[Unearthed Arcana] Anyone got experience of using generic classes?

[Kiero]

I understand that the three roles of True20 come from the Unearthed Arcana supplement originally (I note they're also in the SRD). So I'm curious, what happens to a regular game of D&D when you use three classes instead of the plethora of classes there are out there? Does anyone have any actual play experience of it?

[Skyserpent]

We did a one-shot with this method. Casters are actually a bit stronger, due to their more open-ended spell lists. Rogues can fight better and Fighter's don't change all that much. But it really helps the roleplaying oppurtunities when people are forced into vague zones. So we don't have many preconcieved notions of "Warlock" or "Scout" or "Barbarian" So metagame takes a back-seat. it was pretty fun, but honestly a one-shot was about all I could handle.

I like my crazy class features.

[Behold_the_Void]

I'm using it as a basis for my Bleach D20 system, it seems to be working OK but I made a lot of class features as feats. I'm still playtesting, so I can't give any definitive answers.

[technomage]

I have played them. didn't like them that much, I mean there is nothing wrong with them its just personal preference.

although I did like the customizable class features.

[CASTLEMIKE]

The Spellcaster is a nice sorcerer fix.

Although in many ways Beguiler is better for an Ultimate Magus PRC build better hit points, No ASF in light armor, light armor proficiency, 6 skill points, more known spells at each level it will be well over 100 if you get level 5 spells instead of doing one of those funky caster builds to bypass the PRC design.

Spellcaster also works well with the Ultimate Magus PRC because you can use Intelligence as your primary ability modifier and it gives your PC a few more options.

You can also choose 4 skills of choice (Diplomacy, UMD etc. you pick) as class skills which can really help qualifying for future PRCs with nonstandard skill requirements.

You have the option of assigning your best save which will be a +2 for that single level.

You get that bonus feat at level 1 instead of a familiar and feats are almost always good. You could take Turn Undead (UA page 76 Generic class option for a bonus feat) at the same time you take the persist spell feat or in preparation for taking in the future.

You get one simple weapon proficiency so choose something your wizard side doesn't.

It is synergistic and complements your wizard side by allowing you to do things like use Cure Light Wands since the spell is on your available spell lists. You have the option to take a few unusual but useful divine spells like Fast Healing 1 which really gets a kick with the Extend feat if taken or the lowest level known variant of a spell from the spell lists like Flame Strike for a level 4 known spell that is half divine damage whic is nice even if you are not into general blasting or Prohibited school spells if specializing and going the Master Specialist route.

[Golthur]

I use modified variants of the generic classes. The key things that I found I had to do to make it fun for the players were:

• Give out way more feats. I end up doing roughly one a level.
• Incorporate a lot of customization options into feats. Essentially, I had to make most class abilities purchasable as feats, with suitable restrictions, of course.

I'm in the process of playing/playtesting it now. So far, everyone's been having fun

[YPU]

Also, here on the boards there have been some additions to the options I myself made a ToB addition and there is a psionics thingy out there. Both included a list of extra class abilities that can be taken instead of the feats. Basically, if you would manage to get a list of all ability’s balanced into this system it would be a great change to dnd. But right now, many palyers are used to using classes from extra books like ToB or psi or any other thingy, and thus feel set back by these classes. But they are great and don’t down power you. If you want to go real crazy do a genstal generic game. Would only do it one shot tough.

[Kiero]

I use modified variants of the generic classes. The key things that I found I had to do to make it fun for the players were:

• Give out way more feats. I end up doing roughly one a level.
• Incorporate a lot of customization options into feats. Essentially, I had to make most class abilities purchasable as feats, with suitable restrictions, of course.

I'm in the process of playing/playtesting it now. So far, everyone's been having fun

You know that sounds a lot like True20? Which upped the number of skill points, and gives a Feat every level.

[Thinker]

Playing True20 is better than just using the Generics from the SRD. The entire system was built around the generic classes, rather than just being plugged in. I also generally prefer the True20 magic system, but that may be because I despise Vancian magic.

[CockroachTeaParty]

I'm currently playing in a low power game with the generic classes... and bard and ranger, if I'm not mistaken. I play a generic warrior, and I've been having a good time. I don't see anything terribly wrong with them, but I like the variety of the other classes a great deal.

