feats. It's the same resources, but the flexibility in skills, saves, and feats is a leg up over default fighter. Add in how ACFs give fighter more versatility, and Generic Warrior is at worst a side-grade.

Spellcaster definitely doesn't take a hit compared to Sorcerer. It's basically objectively better than sorcerer except for (once again) a lack of access to sorcerer ACFs.

[paladinn]

Personally, I like the generic classes. I'm not really sure Spellcaster takes a hit compared to Sorcerer, especially since they can pull any spell from any list. That said, the Expert and Warrior fall out because they don't get enough feats to replace having class features. They come out more as alternate fighters than anything else and are probably worse off for it in a strict power sense.

I have half-finished homebrew of a couple more classes to fill some of the material (a generic psionicist and a general initiator), plus some buffs to Expert and Warrior (and a nerf to Spellcaster) to bring everything more in line.

I'd love to see your take when you get around to it! Thanks

I'm really liking the warrior and spellcaster/"adept". ACF's aside, there's so much flexibility. And if you want a spell-less paladin, just dress up the warrior with Smite Evil and Turn Undead.

I'm wondering if other classes' spells could be accessible by the adept; maybe the bard? How/might other ACF's be converted to feats? I'm thinking maybe the warlock's eldritch blast? I think the druid's wildshape is already a PF spell (beast shape).

[lylsyly]

One of our group, when it's her turn to DM, always runs a gestalt 3-20 campaign with only the generic classes. We always end up with 3 divine spellcaster//warriors and 3 divine spellcaster//experts. Dedicated Blaster/Summoner/Healer/Battlefield Control/Utility (read rogue oriented)/Generalist for casters. No worries ahout ASF in Armor. No squishyness. With the class features as bonus feats (wish they had included Bard abilities) and at least two good saves for everyone whats not to love. We have always had a great time in these games.

[Lilapop]

It's basically objectively better than sorcerer except for (once again) a lack of access to sorcerer ACFs. Well, and one less per-day for your three highest spell levels. Bonus feats can probably cover for that in overall powerlevel, but you won't get back the one thing you'd play a sorcerer for in the first place. If the TU option wasn't divine only...

[Zarvistic]

Well, and one less per-day for your three highest spell levels. Bonus feats can probably cover for that in overall powerlevel, but you won't get back the one thing you'd play a sorcerer for in the first place. If the TU option wasn't divine only...
Would you not want to be divine anyway tho?

[Lilapop]

Would you not want to be divine anyway tho?

Huh. "Casts spells as a sorcerer" may include spell failure regardless of arcane or divine. Value of prestige class access depends on what you want to do. I think I'd prefer Int over Wis on a class with know(all). Sounds like a wash to me, at least before the TU thing comes into play.

But yeah, that feature alone makes generic spellcaster way better than sorc. I guess I got distracted by AV's direct comparison.

[Vaern]

I'd probably make spellcaster (arcane) and spellcaster (divine) two separate classes (mage / priest), each with access to their respective core class spell lists. That'll also let you take both types of caster class separately to qualify for theurge type prestige classes.

[Luccan]

I'll agree with this on the expert, but not Generic Warrior.

Fighter has 7 pre-selected class skills (including Craft), 2+Int skill points per level, d10 HD, full BAB, good Fort, bad Ref, bad Will, and the Fighter Bonus Feat Progression, as well as a litany of (mostly pretty generic) ACFs. Generic Warrior has 7 class skills (Craft, and then 6 of your choice), 2+Int skill points per level, d10 HD, full BAB, one good save of your choice, and a bonus feat progression identical to the fighter's...except they can choose any feat instead of just fighter bonus feats. It's the same resources, but the flexibility in skills, saves, and feats is a leg up over default fighter. Add in how ACFs give fighter more versatility, and Generic Warrior is at worst a side-grade.

Spellcaster definitely doesn't take a hit compared to Sorcerer. It's basically objectively better than sorcerer except for (once again) a lack of access to sorcerer ACFs.

Fair point. I feel it's worth pointing out that if you want to wear Heavy Armor as a Generic Warrioryou do actually have to spend a feat on that, but otherwise I think you're right it comes out a wash.


I'd love to see your take when you get around to it! Thanks

I'm really liking the warrior and spellcaster/"adept". ACF's aside, there's so much flexibility. And if you want a spell-less paladin, just dress up the warrior with Smite Evil and Turn Undead.

