New Class System Idea [Archive] - Wizards Community

New Class System Idea [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
FlameLover
09-22-05, 07:54 PM I posted this on the Paizo boards but would like to get everyone's opinion here. Below is the rough outline and starting point of my idea for how to handle classes in a homebrew D&D game.

Cleric: You'd choose 2 domains as normal, but the power you get from them would be lesser, normal and greater. Say if you took Plant and Animal as your Domains then you're already a basic Druid but then at level 6 you could take a level of Druid. Or you could go for the Good and Lawful domains and set yourself up for Paladin (although you don't NEED certain domains for either)

Fighter: Like it is now, loads of bonus feats and maybe a few more Fighter-only feats too. This should be the ONLY base class with full BAB too.

Rogue: Like it is now but has tons of skill points and start giving some selectable Rogue abilities at level 1. Some should be sneaky, con-artist type and others on the 'Swashbuckling' sort of type.

Wizard: Cast spells, has familiar, but you NEED to specialize. This one wouldn't need to prepare spells, you'd just know them and cast with points like a Psion does (Cleric casts same btw). The specialization wouldn't restrict other spells though, just make one school of magic more potent for you.

Now for Advanced:

Paladin: Clerics and Fighters are the people who'd enter this one. Give some smiting, special mount, some other abilities and you're set! No spellcasting though, if you want that take Cleric.

Druid: Shape-shifitng, special abilities, etc. This would merge the Druid and Ranger classes but with now spells! (If you want spells, again take cleric). Mainly for nature-based Clerics, Fighters or Rogues.

Monk: Mainly fighters specialized in fisty-cuffs, the Monk would be focused on the martial-arts aspect. All about inner-self and contemplation. For ki-stuff you'd take a PrC.

Bard: Mainly for Rogues and Wizards the Bard would be all about music, support and some thievery too.

Sorceror: Not sure of the name but this takes specialization to the next level. You'd pick one specialization and 2 secondary schools and the rest would be unusable. This is for someone who REALLY wants to focus on just one aspect of casting.

And the PrCs would be made by the DM mostly. So hopefully you can see the trend that very few people do what the other can do, like the Druid doesn't cast spells since if you want more spells just stay nature-Cleric. If someone can see a gaping hole in this system tell me since i am making my own RPG and am basing it around this concept.

That's obviously only the basic idea but i hope you can see where i'm going with it. The 4 base classes each go to level 20, the advanced go for 10 levels and PrCs woul go from 1 level to 10. PrCs would be used for guilds and organizations only and would be campaign specific while the 'advanced' classes could cover what we have now with our PrCs. I was thinking of having most of the core classes as the 'base' ones in this but i think this works out better. The important thing to note is that each of the classes would be modified (especially Cleric and Wizard) so that they allow alot more customization than is currently possible. You CAN be a 'druid' by just being a nature-based Cleric but if you take Druid levels you get the Wild Shaping aspect and other nice nature stuff. Things like a Barbarian's rage would be feat-ified into probably normal, Improved and Greater versions and some classes would be merged or split (like the Druid above is a mix of the Druid, the Cleric and the Ranger from RAW).

So, what ya'll think? I'm making my own RPG sorta (it's more just an extensive D&D homebrew) and i'd like to know if there is anything wrong with this syetm since i'll be basing my whole game around it almost.
FlameLover
09-25-05, 03:42 AM No comments on this atall? Not even a "Your crazy!!! ZOMG!!!"? It would require major re-working of the base classes but atleast PrCs would remain largely untouched.
Xeviat-DM
09-25-05, 03:55 AM I applaud your attempt; this is very similar to what I'm going for. You're leaning ever closer to a non-classed, point based system; I think a happy middleground might be a class based point system similar to L5R. I'm going to make some observations and suggestions, since that's what I think you're looking for; in return I'd appreciate it if you could do the same with mine.

Firstly, what is the fundamental difference between a Cleric and a Wizard? Why is there two Cleric specializations (Druid, Paladin), but not two for Wizard?

I suggest you make Swashbuckler an advanced progression for Fighters and Rogues.

Are you intending the specializations to be taken by single classers or multiclassers?