[Draz74]

I use modified variants of the generic classes. The key things that I found I had to do to make it fun for the players were:

• Give out way more feats. I end up doing roughly one a level.
• Incorporate a lot of customization options into feats. Essentially, I had to make most class abilities purchasable as feats, with suitable restrictions, of course.

I'm in the process of playing/playtesting it now. So far, everyone's been having fun

That's what I'm working on too. But I've worried that a feat every level is too much for the spellcasters, who already get a giant scaling ability, and I've wondered if I should make them spend a feat every time they want to raise the maximum spell level they can cast. But that just seemed too harsh. Any suggestions?

[Amphimir Míriel]

I was thinking about trying a variation of this system...

First, establishing 4 "base" clases: Warrior, Priest, Mage and Thief.

Second, each class can choose diferent "paths", which allow them to pick and choose from different class abilities at each level.

For example, the Warrior-classed character can pick an assortment of Barbarian, Monk, Ranger or Fighter(feats) abilities along its career.

A Thief character may Rogue, Bard and some Monk abilities along its road.

A Priest may pick the Paladin, Cleric (cloistered type) or Druidic paths

A Mages path involves choosing the way he learns and casts spells (vancian, sorcerer-like or spellpoint)

-

Do design the roads, each Feat, class ability and spell slot is assigned a numeric value and a prerequisite, and every time a character raises level he is given a certain ammount of "character points" to purchase new moves and abilities...

Of course the main difficulty im facing right now is assigning numeric values to the abilities... Is Evasion as good as Turn Undead? Is a 1D12 Hit Die comparable to Heavy Armor Proficiency? Is there something in the SRD that can compare to Wild Shape??

[Golthur]

That's what I'm working on too. But I've worried that a feat every level is too much for the spellcasters, who already get a giant scaling ability, and I've wondered if I should make them spend a feat every time they want to raise the maximum spell level they can cast. But that just seemed too harsh. Any suggestions?

Yeah, I'm not using Vancian magic with the standard spell progression

I tie my magic system to skill points and feats as well; it's essentially a skill-based magic system, similar to, but different from, the Truenamer.

Spellcasters in my magic system essentially require two feats use a school of magic fully; one to acquire ranks in a magic skill at all (and only up to cross-class ranks, although I do 1:1 for all skills, even for cross-class), and a second to open it up at maximum ranks. This makes all spellcasters, ultimately, specialists of a sort.

That, plus a form of metamagic, plus a bunch of other stuff (essentially cool "you're inherently magical" abilities, like going without food and water, Gandalf-esque making your staff glow whenever you want, etc.) and I (so far) haven't noticed a problem on the feat front. Of course, it's early on, and it could still all fall apart yet

[Matthew]

Ah yes. I started with that approach as well, Draz74.

Every odd Level Clerics and Wizards were burning their Feats on 'Cast Level X Spells'. I ended up abandoning it in favour of a more Skill focused Magic System. There's not really that many 'new' things a Spell Caster can do with twenty Feats anyway. Still, you cannot just tack it onto the existing system, because the abusive Feat/Spell combinations are what need to be tackled, rather than the number of Feats available.

I went with Nine Schools of Magic, each with it's own Skill and Rank requirements to cast Spells. Skill Focuses in those Schools were pretty much essential to use them.

[goat]

I like the truenaming concept. It has a nice feel, and a lot of fluff potential.

For some reason, I keep wanting to try and intermingle the truenaming and psionics branches, but I've got no idea where to start or what I'm really trying to achieve.

[Kiero]

I was thinking about trying a variation of this system...

First, establishing 4 "base" clases: Warrior, Priest, Mage and Thief.

Only problem I see with this is that the Priest is effectively a Warrior-Mage.

[Indon]

Only problem I see with this is that the Priest is effectively a Warrior-Mage.

A Priest can be strictly a healer, but it can be a bit uninteresting to do that (this was a common complaint of previous incarnations of D&D clerics).

[Mike_G]

A Priest can be strictly a healer, but it can be a bit uninteresting to do that (this was a common complaint of previous incarnations of D&D clerics).

I don't think Priest needs to be a base class. If you have all spells open to the caster class, then make "Priest" a Prestige class, or a feat or even just a title.

Priests of the War God will be Warriors, Priests of the Thief god will be experts, etc.