I'm wondering if other classes' spells could be accessible by the adept; maybe the bard? How/might other ACF's be converted to feats? I'm thinking maybe the warlock's eldritch blast? I think the druid's wildshape is already a PF spell (beast shape).

It's nothing complicated. Mainly throwing Expert a selection of freebie class abilities to choose from to "specialize" their expertise and giving Warrior better built in defenses (all armor and shield instead of just up to medium and no tower shields, two good saves, d12 HP). The problem with Generic Expert as it exists is that skill-monkey isn't a concept that stands well on its own without class abilities to back it up, so you can't just say "here's a few abilities converted to feats and you'll spend all your level and bonus feats trying to be a rogue anyway".

I'm personally a fan of converting most class abilities to feats, though I'd hesitate on something as specific as Eldritch Blast

[paladinn]

It's nothing complicated. Mainly throwing Expert a selection of freebie class abilities to choose from to "specialize" their expertise and giving Warrior better built in defenses (all armor and shield instead of just up to medium and no tower shields, two good saves, d12 HP). The problem with Generic Expert as it exists is that skill-monkey isn't a concept that stands well on its own without class abilities to back it up, so you can't just say "here's a few abilities converted to feats and you'll spend all your level and binus feats trying to be a rogue anyway".

I'm personally a fan of converting most class abilities to feats, though I'd hesitate on something as specific as Eldritch Blast

That's just it.. If someone wants to be a rogue, I'd just say, "Go for it!" But there are any number of skillful character concepts that don't fit the rogue mold. A tomb raider type of character doesn't really need to be able to sneak attack. An artificer type is skillful, but not much for combat. I think this is where the Expert would come in handy. Same for spellcaster; in Hyborian-type campaigns, the line between wizard and priest is definitely blurred. Thoth Amon was both a black mage and a priest of Set. And a warlock-type character (not as defined in 3.5) would be a candidate for the spellcaster class.

The warrior class is close enough to the fighter to not warrant incorporating, Unless you want to be a "fighter" with some different abilities. A poor-man's paladin or ranger, if you don't really want spells; you get extra combat feats!

[lylsyly]

I'd probably make spellcaster (arcane) and spellcaster (divine) two separate classes (mage / priest), each with access to their respective core class spell lists. That'll also let you take both types of caster class separately to qualify for theurge type prestige classes.

"Multiclassing: A character can multiclass between arcane spellcaster and divine spell caster."

Bottom of page 77, UA. And the only thing its really says about PRCs is that you may have to tweak the prereqs. I don't believe that counts as a ban of any type but that's just my opinion.

[paladinn]

"Multiclassing: A character can multiclass between arcane spellcaster and divine spell caster."

Bottom of page 77, UA. And the only thing its really says about PRCs is that you may have to tweak the prereqs. I don't believe that counts as a ban of any type but that's just my opinion.

Silly question.. if you can already choose spells from any list, why MC?

Do theurgic PrC's actually require MC, or just the ability to cast both arcane and divine?

[AvatarVecna]

Silly question.. if you can already choose spells from any list, why MC?

Do theurgic PrC's actually require MC, or just the ability to cast both arcane and divine?

Spells themselves aren't inherently arcane or divine. To take levels in a theurge class, you need one class that casts Arcane spells, and one class that casts Divine spells. If you make a Generic Spellcaster who has Int as their casting attribute, and that character takes only spells from the druid list, then you are casting Arcane druid spells. If you make a Generic Spellcaster who has Wis as their casting attribute, and that character only takes spells from the wizard list, you are casting Divine wizard spells. Theurge isn't dependent on list access, it's dependent on what type of caster class you have. That's why you need two of them to theurge.

Theurging has completely separate ups and downs from doing a single-classed caster. The upside is that you have an awful lot more slots per day. The downside is that you have a lower caster level and a lower Max spell level (that is to say, a wizard 13 has access to 7th lvl spells, but a wizard 3/cleric 3/theurge 7 only has access to 5th lvl spells).

[Luccan]

That's just it.. If someone wants to be a rogue, I'd just say, "Go for it!" But there are any number of skillful character concepts that don't fit the rogue mold. A tomb raider type of character doesn't really need to be able to sneak attack. An artificer type is skillful, but not much for combat. I think this is where the Expert would come in handy. Same for spellcaster; in Hyborian-type campaigns, the line between wizard and priest is definitely blurred. Thoth Amon was both a black mage and a priest of Set. And a warlock-type character (not as defined in 3.5) would be a candidate for the spellcaster class.

