Generic Class Bonus "Feats"

[paladinn]

In 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, the concept of "generic classes" is addressed. Of the 3 classes, only the spellcaster is really fleshed-out at all. Both the expert and warrior classes are really frameworks. There seem to be no real limits to the skills and feats one can grab in defining one's character, other than the quantity.

How has this worked out? I can see this producing some really intriguing/weird character concepts. Has anyone done anything with using this concept for non-generic classes as well? Or is that anathema? If the listed class abilities (like evasion, favored enemy, smite evil, turn undead, etc.) are suitable for taking as generic feats, why not for non-generic feats?

[Crake]

I mean, imo i think class based design is way outdated and generic classes are in fact the way to go, but the issue is that it is very poorly done, with abilities of wildly varying power having the same costs, because it was just written as a side system

[Morphic tide]

I mean, imo i think class based design is way outdated and generic classes are in fact the way to go, but the issue is that it is very poorly done, with abilities of wildly varying power having the same costs, because it was just written as a side system
Class-based design is just the most concise way to manage niche-enforcement, which is not just a "Sacred Cow" D&D refuses to slaughter but an anti-noobtrap feature, as it forces a utility floor and spotlight-shifting. Mind, 3.5's got so many things going around that it's pretty much dissolved that into Lego bricks, but that was the original intent and still holds true.

Classes are also by far the easiest way to fill level-based scaling, as they take crippling overspecialization out of the hands of the players and put it in the hands of the designer who should have all the game math on hand to double-check. Level-based scaling, in turn, is rather essential to D&D's wide variety scope changing, as the skill floor to juggle just the basic chassis values gets mad.

[Crake]

Classes are also by far the easiest way to fill level-based scaling […] Level-based scaling, in turn, is rather essential to D&D's wide variety scope changing, as the skill floor to juggle just the basic chassis values gets mad.

Well, heres the kicker, I also really dislike level-based design as well :P

The whole zero to hero schtick can be done without having the scope go from rats in the basement to literal godslaying, let alone in the span of weeks to months as it does with dnd’s leveling speed.

[Morphic tide]

Well, heres the kicker, I also really dislike level-based design as well :P

The whole zero to hero schtick can be done without having the scope go from rats in the basement to literal godslaying, let alone in the span of weeks to months as it does with dnd’s leveling speed.
Levels let the designer assume that things will be in certain relative positions, and thus they can design around those relative positions, whereas for naked point-buy progressions every single thing must be manually progressed by the player so the designer can make no such assumptions so all challenges they design have to be ridiculously precisely specified to the DM.

Again, skill floor. Sure, you can do it, but it is 100% impossible to throw a "well I guess" into the painstakingly calibrated tapestry needed to do it well. Else you end up with a TPK machine because it is a ridiculous ask for new players to keep all their bases covered in, as it pertains to this subforum, Dungeons and Dragons Third Edition Revised. The way things scale in this system is just not going to work in direct point-buy, it needs the ratios for things to be manageable. Hell, a lot of the breakdowns arise from where the ratios aren't a thing, like RHD bloated monsters resulting in Blasphemy TPKs from Half-Fiend.

Also, explicit training times, travel difficulties to reach XP sources, slow recovery, high lethality to create attrition, and irreversibility of Level Drain are all slowdown lost in the WotC transition. You can very much make "leveling up" take a reasonable amount of time, the breakneck pace of 3.5 powerleveling is very unusual.

[Crake]

Levels let the designer assume that things will be in certain relative positions, and thus they can design around those relative positions, whereas for naked point-buy progressions every single thing must be manually progressed by the player so the designer can make no such assumptions so all challenges they design have to be ridiculously precisely specified to the DM.

Again, skill floor. Sure, you can do it, but it is 100% impossible to throw a "well I guess" into the painstakingly calibrated tapestry needed to do it well. Else you end up with a TPK machine because it is a ridiculous ask for new players to keep all their bases covered in, as it pertains to this subforum, Dungeons and Dragons Third Edition Revised. The way things scale in this system is just not going to work in direct point-buy, it needs the ratios for things to be manageable. Hell, a lot of the breakdowns arise from where the ratios aren't a thing, like RHD bloated monsters resulting in Blasphemy TPKs from Half-Fiend.

Also, explicit training times, travel difficulties to reach XP sources, slow recovery, high lethality to create attrition, and irreversibility of Level Drain are all slowdown lost in the WotC transition. You can very much make "leveling up" take a reasonable amount of time, the breakneck pace of 3.5 powerleveling is very unusual.

Not sure if you misunderstood what i said, Im an advocate for classless, levelless systems, not for trying to shoehorn that into 3.5. I actually said that the generic class system was a poorly thought out side system.