I think you may want to consider the difference between specializations (druids are a specialized cleric) and advancements (paladin sounds like an advanced cleric/fighter).

It's hard to directly comment, other than I think you have a good idea going here; a nice bit of simplicity without destroying all that is D&D.
FlameLover
09-25-05, 04:09 AM First let me say THANK YOU for commenting, that's exactly what i wanted :) Now, onto the responses:

Firstly, what is the fundamental difference between a Cleric and a Wizard? Why is there two Cleric specializations (Druid, Paladin), but not two for Wizard?
The cleric channels divine power, the wizard arcane. If i was re-making D&D from the ground-up i would merge the two but since they are very much ingrained into what D&D is i felt they needed that seperation. The reason the Cleric has 2 and the Wizard only 1 above is that that list isn't complete and is only a start. Wizard can actually branch into two directions i beleive: RAW Wizard or Warlock. So you can go either less power/more use or more power/less use.

I suggest you make Swashbuckler an advanced progression for Fighters and Rogues.
Yep, also Ninja (Monk/Rogue), Hexblade (Wizard/Fighter) and "Mystic Theurge" (Wizard/Cleric) and more.

Are you intending the specializations to be taken by single classers or multiclassers?
Both. They are designed to have very loose requirments so nearly enyone can get into them although not everyone will get the same return out of them. Some are designed for single class (like the Druid) others very much multi-class (like the Bard).

I think you may want to consider the difference between specializations (druids are a specialized cleric) and advancements (paladin sounds like an advanced cleric/fighter).
I don't see a big difference though. The Paladin can be taken with a straight Cleric or a Cleric/Fighter and so can the Druid. I don't really see a difference, one is more martially-oriented but neither *require* multiclassing. But yes some are aimed at multi-classing (like Bard) and some arn't. None FORCE you to multiclass though.

It's hard to directly comment, other than I think you have a good idea going here; a nice bit of simplicity without destroying all that is D&D.
On the paizo boards someone mentioned making D&D entirley skill and feat based and people said what you did: classes are part of what makes D&D unique and different.

AdC would be drawn from the Complete Series plus other books and even some PrCs should be made Advanced Classesm, like the Eldritch Knight and the Blackguard (should just be a Crusader of evil). And PrCs would remain basically as they are, maybe just some higher entry requirments.
Xeviat-DM
09-25-05, 05:06 AM If you're interested in hearing the way I've done mine, read this post:

I have 5 spellcasting classes and 4 non-spellcasting classes. Additionall, I have 5 advanced classes, which are similar to PrCs and can be entered at 6th level through specific multiclassing trees. Prestige Classes are tied specifically to organizations, while the system as a whole is doing what it can to make spellcasting multiclassers more possible.

The 4 noncasters are Berserker, Fighter, Knight, and Rogue. In your system, Berserker and Knight would be specializations on the Fighter, but since my system requires a law vs. chaos approach, the distinction was needed. The casters are Cleric, Druid, Meditant (Psion), Sorcerer, and Wizard. Other than the wizard, the other casters each command one of the magical forms (divine, natural, ki, and arcane). Wizards are capable of casting any form of magic, they just need to study them (represented by Knowledge skills).

Each advanced class is tied to a caster class, and all but the Bard are specifically tied to a single non-caste. My advanced classes are Channeler (chaotic warrior who wields elemental energy as a weapon, slowly becoming an elemental), Monk (lawful warrior who has a special bond with a crystal weapon, slowly becomes a perfect being, a meld of body, mind, and soul), Ranger, Templar (warrior priest with no preset alignment requirement), and Bard. Channelers are Berserker/Sorcerers, Monks are Knight/Meditants, Rangers are Rogue/Druids, Templar are Fighter/Clerics, and Bards are advanced Wizards who can enter with any of the other classes (most often Fighter, Rogue, or Fighter/Rogue).

As for a less class oriented system, L5R taught me something. In the Legend of the 5 Rings system, you choose your school, which determines your class skills and special school abilities. Your school is like your D&D class, and as your skills grow, you gain insight ranks which allow you to go up a rank (level) in your school (class), granting you additional abilities. Each clan has a warrior school (bushi), a spellcaster school (shugenja), a skilled school (courtier), and a special school (berserker, ninja, monk, scout, cavalier, dualist, and others). Your attack ratings are skills, just like everything else that would be a skill in D&D; your school abilities determine special abilities (warrior schools usually give you a way to deal extra damage, while spellcaster schools give you access to different levels of spells). While I do like that system for those games, it would be very difficult to impliment it in D&D.

