Generics [Archive] - Wizards Community - Pages Merged by Solauren

Generics [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
princeofcincinnati
05-04-05, 08:10 PM Is it really unbalance to let someone play generic classes with normal classes and why? I mean if you go level by level, it's all the same. A 20th level wizard is still a powerful spell caster compare to say a 10th level generic Aracane spellcaster/10th level Divine spellcaster.
Dragonblade275
05-04-05, 09:14 PM Is it really unbalance to let someone play generic classes with normal classes and why? I mean if you go level by level, it's all the same. A 20th level wizard is still a powerful spell caster compare to say a 10th level generic Aracane spellcaster/10th level Divine spellcaster.I don't think it would be too imbalancing. After all, for the generics to balancce out to face the appropriate CR's, they have to be fairly well balanced.

The warrior, for example, is the Fighter (except you get to choose the good save, lose heavy armor proficiency, and the restrictions concerning where the bonus feats can be spent).

The spellcaster is pretty much a sorceror with bonus feats, no familiar, and a (slightly) reduced spell progression.

The expert is ok, too.

In my game, if someone wanted to play one of these classes or even multiclass into one of them, I'd probably allow it. However, I'm still quite new to DM'ing 3.5. Been reading the books a lot and tinkering with ideas from Unearthed Arcana, but I've still got a lot to learn. Maybe someone with more experience points in dungeon mastering will tell us more...
Dragonblade275
05-04-05, 09:16 PM Also, if anyone has any thoughts on gestault generics and or gestault generic/core (example: warrior/fighter), I'd be interested in reading them, too.

Thanks,
Paul Hopebringer
05-05-05, 02:05 PM If you want to go gestault... Just do it. Really... don't worry about balance, because I'm fairly certain that it is impossible to balance as is. You'de... have to come up with totally new game mechanics if you really wanted to balance them out, I would think... so if you really want to go gestault, forget about balance.

...Hmm... generic gestaults... wow...takes the fun out of powergaming. You don't have to think any at all, just pick what you want... I don't think it would work out... not being chalenged by a powergame puzzle... where would you get your fun from? OH YEAH!!! Role-playing!

Now that I think about it, if you can go gestalt generic... why not just say full attack bonus, d12 hp, all good saves, and either full feat progression or spellcasting. That way, you wouldn't even have to think that hard.
beejazz
05-05-05, 02:06 PM Well, my campaign's a weird one- gallows humor. Anyway, I'll post that later in a different forum. Anyway, villains include Frogs (mutated amphibians who worship an abandoned powerplant) and Yuppies (annoyingly good looking utopian sorts). Important info for later in this post.

My players included at least one min/max, powerplayer munchkinist who kept looking for ways to build a certain character- a perfect two weapon fighter -and kept asking for these brand new core classes for himself. I shook him and others with generic classes with an expanded list of class features.

Later, when I wanted the frogs to act Cajun, I thought how the best classes for that would be Hexblades and Warlocks... but I was using generic classes!

So I figured screw it, if anyone asks, I'll quote rule zero. The moral? The ends justifies the means. (esp. with DMing)

So just do whatever works best for your campaign and players. As long as it's fun for the players.

As far as balancing with increased options, I say it's better to just add to the list of gestalt class features. I took off smiting. I added rage, whirling frenzy, defensive stance, skirmish...
Dragonblade275
05-05-05, 05:29 PM If you want to go gestault... Just do it. Really... don't worry about balance, because I'm fairly certain that it is impossible to balance as is. You'de... have to come up with totally new game mechanics if you really wanted to balance them out, I would think... so if you really want to go gestault, forget about balance.

...Hmm... generic gestaults... wow...takes the fun out of powergaming. You don't have to think any at all, just pick what you want... I don't think it would work out... not being chalenged by a powergame puzzle... where would you get your fun from? OH YEAH!!! Role-playing!