[Condé]

The only application I can recall is that, technically and with some open interpretation, you can enter Walker in the waste at level 2 with a generic spellcaster.

[Morphic tide]

Not sure if you misunderstood what i said, Im an advocate for classless, levelless systems, not for trying to shoehorn that into 3.5.
...Then why did you make such a response to this thread about generic classes, specifically with respect to D&D 3.5, in the "D&D 3e/3.5e/d20" forum? Not really the place to be dropping "well I think (thing) is a bad baseline", when said thing is the only way to make a whole load of other factors of the game remotely practical to play. It's not just the particular ruleset, it's the basic campaign structures that become a pain. How are you going to filter the necessarily highly context-reliant challenges in a random encounter table?

What were you expecting? We don't have any kind of ratings here, all engagement is actual response posts. Calling classes "outdated" with respect to a system-specific question on a system-specific forum is rather naturally going to see people point out why classes are essential for pretty much anything about the system to make sense, even if reduced to bare functional skeletons.

[Crake]

...Then why did you make such a response to this thread about generic classes, specifically with respect to D&D 3.5, in the "D&D 3e/3.5e/d20" forum? Not really the place to be dropping "well I think (thing) is a bad baseline", when said thing is the only way to make a whole load of other factors of the game remotely practical to play. It's not just the particular ruleset, it's the basic campaign structures that become a pain. How are you going to filter the necessarily highly context-reliant challenges in a random encounter table?

What were you expecting? We don't have any kind of ratings here, all engagement is actual response posts. Calling classes "outdated" with respect to a system-specific question on a system-specific forum is rather naturally going to see people point out why classes are essential for pretty much anything about the system to make sense, even if reduced to bare functional skeletons.

Bro, chill

[Maat Mons]

I think generic classes combine most of the weaknesses of class-based systems with most of the weaknesses of freeform-leveling system, while preserving few of the benefits of either. The only thing I’ve ever seen do a worse job of trying to combine the two is the Warcraft PnPRPG. Good Lord is that thing terrible. It’s like a master class in what not to do.

To make a good class-based system, every class needs to provide you with all the essentials of an effective and well-rounded character. Importantly, there can’t be an option to screw yourself over by trading something vital away for something useless. For example, it should be literally impossible to make a spellcaster who can’t cast their spells because of poor ability score allocation.

To make a good freeform leveling system, you need resources that you can spend on whatever your heart desires, unrestrained by the game designers’ preconceived notions about which things should go together. If only people who selected military, law enforcement, or rural backgrounds are allowed to put points into gun use, for example, you’ve completely screwed up your design. What you have there isn’t a freeform leveling system, the backgrounds are low-key classes, which happen to make heavy use of “pick one from the following list” abilities and have a lot of reused options between classes.

The way you combine the strengths of both systems is that you have a class, which gives you everything you need to be a functional character, and then you have a pool of resources that you can spend however you see fit, with no regard for what class you picked, which allows you to gain whatever other abilities you want, including those of other classes. It should, for example, be possible to play a straight-classes warrior, and buy spellcasting on the side with your discretionary points. Or to play a straight-classed mage and buy access to healing spells. Or play a priest and buy access to sneak attack.

Classes should tell you what you can do, not what you can’t do. They should form a baseline of competence from which you can branch out, without worrying about falling behind on your main thing. They shouldn’t serve as a straightjacket limiting your options. And your class abilities should improve automatically, without having to choose each time you level up to remain competent, relative to the challenges you’ll be facing, by putting that level into the class. This is why multiclassing, as implemented in D&D 3.5, is terrible. The game presents Fighter 10 / Wizard 10 as if it were a good way to play a 20th-level character who mixes fighting and wizardry, but you actually just wind up being bad at both.

[Condé]

I think generic classes combine most of the weaknesses of class-based systems with most of the weaknesses of freeform-leveling system, while preserving few of the benefits of either. The only thing I’ve ever seen do a worse job of trying to combine the two is the Warcraft PnPRPG. Good Lord is that thing terrible. It’s like a master class in what not to do.

To make a good class-based system, every class needs to provide you with all the essentials of an effective and well-rounded character. Importantly, there can’t be an option to screw yourself over by trading something vital away for something useless. For example, it should be literally impossible to make a spellcaster who can’t cast their spells because of poor ability score allocation.

To make a good freeform leveling system, you need resources that you can spend on whatever your heart desires, unrestrained by the game designers’ preconceived notions about which things should go together. If only people who selected military, law enforcement, or rural backgrounds are allowed to put points into gun use, for example, you’ve completely screwed up your design. What you have there isn’t a freeform leveling system, the backgrounds are low-key classes, which happen to make heavy use of “pick one from the following list” abilities and have a lot of reused options between classes.

