Generic classes

[paladinn]

I'm considering using the "generic classes" from UA in my next campaign. I've settled on using the generic Warrior pretty much as-is. There is very little difference between the generic warrior and the PHB fighter; and the warrior has more flexibility in terms of feats and skills. I'm also likely going to use the generic Spellcaster, but give it the sorcerer spells progression. Being able to choose spells from any list is just Huge, IMO.

I'm struggling with the generic Expert class tho. It still seems pretty meh. The expert gets 12 skills at L1, compared to 8+ Int mod for the rogue. It also gets 7 bonus feats over 20 levels, compared to none for the rogue. But there are no combat abilities unless taken as feats (which, I suppose, is what the feats are for). It allows for a lot of flexibility; I just wonder what can be done to beef it up a bit, or if it even needs it.

The rogue gets a skill mastery ability that seems at least as appropriate for a generic expert. The 5e rogue has the expertise and reliable talent features that likewise would work well with an expert. I'm wondering how some of those things might be adapted for the generic expert.

Any suggestions?

[Anthrowhale]

If you allow prestige classes, that will significantly beef up the range of possible capabilities, and these classes are very good at qualifying for entry into prestige classes.

It's also somewhat handy to mix Expert and Warrior, since an Expert 4/Warrior 4 has BAB and skills midway between Warrior 8 and Expert 8 but has 1 more bonus feat than either Warrior 8 or Expert 8. Also, Expert 16/Warrior 4 has 4 iteratives.

Picking up esoteric skills (iajutsu Focus, Autohypnosis, etc...) could be handy. Using the extra feats to pick up and capitalize on Double Team with a partner (maybe a wild cohort?) could be pretty effective.

[Rebel7284]

For a Warrior/Expert:
Picking up Turn undead to fuel divine feats from level 1 might be nifty as is sneak attack.

For spellcaster:
There has been a thread recently about it. Of course entering Hexer is fun. Entering a good prestige class is optimal and if prestige classes are banned, you are just a sorcerer with a slightly more flexible list and Divine Metamagic[Persist] an an option.

[lylsyly]

No reason you couldn't add trapfinding, trap sense and some of the rogue special abilities to the bonus feat list to make a more roguish expert. Would have to consider some prereqs for the extra trapsenses and special abilities though.

[paladinn]

Not really thinking of multiclassing as yet. I'd like each generic class to be viable on its own. And I know with the class feature-to-feat model, almost any character concept is viable. But the warrior is the feat monster, and the spellcaster/mage has spells; both are Very viable on their own. Just pondering how the expert (thinking of a better name) can become more viable Without MC.

I have some great ideas for extending the feature-to-feat model. I'm already going to be dropping in the 5e spell/slots system for mages, and will be delving into a lot of old and new material. There is a Pathfinder spell called Beast Shape that emulates the druid's wildshape ability, and an arcane spell called Disrupt Undead that does exactly what it says, without costing a feat.

Good times ahead!

[Darg]

The reason I like the generic classes is that you can piece together your own classes by multiclassing while building your character in conceptually consistent ways due to the way the feat/class ability system works. Will it be better than normal PRCs? Nah, but thanks to the 100% spontaneous casting, having martial characters with only access to 5th level spells with 3/4 BAB can be quite useful when you don't have clerics, druids, and wizards covering all the party's spellcasting needs.


Not really thinking of multiclassing as yet. I'd like each generic class to be viable on its own. And I know with the class feature-to-feat model, almost any character concept is viable. But the warrior is the feat monster, and the spellcaster/mage has spells; both are Very viable on their own. Just pondering how the expert (thinking of a better name) can become more viable Without MC.

I have some great ideas for extending the feature-to-feat model. I'm already going to be dropping in the 5e spell/slots system for mages, and will be delving into a lot of old and new material. There is a Pathfinder spell called Beast Shape that emulates the druid's wildshape ability, and an arcane spell called Disrupt Undead that does exactly what it says, without costing a feat.

Good times ahead!

The expert is already viable, having 12+ class skills and 6x per level. It also gets a bonus feat at second level and every 4th level, 2 good saves, and 3/4 BAB. Thanks to spellcasters being spontaneous only, it's unlikely casting would be able to dominate in every aspect of gameplay and warriors can't be skill monkeys. Experts also get access to a single martial weapon.

[paladinn]

The reason I like the generic classes is that you can piece together your own classes by multiclassing while building your character in conceptually consistent ways due to the way the feat/class ability system works. Will it be better than normal PRCs? Nah, but thanks to the 100% spontaneous casting, having martial characters with only access to 5th level spells with 3/4 BAB can be quite useful when you don't have clerics, druids, and wizards covering all the party's spellcasting needs.

The expert is already viable, having 12+ class skills and 6x per level. It also gets a bonus feat at second level and every 4th level, 2 good saves, and 3/4 BAB. Thanks to spellcasters being spontaneous only, it's unlikely casting would be able to dominate in every aspect of gameplay and warriors can't be skill monkeys. Experts also get access to a single martial weapon.

I agree with the flexibility of the generic classes. Even without going to a PrC, you can end up with some pretty cool character concepts. Want a Beorn-type shapechanging woodsman? Start with a warrior chassis, take tracking and survival and other Ranger skills, and favored enemy as a feat. A couple levels of spellcaster, get the Beast Shapes spell and Robert is your mother's brother.

I guess I'm trying to move the Expert away from being a "poor man's rogue" to being open to, well, Anything skillful while still being viable. But I guess that's a matter of the feats one chooses.

It also strikes me that "generic" classes would be a cool way to introduce low-level super-powered characters. Wolverine would be great as a generic warrior with the right feats and skills.

[paladinn]

Actually I just took another look at the 3.5 Rogue. If all the thief abilities and iterations of Sneak Attack are converted to feats, the Expert would get 18 feats (!) over 20 levels, more than even the Warrior. That makes the UA Expert look even more anemic.

There has to be balance in the Force. Just not sure how to do that.

[lylsyly]

Consider the UA Generic Expert in two different lights. One is going to focus on sneak attack/two weapon fighting and take typical roguish feats and skills. The other is going to focus being a non-roguish skill monkey (face and knowledges most likely) going with archery and non roguish skills. Thats the versatility of the generic classes. Convert some (not all) of the non-listed class features to feats and they can be ANYTHING!!

Need an NPC (arcane or divine spellcaster) Item Crafter? Just make the Item Creation Feats Bonus Feats like they already are for Wizards and the right skills and BAM!! There stands your Crafting NPC.

Need a Bard like character (with or without spellcasting)? I wouldn't make all the Bard abilities into feats but some of them Yes Please ;-). Take the right feats and skills on a Generic Expert chassis and there you go.

This is the REAL beauty of 3.5 (even just the SRD). You can create whatever you want. Just consider balance, playability, and is your group going to have fun with your creation.

my 2cp, YMMV

[paladinn]

I totally get the potential of the generic classes. And I want the Expert to be the catch-all class. If you don't want to be a mage or a warrior, you can be an expert. It would work for all sorts of character concepts. Mr. Fantastic, other than his stretching, is a scientist, which makes him an expert. Indiana Jones, while a decent fighter, is an expert.

