Using Generic classes with other classes.

[Tempest Fennac]

I know that the Generic classes, http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/cl...ricClasses.htm , aren't designed to be used with other classes, but how good are they if they are used with the Core classes? I'm guessing that Spellcasters would have an edge over Sorcerers while Warriors are sligtly better then Fighters, but I'm not sure about Experts (they seem weaker then Rogues).

[AstralFire]

As noted, Warriors and Fighters are basically the same class, except Warriors can choose their High Save and get access to some okay class features but lose free Heavy Armor. Better Skirmisher, about the same Defender (since it can get Imp. Uncanny Dodge), to use 4E terms. It can skip around with progression a lot easier; the Warrior would be able to get into Dervish without multiclassing or wasting skill points.

Expert's slightly better than rogue. It's more durable with the addition of another high save, still gets more than enough class skills to get the job done, and has flexibility instead of being saddled with Sneak Attack unless it wants it. The rogue's special abilities aren't that great, for the most part. Not bad either, but not enough to make a difference against the expert; especially with PrCs open to you when you can use the generics to play with their progression restrictions on class features and skill points meant to require multiclassing or later levels (like for IUD).

The Spellcaster is flatly better than the Sorcerer and the free access to class skills as you wish as well as choosing your casting stat and bonus feats make it a much stronger contender against the wizard when PrCs are thrown into the mix since, again, you can use the generics to play with their progression restrictions on class features and skill points meant to require multiclassing or later levels.

Basically, in all cases except for the Rogue, the generics would completely replace their core counterpart and I only see people interested in the full package of the stereotypical thief sticking with the Rogue.

[Tempest Fennac]

Thanks for telling me. Do you think having a separate Divine Casting class with Spellcasters being limited to the rcanist roll would be better? I was thinking that the Divine class could have medium BAB, 2 good saves, a d6 HD, light armour, shield and simple weapon proficiency, 2 skill points/level, 7 class skills including Heal and Concentrate and it could use the same spell progression as the Spellcaster while using Druid and Cleric spells while Spellcasters use Wizard spells. (Spellcasters would be able to chose between Int and Cha while Adepts could use Wis or Cha).

[AstralFire]

Since for the most part Divine Magic is -slightly- weaker than Arcane Magic (it's the other stuff like Divine Feats, Domain Feats, Animal Companion, Spontaneous Conversion and Wild Shape that -really- screw the pooch) I don't think that's too much of an issue, but I would still stick to only one good save.

[archmage45]

I played an expert in a mid level game for a while, and pretty much ended up becoming the non-combat party leader. I focused on Int/Cha/Wis, used a club/cane as my weapon of choice, beefed up on all interpersonal skills, and had lots of fun RPing it.

In game it played out that I was this normal guy who got caught up in this whole "adventuring" thing with a crazy bunch of super characters.

it was a lot of fun actually!

[AmberVael]

I played an expert in a mid level game for a while, and pretty much ended up becoming the non-combat party leader. I focused on Int/Cha/Wis, used a club/cane as my weapon of choice, beefed up on all interpersonal skills, and had lots of fun RPing it.

In game it played out that I was this normal guy who got caught up in this whole "adventuring" thing with a crazy bunch of super characters.

it was a lot of fun actually!

Somehow I'm now picturing this old guy chasing after adventurers with a cane and yelling "Get off of my lawn!"

Currently I'm playing a Generic spellcaster in a game, and I really haven't seen much of a problem with it. It can be useful and neat, it's a bit better than the sorcerer, yes, but it's not a bad class.
I like the flexibility.

[valadil]

We had a generic warrior in our party a while back. He seemed competent enough and nobody could tell he wasn't using a core class till we asked.

Don't let generics classes multiclass with regular characters. There's a lot of cheese that can be pulled off. Generics get bonus feats which can be spent on class features like sneak attack. By carefully mixing generic classes with core ones you can get class features without spending levels and qualify for PrCs really easily. The first two levels of expert, for instance, each give a bonus feat. If taken around level 8, each bonus feat could get you a sneak attack feat. 2 levels of expert for 5d6 sneak attack? Yes please. Hell, one level of it gives 2d6 sneak attack, which is enough to qualify for most sneak attack based PrCs (which were written expecting you to need 3 levels of rogue).

[Tempest Fennac]

Thanks for the feedback. I was planning on giving the Generic Adept (as I guess you could call the Divine Caster) the same feat Progression as the spellcaster as well. To be honest, I never considered using them for PrCs like that (I'm not really a PrC fan, though).

[AstralFire]

I don't think that's a balance issue anyway, as far as Warrior and Expert are concerned. Spellcaster, yes.

[Chronos]

Since for the most part Divine Magic is -slightly- weaker than Arcane Magic (it's the other stuff like Divine Feats, Domain Feats, Animal Companion, Spontaneous Conversion and Wild Shape that -really- screw the pooch) I don't think that's too much of an issue, but I would still stick to only one good save.

That, and divine classes generally get better HD and BAB than the arcane ones, plus armor and better weapons. That can make a big difference at low levels, when you can't afford to use every action for casting a spell.

[Tempest Fennac]

Having the option to have a Ranger Animal Companion would be interresting (it would need to be available for all the Generic classes, though). Do you think some limited Shapeshifter Druid abilities later on would be too game-breaking if anyone could meet the prequisites rather then just Adepts?

[TheOOB]

I see no problem mixing the party, as long as you prevent multiclassing between generic and non generic as mentioned above. The generic classes are basically a make-your-own-class toolset. The spellcaster is really powerful, but at high levels a wizard will still tromp it.

[FMArthur]

Generic classes means UMD Fighter!

Do any problems arise from skill selection? I remember hearing about Factotums being able to use weird stuff because of their skill list being "all", so having characters able to select any skill as a class skill would enable them to do that stuff. I don't remember what it was, so I don't know if it was pointed out as being broken or just odd, though.

[Chronos]

The only weird skill that would be particularly useful for a fighter is Iajitsu Focus. Basically, when you draw a weapon and immediately attack, you make a skill check, and depending on the result of your check, you get a bunch of extra d6 added to your damage. If you put some effort into pumping the skill, it's close to as much damage as Sneak Attack. The downside is that it only applies to the first attack after drawing (so to make multiple attacks with it in a round, you need Quick Draw and multiple weapons), but the upside is that the extra damage applies versus anything, including constructs, undead, and inanimate objects.

Autohypnosis could also be useful, but it mostly just lets you make a skill check instead of a saving through in a couple of situations. While the skill check will be higher, it's probably not enough higher to justify burning a bunch of points on it.

[Tempest Fennac]

Iajitsu Focus sounds interresting. Don't forget that each class can only take so many skills as class skills, FMArthur, so they can't learn every skill in the game.