The way you combine the strengths of both systems is that you have a class, which gives you everything you need to be a functional character, and then you have a pool of resources that you can spend however you see fit, with no regard for what class you picked, which allows you to gain whatever other abilities you want, including those of other classes. It should, for example, be possible to play a straight-classes warrior, and buy spellcasting on the side with your discretionary points. Or to play a straight-classed mage and buy access to healing spells. Or play a priest and buy access to sneak attack.

Classes should tell you what you can do, not what you can’t do. They should form a baseline of competence from which you can branch out, without worrying about falling behind on your main thing. They shouldn’t serve as a straightjacket limiting your options. And your class abilities should improve automatically, without having to choose each time you level up to remain competent, relative to the challenges you’ll be facing, by putting that level into the class. This is why multiclassing, as implemented in D&D 3.5, is terrible. The game presents Fighter 10 / Wizard 10 as if it were a good way to play a 20th-level character who mixes fighting and wizardry, but you actually just wind up being bad at both.

One game that do something like that seems to be pf2e. I have not played it but it feels that it was there intention to let you select a class then have access to other classes main features via dedication.

I think generic classes in 3.5 are poorly thought out and a lot of people forget they are to replace existant classes. You are not supposed to play them if you have regular classes in your game.

[Morphic tide]

To make a good class-based system, every class needs to provide you with all the essentials of an effective and well-rounded character. Importantly, there can’t be an option to screw yourself over by trading something vital away for something useless. For example, it should be literally impossible to make a spellcaster who can’t cast their spells because of poor ability score allocation.
To me, "well rounded" is negotiable, depending on how party cooperation is expected to go. While definitely incredibly gamist, a 4e "role purist" party still functions very well. Absolutely awful at interfacing with the fuzzier role-playing due to the nature of the system, but the party slotting together with highly limited overlap is certainly a valid class implementation.


To make a good freeform leveling system, you need resources that you can spend on whatever your heart desires, unrestrained by the game designers’ preconceived notions about which things should go together. If only people who selected military, law enforcement, or rural backgrounds are allowed to put points into gun use, for example, you’ve completely screwed up your design. What you have there isn’t a freeform leveling system, the backgrounds are low-key classes, which happen to make heavy use of “pick one from the following list” abilities and have a lot of reused options between classes.
I again emphasize the skill floor problem, as rails are important to getting people to pick a direction to start moving. GURPS generally has "available" options absolutely gutted in either campaign planning or Session Zero before anyone starts building a character, because it's too open-ended to work with without that. Both the balance issues from the utter madhouse of combinatorial explosions and the afore-mentioned TPK baiting from the ludicrous amount of ways you can lose track of things and end up with a giant gaping hole in your character sheet.


The way you combine the strengths of both systems is that you have a class, which gives you everything you need to be a functional character, and then you have a pool of resources that you can spend however you see fit, with no regard for what class you picked, which allows you to gain whatever other abilities you want, including those of other classes. It should, for example, be possible to play a straight-classes warrior, and buy spellcasting on the side with your discretionary points. Or to play a straight-classed mage and buy access to healing spells. Or play a priest and buy access to sneak attack.
The way I've thought of handling that is that the "base class" should be a party-niche-filling track, one specific important task to "lock in" on character generation, with you dedicating XP to other things and increasing the "base class" level when the total reaches the appropriate benchmark.

Check out the Trisocciate (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?234951) for an old 'brew using the alternative "vertical slice" model, where you build a character out of scaling functions instead of individual pieces.


Classes should tell you what you can do, not what you can’t do. They should form a baseline of competence from which you can branch out, without worrying about falling behind on your main thing. They shouldn’t serve as a straightjacket limiting your options. And your class abilities should improve automatically, without having to choose each time you level up to remain competent, relative to the challenges you’ll be facing, by putting that level into the class. This is why multiclassing, as implemented in D&D 3.5, is terrible. The game presents Fighter 10 / Wizard 10 as if it were a good way to play a 20th-level character who mixes fighting and wizardry, but you actually just wind up being bad at both.
Worth noting is that a lot of the trouble is stacking levels into the same XP track, where in the TSR days you'd either directly split XP between each of them or start leveling another from scratch and get back your other-class features on passing it. Of course low levels in one aren't going to be worth a higher level in what you started in, none of the systems were built for that! Still worse than single straight-shot casting progression, but it's 14/14 or 6/19 instead of 10+10 at level 20 XP. The most "basic" Theurges end at 15/16 casting.