Time for sleep.
FlameLover
09-25-05, 11:08 PM I have 5 spellcasting classes and 4 non-spellcasting classes. Additionall, I have 5 advanced classes, which are similar to PrCs and can be entered at 6th level through specific multiclassing trees. Prestige Classes are tied specifically to organizations, while the system as a whole is doing what it can to make spellcasting multiclassers more possible.
My basic principle is the same as yours, so your system sounds very nice too. Having more casters than non-casters seems a little odd to me but i guess that's just because i generally run low-magic campaigns.

The 4 noncasters are Berserker, Fighter, Knight, and Rogue. In your system, Berserker and Knight would be specializations on the Fighter, but since my system requires a law vs. chaos approach, the distinction was needed. The casters are Cleric, Druid, Meditant (Psion), Sorcerer, and Wizard. Other than the wizard, the other casters each command one of the magical forms (divine, natural, ki, and arcane). Wizards are capable of casting any form of magic, they just need to study them (represented by Knowledge skills).
Yeah a Knight AdC would probably be the goer with a focus on mounted combat and fealty although i doubt i'll have a "Berserker" AdC since it could really just be a feat tree. But i'll see how that goes, making it a class would probably be better now that i think about it.

Each advanced class is tied to a caster class, and all but the Bard are specifically tied to a single non-caste. My advanced classes are Channeler (chaotic warrior who wields elemental energy as a weapon, slowly becoming an elemental), Monk (lawful warrior who has a special bond with a crystal weapon, slowly becomes a perfect being, a meld of body, mind, and soul), Ranger, Templar (warrior priest with no preset alignment requirement), and Bard. Channelers are Berserker/Sorcerers, Monks are Knight/Meditants, Rangers are Rogue/Druids, Templar are Fighter/Clerics, and Bards are advanced Wizards who can enter with any of the other classes (most often Fighter, Rogue, or Fighter/Rogue).
Very interesting system: I like. Some mixes seem a bit weird like Sorceror/Berserker but then why not? I mean if an individual was born with the innate talent and raised savagley then it makes sense i guess :)

As for a less class oriented system, L5R taught me something. In the Legend of the 5 Rings system, you choose your school, which determines your class skills and special school abilities. Your school is like your D&D class, and as your skills grow, you gain insight ranks which allow you to go up a rank (level) in your school (class), granting you additional abilities. Each clan has a warrior school (bushi), a spellcaster school (shugenja), a skilled school (courtier), and a special school (berserker, ninja, monk, scout, cavalier, dualist, and others). Your attack ratings are skills, just like everything else that would be a skill in D&D; your school abilities determine special abilities (warrior schools usually give you a way to deal extra damage, while spellcaster schools give you access to different levels of spells). While I do like that system for those games, it would be very difficult to impliment it in D&D.
That would be very tricky to make fit D&D and i'm not sure i'd even want it to. I like the general-ness of D&D and how you can be almost any mix of characters but for another RPG that sounds like it could be very interesting.

Are there any AdC i'm missing though? Here is the list of what i've got so far (off the top of my head): Paladin, Monk, Druid, Bard, Wizard, Warlock, Knight, Berserker, Assasin. Anything more specialized than that would be a PrC. And i'm thinking of calling the base classes Warrior, Thief, Adept and Mage just so they sound like "Starting" classes. PrC would be named stuff like the "Brotherhood of the Yowler" or something.
FlameLover
09-28-05, 07:58 PM Here is my general idea of advancment for each class and a list of what has been feat-ified.