Now that I think about it, if you can go gestalt generic... why not just say full attack bonus, d12 hp, all good saves, and either full feat progression or spellcasting. That way, you wouldn't even have to think that hard. :cool:

Good post.
Dragonblade275
05-05-05, 05:34 PM Well, my campaign's a weird one- gallows humor. Anyway, I'll post that later in a different forum. Anyway, villains include Frogs (mutated amphibians who worship an abandoned powerplant) and Yuppies (annoyingly good looking utopian sorts). Important info for later in this post.

My players included at least one min/max, powerplayer munchkinist who kept looking for ways to build a certain character- a perfect two weapon fighter -and kept asking for these brand new core classes for himself. I shook him and others with generic classes with an expanded list of class features.

Later, when I wanted the frogs to act Cajun, I thought how the best classes for that would be Hexblades and Warlocks... but I was using generic classes!

So I figured screw it, if anyone asks, I'll quote rule zero. The moral? The ends justifies the means. (esp. with DMing)

So just do whatever works best for your campaign and players. As long as it's fun for the players.

As far as balancing with increased options, I say it's better to just add to the list of gestalt class features. I took off smiting. I added rage, whirling frenzy, defensive stance, skirmish...As long as it's fun... I say if you're going to play generics that there's really no reason not to add to the list of feats the players can choose from. And, if the DM wants cajun hexblade bullfrogs, more power to him! Even against generics, I don't see a problem.
princeofcincinnati
05-05-05, 05:45 PM Well here is what I came up with. Gestalt can only be used if
1. Everyone is Gestault or
2. Everyone is several levels higher than the player with Gestalt.
As for Generic, I think you can include them and here's why.
take a by the book Wizard and lets say a Generic Warrior/Arcane Spellcaster.
While the GW can take a metamagic feat for every bonus feat he gets, it still makes him a weak spell caster.
Dragonblade275
05-05-05, 06:41 PM Well here is what I came up with. Gestalt can only be used if
1. Everyone is Gestault or
2. Everyone is several levels higher than the player with Gestalt.
As for Generic, I think you can include them and here's why.
take a by the book Wizard and lets say a Generic Warrior/Arcane Spellcaster.
While the GW can take a metamagic feat for every bonus feat he gets, it still makes him a weak spell caster.
The one thing I wouldn't do is allow one player to gestalt if the others didn't.

I wouldn't have any problem with generic classes along side core classes, though.
princeofcincinnati
05-05-05, 07:26 PM My problem with Gestalt is what's the point? Except for power gaming what are they good for? With Generic characters you make the exact character you want. That type has a point. Mulitclassing in my opinion has more reason than Gestalt.
Dragonblade275
05-07-05, 05:45 AM My problem with Gestalt is what's the point? Except for power gaming what are they good for? With Generic characters you make the exact character you want. That type has a point. Mulitclassing in my opinion has more reason than Gestalt.The best use of gestalts that I've found so far is in a smaller playing group. It allows the group to have a few more options without complicating things by having each player run two or three characters.

Our group uses it for this very reason. There's me, as DM, and two players. So, two PC's and perhaps and NPC... Gestalt means that each character has a couple more usable options (a fighter/barbarian can rage, a fighter/wizard can cast a spell, a monk/wizard can get into melee and still have the option of spells...)

For us, gestalts answered the problem of the limited use of spellcasters at low levels. Non-Gestalt spellcasters (especially wizards/sorcerers) were only useful til they ran out of spells, though they often got killed before that. The problem being that in a group of two PC's there's often no one to hide behind til the right time to cast.

I will say this, though. The accounting in keeping track of characters is easier in regular multiclassing. Gestalts can get fairly complex when they start multiclassing.
princeofcincinnati
05-07-05, 03:56 PM That makes alot of sense. I'm having the situation where I might only be having two players. This sounds like a good idea.
The Human Target
05-12-05, 01:15 AM My problem with Gestalt is what's the point? Except for power gaming what are they good for? With Generic characters you make the exact character you want. That type has a point. Mulitclassing in my opinion has more reason than Gestalt.