[paladinn]

Glad I could at least spark a discussion..

So back to the topic: Has anyone actually used the generic classes? I'm actually thinking to use the generic class framework and maybe adapt the feats from True20. 3.5 UA has a list of class abilities that can be used as bonus feats, but I'd like to add to it.

I'm also looking at the expert and warrior classes. RAW, there's not a lot of difference besides HD and BAB, because there are no class features. The warrior (i.e. fighter) gets 11 total bonus feats and 2 skill points/level. The expert gets 7 total bonus feats and 6 skill points/level. Unlike the caster, feats and skills are All they get. I'm pondering merging the expert and warrior somehow to give a "muggle" access to nearly all of both. Thinking of a character like Indiana Jones: definitely an "expert" but not a slouch in fighting.

I just don't want to use "Muggle" as a class name; so I'm open to suggestions.

[Darg]

Glad I could at least spark a discussion..

So back to the topic: Has anyone actually used the generic classes? I'm actually thinking to use the generic class framework and maybe adapt the feats from True20. 3.5 UA has a list of class abilities that can be used as bonus feats, but I'd like to add to it.

I'm also looking at the expert and warrior classes. RAW, there's not a lot of difference besides HD and BAB, because there are no class features. The warrior (i.e. fighter) gets 11 total bonus feats and 2 skill points/level. The expert gets 7 total bonus feats and 6 skill points/level. Unlike the caster, feats and skills are All they get. I'm pondering merging the expert and warrior somehow to give a "muggle" access to nearly all of both. Thinking of a character like Indiana Jones: definitely an "expert" but not a slouch in fighting.

I just don't want to use "Muggle" as a class name; so I'm open to suggestions.

HD, proficiencies, 1 vs 2 good saves, # of class skills (expert gets profession as a base class skill), # of skill points, BAB, and 11 vs 7 bonus feats. There are plenty of differences. Part of what makes generic classes attractive is that you can multiclass without really sacrificing features, unless you take spellcasting. However, a 1:1 multiclass with a spellcaster and nonspellcaster class will basically give you the spellcasting progression of a ranger or paladin so it's pretty comparable to the standard base classes.

[paladinn]

A warrior is basically a fighter with a better selection of feats. An expert has more skills and less feats. The point of the generic classes is to take class abilities and make them feats. And a character can take any feat for which s/he qualifies. So hypothetically a warrior could take evasion and an expert could take power attack. Evasion is already on the list for "feat-ified" class abilities.

So maybe combine the two "classes" and open it up completely? Just need to juggle the numbers a little. A L10 warrior has 6 bonus feats and 26 skill points (2/lvl after L1, before INT bonus). A L10 expert has 4 bonus feats and 78 skill points (6/lvl). If it's all averaged-out, a character can get much of both and not have to multiclass (unless s/he wants to dabble in magic). The character would get d8 HD, since the expert gets d6 and the warrior gets d10. Or just straight-up combine them; an expert gets a few feats, but s/he doesn't get the skill points that a rogue does.

I just need to come up with a feat list. I'm looking at True20 for that now.

[Tzardok]

I just don't want to use "Muggle" as a class name; so I'm open to suggestions.

Mundane? Adventurer? Hero? Wait, in the Might and Magic series non-magical are classified as "Might abilities". How about calling the classes Mighty and Mage?

[Metastachydium]

I just don't want to use "Muggle" as a class name; so I'm open to suggestions.

MADman? (Also, obligatory reminder that muggle is even worse as a term than mundane, because it is an artificial word strongly tied to one specific setting.)

[paladinn]

MADman? (Also, obligatory reminder that muggle is even worse as a term than mundane, because it is an artificial word strongly tied to one specific setting.)

I guess the American term was "NoMag" :)

[lesser_minion]

I'm also looking at the expert and warrior classes. RAW, there's not a lot of difference besides HD and BAB, because there are no class features. The warrior (i.e. fighter) gets 11 total bonus feats and 2 skill points/level. The expert gets 7 total bonus feats and 6 skill points/level. Unlike the caster, feats and skills are All they get. I'm pondering merging the expert and warrior somehow to give a "muggle" access to nearly all of both. Thinking of a character like Indiana Jones: definitely an "expert" but not a slouch in fighting.

If you're starting from the D&D assumption that everyone fights (as opposed to having a low-combat game, or using a troupe-style approach), I think there's definitely an argument to be made for not having a class whose only shtick is fighting.


I just don't want to use "Muggle" as a class name; so I'm open to suggestions.