At the same time, you should be able to approximate the standard D&D classes. If all the rogue abilities were converted to feats, an expert would have 18 feats by level 20. This seems excessive to me, because feats are the warrior's "thing", and I don't want to diminish that. Or do we go with 2 generic classes: the Mage and the Everything Else?

[Vaern]

I'm considering using the "generic classes" from UA in my next campaign. I've settled on using the generic Warrior pretty much as-is. There is very little difference between the generic warrior and the PHB fighter; and the warrior has more flexibility in terms of feats and skills. I'm also likely going to use the generic Spellcaster, but give it the sorcerer spells progression. Being able to choose spells from any list is just Huge, IMO.

I'm struggling with the generic Expert class tho. It still seems pretty meh. The expert gets 12 skills at L1, compared to 8+ Int mod for the rogue. It also gets 7 bonus feats over 20 levels, compared to none for the rogue. But there are no combat abilities unless taken as feats (which, I suppose, is what the feats are for). It allows for a lot of flexibility; I just wonder what can be done to beef it up a bit, or if it even needs it.

The rogue gets a skill mastery ability that seems at least as appropriate for a generic expert. The 5e rogue has the expertise and reliable talent features that likewise would work well with an expert. I'm wondering how some of those things might be adapted for the generic expert.

Any suggestions?
Expert gets 12 *class* skills. Their actual skills are 6+int, which easily could be house ruled to 8+int to put them on par with rogues. In the event that they have more than 12 skill points per level, they can alway either cross-class or invest in craft/profession.

Any class feature you want could conceivably be turned into a bonus feat available for your generic classes. If you want experts to have skill mastery, give them the option of picking it up. Perhaps gate it behind the prerequisite of X ranks in at least Y different skills to keep it from being picked up too early on.

Alternatively, you could turn base classes into prestige versions of themselves to be attained by generic characters. Maybe just 5-level progression granting a few key features not already present in the generic feat selection. Rogue might be 5 levels requiring sneak attack, trap sense, +3 BAB, and 8 ranks in hide/move silently, granting the special abilities at each odd level and a bonus feat at each even level.

As for spellcasters, I'd split the generic spellcaster into generic mage and generic priest. They follow the same spell progression, except mage is arcane with sorcerer/wizard spells and priest is divine with cleric/druid spells. If you're worried about how powerful generic spellcasters are compared to core classes, having access to so many spell lists and free to choose whatever spells they want, this is probably the easiest way to cut their power level down a bit.


If the previously mentioned prestige class suggestion is used, clerics might gain a domain power at 1st level. At 3rd they add either all cure or all inflict spells to their spells known list, depending on alignment. At 5th they add all spells of their chosen domain to their spells known list.

Wizards gain a spellbook and "arcane preparation." This need not be traditional Vancian prepared casting if you're trying to avoid that - instead, they choose a number of spells at the start of the day and effectively add those spells to their spells known list for the day, to be spontaneously cast as any other spell they know. They can prepare one spell in this way per level of prestige wizard, and may prepare no more than one spell per spell level. Basically, how wizard spell preparation works in 5e, but more limited in scope to compensate for the fact that it's being stacked on top of pre-existing spontaneous casting as an extension of that class rather than as a separate casting class altogether.

Sorcerers might just get bonus metamagic feats. This seems to make more sense to me than wizards being able to get extra metamagic feats, since sorcerers are meant to have greater inherent magical powers and core wizards already have significantly higher potential due to the versatility that prepared casting grants them. (I'd say just give them more spells known at each level outright, with no conditions like clerics being restricted by their domain and whatnot, but generic spellcaster is already based on the sorcerer's spell progression.)

Bard as a prestige class could grant a new bardic music ability at each level, chosen from a list like the rogue's special ability feature. They can use bardic music a number of times equal to their bard level, plus half their level in other arcane spellcaster classes, plus charisma modifier. They could potentially top out at Inspire Courage +5 by character level 10, which is much more powerful than what they get in core, but they'd have to pass up on all other bardic music abilities to do so.

As for druids... never actually played one, so I can't tell off the top of my head how you might do wild shape progression and whatnot. Probably 1 wild shape per day per level. Then, at each level, you may pick one additional creature type; or, increase your maximum size category by one step; or, reduce your minimum size category by one step. Add animal companion as a bonus feat available to generic classes (probably requiring 4 ranks of survival or knowledge: religion) and make it a prerequisite in addition to divine casting.

[paladinn]

I think one of the best things about the Spellcaster (i.e. Mage) class is that they can draw from any list. I'm going to use the 5e spell/slot system and the (admittedly nerfed) spells known and spell slots from the 5e sorcerer class.

My thought was to only allow characters to have the "bonus" feat count, which would give mages 5 and warriors 11. BtB, experts would have 7 feats; but I don't see how one could really duplicate a rogue with only 7 feats. But then, experts do get skills out the wazoo.

[Vaern]

BtB, experts would have 7 feats; but I don't see how one could really duplicate a rogue with only 7 feats.

I mean, they get evasion as a feat, 9d6 sneak attack over the course of 3 feats, trap finding and trap sense rolled into a single feat, and uncanny dodge + improved uncanny dodge as one feat. That's pretty much the whole rogue kit except for their "special ability" selection over the course of 6 feats, which leaves them one extra.

[Gnaeus]

I mean, they get evasion as a feat, 9d6 sneak attack over the course of 3 feats, trap finding and trap sense rolled into a single feat, and uncanny dodge + improved uncanny dodge as one feat. That's pretty much the whole rogue kit except for their "special ability" selection over the course of 6 feats, which leaves them one extra.

With better saves and weapon proficiency on top. Slippery mind isn’t the same as a good will save progression, but (depending on your saves and the save DCs you usually hit) generally in the same ballpark for the same effects.

[paladinn]

I mean, they get evasion as a feat, 9d6 sneak attack over the course of 3 feats, trap finding and trap sense rolled into a single feat, and uncanny dodge + improved uncanny dodge as one feat. That's pretty much the whole rogue kit except for their "special ability" selection over the course of 6 feats, which leaves them one extra.

I guess if a player is expecting to play an expert, s/he shouldn't expect to do Everything a rogue can do. If trap finding/sense is one feat and the dodges are one feat, that simplifies things. Maybe do the same with evasion. Skill Mastery and Slippery Mind are going to be class features, as is Weapon Finesse. Still, 10 iterations of sneak attack is a lot.

[lylsyly]

I'd be interested in seeing what you come up with. This whole conversation as got me interested in making a bard with the Generic Expert. I can think of three different Variants.

[paladinn]

Given that the expert version of Uncanny Dodge includes the Improved version, and Trap Sense included Trap Finding, and Sneak Attack is limited to 3 iterations (as opposed to 10 for rogues), the expert's 7 feats may be sufficient to come as close as possible to the rogue.

