Suggestions to refine my custom base class list?

[Sintanan]

Good afternoon, evening, or morning as the case may be.

I was sifting through some old notes of mine and stumbled across a what-if for my old 3.5 campaign setting I used to run almost a decade ago, and it got me thinking as I watched the winter storm settle in outside.

For a while I had an idea of culling the list of available base classes from all the supplements to a dozen base classes, much like the original PHB with three goals:
1) The gods are dead. Traditional divine magic does not exist anymore.
2) No spell slot classes. Spell-like abilities are okay, but anything that uses the traditional Vancian casting is a no-go.
3) Classes should be close to each other in terms of power to ensure no one feels left behind, ignored, or unable to contribute during sessions. Not much of an issue at the moment, but something to keep in mind.

To this end the first draft I had was taking a hatchet to the classes. Using the fanmade Tier List I culled the classes down, then dropped any with spell slots. This basically left the list with Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, and Incarnum as the trifecta of "flavors" of "magic":

Barbarian
With the various ACF options from supplements to allow more options to the base class, this allows barbarian to provide a "simple" choice for players not interested in using the more complex maneuvers from the martial adepts or the non-traditional casting classes.

Binder
With web vestiges (minus psionic vestiges) the binder fulfills the full-caster role and borrows a mix of roleplaying options from wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks.

Crusader
The first martial adept class works as a replacement for the now defunct paladin.

Dragonfire Adept
Gives a warlock-like toolkit without dipping too far into the roleplaying theme of the binder the way warlock does. Theme-wise DFA sits nicely between binder and totemist as a person so enamored with dragons they alter their very body and soul to become one.

Factotum
The go-to skill monkey replacing rogue because of rogue's low tier score and to try to break the stereotypical anti-party idea for any That Guys who sit at my table (small town, so my choice of players is limited and diplomacy only allows everyone to mesh so much).

Fighter
Not intended as a base class choice due to the low tier score. Instead the fighter is allowed for those wanting a generic combat character, have a specific build in mind, or need access to fighter for multiclassing and PrC requirements. Sometimes people just want something really simple.

Incarnate
Bringing incarnum into the mix and providing the baseline for a theme of soul-magic. If the binder fills the role of arcane caster analogue, then the incarnate fills the role of divine caster analogue.

Scout
With dropping the rogue, the scout provides an option for those wanting the burst damage of a rogue build, and a spell-less alternative to rangers and still getting the forest ranger feel.

Swordsage
By using the unarmored variant provided in the ToB we get a good analogue to replace the monk. Not much more to be said for that.

Totemist
Provides the replacement analogue for druids. Also helps cement the theme of soul-binding with binders and incarnates by soul-binding animal spirits.

Warblade
The intended fighter analogue and rounds out the martial classes with an option that is just pure martial skill. No primal rage, no divine inspiration, no fancy unarmed combat. Just pure weapon know-how.



Does anyone here see any issues with this class list? Any suggestions on changes to these classes such as variants or ACFs or something that should be used to create a more consistent theme? I heard mention of things like a homebrewed spell-less factotum that gives maneuvers instead of magic, but I'm not sure on such a change.


Thank you for your time reading this and any suggestions or comments you make.

[Zarvistic]

The ranger can have wildshape and no spells through the variant and acf for those. Seems different enough to what you have and should be fine in terms of power I think.

[Quertus]

No love for psionics? :smallfrown:

[noob]

No love for psionics? :smallfrown:

Psionics is usually tier 2 or 3 by sheer virtue of having less ways to shatter game balance as spells but they still do have tricks that breaks any sort of balance even if you are using the psionic classes that grants the least progression in terms of psionic power.

[Jervis]

No offense but this is kinda the wrong edition for low power level and balance. Even if the classes themselves are close to each other optimization leads to vastly different power levels. A optimized vs unoptimized fighter is like the difference between a Ranger and a Druid.

[lylsyly]

Good afternoon, evening, or morning as the case may be.

If it works for your table all is good ;-)


The ranger can have wildshape and no spells through the variant and acf for those. Seems different enough to what you have and should be fine in terms of power I think.

