Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Belegbeth 02-29-04, 12:52 PM	The part of UA that I am most excited about are the 'generic classes.' They combine both simplicity and flexibility. :D Indeed, anything that introduces greater simplicity and flexibility into DnD gets my vote. I especially like the idea of combining them with a select set of "campaign appropriate" prestige classes (including the prestige bard, paladin, and ranger). The idea of defining the kind of character you are over time, and eventually fine-tuning your identify through the acquisition of a prestige class, appeals to me quite a bit. But I think I would introduce some minor changes to the classes as presented in UA. In particular: Expert: as described, except experts gain 8 skill points per level. Mage (Spellcaster, arcane): as the spellcaster class, except mages choose one domain, as per domain wizards (with associated benefits). All mages use intelligence for their spellcasting abilities. Priest (Spellcaster, divine): as the spellcaster class, except priests choose two domains, as per clerics (with associated benefits). Warrior: as described, except warriors gain 4 skill points per level. My reason for adding skill points to the expert and warrior classes is to balance the benefits that mages and priests get from domains (which, among other things, allow them to cast an additional spell per day). I would also modify the prestige bard such that she could cast either divine spells (using wisdom) or arcane spells (using intelligence). The divine spell bard prestige class would also be modified in accordance with the "divine bard" variant (i.e. abilities would be modified as appropriate). The divine bard prestige class would thus be quite similar to the original, 1st ed. bard (who required several levels of thief and fighter before becoming a bard, and who gained, I think, druid spells). The bard prestige class resembles the 2nd ed. bard (who was a 'dabbler' in wizard magic). Any problems with this strategy? :confused:
Xeviat-DM 02-29-04, 07:11 PM	Well, as you can see, both the Warrior and Expert are weaker than their counterparts, the Fighter and the Rogue. The Warrior looses out on Heavy Armor proficiencies and Tower shield proficiencies (though I can honestly say I've only seen one player who was interested in a tower shield). The Expert looses out on skill points, and I've yet to analyze the differences between an Expert built like a rogue (with sneak attack and all) and a core Rogue. If you're giving a power up to each class, I think that's fine.
Belegbeth 03-01-04, 06:21 AM	Some random thoughts on generic classes. (I have not seen some of these matters addressed in other threads, though I have not looked especially carefully...) Would adding the additional skill points to the Expert and Warrior classes suffice to balance things out? The reason I ask is that the spellcaster seems pretty powerful (see next question). A question I have about the spellcaster class concerns armour: I assume that arcane spellcasters do NOT suffer from arcane spell failure (otherwise they are severely penalized vis-a-vis divine spellcasters). If this is so (and it definitely is so for divine spellcasters), spellcasters look pretty powerful: they have access to the entire spell list, and can wear armour as well (if they take the relevant feat, or a level in warrior). Am I missing something here? Moving right along, one worry I have with using generic classes and prestige classes has to do with those prestige classes that employ divine spells. Here I am thinking especially of the prestige ranger and prestige paladin. If divine spellcasters have access to the entire spell list under the generic class system, these prestige classes would also have access to the entire list, which could ruin game balance (by enabling rangers and paladins to cast fireball, lightning bolt, etc.). The best solution I can think of to this potential problem is to limit spell selection for prestige paladins to paladin and cleric spells, and for prestige rangers to ranger and druid spells. These restrictions would reflect the "focus" of the professions in question. Rambling late night generic thoughts ... :cool:
Belegbeth 03-01-04, 09:26 AM	Looking over the boards, the other option for balancing the generic class that appeals to me is offered by JohnSnow. He suggests: Spellcaster d6 HD 2 Skill Points Expert d8 HD 8 skill points Warrior d12 HD 2 skill points However, if I stick with my original "domain" addition to the spellcaster class, I would probably knock the spellcaster back to a d4 to keep things balanced. Snow's variant improves the expert a lot, and replaces my suggestion of 4 skill points for the warrior with a d12 HD. In short, which alternative do people think is more balanced? (1.) Spellcasters with domains (wizard domains for arcane spellcasters; 2 cleric domains for divine spellcasters); Experts with 8 skill points; and Warriors with 4 skill points. OR (2.) Spellcasters with domains (as above); Experts with 8 skill points and d8 HD; and Warriors with d12HD. Given that spellcasters can (with feat or multiclass) wear armour, the latter "boost" might be more balanced. But I am not sure. Any thoughts? :cool:
DM Zoc 03-01-04, 09:40 AM	I always figured that you'd take a level of expert if you wanted to increase your skills, a level in warrior if you wanted to fight better, and a level in spellcaster if you wanted to cast better. Just about every character would multi-class. My other idea was to add all of the class abilities from basic classes onto the feats list, with prerequisites of all of the class abilities that would have been gained earlier in the original class.
Belegbeth 03-01-04, 09:46 AM	Originally posted by DM Zoc I always figured that you'd take a level of expert if you wanted to increase your skills, a level in warrior if you wanted to fight better, and a level in spellcaster if you wanted to cast better. Just about every character would multi-class. My other idea was to add all of the class abilities from basic classes onto the feats list, with prerequisites of all of the class abilities that would have been gained earlier in the original class. So I take it, DM Zoc, that you think option (2) is the way to go? (Give the warrior hit points, not skills.) As for your second suggestion, I like the idea, but some of the class abilities look better than standard feats (e.g. bard songs that improve with levels; barbarian rage). Balance might be hard (unless certain abilities count as two feats?)...
