Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Jodjod 11-22-05, 03:51 AM	I'm considering using the Generic class system from UA in my games, I'm just wondering if you all think it's balanced and whether it results, generally, in a more or less high powered game. If, say, Gestalt was a Powe 10 game and the standard class sytem was a 5 or 6, how would you rate the generic classes? Also, is there anything missing from the classes that results in imbalance?
MojoMonkeyMan 11-26-05, 05:08 PM	my only concern is that divine spellcasters lose a lot of their strength with the generic classes presented in UA. I give generic classes a power rating of 3 or 4 max. I do, however, like the feel of the classes. I have been toying with the idea of tweaking the basic classes in the PH in this manner: all weapon and armor proficiencies as well as class skills can be traded for feats. I always thought it odd that a first level fighter would know how to wear full plate mail, eventhough he had never had an opportunity to have a suit custom made. As such, a cleric who never wants to wear heavy armor or use a shield gets two extra feats. I think this allows characters to grow more over time. This way, if they find or buy a suit of plate later, they can try it out (eventhoug they are non-proficient) and take the feat as they see fit. In addition, I think that characters could improve their skill base using one of these feats . For instance, the wizard who gives up his familiar could trade this for 4+INT bonus skill points per level instead of 2+... Here is what I am uncertain about - some class skills are more powerful than others. Should the druid's animal companion be worth two feats? What about a ranger's animal or the paladin's mount (Probably only 1)? I think rage and sneak attack are both worth two feats as well. The ranger (or any other class) would only have the option to relinquish class features in exchange for feats at the time that those features would become available. The same would apply for multi-classing. I think this system allows for a generic class system without totally throwing out the DnD class system feel. Furthermore, the feat system is what, in my opinion, really makes characters unique. Adding more of these can't be bad. Well, I feel like I have been a little long winded in my answer of your question. Feel free to critique this as needed, and I look forward to receiving feedback.
Koga:The ninja trick 11-26-05, 05:58 PM	Divine casters are still better then arcane casters in every possible way.. that shouldn't be.. It's like saying "ok, you can choose either a good stat like int for casting, a medium stat like wis, or a crap stat like cha" "oh gee, that's a tough one.." "you can also choose to suffer from arcane spell-failure or not" "stop molesting my mind!" : \ There's alot of kinks that need to be worked out, but The Koga would say it's a medium powered game on the lower-side of medium. It's highly customizable though making it more fun.. But The Koga would suggest these alternatives to making it better.. Divine Spellcasters: Divine spellcasters don't suffer from arcane spell-failure, use WIS for spellcasting and gain a hit die of d8. Arcane Spellcasters: Suffer arcane spell-failure, use INT for casting, gain +1 spell-per-day of every spell level. Psionic Casters: Do not suffer arcane spell-failure, use CHA for casting, and thier spells are treated as supernatural. Also The Koga made generic aristocrats and commoners. Aristocrats are as in the DM Guide but they gain a bonus feat at 1st and every 5th level. You can also choose thier "good save". Generic Commoners are as DM Guide sept they gain a bonus feat EVERY level and have automitc profficetcy with simple weapons. The Koga's not completely sure if this is balanced, but it's a good start he supposes..