Depending on what you call your spellcasting class, there might be a natural counterpart there? Adventurer vs. Scholar maybe?

[Maat Mons]

Normally, you name a class based on what differentiates them from the average person. So yeah, if the class's whole identity is to represent the average person, naming is going to be hard. There are only so many ways of saying "nothing special" without it coming off as an insult.

[JNAProductions]

The Everyman?

[Darg]

The Layman.

[RandomPeasant]

If you're starting from the D&D assumption that everyone fights (as opposed to having a low-combat game, or using a troupe-style approach), I think there's definitely an argument to be made for not having a class whose only shtick is fighting.

This is absolutely true. "Fighter" is fundamentally a bad choice for a D&D class name because the only thing it tells you is that they do a thing all characters do. How do they do it? What else do they do? No idea. It's like saying you have a new clan in VtM and they are called the "Vampires" or that you are complementing Shadowrun's Hacker, Mage, and Street Samurai with a "Futuristic Criminal". For a character concept to be useful, it has to tell you something about what that specific character does, not just that they do something all characters do.


Depending on what you call your spellcasting class, there might be a natural counterpart there? Adventurer vs. Scholar maybe?

Nah, "Adventurer" has all the problems "Fighter" has except on steroids. D&D characters are adventurers. It's what they're called. It can't also be the name of a specific type of character. But, ultimately, I don't think you need a special name for this. You just stop doing the thing where it is assumed that there will be skilled martials and stabby martials. Then you can have an Assassin (who has high damage nukes at stealth skills) and a Champion (who is durable and has social skills) and a Berserker (who wants to be in the thick of a fight and has wilderness skills) and so on. You don't really need a name for a character who does Fighter stuff and Rogue stuff because the only reason those are separate categories of stuff is the game defining it that way. You don't need a new name for casters when you decide that they get both utility and combat magic.

[paladinn]

For spellcasters I can see calling them mages, mystics, adepts, etc. All good names. But for a martial class that gets their abilities from feats and skills (both), I'm not sure. "Expert" or even "Rogue" would work, but they're taken. "Martial" would be the closest label, but that's kind of dumb.

[Vaern]

Generic classes aren't meant to be played alongside normal classes. Calling a character a rogue or an expert in a generic game shouldn't conflict with the base classes of the same name, because those base classes should simply not exist in their core form in that setting.

[AsuraKyoko]

Professional could work. It's generic, but it's a name for a generic class.

[lylsyly]

Kinda back to the original? We used them once as an experiment but with our common table rules added. A gestalt of all three classes. D10 hd, full bab, medium armor. 6+int skills and ANY 12 skills as class skills. We use pf feat progression so basically feats at every level. Of course picking your spells known from the big 3 spell lists means choosing to be a divine spellcaster so you can use that medium armor. Our "rogue" not only took the sneak attack chain but the favored enemy chain and all the really good archery feats, and could cast the really good spells to help his path. We played the shackled city from 1-20 and with 6 players blew right through it. The real challenge for me as DM was convincing them to specialize their spellcasting and feats toward different so called base classes before we started because they all wanted to do the same thing.

In the end, we had a blast with this.

[zlefin]

Glad I could at least spark a discussion..

So back to the topic: Has anyone actually used the generic classes? I'm actually thinking to use the generic class framework and maybe adapt the feats from True20. 3.5 UA has a list of class abilities that can be used as bonus feats, but I'd like to add to it.

I'm also looking at the expert and warrior classes. RAW, there's not a lot of difference besides HD and BAB, because there are no class features. The warrior (i.e. fighter) gets 11 total bonus feats and 2 skill points/level. The expert gets 7 total bonus feats and 6 skill points/level. Unlike the caster, feats and skills are All they get. I'm pondering merging the expert and warrior somehow to give a "muggle" access to nearly all of both. Thinking of a character like Indiana Jones: definitely an "expert" but not a slouch in fighting.

I just don't want to use "Muggle" as a class name; so I'm open to suggestions.

why do you want to use those generic classes rather than one of the various better buildaclasses that have been homebrewed here? Personally I'd strongly recommend going with one of those.

[paladinn]

why do you want to use those generic classes rather than one of the various better buildaclasses that have been homebrewed here? Personally I'd strongly recommend going with one of those.

Because these aren't quite what I'm looking for. I'd like to leverage the generic classes from UA. I like the idea of packaging class abilities as feats. If True20 hadn't departed so much from the D20 model, I'd probably use more from there.

[Luccan]

I would definitely expand on the class features you can buy with feats, if you're going to use the generic classes. Maybe let some of them progress without spending more feats. "Adventurer" seems like a good generic name if you're combing Expert and Warrior