Adept
The Adpet is basically a tuned-down Cleric. The Adept has spell casting like a Favoured Soul though (spontaneous) but gets to pick 1 domain. The spell list for this domain basically adds to the Adept's Spells Known list and the granted power would increase at level 6, 11 and 16. Turning undead would just be a power granted by the Sun domain and all other domain powers would replace this.
Archetype: Paladin, Preacher, Druid

Mage
Basically a runed-down Wizard, the Mage would have spell casting like a Sorceror but could specialize like a Wizard. The Mage would basically choose either some sort of bloodline or a specialization, and it would "upgrade" at levels 6, 11 and 16. This would allow you to emulate both the Sorc and the Wiz with the same class.
Archetype: Wizard, Warlock, Crafter, Bard

Thief
The Thief would be the skill-monkey. At first level you would choose a special ability, and this would upgrade at levels 6, 11 and 16. The options would be things like Sneak Attack, Evasion, etc. and would be like an advanced form of the Rogue's current optional abilities. You would also be able to pick-up a new ability at the levels mentioned above.
Archetype: Ranger, Assasin, Swashbuckler

Warrior
The Warrior is the feat-monkey. Almost identical to the current Fighter, just with a few more exclusive feats and some more advanced feats on current trees.
Archetype: Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Knight, Swashbuckler

Although the listed levels are 6, 11 and 16 they could easily be changed to a faster progression of 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20. I'm starting to like that progression better, but you get the general idea anyway. Here is a list of the feat-ified stuff:

Rage: Turn this into a feat tree with 3 basic feats and a bunch of side ones to augment and extend the rage ability.

Favoured Enemy: Another feat tree with 3 basic levels. It would function like Skill Focus in that you can take it again and choose another one each time, or upgrade to a better version. Also some fringe feats on this one to interact with the classes.

Monk Stuff: Some of the basic Monk abilities would be featified. The tree would stem from the Improved Unarmed Strike feat and would basically add more damage and defence when fighting unarmed. Some of the Monk's AC boosting stuff would be turned into feats stemming from Dodge also.

It's tough deciding what should be featified and what should be AdC-ified but my general rule of thumb is that non-magical stuff should be feat-ified while magical stuff should be AdC. But ofcourse that doesn't always work or make sense, so if you disgree with any of this sofar then please say so. Here is a general idea od what i would like to see the AdC be:

Bard: Half caster progression but have much improved Bardic Music ability.
Paladin: Half caster progression but lots of smiting, special mounted-edness and turning stuff.
Druid: Half caster progression but Wild Shaping and other nature stuff.
Monk: Lots of special combat manouvers, speed boosts and special Ki-abilities dependant on meditation.

So yeah, what do you think of this general segregation? I could even take it a step further in either direction do either A or B:

A) Featify even the Wild Shaping, Bardic Music and stuff. This would make the system even more flexible which i like but it might be a little too loose for some people.

B) Make the feats listed like Rage and Favoured Enemy AdC. I don't particularly like this approach since it would be a step back i think but i know some people like a more rigid framework.

So yeah, comments? Questions?
elven warriorXX
09-28-05, 08:51 PM What if the wizard is as is (can prepare just like wizard) But he does not give up any schools but still gains bonuses from his choosen school? Will that make the wizard overpowered?
FlameLover
09-28-05, 09:32 PM What if the wizard is as is (can prepare just like wizard) But he does not give up any schools but still gains bonuses from his choosen school? Will that make the wizard overpowered?
Well i'd like to remove prepared casting since from a fantasy view point i've never seen a Wizard go "sorry, forgot to memorize that Meteor Swarm spell. Parhaps a casting of Light may be equally beneficial in the situation?". And if you allowed a Mage to specialize without drawback then you'd need to FORCE them to specialize in a school of magic, therefor taking that into account for power. But i will do that since it's like the Adept's Doamins almost.
elven warriorXX
09-28-05, 10:43 PM That might be just the system i am looking for :D I wanted to find a way for a wizard to specialize BUT be able to cast spells from all schools. Thanks a lot :) And i think i may use a mana point wizard as well. Would you know how many Mana/spell/arcana points that a wizard would gain per level?
FlameLover
09-28-05, 11:03 PM Well as a guess you'd just tally up there spell slots. So for this system i'm thinking of using about the numbers listed for the Psion. But if you don't have that look at the Sorc's Spells Per Day table and multiply each spell level by the number of slots you have, do that for each spell level and add it up for each level. Like:

At level 1 you'd have 5 MP. 5 X 0.5 (0 level spells) + 3 X 1 = 5.5. Round down and you get 5. Hope that makes sense!