Taking "Priest" as a template, feat, PrC or whatever would open up the ability to spontaneously heal, to turn/rebuke, to make Holy water, or so on. Maybe make spells like Divine Might, etc available only to PCs with the Priest template

This solves the "All priests of all gods get armor, healing and Turn Undead, whatever their sphere of influence is" thing that I've always hated.

I've also never understood why Healing is almost always only Divine. If a Wizard can channel mighty energy to open a rift in the fabric of the planes, or teleport an elephant, or whatever, why can't he heal a few lousy d8's worth of damage?

[Kiero]

I've also never understood why Healing is almost always only Divine. If a Wizard can channel mighty energy to open a rift in the fabric of the planes, or teleport an elephant, or whatever, why can't he heal a few lousy d8's worth of damage?

Agreed, I've always found it an unnecessarily contrived distinction to make. Indeed in my favourite setting (Malazan Book of the Fallen), all magic is one. Healing is just one particular Warren (school of magic if you like - but there's more to them than that), although most casters can only access one.

[CASTLEMIKE]

I've also never understood why Healing is almost always only Divine. If a Wizard can channel mighty energy to open a rift in the fabric of the planes, or teleport an elephant, or whatever, why can't he heal a few lousy d8's worth of damage?

I agree.

You have the Polymorph spell which allows you to change forms as a level 4 spell which heals damage as a side effect upon changing.

There should a lesser level 2 or 3 transmutation spells that can duplicate that healing effect.

[Draz74]

Yeah, I'm not using Vancian magic with the standard spell progression

Yeah, me neither. I mean, who's going to mix something as elegant as Generic Classes with something as clunky as Vancian spell slots?

I tie my magic system to skill points and feats as well; it's essentially a skill-based magic system, similar to, but different from, the Truenamer.

Spellcasters in my magic system essentially require two feats use a school of magic fully; one to acquire ranks in a magic skill at all (and only up to cross-class ranks, although I do 1:1 for all skills, even for cross-class), and a second to open it up at maximum ranks. This makes all spellcasters, ultimately, specialists of a sort.

That, plus a form of metamagic, plus a bunch of other stuff (essentially cool "you're inherently magical" abilities, like going without food and water, Gandalf-esque making your staff glow whenever you want, etc.) and I (so far) haven't noticed a problem on the feat front. Of course, it's early on, and it could still all fall apart yet

Hmmm. My divine casters are kind of like the Truenamer, but my arcane casters work more like Psionics. I don't want their magic to be skill-based (other than the traditional Concentration, Spellcraft, etc. checks). So I still feel like a feat every level will be overkill. I need some way to suck away a few of their feats ...

[Golthur]

I don't think Priest needs to be a base class. If you have all spells open to the caster class, then make "Priest" a Prestige class, or a feat or even just a title.

Priests of the War God will be Warriors, Priests of the Thief god will be experts, etc.

Taking "Priest" as a template, feat, PrC or whatever would open up the ability to spontaneously heal, to turn/rebuke, to make Holy water, or so on. Maybe make spells like Divine Might, etc available only to PCs with the Priest template

This solves the "All priests of all gods get armor, healing and Turn Undead, whatever their sphere of influence is" thing that I've always hated.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

In my current campaign, where the gods are much less overt than standard D&D, being a priest is just a role. Many of the priesthoods train their priests in magic, but it's really the same magic that the mages use; albeit a bit more ritualized.

I've also never understood why Healing is almost always only Divine. If a Wizard can channel mighty energy to open a rift in the fabric of the planes, or teleport an elephant, or whatever, why can't he heal a few lousy d8's worth of damage?

Well, exactly. If a wizard can summon energy from the negative material plane, why can't he do the same with the positive material plane? Worse, why can a bard (who practices arcane magic) use healing, and a wizard can't comprehend what he is doing? Aren't they supposed to be the true masters of arcane magic?

I've always felt the arcane/divine distinction was artificial, and it creates more problems than it solves.

Yeah, me neither. I mean, who's going to mix something as elegant as Generic Classes with something as clunky as Vancian spell slots?

Hmmm. My divine casters are kind of like the Truenamer, but my arcane casters work more like Psionics. I don't want their magic to be skill-based (other than the traditional Concentration, Spellcraft, etc. checks). So I still feel like a feat every level will be overkill. I need some way to suck away a few of their feats ...