One thing that needs to be adjusted is class skills. The rogue has 28 class skills; the expert has 14. Granted, the expert can choose Any skills as class skills; but if the expert is supposed to be the ultimate skill monkey, I would bump this up to 28 as well. Actually I'm liking the Pathfinder version of skills a lot, so I may use that, in which case both the rogue and expert would have 21 skills. The rogue also gets 4 x (8+Int Mod) starting skill points; the expert gets 4x(6+Int Mod) points. We'll go with the higher number.

Outside of the limited sneak attack ability, and being less specifically combat-oriented, this expert is pretty much on par with the rogue, and is even more versatile in skills. I would also give basic access to warrior feats (no Greater or Improved versions).

For a bard, the bardic music abilities would need to be repackaged as feats. Bardic knowledge could possibly be a skill. Spellcasting would require a level of Spellcaster (or several, depending on how much you want). The cool thing is, if you just want the bardic abilities Without spells, you can easily do it. And you could grab sneak attack. You would have access to even more skills. you'd be limited to simple weapons, but you can always take Weapon Proficiency (Rapier) if you want. As an expert, you would automatically get Weapon Expertise so you could fully use your Dex.

[Vaern]

I don't think it's necessary to give the expert that many more class skills since they get to pick whatever they want. Like, maybe bumping it up to 14 or 16 could be good, but they probably won't need it. Barring extreme circumstances where someone is min-maxing for skill points, they're not likely to have enough skill points to buy out all of their class skills anyway.
Unless you're dropping 5 ranks in an assortment of skills for synergy bonuses or 8 points in a skill you otherwise don't want as a prerequisite for a prestige class or something, you won't need more than the dozen class skills you choose at the start.

[lylsyly]

The Expert gets 9 iterations of Sneak Attack if you take all 3 feats. The craven feat in a non-bonus feat slot would help make up for this.

No rogue every tries to take all 28 of those skills. They are there so you can customize. For instance a master spy would take a different set of skills than a melee oriented rogue would take a different set of skills than a true thief. I do agree about giving the expert 8 skills per level (at my table every class gets +2 to skills AND we use the bundled skills from pathfinder).

The expert already gets proficiency with 1 martial weapon of his choice. If he wants weapon finesse he can take it in a non bonus feat slot.

As for the Bardic Expert I will be starting a thread of it's own in a day or two ;-)

[Quertus]

I'm liking the idea of giving the Expert 20+ class skills. That way, they can represent the skillful character who dabbles, rather than just the level treadmill running focused specialist.

[paladinn]

The Expert gets 9 iterations of Sneak Attack if you take all 3 feats. The craven feat in a non-bonus feat slot would help make up for this.

No rogue every tries to take all 28 of those skills. They are there so you can customize. For instance a master spy would take a different set of skills than a melee oriented rogue would take a different set of skills than a true thief. I do agree about giving the expert 8 skills per level (at my table every class gets +2 to skills AND we use the bundled skills from pathfinder).

The expert already gets proficiency with 1 martial weapon of his choice. If he wants weapon finesse he can take it in a non bonus feat slot.

As for the Bardic Expert I will be starting a thread of it's own in a day or two ;-)

The 3 sneak attack feats gives +2d6, +3d6 and +4d6 respectively, btb. I suppose one can house rule letting the bonus increase for x more feats to give +yd6, but that would be a house rule, would it not?

Since an expert isn't going to get all the rogue combat features, I am in favor of jacking up the number of class skills and points. No, an expert isn't likely to have all 28 skills, but it's good to have them available. Or, just make All skills expert class skills!

An expert isn't likely to have a huge Str bonus; s/he is more likely to have a higher Dex. Yes, Finesse Can be/is a feat; but I wouldn't have a problem making it an expert class ability. In Pathfinder Unbound, Finesse is a rogue class ability. If the expert's one martial weapon is a "light" weapon, s/he is all set!

I'm interested to see your take on an expert bard. I can actually envision a warrior character take a few bard "feats" and be a viable skald.

[lylsyly]

Sneak Attack (Ex)As the rogue ability, but +2d6 on damage rolls. Prerequisites: Hide 4 ranks, Move Silently 4 ranks.


Improved Sneak Attack (Ex)Add +3d6 to your sneak attack damage. Prerequisites: Hide 11 ranks, Move Silently 11 ranks, sneak attack.


Greater Sneak Attack (Ex)Add +4d6 to your sneak attack damage. Prerequisites: Hide 18 ranks, Move Silently 18 ranks, sneak attack, improved sneak attack.

2+3+4=9 and you actually can get to +9 before the rogue does!

As for the bard look here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?639269-The-Bardic-(generic)-Expert).

[Darg]

I don't see the point of giving the expert so many class skills. Unlike a rogue which needs room to expand and accommodate different playstyles, the expert has that built right in to how the class functions. There isn't a need for 28 class skills when you can choose the class skills you want. The game is a party game and no single class needs to be a jack of all trades, master of none. Why do you think the spellcaster is spontaneous instead of having a spellbook and prepared?

The point of generic classes is to allow the player to create the role they want to fill instead of following the guide rails of pre-made classes. There is no need to have any one generic class to fill the role of skill monkey as every class can pick the skills they want.

[paladinn]

Sneak Attack (Ex)As the rogue ability, but +2d6 on damage rolls. Prerequisites: Hide 4 ranks, Move Silently 4 ranks.


Improved Sneak Attack (Ex)Add +3d6 to your sneak attack damage. Prerequisites: Hide 11 ranks, Move Silently 11 ranks, sneak attack.


Greater Sneak Attack (Ex)Add +4d6 to your sneak attack damage. Prerequisites: Hide 18 ranks, Move Silently 18 ranks, sneak attack, improved sneak attack.

2+3+4=9 and you actually can get to +9 before the rogue does!

As for the bard look here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?639269-The-Bardic-(generic)-Expert).

Hmm.. are you sure the totals are cumulative? It would be great if so

[paladinn]

As for the bard look here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?639269-The-Bardic-(generic)-Expert).[/FONT][/COLOR]

Your bard treatment is Very interesting, if not exactly the direction I would go. I don't care for tying the specific Bard feats to specific Expert levels. The beauty of the generic class system is that you can take any feat at anytime, at least hypothetically, other than the feat/greater feat/improved feat progression. This also seems to tie the Bard feats to the Expert class alone. I would open it up:

Anyone can take a combat feat; but only warriors can take the greater/improved version of combat feats. Even a mage can get basic proficiency with a sword, but no more than basic. An expert could get basic 2-weapon fighting.

Anyone can potentially take expert feats, but only experts can take the greater/improved versions. Most warriors or experts won't Want to, as they have other/better options for them; but if they want, they can. A stealthy warrior can take the basic sneak attack, for example.

Only casters can take caster feats. Those feats are worthless to anyone else anyway.

[lylsyly]

Hmm.. are you sure the totals are cumulative? It would be great if so

Of course they are cumulative. Those are direct qoutes from the SRD. It specifically says "ADD" the damage. not "your sneak attack improves to +3d6. And I checked UA, the language is the same in both sources.