I personally would put a spell-less ranger back in. The thematics are a bit different than scouts. ;-)


No offense but this is kinda the wrong edition for low power level and balance. Even if the classes themselves are close to each other optimization leads to vastly different power levels. A optimized vs unoptimized fighter is like the difference between a Ranger and a Druid.

No offense but just because there are 1 Trillion options in 3rd edition doesn't mean you HAVE to use them all.

Every third time it's my turn to DM I run an SRD minus campaign that has no clerics/druids/sorcerers/wizards. The only spell casting classes are bard/paladin/ranger (spells from level 1). No spells above 5th level and nothing that even smells like alter self/shapechange/polymorph/wildshape. No summoniing except summon nature's ally. We always have a good time with it and this is in a group that 2/3 of the time runs gestalt with LA+3 for free and hardly any limitations on source material.

Every table is different ;-)

[Gruftzwerg]

May I ask why you excluded warlock while allowing DFA? Was it on purpose or just a mistake?

[Jervis]

No offense but just because there are 1 Trillion options in 3rd edition doesn't mean you HAVE to use them all.

Every third time it's my turn to DM I run an SRD minus campaign that has no clerics/druids/sorcerers/wizards. The only spell casting classes are bard/paladin/ranger (spells from level 1). No spells above 5th level and nothing that even smells like alter self/shapechange/polymorph/wildshape. No summoniing except summon nature's ally. We always have a good time with it and this is in a group that 2/3 of the time runs gestalt with LA+3 for free and hardly any limitations on source material.

Every table is different ;-)

I mean fair enough. I’m just saying if you want low power with low magic there are other systems that can do it better. 3.5 can do but I’d personally default to BX or DCC for that sort of game. But that’s just me.

[noob]

May I ask why you excluded warlock while allowing DFA? Was it on purpose or just a mistake?

It was on purpose: look at the DFA decription.

[StSword]

There is an option that might be appropriate, but that depends on personal preferences and depends on specifics of the setting lore.

Radiance House produced stuff for Binding, with an option that seems like it might be setting appropriate here- replacing spellcaster with binding as an alternate class feature for spellcasting classes.

So the gods are dead- When did this happen?

If it was like 100 years ago then there might be traditions of former divine spellcasters, who when their gods died turned to binding to replace their lost power.

But if the theacide happened 3000 years ago, then it would make sense for people to just be Binders nowadays instead of Binding Rangers or what have you.

[Jay R]

The people to ask are your potential players. In a small town with a limited pool of players, I suspect that your biggest issue will be finding people to play a game with almost none of the most desired classes.

If you have players who want to play without being a wizard (druid, cleric, rogue, ranger, paladin, bard, or sorcerer), then great -- have fun with it.

But I guess that this is likely to greatly reduce the pool of available players.

So the crucial advice is this: ask the players.

[StSword]

The people to ask are your potential players. In a small town with a limited pool of players, I suspect that your biggest issue will be finding people to play a game with almost none of the most desired classes.

If you have players who want to play without being a wizard (druid, cleric, rogue, ranger, paladin, bard, or sorcerer), then great -- have fun with it.

But I guess that this is likely to greatly reduce the pool of available players.

So the crucial advice is this: ask the players.


Yes while I hope there isn't any problems in that regard, the effect is slightly round peg square hole.

Radiance RPG, the FATE/OSR hybrid Of Monsters and Magic, Iron Heroes, or even a pathfinder game that uses spheres of power/might avoid magic supremacy while still allowing players to play whatever they want.

But then again the local players might be even less willing to learn a new variation of d20 than playing a game without Vancian magic, so as a suggestion that sort of might be completely useless.

However I applaud the concept of making a custom setting that logically comes with its own custom class list, but I'm mostly Pathfinder nowadays and there are a gazillion third party classes so filling niches isn't that onerous.

[Particle_Man]

There is one psionic character that doesn’t use slots or points: the soul knife. You might want to soup it up a bit though. Since you like incarnum, one option I have heard of is to basically gestalt it with the soulborn (another weak class).

Because some people want a light sabre, dammit! :smallsmile:

[rel]

A lot of monsters can deliver potent debuffs that cannot be removed without very specific magic.
Without the Clerics ability to memorise any curative spell from their spell list given a few minutes, the PC's may struggle to deal with such creatures.