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
FlameLover 09-22-05, 07:54 PM	I posted this on the Paizo boards but would like to get everyone's opinion here. Below is the rough outline and starting point of my idea for how to handle classes in a homebrew D&D game. Cleric: You'd choose 2 domains as normal, but the power you get from them would be lesser, normal and greater. Say if you took Plant and Animal as your Domains then you're already a basic Druid but then at level 6 you could take a level of Druid. Or you could go for the Good and Lawful domains and set yourself up for Paladin (although you don't NEED certain domains for either) Fighter: Like it is now, loads of bonus feats and maybe a few more Fighter-only feats too. This should be the ONLY base class with full BAB too. Rogue: Like it is now but has tons of skill points and start giving some selectable Rogue abilities at level 1. Some should be sneaky, con-artist type and others on the 'Swashbuckling' sort of type. Wizard: Cast spells, has familiar, but you NEED to specialize. This one wouldn't need to prepare spells, you'd just know them and cast with points like a Psion does (Cleric casts same btw). The specialization wouldn't restrict other spells though, just make one school of magic more potent for you. Now for Advanced: Paladin: Clerics and Fighters are the people who'd enter this one. Give some smiting, special mount, some other abilities and you're set! No spellcasting though, if you want that take Cleric. Druid: Shape-shifitng, special abilities, etc. This would merge the Druid and Ranger classes but with now spells! (If you want spells, again take cleric). Mainly for nature-based Clerics, Fighters or Rogues. Monk: Mainly fighters specialized in fisty-cuffs, the Monk would be focused on the martial-arts aspect. All about inner-self and contemplation. For ki-stuff you'd take a PrC. Bard: Mainly for Rogues and Wizards the Bard would be all about music, support and some thievery too. Sorceror: Not sure of the name but this takes specialization to the next level. You'd pick one specialization and 2 secondary schools and the rest would be unusable. This is for someone who REALLY wants to focus on just one aspect of casting. And the PrCs would be made by the DM mostly. So hopefully you can see the trend that very few people do what the other can do, like the Druid doesn't cast spells since if you want more spells just stay nature-Cleric. If someone can see a gaping hole in this system tell me since i am making my own RPG and am basing it around this concept. That's obviously only the basic idea but i hope you can see where i'm going with it. The 4 base classes each go to level 20, the advanced go for 10 levels and PrCs woul go from 1 level to 10. PrCs would be used for guilds and organizations only and would be campaign specific while the 'advanced' classes could cover what we have now with our PrCs. I was thinking of having most of the core classes as the 'base' ones in this but i think this works out better. The important thing to note is that each of the classes would be modified (especially Cleric and Wizard) so that they allow alot more customization than is currently possible. You CAN be a 'druid' by just being a nature-based Cleric but if you take Druid levels you get the Wild Shaping aspect and other nice nature stuff. Things like a Barbarian's rage would be feat-ified into probably normal, Improved and Greater versions and some classes would be merged or split (like the Druid above is a mix of the Druid, the Cleric and the Ranger from RAW). So, what ya'll think? I'm making my own RPG sorta (it's more just an extensive D&D homebrew) and i'd like to know if there is anything wrong with this syetm since i'll be basing my whole game around it almost.
FlameLover 09-25-05, 03:42 AM	No comments on this atall? Not even a "Your crazy!!! ZOMG!!!"? It would require major re-working of the base classes but atleast PrCs would remain largely untouched.
Xeviat-DM 09-25-05, 03:55 AM	I applaud your attempt; this is very similar to what I'm going for. You're leaning ever closer to a non-classed, point based system; I think a happy middleground might be a class based point system similar to L5R. I'm going to make some observations and suggestions, since that's what I think you're looking for; in return I'd appreciate it if you could do the same with mine. Firstly, what is the fundamental difference between a Cleric and a Wizard? Why is there two Cleric specializations (Druid, Paladin), but not two for Wizard? I suggest you make Swashbuckler an advanced progression for Fighters and Rogues. Are you intending the specializations to be taken by single classers or multiclassers? I think you may want to consider the difference between specializations (druids are a specialized cleric) and advancements (paladin sounds like an advanced cleric/fighter). It's hard to directly comment, other than I think you have a good idea going here; a nice bit of simplicity without destroying all that is D&D.