77IM 03-01-04, 11:17 AM	I think the Spellcaster and the Warrior are roughly equal to their counterparts. Warrior loses Heavy Armor, but gets more flexibility in his feats, so it's about even. Spellcaster is harder to gauge, but it looks about right to me -- I guess I'd have to playtest one to be sure. I'd allow them to start with wizard weapon proficiencies. Expert gets hosed, though. Way worse than a core rogue. Here'd be my fix: 1. Give him the feat progression of the warrior. 2. d8 hit die. 3. Make "Sneak Attack +1d6" a single, stackable feat -- none of this "Sneak Attack +2d6, Improved Sneak Attack +3d6" sillyness. We've already seen from one of the fighter variants that someone at Wizards thinks that sneak attack is roughly equal in power to fighter bonus feats. He's still worse than a rogue, but much closer. It's also very much easier to compare the Expert to the Warrior, which I like. ------------ That change made, I think the generic classes could fit into a regular campaign if viewed as "class construction frameworks" used to create a custom class. My rules for players wishing to create their own class using this method would be thus: 1. The class must have a name and a concept distinct from the core classes and general enough to apply to a multitude of characters. It shouldn't just be "My custom class that I dreamed up just for my character." 2. Your first level feat and at least half of your other feats must become special abilities instead of bonus feats. Anything that can be a bonus feat can be made into a special ability; the difference is that special abilities are fixed and specified when the class is created (the same way that your good saves and class skills are specified up front). At any given level of the class, it can't have earned more bonus feats than special abilities (in other words, the "soonest" you can get your bonus feats is by making every other bonus feat spot into a special ability). 3. For the bonus feats that remain, you must come up with a bonus feat list containing twice as many feats as there are bonus feat slots in your class. For example, if your class now has 6 special abilities and 5 bonus feats, you must come up with a bonus feat list of 10 feats. These must be actual feats, not class special abilities (like uncanny dodge or sneak attack). 4. A Spellcaster-based custom class must have a class spell list with 12-18 spells at each level. 5. If the DM judges that the class concept doesn't make sense or is too narrow, or the class's abilities don't match its flavor, or the class is unbalanced somehow, it goes back to the drawing board. Under this system, because flexibility is reduced, I may increase the number of special ability/bonus feat slots available to the class frameworks (especially to the Spellcaster). -- 77IM
Belegbeth 03-02-04, 01:53 AM	Originally posted by 77IM I think the Spellcaster and the Warrior are roughly equal to their counterparts. Warrior loses Heavy Armor, but gets more flexibility in his feats, so it's about even. Spellcaster is harder to gauge, but it looks about right to me -- I guess I'd have to playtest one to be sure. I'd allow them to start with wizard weapon proficiencies. Expert gets hosed, though. Way worse than a core rogue. Here'd be my fix: 1. Give him the feat progression of the warrior. 2. d8 hit die. 3. Make "Sneak Attack +1d6" a single, stackable feat -- none of this "Sneak Attack +2d6, Improved Sneak Attack +3d6" sillyness. We've already seen from one of the fighter variants that someone at Wizards thinks that sneak attack is roughly equal in power to fighter bonus feats. He's still worse than a rogue, but much closer. It's also very much easier to compare the Expert to the Warrior, which I like. I like your approach to the "Sneak Attack" feat, 77IM, and will probably use it. However, assuming that you are using the Warrior as printed in UA, wouldn't your changes make the Expert overly powerful in comparison? The Expert would have almost as good HD as the Warrior (d8 vs. d10), as many feats, way more skill points (6 vs. 2), and better saves (2 good for the expert versus 1 good for the warrior). There remains the difference in armor and weapon proficiencies, but that seems relatively minor (especially since it can be overcome with one level in Warrior). The Expert also now looks more than balanced with the Rogue. The Expert gets a better HD (d8 vs. d6) and better saves (two good saves versus the rogue's one). The Rogue gets slightly more feats (effectively one almost every level) and skill points (8 versus 6). How is the Expert still worse than the Rogue? Perhaps I am missing something. Also, if this analysis is correct, perhaps the Warrior, as printed in AU, is underpowered? I still wonder if giving the Expert d8 HD and 8 skill points might be the better route. In comparison to the Rogue, this version of the Expert has a better HD and better saves, equal skills, and many fewer feats. The better HD and saves compensate adequately, I think, for the far fewer feats. Argh! This is getting complicated.... :mad:
77IM 03-02-04, 10:17 AM	Well, I think for a Warrior to go down a step in BAB and Hit Die and lose weapon & armor proficiencies, a good save and 4 more skill points seems like a reasonable trade. Similarly, for a Rogue to get one hit die higher and a good save, but lose 2 skill points and some class skills AND almost half his special abilities (the Expert would have to put all his bonus feats into Sneak Attack to match the rogue) seems about right. To really make your head spin, compare my proposed Expert to the Ranger, who gets all the same stuff PLUS better weapons and better BAB and spells. Of course, who knows. I'm pretty sure an Expert saddled with a d6 hit die would still be a fun and playable class. "Balance Through Speculation" is always less acurate than playtesting. -- 77IM