The warrior class is close enough to the fighter to not warrant incorporating, Unless you want to be a "fighter" with some different abilities. A poor-man's paladin or ranger, if you don't really want spells; you get extra combat feats!

The problem is those archetypes are supported by abilities that skills can't cover. I should point out, I don't say "here's the entire rogue package", I just don't gate everything a rogue or other "expert" type character could get (like, say, trapfinding) behind just the feats you get. Because think about it, a third level Rogue gets Trapfinding, 2nd tier sneak attack, and Evasion. That's 4 feats worth of abilities (by the generic class RAW), plus they get their first and third level feats for a total of 6 feats worth of abilities. Meanwhile, our third level tomb raider Expert has to spend their class bonus feats and regular leveling feats to get the equivalent in class abilities (whatever they think those should be) and still ends up 2 feats behind.

And I'm going to have agree with AvatarVecna after thinking on it; Warrior vs Fighter comes out a wash at worst. Warrior is naturally more versatile since they can free pick their feats which I don't think should be discounted. Of course, if you're gonna let fighter do that you may as well replace it, but even then I think Warrior/Fighter needs a boost anyway so I'd still use my changes

[Vaern]

"Multiclassing: A character can multiclass between arcane spellcaster and divine spell caster."

Bottom of page 77, UA. And the only thing its really says about PRCs is that you may have to tweak the prereqs. I don't believe that counts as a ban of any type but that's just my opinion.

Ah, missed that bit. Was just skimming the SRD on my phone.
I still think splitting the spell lists would be good for flavor and balance. Having a single caster class with access to four full caster spell lists seems very powerful, even running on spontaneous caster mechanics.

[Darg]

I'll agree with this on the expert, but not Generic Warrior.

Fighter has 7 pre-selected class skills (including Craft), 2+Int skill points per level, d10 HD, full BAB, good Fort, bad Ref, bad Will, and the Fighter Bonus Feat Progression, as well as a litany of (mostly pretty generic) ACFs. Generic Warrior has 7 class skills (Craft, and then 6 of your choice), 2+Int skill points per level, d10 HD, full BAB, one good save of your choice, and a bonus feat progression identical to the fighter's...except they can choose any feat instead of just fighter bonus feats. It's the same resources, but the flexibility in skills, saves, and feats is a leg up over default fighter. Add in how ACFs give fighter more versatility, and Generic Warrior is at worst a side-grade.

For just the cost of some skill points and 3 feats you get sneak attack 9d6. Sneak attack fighter gets no bonus feats. For the cost of 1 feat you get the benefit of uncanny dodge and the improved version. I personally think that the generic classes work better than their non-generic counterparts in general outside of a small handful of ACFs.

[Anthrowhale]

For just the cost of some skill points and 3 feats you get sneak attack 9d6. Sneak attack fighter gets no bonus feats. For the cost of 1 feat you get the benefit of uncanny dodge and the improved version. I personally think that the generic classes work better than their non-generic counterparts in general outside of a small handful of ACFs.

The generic classes are good for sneak attack, but if you want to make that damage stick, then you really want the specific classes.

Consider for example a Scout/Ranger Swift Hunter or a Lightbringer Rogue/Sneak Attack+Hit&Run Fighter. The ability to make damage stick reliably changes them from a hit-or-miss member of the party to a reliable heavy damage dealer.

[Soranar]

The generic caster is pretty good, obviously a step above a sorcerer.

If you just take the INT based option and you combine it with sneak attack you get a class that casts spells from druid, arcane or divine sources

spontaneously

with bonus feats

If you take the divine option, you're still able to wear armor and use a shield(you can just take the armor penalties). The low skillpoints hurt you a bit (compared to a cloistered cleric) but your access to class specific spells gives you a lot of leeway.

High Wisdom races are easy to find.

The generic Warrior is generally weaker than a barbarian in almost every way
The generic Expert is generally weaker than a ranger/scout or rogue in almost every way

The only saving grace is the access to Iaijutsu focus and sneak attack, which isn't much : situational combat bonuses are never as reliable as just raw damage.

And the tome of battle classes are definitely better than both.

The only base classes I can think of that are weaker than a generic mundane would be samurai, knight, fighter (without any ACF) and ninja.

You'd be better off with a ranger, a barbarian, a paladin (optimized) or a rogue.

Of all these classes, an A game ranger is better than anything those mundane classes can pull off.