Well, one idea would be your first suggestion of using a feat to open up each level of spells. That sucks away about nine feats, and it's more or less mandatory for a full caster. It's too harsh if they're getting one every two levels, but not so, so bad at one a level. A variant of this would be to require a feat to gain access to different levels of each school - e.g. one feat would grant you the ability to cast levels 1-3 of Conjuration, a second would do levels 4-6, and so on. Because this is per school, it can add up to a lot of feats (really, as many or as few as you like, depending on how you structure it). I'd almost make it a sliding scale, myself. The first feat grants 1-4, the second only 5-7, and the third 8-9.

Another possibility would be static (and low) save DCs, rather than ones that vary by spell level, and force the casters to use a stacking Spell Focus variant to increase their save DCs.

You could also force metamagic feats to be purchased by school, but this seems less good and almost too artificial to me.

[Draz74]

Well, one idea would be your first suggestion of using a feat to open up each level of spells. That sucks away about nine feats, and it's more or less mandatory for a full caster. It's too harsh if they're getting one every two levels, but not so, so bad at one a level.

OK. I may just stick with that version yet. The reason I'm stuck is because many spells have Augmentation options in this system (again, similar to Psionics), and I don't know whether the feats should be required to unlock Augmentation options as well. If the answer is "yes," then it just seems like I'll have to write the Augmentation options with that in mind and it will make things a lot harder. Augmentation will always have to require an even number of Magic Points, and so on. Ick. But if the answer is "no," then it seems like casters could actually break the system, just by picking spells that augment well, and never taking the feats that increase their maximum spell level.

A variant of this would be to require a feat to gain access to different levels of each school - e.g. one feat would grant you the ability to cast levels 1-3 of Conjuration, a second would do levels 4-6, and so on. Because this is per school, it can add up to a lot of feats (really, as many or as few as you like, depending on how you structure it). I'd almost make it a sliding scale, myself. The first feat grants 1-4, the second only 5-7, and the third 8-9.

Interesting. Well, I guess I need to figure out how (and if) the School system even works in my variant of magic. Hmmm, although I suppose I could keep this in mind even if I don't use Schools of magic; I could "suck away" three or four feats from full casters if I wanted to, without being as harsh as "sucking away" a whole nine feats.

I don't think I'll use this idea as-is, though, because non-Wizard arcane casters already have to be specialists in my system (think Beguiler, Dread Necro, or Warmage), and Wizards are nerfed in other ways (think Psion, with half the default Magic Points) to make up for their multi-school flexibility.

Another possibility would be static (and low) save DCs, rather than ones that vary by spell level, and force the casters to use a stacking Spell Focus variant to increase their save DCs.

Ooooooooh, interesting. Hmmmmmmmmmm. You're a genius!

... let's see. Most spells that augment well probably require a save. So how's this?

There are feats that let you access each level of spellcasting, 2 thru 9 (first-level casting will work on a slightly different system). You can augment lower-level spells freely, if you have a high enough Caster level, without taking those feats. However, each feat also gives you the ability to increase your augmented spells' save DCs by one more point.

So if you are a 9th-level caster and you augment Fireball to use 9 Magic Points, it will do 9d6 damage, but if you haven't gotten the Fourth-Circle Caster and Fifth-Circle Caster feats, then Fireball's Save DC will still only be (13 + ability mod). If you've taken Fourth-Circle Caster, you're up to (14 + ability mod), and if you've taken Fifth-Circle Caster, you're up all the way to (15 + ability mod).

Nice. Doing this with all spells (not just augmented ones) would be a decent plan too, although it might make buffing-based casters (with all their extra feats) completely take over at the expense of "Save or Suck" casters. Actually, even with the Augmenting limitation, I'm going to have to look and see whether this will be a problem. Oh well, still an excellent idea to build off of.

You could also force metamagic feats to be purchased by school, but this seems less good and almost too artificial to me.

Yeah, again, seems to hurt Wizards too much compared to other casters.

So Golthur, as long as you're helping me with this, could you take a look at this thread? You're obviously pretty good at think-outside-the-box, system-rewriting homebrewing. And there are some things I really like about your "Not ToB" combat system. But I don't quite want to use your system, mostly because I'm trying to keep the number of Skills in this system low, and trying to avoid "per day" abilities. But I'd still appreciate any insight you could offer, from your experience, for my combat system that I'm working on.

[CASTLEMIKE]

You could keep it simple and just use the psionic PP system where you pay for scaling and tweak as necessary.