[paladinn]

Of course they are cumulative. Those are direct qoutes from the SRD. It specifically says "ADD" the damage. not "your sneak attack improves to +3d6. And I checked UA, the language is the same in both sources.

I certainly have no problem with the bonuses being cumulative. It just isn't clear (to me anyway) that the SA damage is added to the previous total or to the base damage. If the generic classes are supposed to be "not quite as good", then it stands to reason that sneak attack wouldn't be either. Especially since the expert would max out sneak attack before the rogue.

[lylsyly]

except that the expert only gets +9d6 and the rogue gets +10d6???

What is not clear about the following qoute? Bolding by me. "Add +3d6 to your sneak attack damage."

I'm done with it.

[paladinn]

except that the expert only gets +9d6 and the rogue gets +10d6???

What is not clear about the following qoute? Bolding by me. "Add +3d6 to your sneak attack damage."

I'm done with it.

Like I said, It wasn't clear if you add the bonus to your total accumulated or to the base damage.

I don't know why you're getting so upset. It's a bloody game.

[lylsyly]

I'm not upset, I'm just not going to keep repeating myself.

[paladinn]

I'm not upset, I'm just not going to keep repeating myself.

Okay..

I do like some of your Bard ideas. But I agree, some of them go against the model of class-abilities-as-feats.

[lylsyly]

I see the different bardic musics as inclusions of Bardic Music that just require x ranks in perform. See the other thread.

So Fighter, Ranger, and Rogue (add Skill Mastery to the least of class feature feats) are easily emulated by the generic classes. Spellcasting is already covered. I'm going to play with Bard until everyone is happy, this also makes your Skald a thing. Paladin could shirley use some work because it is so much more than just smite evil and turn undead (should probably have at least lay on hands and divine grace). Druid could be done but I think it would need too many feats to be easiliy done. Monk could be probably done with just adding feats for flurry of blows, scaling AC/faster movement, and WIS to AC (WIS to AC - wanna bet divine casters wouldn't want to take this one?).

Stick in some PRCs that give half casting to some of the non-casters and you could have a complete (and quite possibly fun) system using only the SRD.

EDIT: Paladinn I see you were posting in the other thread while I was posting in this one, LMAO.

[paladinn]

I see the different bardic musics as inclusions of Bardic Music that just require x ranks in perform. See the other thread.

So Fighter, Ranger, and Rogue (add Skill Mastery to the least of class feature feats) are easily emulated by the generic classes. Spellcasting is already covered. I'm going to play with Bard until everyone is happy, this also makes your Skald a thing. Paladin could shirley use some work because it is so much more than just smite evil and turn undead (should probably have at least lay on hands and divine grace). Druid could be done but I think it would need too many feats to be easiliy done. Monk could be probably done with just adding feats for flurry of blows, scaling AC/faster movement, and WIS to AC (WIS to AC - wanna bet divine casters wouldn't want to take this one?).

Stick in some PRCs that give half casting to some of the non-casters and you could have a complete (and quite possibly fun) system using only the SRD.

EDIT: Paladinn I see you were posting in the other thread while I was posting in this one, LMAO.

Great minds..lol

Not sure I want to bring in half-casting, 1/3 casting, etc. If someone wants spells, they can take a few caster levels.

I can see a "monk" simulated using a warrior chassis with unarmed fighting feats, uncanny dodge, evasion, etc. They would be tougher than a "normal" monk and less mystical, but still a great martial artist.

Smite Evil and Turn Undead are already feats in UA. I could also see a "paladin" taking Favored Enemy: Undead as a feat. The druid's wildshape ability hasn't "officially" been adapted; but Pathfinder had a spell called Beast Shape that approximates it.

I want to keep the actual generic classes as generic as possible and then hang whatever feat/ures on them.

[Darg]

I can see a "monk" simulated using a warrior chassis with unarmed fighting feats, uncanny dodge, evasion, etc. They would be tougher than a "normal" monk and less mystical, but still a great martial artist.

Unarmed damage and flurry as one feat (minus the unarmored requirement), speed increase + level AC bonus as one feat (minus the wis to AC)

[lylsyly]

Unarmed damage and flurry as one feat (minus the unarmored requirement), speed increase + level AC bonus as one feat (minus the wis to AC)

I was kinds hesitant about including wis to ac myself, see the aforementioned comment about divine caster wanting to take it, lol. I didn't even consider unarmed damage, good catch.

[Darg]

I was kinds hesitant about including wis to ac myself, see the aforementioned comment about divine caster wanting to take it, lol. I didn't even consider unarmed damage, good catch.

The wis to AC dilemma is the reason why I thought to simply go back to the 3.0 roots of having flurry and unarmed damage work while armored. At a higher level one could invest in the increased speed and the AC bonus feat to recieve the benefits while unarmored if they wanted to go that route. I also left ImpUAS out of it because it was a bonus feat.

[paladinn]

One other thing I'm contemplating.. Currently all characters get 7 feats regardless of class. Warriors get 11 bonus feats, for a total of 18. Experts get 7 bonus, for a total of 14. Casters get 5 bonus, for a total of 12. Personally I think this is a bit excessive. I have come to view feats as more of a martials' thing; casters have enough going on with learning spells. I want to limit casters to only their 5 bonus feats. Likewise, I would like to limit warriors to their 11 bonus feats, and experts to their 7. I think this would greatly simplify the character generation/advancement situation, which in 3x is quite a bit complicated and can bog everything down while decisions are made at level-up.

Any thoughts?

[Vaern]

I can see a "monk" simulated using a warrior chassis with unarmed fighting feats, uncanny dodge, evasion, etc. They would be tougher than a "normal" monk and less mystical, but still a great martial artist.

Superior Unarmed Strike grants unarmed strike damage which is, by default, one step behind a monk of your level. Could easily be tweaked to just be equivalent to a monk of your level for generic purposes, since the actual monk class is off the table in a generic campaign. Perhaps even roll the effect into Improved Unarmed Strike.

The Two-Weapon Fighting chain can effectively replace Flurry of Blows. You end up with more attacks per round with no armor restriction (granting that you're probably going to be using lighter armor anyways to get the most out of the dexterity prerequisites).
You also have fewer weapon restrictions, so now you don't need to worry about people trying to argue, for some reason, that you can't flurry while using gauntlets to enhance your fists because they're not special monk weapons, despite the fact that flurry says you can use unarmed strikes or special monk weapons, meaning that a gauntlet, which is explicitly listed unarmed attack and whose description indicates that you make unarmed strikes when using it, qualifies for flurry as an unarmed strike which precludes the necessity for it to be called out as a special monk weapon. Flurrying with gauntlets is 100% RAW legal as far as I can tell (minding that the FAQ is not RAW), but it's still just so much easier to take TWF instead and not have to deal with it.
Side note: An unarmed attack is defined as an attack made with no weapon in hand. An unarmed strike is defined as the successful result of an attack with no weapon in hand. If you attack, it's an unarmed attack; if it hits, it is an unarmed strike. If a gauntlet is an unarmed attack, it is not possible for it to deal damage as anything other than an unarmed strike. The two keywords are intrinsically linked and are used interchangeably, even within the monk's ability descriptions, so any argument that "an attack with a gauntlet is considered an unarmed attack" means that it's not an unarmed strike, despite the fact that the previous sentence indicates that damage dealt by a gauntlet is in fact an unarmed strike, is just tedious semantic rubbish that holds no weight as far as RAW is concerned.