Aside from the obvious reason of not having enough players to cover the basics, its really frickin' fun!

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
princeofcincinnati 05-04-05, 08:10 PM	Is it really unbalance to let someone play generic classes with normal classes and why? I mean if you go level by level, it's all the same. A 20th level wizard is still a powerful spell caster compare to say a 10th level generic Aracane spellcaster/10th level Divine spellcaster.
Dragonblade275 05-04-05, 09:14 PM	Is it really unbalance to let someone play generic classes with normal classes and why? I mean if you go level by level, it's all the same. A 20th level wizard is still a powerful spell caster compare to say a 10th level generic Aracane spellcaster/10th level Divine spellcaster.I don't think it would be too imbalancing. After all, for the generics to balancce out to face the appropriate CR's, they have to be fairly well balanced. The warrior, for example, is the Fighter (except you get to choose the good save, lose heavy armor proficiency, and the restrictions concerning where the bonus feats can be spent). The spellcaster is pretty much a sorceror with bonus feats, no familiar, and a (slightly) reduced spell progression. The expert is ok, too. In my game, if someone wanted to play one of these classes or even multiclass into one of them, I'd probably allow it. However, I'm still quite new to DM'ing 3.5. Been reading the books a lot and tinkering with ideas from Unearthed Arcana, but I've still got a lot to learn. Maybe someone with more experience points in dungeon mastering will tell us more...
Dragonblade275 05-04-05, 09:16 PM	Also, if anyone has any thoughts on gestault generics and or gestault generic/core (example: warrior/fighter), I'd be interested in reading them, too. Thanks,
Paul Hopebringer 05-05-05, 02:05 PM	If you want to go gestault... Just do it. Really... don't worry about balance, because I'm fairly certain that it is impossible to balance as is. You'de... have to come up with totally new game mechanics if you really wanted to balance them out, I would think... so if you really want to go gestault, forget about balance. ...Hmm... generic gestaults... wow...takes the fun out of powergaming. You don't have to think any at all, just pick what you want... I don't think it would work out... not being chalenged by a powergame puzzle... where would you get your fun from? OH YEAH!!! Role-playing! Now that I think about it, if you can go gestalt generic... why not just say full attack bonus, d12 hp, all good saves, and either full feat progression or spellcasting. That way, you wouldn't even have to think that hard.
beejazz 05-05-05, 02:06 PM	Well, my campaign's a weird one- gallows humor. Anyway, I'll post that later in a different forum. Anyway, villains include Frogs (mutated amphibians who worship an abandoned powerplant) and Yuppies (annoyingly good looking utopian sorts). Important info for later in this post. My players included at least one min/max, powerplayer munchkinist who kept looking for ways to build a certain character- a perfect two weapon fighter -and kept asking for these brand new core classes for himself. I shook him and others with generic classes with an expanded list of class features. Later, when I wanted the frogs to act Cajun, I thought how the best classes for that would be Hexblades and Warlocks... but I was using generic classes! So I figured screw it, if anyone asks, I'll quote rule zero. The moral? The ends justifies the means. (esp. with DMing) So just do whatever works best for your campaign and players. As long as it's fun for the players. As far as balancing with increased options, I say it's better to just add to the list of gestalt class features. I took off smiting. I added rage, whirling frenzy, defensive stance, skirmish...
Dragonblade275 05-05-05, 05:29 PM	If you want to go gestault... Just do it. Really... don't worry about balance, because I'm fairly certain that it is impossible to balance as is. You'de... have to come up with totally new game mechanics if you really wanted to balance them out, I would think... so if you really want to go gestault, forget about balance. ...Hmm... generic gestaults... wow...takes the fun out of powergaming. You don't have to think any at all, just pick what you want... I don't think it would work out... not being chalenged by a powergame puzzle... where would you get your fun from? OH YEAH!!! Role-playing! Now that I think about it, if you can go gestalt generic... why not just say full attack bonus, d12 hp, all good saves, and either full feat progression or spellcasting. That way, you wouldn't even have to think that hard. :cool: Good post.