FlameLover 09-25-05, 04:09 AM	First let me say THANK YOU for commenting, that's exactly what i wanted :) Now, onto the responses: Firstly, what is the fundamental difference between a Cleric and a Wizard? Why is there two Cleric specializations (Druid, Paladin), but not two for Wizard? The cleric channels divine power, the wizard arcane. If i was re-making D&D from the ground-up i would merge the two but since they are very much ingrained into what D&D is i felt they needed that seperation. The reason the Cleric has 2 and the Wizard only 1 above is that that list isn't complete and is only a start. Wizard can actually branch into two directions i beleive: RAW Wizard or Warlock. So you can go either less power/more use or more power/less use. I suggest you make Swashbuckler an advanced progression for Fighters and Rogues. Yep, also Ninja (Monk/Rogue), Hexblade (Wizard/Fighter) and "Mystic Theurge" (Wizard/Cleric) and more. Are you intending the specializations to be taken by single classers or multiclassers? Both. They are designed to have very loose requirments so nearly enyone can get into them although not everyone will get the same return out of them. Some are designed for single class (like the Druid) others very much multi-class (like the Bard). I think you may want to consider the difference between specializations (druids are a specialized cleric) and advancements (paladin sounds like an advanced cleric/fighter). I don't see a big difference though. The Paladin can be taken with a straight Cleric or a Cleric/Fighter and so can the Druid. I don't really see a difference, one is more martially-oriented but neither require multiclassing. But yes some are aimed at multi-classing (like Bard) and some arn't. None FORCE you to multiclass though. It's hard to directly comment, other than I think you have a good idea going here; a nice bit of simplicity without destroying all that is D&D. On the paizo boards someone mentioned making D&D entirley skill and feat based and people said what you did: classes are part of what makes D&D unique and different. AdC would be drawn from the Complete Series plus other books and even some PrCs should be made Advanced Classesm, like the Eldritch Knight and the Blackguard (should just be a Crusader of evil). And PrCs would remain basically as they are, maybe just some higher entry requirments.
Xeviat-DM 09-25-05, 05:06 AM	If you're interested in hearing the way I've done mine, read this post: I have 5 spellcasting classes and 4 non-spellcasting classes. Additionall, I have 5 advanced classes, which are similar to PrCs and can be entered at 6th level through specific multiclassing trees. Prestige Classes are tied specifically to organizations, while the system as a whole is doing what it can to make spellcasting multiclassers more possible. The 4 noncasters are Berserker, Fighter, Knight, and Rogue. In your system, Berserker and Knight would be specializations on the Fighter, but since my system requires a law vs. chaos approach, the distinction was needed. The casters are Cleric, Druid, Meditant (Psion), Sorcerer, and Wizard. Other than the wizard, the other casters each command one of the magical forms (divine, natural, ki, and arcane). Wizards are capable of casting any form of magic, they just need to study them (represented by Knowledge skills). Each advanced class is tied to a caster class, and all but the Bard are specifically tied to a single non-caste. My advanced classes are Channeler (chaotic warrior who wields elemental energy as a weapon, slowly becoming an elemental), Monk (lawful warrior who has a special bond with a crystal weapon, slowly becomes a perfect being, a meld of body, mind, and soul), Ranger, Templar (warrior priest with no preset alignment requirement), and Bard. Channelers are Berserker/Sorcerers, Monks are Knight/Meditants, Rangers are Rogue/Druids, Templar are Fighter/Clerics, and Bards are advanced Wizards who can enter with any of the other classes (most often Fighter, Rogue, or Fighter/Rogue). As for a less class oriented system, L5R taught me something. In the Legend of the 5 Rings system, you choose your school, which determines your class skills and special school abilities. Your school is like your D&D class, and as your skills grow, you gain insight ranks which allow you to go up a rank (level) in your school (class), granting you additional abilities. Each clan has a warrior school (bushi), a spellcaster school (shugenja), a skilled school (courtier), and a special school (berserker, ninja, monk, scout, cavalier, dualist, and others). Your attack ratings are skills, just like everything else that would be a skill in D&D; your school abilities determine special abilities (warrior schools usually give you a way to deal extra damage, while spellcaster schools give you access to different levels of spells). While I do like that system for those games, it would be very difficult to impliment it in D&D. Time for sleep.