Consider modifying such monsters or include a subsystem like incantation to help the PC's out.

[Particle_Man]

Another option would be to have debuffs and bad conditions wear off after an hour.

[StSword]

A lot of monsters can deliver potent debuffs that cannot be removed without very specific magic.
Without the Clerics ability to memorise any curative spell from their spell list given a few minutes, the PC's may struggle to deal with such creatures.

Consider modifying such monsters or include a subsystem like incantation to help the PC's out.

That reminds me, I wonder how magic items are going to work in this game. No spellcasters means no new items, and again we don't know how long ago the gods died, so +1 swords might be priceless artifacts in such a world

And DnD is built on the assumption that PCs will have toys to play with.

A pathfinder like system so incarnum users, binders, and dragonfire adepts can make magic items despite not actually knowing spells?

Substituting action points like Badaxe Games' Trailblazer or Mythic Heroes?

[Thurbane]

I found that when I ran a Dragon Shaman, Caduceus Bracers (MIC) helped me a little with removing status effects using Touch of Vitality. Becomes a bit redundant after 11th level though.

[Quertus]

Another option would be to have debuffs and bad conditions wear off after an hour.

Especially the "dead" condition! :smallbiggrin:

[liquidformat]

Like others have said I will echo that spelless wild shape ranger is probably worth keeping and uniquely different enough from totemist and scout to be worth while.

In that same vein spelless Harmonious Knight Paladin also seems uniquely useful in the bard roll which is missing from the class group you have going.

[Sintanan]

Sorry for the delay in responding... it has been a heck of a week with winter deciding to switch immediately from cloudless and mild to GUESS WHAT? WIND AND SNOW IS HERE!


No love for psionics? :smallfrown:
The general consensus with people that play around here is psionics and D&D don't mesh. There was a teacher a couple decades ago that used to run D&D for some of the high schoolers here to give them something to do on the weekends and he did some sort of psychic star wars sci fantasy thing that no one liked. It ruined running sci-fi TTRPG and using psionics for basically everyone and that dark cloud still remains.



I personally would put a spell-less ranger back in. The thematics are a bit different than scouts. ;-)
With you and others vouching for it, I'm going to add the spell-less ranger to the list of classes.



Radiance House produced stuff for Binding, with an option that seems like it might be setting appropriate here- replacing spellcaster with binding as an alternate class feature for spellcasting classes.

So the gods are dead- When did this happen?
I'll look into these Binder options. As for the gods, they've been dead roughly 2200 years. Divine magic has been in decline for as long as the civilized races have records, but the lynch pin that killed traditional magic was the invasion of the titans into the material plane and the destruction they caused.



Since you like incarnum, one option I have heard of is to basically gestalt [soulknife] with the soulborn (another weak class).
I'll look into this. If I reflavor the soulknife abilities with an incarnum theme and don't say "psionics" the people here might be interested.


In that same vein spelless Harmonious Knight Paladin also seems uniquely useful in the bard roll which is missing from the class group you have going.
I'll look into this one. As long as I don't mention "paladin" it shouldn't taint expectations of the class to be a divine warrior.


That reminds me, I wonder how magic items are going to work in this game. No spellcasters means no new items, and again we don't know how long ago the gods died, so +1 swords might be priceless artifacts in such a world...
Traditional magic items are scattered about in dangerous locations that were lost sites of battlefields from the Titan War. Not extremely common, but common enough players shouldn't suffer too hard to acquire them. Modern magic items are done with spell-less crafting of some form, such as advanced alchemical creations or items bartered from summoned outsiders.

[Telok]

One thing I worked on, long ago, was to take a whack at making some prestige classes into base classes. It worked quite well for several under used but flavorful prcs that had nasty prereqs or were just underpower at 6th+ level. I just fixed some save numbers & skill lists, then gave prereq feats as bonus feats. It generally didn't work with most caster prcs very well, except those with their own lists & slots.

Its kind of a pity about your psi issue. Running with just the xph & cutting out the full psion would fit nicely with your theme. Soulknife would still be badly underpowered tho.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm curious why there's no Sorcerer on your list. Sorcerers aren't Vancian.

