[3.5] What do you Think of Generic Classes?

[Zovc]

(SRD link)

Unearthed Arcana introduced me to something that has fascinated me for a long time: generic classes. I've always wanted to expand upon what the concept did, and I've tentatively done some plotting for a '3.5 revision' of my own.

So, what are your thoughts on the system in general? Would your thoughts on the system change if it had more 'support' (content, options, etc.)?

I'll probably eventually funnel this topic into discussion of what I plan to do with generic classes, but first I'd like to hear what the general opinion on this is.

[J.Gellert]

I have never tried them, but I love the concept.

I've also noticed that in the past 2-3 years I've made a complete turn from traditional D&D to classless systems, so it may have something to do with that.

Anyway, I am certain they play well, even in a party mixed with "standard" classes.

[Pluto]

I like the modularity, but the three-class thing is problematic because the Spellcaster retains exponentially-growing class abilities while the other two don't (BA and saves don't count). This, combined with the flexibility built into the generic classes, means there's absolutely no reason to use Warrior or Expert for more than a dip, regardless of concept.

(Yeah. I know. What else is new?)

If the Warrior used a ToB-based mechanics system, if spellcasting were made more multiclass-friendly (point-based without CL caps and with a ToB-based CL progression?) and if the Expert had a distinct mechanical system of its own, I think it would have better results.

[AstralFire]

I'm in total agreement with Pluto (for like the fourth time today.) Genericizing D&D 3 for multiclassing is good; doing it using core gameplay as the basis is terrible.

[Zovc]

I like the modularity, but the three-class thing is problematic because the Spellcaster retains exponentially-growing class abilities while the other two don't (BA and saves don't count). This, combined with the flexibility built into the generic classes, means there's absolutely no reason to use Warrior or Expert for more than a dip, regardless of concept.

(Yeah. I know. What else is new?)

If the Warrior used a ToB-based mechanics system, if spellcasting were made more multiclass-friendly (point-based without CL caps and with a ToB-based CL progression?) and if the Expert had a distinct mechanical system of its own, I think it would have better results.

It's hard to remedy the Warrior and Expert from being good dips, especially trying to keep the whole "I'm a modular class system" gimmick intact.

Here is a rough idea of what I was thinking of doing with the system upon making the post:
-Warrior gets a d12, two good saves, and a lot of feats/'class features'.
-'Martial Adept' gets a d8, one good save, very few feats/'class feautres', and maneuvers.
-Expert gets a d6, all good saves, a lot of skills, and feats/'class features' that rival the Warrior.
-Spellcaster uses psionics, gets a d4, one good save, and gets just enough feats/'class features' to give it whatever flavor you like. (In other words, there would be feats that give your 'manifesting' divine fluff, arcane fluff, psionic fluff, etc.)
-Generic Prestige Classes exist to help blend the classes together. (whether or not they have defined class features is a toss up right now.)

Taking the few posts I've already got into account, this is what I'm now thinking of:
-Warrior is probably at d10, gets maneuvers, and a few feats.
-Expert will resemble the Factotum. He will be Charisma-based by default, but a 'class feature' can base him off of Intelligence or possibly even Wisdom.
Spellcaster will use reflavored psionics.
-Generic Prestige Classes exist to help blend the classes together. (whether or not they have defined class features is a toss up right now.)

AstralFire, could you ellaborate on what you mean by "doing it using core gameplay as the basis is terrible"?

[Vizzerdrix]

I love them. I feel that the Gen. Caster is what the sorc should have been right from the start.

[AstralFire]

AstralFire, could you ellaborate on what you mean by "doing it using core gameplay as the basis is terrible"?

You're circumventing the core gameplay conceits yourself by using Tome of Battle, Psionics and the Factotum as your basis moreso than Vancian Casting and "must stay within 5 feet of my starting position to do anything useful." Does that clear things up?

[Zovc]

You're circumventing the core gameplay conceits yourself by using Tome of Battle, Psionics and the Factotum as your basis moreso than Vancian Casting and "must stay within 5 feet of my starting position to do anything useful." Does that clear things up?

Sorry, but I'm having trouble discerning your position. Are you for or against what I'm getting at? Yes, I would changing the core mechanics of combat, but I think the results will be pleasant.

[AstralFire]

Sorry, but I'm having trouble discerning your position. Are you for or against what I'm getting at? Yes, I would changing the core mechanics of combat, but I think the results will be pleasant.

I am for the way you're working it. Generics were based on the old paradigms, which only makes their balance more messed up than core.

[Ozymandias9]

AstralFire, could you ellaborate on what you mean by "doing it using core gameplay as the basis is terrible"?

He means its a far more elegant solution than sprawling multiclassing, but it doesn't solve the basic issues of "liner fighters/quadratic wizards" (it simply makes it linear warriors/experts, quadratic spell casters). In a high optimization game, you'll likely need to give the mundane generics the option of taking their class feature feats from variant systems (like tome of battle) to make them stay competitive with the casters.

[Zovc]

I am for the way you're working it. Generics were based on the old paradigms, which only makes their balance more messed up than core.

Okay, sorry I was so thick with that. lol

Now lets see if anyone has insight on something that hasn't been mentioned.

In the meantime: Skill prerequisites for class features--is this awesome? [Y/N]

[Ozymandias9]

Okay, sorry I was so thick with that. lol

Now lets see if anyone has insight on something that hasn't been mentioned.