FlameLover 09-25-05, 11:08 PM	I have 5 spellcasting classes and 4 non-spellcasting classes. Additionall, I have 5 advanced classes, which are similar to PrCs and can be entered at 6th level through specific multiclassing trees. Prestige Classes are tied specifically to organizations, while the system as a whole is doing what it can to make spellcasting multiclassers more possible. My basic principle is the same as yours, so your system sounds very nice too. Having more casters than non-casters seems a little odd to me but i guess that's just because i generally run low-magic campaigns. The 4 noncasters are Berserker, Fighter, Knight, and Rogue. In your system, Berserker and Knight would be specializations on the Fighter, but since my system requires a law vs. chaos approach, the distinction was needed. The casters are Cleric, Druid, Meditant (Psion), Sorcerer, and Wizard. Other than the wizard, the other casters each command one of the magical forms (divine, natural, ki, and arcane). Wizards are capable of casting any form of magic, they just need to study them (represented by Knowledge skills). Yeah a Knight AdC would probably be the goer with a focus on mounted combat and fealty although i doubt i'll have a "Berserker" AdC since it could really just be a feat tree. But i'll see how that goes, making it a class would probably be better now that i think about it. Each advanced class is tied to a caster class, and all but the Bard are specifically tied to a single non-caste. My advanced classes are Channeler (chaotic warrior who wields elemental energy as a weapon, slowly becoming an elemental), Monk (lawful warrior who has a special bond with a crystal weapon, slowly becomes a perfect being, a meld of body, mind, and soul), Ranger, Templar (warrior priest with no preset alignment requirement), and Bard. Channelers are Berserker/Sorcerers, Monks are Knight/Meditants, Rangers are Rogue/Druids, Templar are Fighter/Clerics, and Bards are advanced Wizards who can enter with any of the other classes (most often Fighter, Rogue, or Fighter/Rogue). Very interesting system: I like. Some mixes seem a bit weird like Sorceror/Berserker but then why not? I mean if an individual was born with the innate talent and raised savagley then it makes sense i guess :) As for a less class oriented system, L5R taught me something. In the Legend of the 5 Rings system, you choose your school, which determines your class skills and special school abilities. Your school is like your D&D class, and as your skills grow, you gain insight ranks which allow you to go up a rank (level) in your school (class), granting you additional abilities. Each clan has a warrior school (bushi), a spellcaster school (shugenja), a skilled school (courtier), and a special school (berserker, ninja, monk, scout, cavalier, dualist, and others). Your attack ratings are skills, just like everything else that would be a skill in D&D; your school abilities determine special abilities (warrior schools usually give you a way to deal extra damage, while spellcaster schools give you access to different levels of spells). While I do like that system for those games, it would be very difficult to impliment it in D&D. That would be very tricky to make fit D&D and i'm not sure i'd even want it to. I like the general-ness of D&D and how you can be almost any mix of characters but for another RPG that sounds like it could be very interesting. Are there any AdC i'm missing though? Here is the list of what i've got so far (off the top of my head): Paladin, Monk, Druid, Bard, Wizard, Warlock, Knight, Berserker, Assasin. Anything more specialized than that would be a PrC. And i'm thinking of calling the base classes Warrior, Thief, Adept and Mage just so they sound like "Starting" classes. PrC would be named stuff like the "Brotherhood of the Yowler" or something.
