Phiii

[God_of_Luck]

Recently in D&D there has been a lot of variant features for base classes (PHII, CM, among others) and this idea came to me: wouldn't it be nice if you could make your own (base class) at your own style?

Imagine being able to pick a Paladin's features: trade the mount (a la Dungeonscape) or the minor spellcasting (you forgot to pray!) for something more useful.

Material for a PHIII?

[Dhavaer]

I'd like to be able to dump a lot of the Ranger abilities. Maybe Combat Style in exchange for a slow Sudden Stirke progression? Monks could benefit from Skirmish replacing Flurry of Blows.

[oriong]

Honestly, I don't think that's a good idea. It's been tried before in second edition (skills and powers) and was a hideous mess.

3rd edition is more standardized, but it's still too broad to be a good idea. If you want that sort of system pick up a point based game, d20 is class-based and honestly it should stay that way.

[Matthew]

Eh? Making up new Base Classes is the bread a butter of Home Brewing and Third Party Publishers. But, yeah, I like the idea of being able to build Base Classes as modules.

[God_of_Luck]

Honestly, I don't think that's a good idea. It's been tried before in second edition (skills and powers) and was a hideous mess.

3rd edition is more standardized, but it's still too broad to be a good idea. If you want that sort of system pick up a point based game, d20 is class-based and honestly it should stay that way.

As it seems, WotC will publish plenty of variants int the books to come. How about putting them in a PHIII and giving the chance to make your Paladin as you want it? The things you cannot modify by taking feats.

Another example. A Warlock, a being that controls raw magic, changing the DR x/cold iron for good SR, or how about your DM decided to run something like CotSQ or World's Largest Dungeon where Imbue Item is of little use and changing it for a mini-Gate like feature.

[reorith]

check this

but i'm against the idea :(

[clarkvalentine]

check this

True20 (and its predecessor Blue Rose) also use generic classes - I've found them to be pretty nifty, but I wouldn't want to use them all the time.

[God_of_Luck]

check this

but i'm against the idea :(

My idea is to be able to have alternate class features in a book so you can personalize a class rather than waiting for more theme-books. Options never hurt.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Pheee Phiii Phooo Phuuum.

I'm sorry, it's just the first thing that popped into my head.

[God_of_Luck]

Pheee Phiii Phooo Phuuum.

I'm sorry, it's just the first thing that popped into my head.

I'm sure I wrote PHIII.

[Zincorium]

I'm sure I wrote PHIII.

PHB III would have been a bit clearer, since it's both insanely difficult to pronounce as a word, and usually I've seen the player's handbook shortened to PHB.

[brian c]

There are a lot of variant rules already, Unearthed Arcana has the Barbarian variant based on totems, Bard variants bardic sage, savage bard and divine bard, the cloistered cleric, druidic avenger, thug (fighter), monk fighting styles, and paladin variants (slaughter, tyranny, freedom), planar and urban rangers, wilderness rogue, battle sorceror, and domain wizard. There's also a list of additional variants (more like minor tweaks) in the same book, and then specialist variants for wizards.

In PHBII there are variants for every base class, and more.

There are already plenty of variants, and minor things can just be houseruled in. Some things you mentioned, such as replacing the paladin's mount or monk's flurry of blows, are already in PHBII I believe. If you use a lot of variant rules that already exist in official WotC books, you can come out with very different class abilities, such as a fighter with urban tracking and sneak attack, or a sorceror with an animal companion and natural metamagics, or a raging druid.

[Jack Mann]

Honestly, I don't think that's a good idea. It's been tried before in second edition (skills and powers) and was a hideous mess.

3rd edition is more standardized, but it's still too broad to be a good idea. If you want that sort of system pick up a point based game, d20 is class-based and honestly it should stay that way.

D&D is class-based. D20, a much broader category, can and has been done with point-based systems. Witness Mutants and Masterminds.

But yeah, I think it'd be too difficult to balance point-based characters without dramatically altering the nature of the game. You could do it, but you'd have to rebuild a lot of the game to make it work. It's better to construct a new game entirely.

[its_all_ogre]

Some things you mentioned, such as replacing the paladin's mount or monk's flurry of blows, are already in PHBII I believe..

yes but the monk swap makes no sense whatsoever and is in fact the same ability near enough as makes no difference. -2 to hit and do double damage, it is in fact worse than flurry, at least with flurry you could possibly hit twice(doing single damage twice) this way you either hit for double or miss and do no damage! the +2 dc on stunning fist is ok, but nowhere near as good as, say paladins charging smite.
so i think this example is fairly poor.

i would like the 'build your own character' idea myself, but do not want to do the work myself!!