In the meantime: Skill prerequisites for class features--is this awesome? [Y/N]

Yes. It provides a good outline that can be adapted to move D&D into a (fairly rough) classless system: something I've done a couple times for tables who actively dislike GURPS and the like. Moreover, it allows you to create mechanical character distinction, which is something the generic system can be lacking.

[Zovc]

Another topic before I go take care of my dinner...

For the spellcaster, I intend to refluff Psionics into Magic, which shouldn't be too hard (it'll mostly be a lot of renaming). I'd like to (as I mentioned) have class features that can be taken with bonus feats to give the class a little more stylistic/heritage flavor. Here's a basic template for the Divine one.

Divine Gift [Spellcaster]
For whatever its reason, your patron deity has bestowed upon you greater magical capacity than you would otherwise have.
Prerequisites: Knowledge (Religion) 4 ranks, Spellcraft 1 rank.
Benefit: You gain a number of mana points equal to 1.5 times your hit dice (rounded down to the nearest whole number). You may use this mana only to cast or augment spells from your deity's spell list. If you do not know the spells on your deity's list, you can cast them, but only with mana provided by this feat. If you do not have a caster level, it is equal to half your hit dice (rounded down, minimum 1) and your casting stat is Charisma. If you don't have a maximum spell level, it is 1st.
Special: A spellcaster can learn any feat with the [Spellcaster] descriptor with his bonus feats.

Sorry, this should be in Homebrew Design--once I collect my thoughts on this system a little more I'll start a thread there. I also apologize if any of that ability's wording is mechanically awkward and/or the fluff is kind of weak.

[Zovc]

Just a bump. >.>

I'll let the thread die if it leaves the first page again...

[Chronos Flame]

I love spellcaster. I played it for a character that was going to be a sorc otherwise. It let me take knowledge the planes, as well as diplomacy in place of bluff. I even had the option to take divine spells (though for flavor I think I only took like one by lvl 17)

[Zovc]

I love spellcaster. I played it for a character that was going to be a sorc otherwise. It let me take knowledge the planes, as well as diplomacy in place of bluff. I even had the option to take divine spells (though for flavor I think I only took like one by lvl 17)

Indeed, the Spellcaster is great. It has a lot over the Sorcerer and maybe even the Favored Soul. They only get one more spell a day a level over it. (Not saying that doesn't add up.) Bonus feats are probably better than the favored soul's varied abilities.

[awa]

I like the idea of generic classes but i normaly just make my own generic classes

[Eloi]

It gives the retro D&D feel whilst also being mechanically useful for multiclassing and helping inexperienced players. What's not to like, eh?

[Gametime]

+1 for the warrior being ToB's answer to the spellcaster. I'm not sure how to make the expert have a distinct, scaling-with-level place in the triad, though; the Factotum and the Beguiler are the obvious analogues (role- and power-wise), but both use spells and are hard to make "generic."

Incarnum or Binding (reflavored as simple jack-of-all-trades diversity) could work, since both systems allow for excellent skill boosts and the extreme modularity you might expect from a generic class called the "expert," but they might allow too much customization for any given build. The Warrior chooses maneuvers, the Spellcaster chooses spells - it seems like the Expert should choose something to distinguish himself from all the other Experts out there.

Bonus skill tricks might work, though there are precious few of those. Or a maneuver progression slightly slower than the warrior's.

[Zovc]

+1 for the warrior being ToB's answer to the spellcaster. I'm not sure how to make the expert have a distinct, scaling-with-level place in the triad, though; the Factotum and the Beguiler are the obvious analogues (role- and power-wise), but both use spells and are hard to make "generic."

I'm going to see what I can do with the Factotum--like I said, I'm probably going to base his class abilities off of Charisma to intentionally introduce MAD, this can be remedied by taking a class feat that will adjust the class abilities to either Intelligence of Wisdom (your choice). The Spellcaster will be in a situation, but will be less mad since skillmonkey role isn't expected of them.

Incarnum or Binding (reflavored as simple jack-of-all-trades diversity) could work, since both systems allow for excellent skill boosts and the extreme modularity you might expect from a generic class called the "expert," but they might allow too much customization for any given build. The Warrior chooses maneuvers, the Spellcaster chooses spells - it seems like the Expert should choose something to distinguish himself from all the other Experts out there.

Every time I try to read through Magic of Incarnum, I get distracted. I'm pretty sure I understand how the system works, but there are probably a lot of details I've glossed over. I think it'd be a lot easier to make Incarnum generic than it would be to make the Binder, so I would probably take the Totemist or the Incarnate and do have my way with them. That is, if I follow that suggestion--I'd still like to keep the Expert separate from this idea.

Bonus skill tricks might work, though there are precious few of those. Or a maneuver progression slightly slower than the warrior's.

I actually thought of skill tricks last night. I'd probably have to homebrew quite a few to include with the system. I don't think swordsage-esque progression is a good idea, though: giving two classes 'almost' identical abilities seems like a bad idea.

[Knaight]

I like the concept, but it has problems. The first of these is that the Spellcaster is completely broken, but there are also odd skill restrictions. Move Silently and Hide should not be required for Sneak Attack, as the mechanics behind Sneak Attack work just as well for a precision favoring warrior who knows how to coordinate attacks well, to use an example. However, had D&D been based on the 3 generic classes to begin with, and balanced better, with everything else just adding options that the 3 generics could take (as SAGA styled talent trees), it would be much more elegant.

[Thinker]

The generic classes are a decent concept, but are implemented poorly. You'd be better off playing Mutants and Masterminds.