Bonus movement speed could be made available as something that can be taken multiple times, granting +10 feet of base land speed for each iteration to a maximum of +60 feet. Gain +1 bonus to AC for every +20 feet of bonus movement speed. Someone wanting to play a more barbarian-esque warrior might also appreciate having some fast movement. Barbarian's fast movement works in up to medium armor, but the monk requires no armor; I'd split the difference and allow both effects to apply when wearing light or no armor.
Alternatively, I might say scrap the AC bonus and instead bundle slow fall together with fast movement. They don't need the AC bonus as much if they're able to just wear armor without losing all of their abilities. Even if you're restricting them to just light armor, at least they can get an enhancement bonus on it which should effectively replace the monk's AC/level bonus.

Ki strike could be a feat chain. Ki strike (magic) is available early on, as a prerequisite to ki strike (aligned), leading into ki strike (adamantine) at later levels. Since generic warriors are not required to be lawful as monks are, ki strike (aligned) would simply treat their attacks as having their character's alignment on both axes.
Special: You can take ki strike (adamantine) without having ki strike (aligned) as a prerequisite if you are true neutral. You lose the benefit of ki strike (adamantine) if your alignment changes, until you either gain the prerequisite feat or return to true neutral.

As for the rest of the mystical/supernatural abilities they get, maybe just multiclass into spellcaster for a few select spells that fit the flavor? A few levels will reduce the warrior's HP and BAB to match the core monk's in exchange for a handful of spells to make up for their lost abilities. 10 warrior/10 spellcaster ends up giving them +15 BAB and an average of a d7.5 HD overall, with 5th level spells granting them such spells as dimension door and slay living to replace abundant step and quivering palm, for example, which ultimately results in them appropriately casting dimension door at half their total level... it's not a perfect fix, but their BAB is where it should be, their HP is almost just right, and they can approximately emulate a good portion of the monk's class features with less restriction when uses per day are concerned. And by simply casting as divine, they retain their ability to use armor with no penalty to their spellcasting if desired.


One other thing I'm contemplating.. Currently all characters get 7 feats regardless of class. Warriors get 11 bonus feats, for a total of 18. Experts get 7 bonus, for a total of 14. Casters get 5 bonus, for a total of 12. Personally I think this is a bit excessive. I have come to view feats as more of a martials' thing; casters have enough going on with learning spells. I want to limit casters to only their 5 bonus feats. Likewise, I would like to limit warriors to their 11 bonus feats, and experts to their 7. I think this would greatly simplify the character generation/advancement situation, which in 3x is quite a bit complicated and can bog everything down while decisions are made at level-up.

Any thoughts?
I wouldn't get rid of any bonus feats at all. They're not just martial things. There are metamagic, item creation, divine, and reserve feats all available exclusively to casters. There's also feats that affect the kind of things you can do with skills and whatnot. Overall more feats give your character more abilities, more options, and more things to do, and that's what a generic character is all about.

Experts in particular, though, absolutely need all of the bonus feats they get from their class progression just to break even on the generic chassis. "Expert" type classes aren't defined by a static progression like a spellcasting table, BAB, gaining free feats at a certain rate, or even by how many skills they get compared to other classes. They're defined by unique class features that simply don't follow standardized rules for progression, and which the generic class system clumsily tries to make up for by feeding core class features into the generic mold in the form of bonus feats.

The generic class section introduces 12 new bonus feats, 9 of which are class features taken straight out of the rogue and ranger progression tables. And they push these features hard to make sure your off-brand rogue gets all the features he needs with just the bonus feats he's given. 9 iterations of the sneak attack feature are crammed into 3 feats. Trapfinding and trap sense rolled together. Uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge bundled together. Add in evasion and improved evasion as separate feats. That's 7. That's all the bonus feats allotted by the generic expert. If you give the expert all of its bonus feats from class level but take away those gained from character level and decide you want to play a rogue, that's all you get. No weapon finesse. No improved feint. No craven. Nothing extra. Take away half of the expert's bonus feats and you end up with a bit less than a core rogue.

Most fighters I've played are fairly bog-standard hack-and-slashers who have basically everything they need by level 10 or 12, and anything beyond that is just extra. As far as the warrior is concerned, losing a handful of bonus feats won't absolutely ruin them, but they become strictly less powerful than a core fighter and it will slow down progression significantly. Nobody wants their character to be just getting good when they hit level 20.
I absolutely wouldn't agree with you saying that feats are "more of a martials' things," but a generic spellcaster would absolutely not be ruined by losing a few feats. At the end of the day they're still basically a sorcerer with two additional spell lists to choose from and the option of casting as divine to simply disregard arcane spell failure. If you don't intend to nerf their spell selection then you shouldn't have a problem with how many feats a character has access to. Their absurdly high potential is the standard that you should be holding the warrior and the expert up to as far as balance is concerned.
An expert, though, would be essentially unplayable if they lost any bonus feats. You need all of them to approximate a rogue. I haven't looked into the ranger's progression table to check yet, but it probably costs the whole expert allotment to make up for their combat styles and what class features are available through feats. You wouldn't be able to take any prestige class that required a feat outside of standard progression without sacrificing class features to do so.

[Darg]

I think the best way to approximate bard/paladin/ranger is to simply use the prestige version of each. This way you get the class features without severely neutering your progression and statistics.

I don't think including all of the monk abilities is a necessity. First, most aren't great and at least one of them can be taken care of by simply using gauntlets. Second, the generic features aren't meant to give you the whole class back, just the iconic ability to have the flavor. You can select smite, but really nothing else for a paladin is actually available.

[paladinn]

I'm actually leaning more toward the 3 generic classes getting Only their bonus feats. That give warriors 11, experts 7 and casters 5. Depending on how I configure the feats, that may be enough. In 5e, feats are an option and far fewer. In any event, I don't think warriors need 18 total feats. Full casters would likely grab metamagic feats, but they can grab a weapon proficiency instead if they want.

As for nerfing casters, I want to adapt the 5e spell/slot system. Casters would get quite a few less total spells, but a lot more flexibility in how they are cast. No more fire-and-forget! There has long been a discussion about casters being So much better than martials; this is my way of narrowing that gap.

[paladinn]

I think the best way to approximate bard/paladin/ranger is to simply use the prestige version of each. This way you get the class features without severely neutering your progression and statistics.

I don't think including all of the monk abilities is a necessity. First, most aren't great and at least one of them can be taken care of by simply using gauntlets. Second, the generic features aren't meant to give you the whole class back, just the iconic ability to have the flavor. You can select smite, but really nothing else for a paladin is actually available.