[StSword]

I'm curious why there's no Sorcerer on your list. Sorcerers aren't Vancian.

not the OP or do I play them on TV, but my guess is that it's not distaste for Vancian magic per se but rather the game breaking nature of DnD traditional magic.

Anyway, since the soulblade isn't that impressive a class, I would suggest looking at Dreamscarred Press's Mind Unveiled: Mind Blade. It turns the mindblade into a feat tree and reworks the soulknife class into the psionic equivalent of a fighter, seems like those options would work here.

[noob]

I'm curious why there's no Sorcerer on your list. Sorcerers aren't Vancian.

The issue is not vancian casting.
The issue is spell slots.
That is why there is no bards either.

[StSword]

The issue is not vancian casting.
The issue is spell slots.
That is why there is no bards either.

I doubt its just a distaste for spell slots, after all dnd has an official spell point option (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm) and recharge magic (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/rechargeMagic.htm) effectively removes spell slots as a thing

So I figure the OP just finds magic too powerful in dnd 3e.

Hopefully the OP finds enough players okay with such limitations.

[liquidformat]

I actually think Soulborn (https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pRnlqeuBFlC8owuIGpoddXdtp_2bM4rlnXq9cNWvvk/edit?usp=sharing)works better as a PRC; I did the same with Swashbuckler (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wS5zvvhSu-9J2SdbCMVPqr9o-g7OB6--4474dTbwKBY/edit?usp=sharing)(though mashed it together with Duelist)

Marshal Knight (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wS5zvvhSu-9J2SdbCMVPqr9o-g7OB6--4474dTbwKBY/edit?usp=sharing) makes for another good and interesting face replacement for bard.

[Sintanan]

I doubt its just a distaste for spell slots, after all dnd has an official spell point option (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm) and recharge magic (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/rechargeMagic.htm) effectively removes spell slots as a thing

So I figure the OP just finds magic too powerful in dnd 3e.

Hopefully the OP finds enough players okay with such limitations.

It's more a small group that doesn't want to branch out beyond D&D, but they want to try something that isn't traditional D&D. That's part of the reason for the no spell slots. The other part is the players wanting to do something that is "...like Conan or Monster Hunter or Witcher where magic is more obscure and strange and unique".

So, it's a case of square peg and a round hole.

[Particle_Man]

Another option is Iron Heroes (which is still d20 a la OGL). It has a lot of different "fighter" options, one social-fu "Thief" option, and the magic stuff is either NPC only or "in the appendix and only allowed if the DM says so". It does interesting things with skill groups and feat chains (including, oddly enough, a very well-developed social feat chain), and has a "reserve point" system so that healing isn't an issue. Magic is seen as dangerous and untrustworthy (and there are various suggestions to the DM on how to make it so, such as a magical pool that is addictive, for example). And it has its own bestiary so you can surprise your jaded players a bit.

It might satisfy your gritty Conan needs. :smallbiggrin:

[StSword]

Another option is Iron Heroes (which is still d20 a la OGL). It has a lot of different "fighter" options, one social-fu "Thief" option, and the magic stuff is either NPC only or "in the appendix and only allowed if the DM says so". It does interesting things with skill groups and feat chains (including, oddly enough, a very well-developed social feat chain), and has a "reserve point" system so that healing isn't an issue. Magic is seen as dangerous and untrustworthy (and there are various suggestions to the DM on how to make it so, such as a magical pool that is addictive, for example). And it has its own bestiary so you can surprise your jaded players a bit.

It might satisfy your gritty Conan needs. :smallbiggrin:

Yes I've already suggested Iron Heroes as an option in which spellcasters are not gamebreaking but closer to normal spellcasters when I wasn't sure that the OP might not have a player or two who would appreciate such an option.

Maybe a projection on my part. I love magic, but fire-and-forget magic is weird to me and I find huge spell list literally mind-numbing.

So a game with True Sorcery, or IH Arcanists, or Spheres of Power, or Words of Magic, or elements of magic, or a d20 game like Radiance d20 where spellcasting is a class feature, yes please.