FlameLover 09-28-05, 07:58 PM	Here is my general idea of advancment for each class and a list of what has been feat-ified. Adept The Adpet is basically a tuned-down Cleric. The Adept has spell casting like a Favoured Soul though (spontaneous) but gets to pick 1 domain. The spell list for this domain basically adds to the Adept's Spells Known list and the granted power would increase at level 6, 11 and 16. Turning undead would just be a power granted by the Sun domain and all other domain powers would replace this. Archetype: Paladin, Preacher, Druid Mage Basically a runed-down Wizard, the Mage would have spell casting like a Sorceror but could specialize like a Wizard. The Mage would basically choose either some sort of bloodline or a specialization, and it would "upgrade" at levels 6, 11 and 16. This would allow you to emulate both the Sorc and the Wiz with the same class. Archetype: Wizard, Warlock, Crafter, Bard Thief The Thief would be the skill-monkey. At first level you would choose a special ability, and this would upgrade at levels 6, 11 and 16. The options would be things like Sneak Attack, Evasion, etc. and would be like an advanced form of the Rogue's current optional abilities. You would also be able to pick-up a new ability at the levels mentioned above. Archetype: Ranger, Assasin, Swashbuckler Warrior The Warrior is the feat-monkey. Almost identical to the current Fighter, just with a few more exclusive feats and some more advanced feats on current trees. Archetype: Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Knight, Swashbuckler Although the listed levels are 6, 11 and 16 they could easily be changed to a faster progression of 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20. I'm starting to like that progression better, but you get the general idea anyway. Here is a list of the feat-ified stuff: Rage: Turn this into a feat tree with 3 basic feats and a bunch of side ones to augment and extend the rage ability. Favoured Enemy: Another feat tree with 3 basic levels. It would function like Skill Focus in that you can take it again and choose another one each time, or upgrade to a better version. Also some fringe feats on this one to interact with the classes. Monk Stuff: Some of the basic Monk abilities would be featified. The tree would stem from the Improved Unarmed Strike feat and would basically add more damage and defence when fighting unarmed. Some of the Monk's AC boosting stuff would be turned into feats stemming from Dodge also. It's tough deciding what should be featified and what should be AdC-ified but my general rule of thumb is that non-magical stuff should be feat-ified while magical stuff should be AdC. But ofcourse that doesn't always work or make sense, so if you disgree with any of this sofar then please say so. Here is a general idea od what i would like to see the AdC be: Bard: Half caster progression but have much improved Bardic Music ability. Paladin: Half caster progression but lots of smiting, special mounted-edness and turning stuff. Druid: Half caster progression but Wild Shaping and other nature stuff. Monk: Lots of special combat manouvers, speed boosts and special Ki-abilities dependant on meditation. So yeah, what do you think of this general segregation? I could even take it a step further in either direction do either A or B: A) Featify even the Wild Shaping, Bardic Music and stuff. This would make the system even more flexible which i like but it might be a little too loose for some people. B) Make the feats listed like Rage and Favoured Enemy AdC. I don't particularly like this approach since it would be a step back i think but i know some people like a more rigid framework. So yeah, comments? Questions?
elven warriorXX 09-28-05, 08:51 PM	What if the wizard is as is (can prepare just like wizard) But he does not give up any schools but still gains bonuses from his choosen school? Will that make the wizard overpowered?
FlameLover 09-28-05, 09:32 PM	What if the wizard is as is (can prepare just like wizard) But he does not give up any schools but still gains bonuses from his choosen school? Will that make the wizard overpowered? Well i'd like to remove prepared casting since from a fantasy view point i've never seen a Wizard go "sorry, forgot to memorize that Meteor Swarm spell. Parhaps a casting of Light may be equally beneficial in the situation?". And if you allowed a Mage to specialize without drawback then you'd need to FORCE them to specialize in a school of magic, therefor taking that into account for power. But i will do that since it's like the Adept's Doamins almost.
elven warriorXX 09-28-05, 10:43 PM	That might be just the system i am looking for :D I wanted to find a way for a wizard to specialize BUT be able to cast spells from all schools. Thanks a lot :) And i think i may use a mana point wizard as well. Would you know how many Mana/spell/arcana points that a wizard would gain per level?
FlameLover 09-28-05, 11:03 PM	Well as a guess you'd just tally up there spell slots. So for this system i'm thinking of using about the numbers listed for the Psion. But if you don't have that look at the Sorc's Spells Per Day table and multiply each spell level by the number of slots you have, do that for each spell level and add it up for each level. Like: At level 1 you'd have 5 MP. 5 X 0.5 (0 level spells) + 3 X 1 = 5.5. Round down and you get 5. Hope that makes sense!