I actually like the prospect of a generic warrior acting as a paladin. Smiting has become the paladin's "thing." I prefer a spell-less paladin who is a fighter first and foremost. Let a warrior take Smite Evil and maybe Turn Undead and fill the rest of his/her feat slots with combat feats and maybe Favored Enemy and you have a kick-butt fighter who can still lay the smack down on the undead and fiends. Especially if you use the Pathfinder version of Smite: the bonus smite damage is Doubled if you fight an undead or fiend!

And if you still want some spells, you can always take a level or two of Caster with divine spells, including Cure Wounds (the 5e version).

[lylsyly]

@Paladinn - your warrior paladin is going to have to take a level of divine caster to qualify for Turn Undead, look at the prereq. I haven't looked at prestige bard/pally/ranger classes in a long time but I tend to agree about allowing their use.

As for the monk I only see the need for two feats to get the "flavor."

Fast Movement (Ex)
Combines the monk class features unarmored speed bonus and AC bonus (but not WIS to AC). If a character takes this feat after 1st level then the level he takes it at is considered level one for purposes of level calculations.

Flurry of Blows (Ex)
Combines the monk class features flurry of blows attack bonus and unarmed damage. If a character takes this feat after 1st level then the level he takes it at is considered level one for purposes of level calculations.

just my 2 credits coppers, YMMV

[Gnaeus]

I'm actually leaning more toward the 3 generic classes getting Only their bonus feats. That give warriors 11, experts 7 and casters 5. Depending on how I configure the feats, that may be enough. In 5e, feats are an option and far fewer. In any event, I don't think warriors need 18 total feats. Full casters would likely grab metamagic feats, but they can grab a weapon proficiency instead if they want.

As for nerfing casters, I want to adapt the 5e spell/slot system. Casters would get quite a few less total spells, but a lot more flexibility in how they are cast. No more fire-and-forget! There has long been a discussion about casters being So much better than martials; this is my way of narrowing that gap.

Just playing 5e sounds easier. The advantage 3.5 has is character build options. I don’t see any advantage in playing 3.5 with generic classes bonus feat only that wouldn’t be exceeded by just playing 5e, with or without feats. Especially if you are using their casting anyway.

[paladinn]

Just playing 5e sounds easier. The advantage 3.5 has is character build options. I don’t see any advantage in playing 3.5 with generic classes bonus feat only that wouldn’t be exceeded by just playing 5e, with or without feats. Especially if you are using their casting anyway.

5e is Way harder to hack. And the whole point of this exercise is to come up with ways to use the 3e generic classes to approximate the "regular" classes Or to come up with new options. 5e doesn't have "generic classes"; and the way the sub/class system is modeled makes it difficult to do that. The closest I've seen in 5e has been the "sidekick" classes; and even those don't lend themselves to genericity. With generic classes, you can use any of the 3 as a chassis and bolt almost anything onto them.

I'm wanting to use 5e casting because a) it prevents casters from becoming minor deities at high levels and b) it allows a lot more flexibility while tossing "fire-and-forget", the bane of my RPG existence. A caster doesn't need to prepare 5 versions of Cure Wounds; just cast using a higher level slot.

The fewer-feat thing just makes sense to me. Does a warrior need a feat Every Level? Casters get spell/slots every level; do they really need 12 feats? If they ever need a few more, they can MC a level of warrior or even expert.

[lylsyly]

After reading that I have to agree with Gnaeus. Why don't you just play 5e. The whole reason my group still plays 3.5 is the versatility. As far as dumbing down 3.5 caster goes it's really pretty easy. Just eliminate any spells or abilities you consider to powerful. One game I run I cut wildshape, shapechange, alter self and any other thing I deem to possible of breaking the campaign, especially certain spells. you just have to dumb down anything you don't want. In my srd- game the highest spell level is 5th and even then I cut some spells out. My goal is to allow the generic classes to emulate a weaker version of the base classes. In a straight up game of generic classes casters are still supreme. This as been proven by the girl in my group that occasionally runs a gestalt game with strictly the generic classes.

[paladinn]

After reading that I have to agree with Gnaeus. Why don't you just play 5e. The whole reason my group still plays 3.5 is the versatility. As far as dumbing down 3.5 caster goes it's really pretty easy. Just eliminate any spells or abilities you consider to powerful. One game I run I cut wildshape, shapechange, alter self and any other thing I deem to possible of breaking the campaign, especially certain spells. you just have to dumb down anything you don't want. In my srd- game the highest spell level is 5th and even then I cut some spells out. My goal is to allow the generic classes to emulate a weaker version of the base classes. In a straight up game of generic classes casters are still supreme. This as been proven by the girl in my group that occasionally runs a gestalt game with strictly the generic classes.

Evidently you didn't really read what I last posted. 5e is really difficult to hack; I've definitely tried. And the generic class model can/will make it possible to create more of the exact character concept that a player wants. It will still be very versatile; I just think that All those feats (18 for a warrior, 14 for an expert, 12 for a caster, including bonus feats) is a lot. And the 5e spell slot system is way more versatile than 3e's. Why have to prepare 5 versions of Cure Wounds when one will do?

[lylsyly]

No, I read what you posted. I just disagree. You can make 3.5 pretty much un-hackable by cutting some things out. You REALLY want unhackable? I've been playing since I got OD&D for my 16th birthday. Unhackable?? No feats, No skills, no multiclassing, Four classes and their given abilities, PERIOD!!

[Gnaeus]

The fewer-feat thing just makes sense to me. Does a warrior need a feat Every Level? Casters get spell/slots every level; do they really need 12 feats? If they ever need a few more, they can MC a level of warrior or even expert.

And that depends. If you want the math to work out, they pretty much do. And if you want players to have real build options, since they only have 3 classes, they definitely do. You could combat that by stripping a bunch of prerequisites and dumbing down monsters. But that sounds like a ton of work. And when you are done, the chance of something abusable seems like it could actually go up. This seems like reinventing the wheel to do what 5e does out of the box. 5e can get away without feats because it has robust multiclassing coupled with lots of character choices within each class.

[Darg]

In a straight up game of generic classes casters are still supreme. This as been proven by the girl in my group that occasionally runs a gestalt game with strictly the generic classes.

In a way, sure. Then again you only get 34 spells known divided between spell levels without spontaneous access that clerics and druids have. You don't get shield proficiency or light-heavy armor proficiency. You don't get the class features to increase versatility. It all comes through spells and your spells known are going to be taxed based on your needs and the party's needs. This is further exacerbated by not having the mechanism to unlearn to learn spells as you go.

I would also argue that gestalt is not a very good metric to base claims of power on; especially when those claims also hinge on spells being interpreted and used in loose fashion without the DM simply putting a foot down or start balancing based on those uses negating the benefit they gave.

[paladinn]

And that depends. If you want the math to work out, they pretty much do. And if you want players to have real build options, since they only have 3 classes, they definitely do. You could combat that by stripping a bunch of prerequisites and dumbing down monsters. But that sounds like a ton of work. And when you are done, the chance of something abusable seems like it could actually go up. This seems like reinventing the wheel to do what 5e does out of the box. 5e can get away without feats because it has robust multiclassing coupled with lots of character choices within each class.