Dragonblade275 05-05-05, 05:34 PM	Well, my campaign's a weird one- gallows humor. Anyway, I'll post that later in a different forum. Anyway, villains include Frogs (mutated amphibians who worship an abandoned powerplant) and Yuppies (annoyingly good looking utopian sorts). Important info for later in this post. My players included at least one min/max, powerplayer munchkinist who kept looking for ways to build a certain character- a perfect two weapon fighter -and kept asking for these brand new core classes for himself. I shook him and others with generic classes with an expanded list of class features. Later, when I wanted the frogs to act Cajun, I thought how the best classes for that would be Hexblades and Warlocks... but I was using generic classes! So I figured screw it, if anyone asks, I'll quote rule zero. The moral? The ends justifies the means. (esp. with DMing) So just do whatever works best for your campaign and players. As long as it's fun for the players. As far as balancing with increased options, I say it's better to just add to the list of gestalt class features. I took off smiting. I added rage, whirling frenzy, defensive stance, skirmish...As long as it's fun... I say if you're going to play generics that there's really no reason not to add to the list of feats the players can choose from. And, if the DM wants cajun hexblade bullfrogs, more power to him! Even against generics, I don't see a problem.
princeofcincinnati 05-05-05, 05:45 PM	Well here is what I came up with. Gestalt can only be used if 1. Everyone is Gestault or 2. Everyone is several levels higher than the player with Gestalt. As for Generic, I think you can include them and here's why. take a by the book Wizard and lets say a Generic Warrior/Arcane Spellcaster. While the GW can take a metamagic feat for every bonus feat he gets, it still makes him a weak spell caster.
Dragonblade275 05-05-05, 06:41 PM	Well here is what I came up with. Gestalt can only be used if 1. Everyone is Gestault or 2. Everyone is several levels higher than the player with Gestalt. As for Generic, I think you can include them and here's why. take a by the book Wizard and lets say a Generic Warrior/Arcane Spellcaster. While the GW can take a metamagic feat for every bonus feat he gets, it still makes him a weak spell caster. The one thing I wouldn't do is allow one player to gestalt if the others didn't. I wouldn't have any problem with generic classes along side core classes, though.
princeofcincinnati 05-05-05, 07:26 PM	My problem with Gestalt is what's the point? Except for power gaming what are they good for? With Generic characters you make the exact character you want. That type has a point. Mulitclassing in my opinion has more reason than Gestalt.
Dragonblade275 05-07-05, 05:45 AM	My problem with Gestalt is what's the point? Except for power gaming what are they good for? With Generic characters you make the exact character you want. That type has a point. Mulitclassing in my opinion has more reason than Gestalt.The best use of gestalts that I've found so far is in a smaller playing group. It allows the group to have a few more options without complicating things by having each player run two or three characters. Our group uses it for this very reason. There's me, as DM, and two players. So, two PC's and perhaps and NPC... Gestalt means that each character has a couple more usable options (a fighter/barbarian can rage, a fighter/wizard can cast a spell, a monk/wizard can get into melee and still have the option of spells...) For us, gestalts answered the problem of the limited use of spellcasters at low levels. Non-Gestalt spellcasters (especially wizards/sorcerers) were only useful til they ran out of spells, though they often got killed before that. The problem being that in a group of two PC's there's often no one to hide behind til the right time to cast. I will say this, though. The accounting in keeping track of characters is easier in regular multiclassing. Gestalts can get fairly complex when they start multiclassing.
princeofcincinnati 05-07-05, 03:56 PM	That makes alot of sense. I'm having the situation where I might only be having two players. This sounds like a good idea.
The Human Target 05-12-05, 01:15 AM	My problem with Gestalt is what's the point? Except for power gaming what are they good for? With Generic characters you make the exact character you want. That type has a point. Mulitclassing in my opinion has more reason than Gestalt. Aside from the obvious reason of not having enough players to cover the basics, its really frickin' fun!