[Draz74]

Well, I do that too. I mean, you still have to pay Magic Points to augment your spells. But with all classes getting a feat every level, I'm still afraid that Psionic-style arcane casters will overpower other characters if they don't have to spend some of their feats on their magic, even so. (See the rules on Generic Classes and the way that, in the default rules, casters get much less Bonus Feats than the other characters.)

[TheOOB]

I tried playing a generic class game for a little while, and I came to the conclusion that you should just go to True20, it was designed from the ground up for the three basic classes, that and it has a magic system which is actually really balanced.

For those who don't play it, instead of spells per day and such, you get a feat every level, and if your an adept(caster) you can take a power instead of a feat. Powers can be used at will, but most powers require you to make a will saving throw or become fatigued, and multiple powers in quick succession increases the save DC.

[Golthur]

OK. I may just stick with that version yet. The reason I'm stuck is because many spells have Augmentation options in this system (again, similar to Psionics), and I don't know whether the feats should be required to unlock Augmentation options as well. If the answer is "yes," then it just seems like I'll have to write the Augmentation options with that in mind and it will make things a lot harder. Augmentation will always have to require an even number of Magic Points, and so on. Ick. But if the answer is "no," then it seems like casters could actually break the system, just by picking spells that augment well, and never taking the feats that increase their maximum spell level.

I have augmenting spells - in fact, it's required to augment them to gain silly things like increased damage dice, although this is pretty standard. You can also require augmentation for "extra" effects (which I do), e.g. a normal light spell is stationary, 1 augmentation required to make it follow you around, etc.

You can also cap the "augmentation limit" of lower level effects so that they can't really be as effective as higher level ones. Complete Psionics does this, more or less, IIRC.

Interesting. Well, I guess I need to figure out how (and if) the School system even works in my variant of magic. Hmmm, although I suppose I could keep this in mind even if I don't use Schools of magic; I could "suck away" three or four feats from full casters if I wanted to, without being as harsh as "sucking away" a whole nine feats.

I don't think I'll use this idea as-is, though, because non-Wizard arcane casters already have to be specialists in my system (think Beguiler, Dread Necro, or Warmage), and Wizards are nerfed in other ways (think Psion, with half the default Magic Points) to make up for their multi-school flexibility.

By "school", of course, I meant "whatever arbitrary division between types of magical effects you choose". It could just as easily be elements, domains, totem animal, or whatever. I don't use the standard 8 schools in mine.

Ooooooooh, interesting. Hmmmmmmmmmm. You're a genius!

... let's see. Most spells that augment well probably require a save. So how's this?

There are feats that let you access each level of spellcasting, 2 thru 9 (first-level casting will work on a slightly different system). You can augment lower-level spells freely, if you have a high enough Caster level, without taking those feats. However, each feat also gives you the ability to increase your augmented spells' save DCs by one more point.

So if you are a 9th-level caster and you augment Fireball to use 9 Magic Points, it will do 9d6 damage, but if you haven't gotten the Fourth-Circle Caster and Fifth-Circle Caster feats, then Fireball's Save DC will still only be (13 + ability mod). If you've taken Fourth-Circle Caster, you're up to (14 + ability mod), and if you've taken Fifth-Circle Caster, you're up all the way to (15 + ability mod).

Nice. Doing this with all spells (not just augmented ones) would be a decent plan too, although it might make buffing-based casters (with all their extra feats) completely take over at the expense of "Save or Suck" casters. Actually, even with the Augmenting limitation, I'm going to have to look and see whether this will be a problem. Oh well, still an excellent idea to build off of.

Yes, the problem with this is spells with no saves, either because they're personal effect, or because they just don't have a save (e.g. magic missile).

You can always use your "circle level" as a limit on the duration or maximum effectiveness for these sorts of spells.

So Golthur, as long as you're helping me with this, could you take a look at this thread? You're obviously pretty good at think-outside-the-box, system-rewriting homebrewing. And there are some things I really like about your "Not ToB" combat system. But I don't quite want to use your system, mostly because I'm trying to keep the number of Skills in this system low, and trying to avoid "per day" abilities. But I'd still appreciate any insight you could offer, from your experience, for my combat system that I'm working on.

Yes, I'm in the process of simplifying my system - some aspects of it I like, some I don't, but that's always been the case

I'll check out the other thread shortly.