What math doesn't work out?

[paladinn]

In another thread, someone brought up the idea of trading a character's bonus feats for sneak attack. Are "generic class" feat/ures (class features converted to feats) something that can possibly be selected as feats for non-generic classes? For instance, "generic" sneak attack is a bit more limited than the rogue feature. Is that possibly something that would work as a feat for, say, a fighter/swashbuckler?

[Quertus]

I don’t see any advantage in playing 3.5 with generic classes bonus feat only that wouldn’t be exceeded by just playing 5e,

Rules instead of "Mother May I"? Ability to build off the RNG instead of Bounded Accuracy? "Only having to learn house rules", instead of "learning a whole new system", and the corresponding ability to convince players to do so? WBL instead of "magic items? What's that?"? Oodles of content support, from feats to spells to prestige classes to monsters to items? Already own the books? Still boycotting WotC after 4e?

I can think of a lot of advantages to sticking with 3e.

[Gnaeus]

What math doesn't work out?

Your fighter type (and to a lesser extent the rogue type) is expected to have feats to counter appropriately CRed monsters. A generic warrior with bonus feats only will be quite a bit behind a normal tier 5 combatant in power curve. Like 2 feats behind the fighter or Barbarian at level 1 and getting worse every 3 levels. And lacking the normal fix for muggles being behind the power curve already (that is to say, dipping other muggle classes for low hanging fruit, by dipping Barbarian or Ranger say). I wouldn’t expect a featless generic class muggle to do well with normal encounters. This is especially true if they wanted to do something like archery or TWF or area control that is feat intensive.

Again, this problem is fixable. Like, you could strip most monster feats. But that’s ongoing work throughout the campaign.



I can think of a lot of advantages to sticking with 3e.
I’m sorry. No meaningful advantages. I stand corrected. PRCs you can’t meaningfully access without feats. Great. Or some kind of edition hate that’s irrelevant since you are starting by throwing the PHB in the trash and stealing the 5e core mechanics. Which you can obviously already access since you are stealing the 5e core mechanics. WBL that’s jacked from the beginning because you have significantly weakened the classes, especially the weakest ones. A vast repertoire of spells, of which you will only see the most broken ones because your casters can still absolutely compete on level with reduced spell slots and no feats by just leaning into the worst parts of the system. Planar binding? Shivering touch? Ray of Stupidity? Work fine. Blasting with fireball? Much weaker without feat support.

[paladinn]

I’m sorry. No meaningful advantages. I stand corrected. PRCs you can’t meaningfully access without feats. Great. Or some kind of edition hate that’s irrelevant since you are starting by throwing the PHB in the trash and stealing the 5e core mechanics. Which you can obviously already access since you are stealing the 5e core mechanics. WBL that’s jacked from the beginning because you have significantly weakened the classes, especially the weakest ones. A vast repertoire of spells, of which you will only see the most broken ones because your casters can still absolutely compete on level with reduced spell slots and no feats by just leaning into the worst parts of the system. Planar binding? Shivering touch? Ray of Stupidity? Work fine. Blasting with fireball? Much weaker without feat support.

You really don't need the adversarial tone. This is all theorycrafting at this point. And no one is talking about "throwing the PHB in the trash" and "stealing 5e core mechanics", which is a total straw-man. We're talking about using published rules from WotC designed to go with 3e. The only 5e core mechanic is the spellcasting system, which Can indeed replace the 3e version, even if 3e spells are used.

For decades now, the "linear fighter/ quadratic wizard" complaint has been used about the power disparity between casters and martials. I think the 5e spell system balances that better while still allowing casters much more flexibility. But that is just my opinion.

[Gnaeus]

For decades now, the "linear fighter/ quadratic wizard" complaint has been used about the power disparity between casters and martials. I think the 5e spell system balances that better while still allowing casters much more flexibility. But that is just my opinion.

And I agree with that. But the feat reduction hurts martials more. And the 5e spell system comes with the 5e spells scaling by slot, and significantly differently balanced spells. To give only one example, look at anything in the minionmancy line. It was already an issue that vanilla use of even spells like summon monster, animate dead or planar ally could effectively replace the party muggle for most purposes, let alone planar binding. Now, the muggle is comparatively worse and most of those spells are comparatively better because of restricted spell slots. A cleric 6 with 3 ogre skeletons was already better than a fighter. Now the fighter has lost 2 feats and heavy armor. His numbers are worse and his ability to do things the ogre skeletons can’t do (like a feat intensive AOO trip build) is significantly reduced. Planar ally hound archon? Same thing. Effectively 4 feats comparatively better than the muggle 7 he was originally at least on par with. And the generic spellcaster is heavily incentivized to use spells that can be cast day before adventure. So you could rewrite all those statblocks (work, which should also have larger world ramifications), or all those spells (same), or ban them (limiting more caster options), or allow them and make class imbalance worse. The 5e spells are significantly different. You probably can’t import them directly without editing because 5e numbers are so different. And if you did, the more 5e you use, the better question “why not just use 5e” becomes.

5e casters also have at will blast cantrips that allow them to keep up with muggle damage so they can be useful without casting a leveled spell every round, since there are so many fewer slots. Using the 5e spell system would suggest that you should do something similar. But you would want to alter the damage to adjust to the higher damage output in 3.5. But the expected damage output also went down with the feat reduction. So the best solution is to eyeball it I guess? Kinda see where the martials end up and peg it to that? So much for the advantage of having a robust rules set. I would expect a lot of unforeseen problems that will require on the fly adjustment.

[Quertus]

Yeah, I'll agree that removing the "base" feats seems questionable in this context, unless the Warrior (and Expert?) Generic classes have some strange, "consider only the *last* feat in the chain; you get all the prerequisite feats as bonus feats when you take the capstone feat" style of rules.

[paladinn]

Thanks for the input. Still batting this around in my addled brain. Simplicity is usually a good thing, but I'm trying to achieve some sort of balance. Most of the mechanics of 3e are great, and I agree that 5e is very limiting in a lot of ways. I do like being able to cast spells at higher levels in increase their effect. 5 versions of Cure X Wounds shouldn't be necessary. And I think there is wisdom in having a 9th level spell be a 9th level spell regardless of the caster's level.

Like I said, theorycraft..

[Gnaeus]

Or for another related issue, think about the benefits fighters get from caster support. When my 3.5 group kicks open a door, the fighter is prebuffed. Yes, it’s a spell that comes from a caster, but it helps a fighter function. A 6th level 3.pf sorcerer has 17+ spells per day. A 5e caster has 10. Add to this the factor that your “cleric” type is going to need to be dropping self buffs to not die, with his no armor/d4 hp. A mid level 3.PF tank can reasonably expect some mid/long duration buffs like heroism or barkskin or greater magic weapon. And very likely a minute or round/level buff immeadiately pre-fight. A generic featless fighter probably can’t count on that. Not because his teammates are stingy, but because they will need their 10 spells to not die and contribute in fights themselves, and also throwing out a buff that may be unnecessary or irrelevant once you see what’s behind door #1 is a bigger opportunity cost. Or the caster may choose to self buff, because he’s only got 2 spells per combat so he may want to make his non-spell actions count. The generic spellcaster “healer” can’t even swing a mace in heavy armor to be useful, without spending spells to do so. This would still be a problem with regular 3.5 feat progression, but at least you could expect solutions like reserve feats, quickened/persisted/extended buffs, easier item access etc. So in addition to being 2+ feats behind, you can expect the generic warrior to be unbuffed and/or spending his own WBL to cover what he would normally get from even a moderately civic minded caster. This also includes heals, especially status effect heals, because if you only get 7 spells for all your needs things like cure disease and remove paralysis are unlikely to make the cut.

[paladinn]

The biggest complaints I encounter about 3e are the disparity between casters and martials, and the perceived "feat bloat." We'e touched on the caster/martial thing. When it comes to feat bloat, do you think the boat is in the number of feats available or the number of feats that some characters get (18 total for fighters/warriors by L20!)?

Is there a solution to this, or is more always better? Simplicity isn't a bad thing.

I confess, a lot of this I'm going to bake into my hybrid game; but it's good to consider while giving attention to generic classes.

[Quertus]

IMO, the only "feat bloat" problem is that "whirlwind attack" isn't a feat, it's a feat chain of prerequisites. As is great cleave, the archery or two-weapon chains, etc.

If you made every feat truly matter, every feat be serious competition with Leadership? Then, yeah, do away with the "base" feats, and just give them their bonus feats

[paladinn]

IMO, the only "feat bloat" problem is that "whirlwind attack" isn't a feat, it's a feat chain of prerequisites. As is great cleave, the archery or two-weapon chains, etc.

If you made every feat truly matter, every feat be serious competition with Leadership? Then, yeah, do away with the "base" feats, and just give them their bonus feats

Yeah, I'm not a fan of feat trees/chains. Something else I like about the expert "feats": they fold in improved "feat" with the mundane "feat." I hear the Pathfinder version of feats minimizes this? Or is there a 3rd party rendition that does?

[Darg]

Yeah, I'm not a fan of feat trees/chains. Something else I like about the expert "feats": they fold in improved "feat" with the mundane "feat." I hear the Pathfinder version of feats minimizes this? Or is there a 3rd party rendition that does?

From what I have seen, the feat chains are everywhere in pathfinder. Lots of customization, but from what I can remember you sometimes need more than one feat to do what you could do with one in 3.5. Then again, you get a feat every 2 levels instead of 3.

[Gnaeus]

Yeah, I'm not a fan of feat trees/chains. Something else I like about the expert "feats": they fold in improved "feat" with the mundane "feat." I hear the Pathfinder version of feats minimizes this? Or is there a 3rd party rendition that does?

Yes and it’s pretty popular apparently. The elephant in the room, feat taxes in pathfinder. Sorry can’t link on buggy phone, but easily found by search. I judge its popularity by the number of unrelated online games that apparently use it. (Not very scientific but seems indicative)

[zlefin]

5e is Way harder to hack. And the whole point of this exercise is to come up with ways to use the 3e generic classes to approximate the "regular" classes Or to come up with new options. 5e doesn't have "generic classes"; and the way the sub/class system is modeled makes it difficult to do that. The closest I've seen in 5e has been the "sidekick" classes; and even those don't lend themselves to genericity. With generic classes, you can use any of the 3 as a chassis and bolt almost anything onto them.

I'm wanting to use 5e casting because a) it prevents casters from becoming minor deities at high levels and b) it allows a lot more flexibility while tossing "fire-and-forget", the bane of my RPG existence. A caster doesn't need to prepare 5 versions of Cure Wounds; just cast using a higher level slot.

The fewer-feat thing just makes sense to me. Does a warrior need a feat Every Level? Casters get spell/slots every level; do they really need 12 feats? If they ever need a few more, they can MC a level of warrior or even expert.

Is it really so hard to design generic classes for 5e? I'm not deeply familiar with it, but it doesn't seem like it'd be all that hard to design generic 5e classes.

[paladinn]

Is it really so hard to design generic classes for 5e? I'm not deeply familiar with it, but it doesn't seem like it'd be all that hard to design generic 5e classes.

The closest things to "generic" classes in 5e are the "sidekick" classes from UA and Tasha's. And honestly they are not that generic; they're more the core classes (fighter, rogue, sorcerer/wizard/cleric/druid) with pre-selected options instead of subclasses and class features. They aren't "bad" (I'd gladly play a Warrior instead of a Champion fighter), but they're not generic. There are no features converted to feats; feats in general are a lot less plentiful (and more costly); and spellcasters Have to choose a spell list.

5e as a system is much harder to hack with a lot more "unintended consequences", mostly due to "bounded accuracy." I suggested a simple weapon focus feat on the 5e forum once and was read the riot act. "No!!!! A +1 to hit is going to destroy the game!!!"

[zlefin]

Noone has homebrewed one? With how long 5E has been out, I'd have suspected that someone would've homebrewed some good generic classes by now. Or at least some passable ones that only break the balance sometimes.

[Darg]

I don't play 5e so this is coming from an outsider listening in, but I'm pretty sure that 5e has tightened the balancing to such a degree that extra freedom in choice in a fashion similar to generic classes would be infeasible. As I personally don't know a whole lot from my few hours playing BG3, to me it seems like you would basically just be choosing a class instead of picking out features because of how intrinsic those features are to the playability of a character.

[paladinn]

I don't play 5e so this is coming from an outsider listening in, but I'm pretty sure that 5e has tightened the balancing to such a degree that extra freedom in choice in a fashion similar to generic classes would be infeasible. As I personally don't know a whole lot from my few hours playing BG3, to me it seems like you would basically just be choosing a class instead of picking out features because of how intrinsic those features are to the playability of a character.

This. 4e is Very tightly wrapped. It would be really difficult, IMHO, to detangle most of the "cool" class features and make them feats. Although, given how feats are in 5e, a converted feat/ure might fit the model. Something Else to ponder..lol

[Quertus]

I don't play 5e so this is coming from an outsider listening in, but I'm pretty sure that 5e has tightened the balancing to such a degree that extra freedom in choice in a fashion similar to generic classes would be infeasible. As I personally don't know a whole lot from my few hours playing BG3, to me it seems like you would basically just be choosing a class instead of picking out features because of how intrinsic those features are to the playability of a character.

My sleepy eyes read this as, "5e has tightened the balancing to such a degree that extra freedom in choice of fashion…", and I thought, man, that's some tight balance, if changing clothes throws things off! :smallbiggrin:

[Darg]

My sleepy eyes read this as, "5e has tightened the balancing to such a degree that extra freedom in choice of fashion…", and I thought, man, that's some tight balance, if changing clothes throws things off! :smallbiggrin:

For all I know it just might. How balanced is the choice in heavy armor vs medium armor vs light armor vs unarmored?