Post/Author/DateTime	Post
aramilcaelvan 01-14-07, 01:41 PM	UA states that one should not play a generic class if normal classes are going to be used in the adventure. Why is this? At first glance, they seem to be equal in power to the other classes. The only thing I could think of is that the warrior is probably more powerful than the fighter, but besides that...
Grod_The_Giant 01-14-07, 01:53 PM	you can mix-and-match abilities for rediculous combos?
aramilcaelvan 01-14-07, 01:54 PM	Oh, so they are stronger? I never thought of it that way, I was thinking that they were considered weaker.
FlameLover 01-14-07, 04:39 PM	The Spellcaster is around the same power level as Sorcerer and Wizard in my opinion, so I wouldn't see a problem with a player playing as one of these in a normal party. The Expert and Warrior on the other hand are very "swingy" on balance. If you can only pick from the abilities listed the Expert does alright and the Warrior pretty poorly (same as a Fighter pretty much), but if the DM allows most class abilities - even with suitable prerequisites - both of them can be more powerful than a Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin or Fighter. I don't see that as an issue myself since i've given all classes a Tome of Battle progression, but if you aren't using that book the less optimizing PCs may find themselves overshadowed. Hope that helped!
JulesCARV 01-14-07, 06:40 PM	I think the generic spellcaster is a bit stronger than the sorcerer: bigger spell list (cleric and druid spells), bonus feats, a flexible skill list, and possibly a better spellcasting stat than charisma (like... say... intelligence). It has fewer spells per day for its higher-level spells, but overall I think the bonus feats and such make it stronger.
Tim4488 01-14-07, 08:17 PM	There's balance issues, there's also flavor issues. If there's classes like the Paladin or Rogue with fairly set abilities, a few chances for customization, running around the same world as the Warrior and Expert, who can pick mix-and-match abilities? The standard classes and the generic classes represent very different styles of play.
JulesCARV 01-14-07, 08:27 PM	One compromise approach I think I would be comfortable with is to allow generic classes in the same game as regular classes, but to forbid the same character from taking both generic and regular classes. (incidentally, I think I'd also allow this with the prestige classes for paladin, bard, and ranger -- I'd allow both prestige paladins and regular paladins in the same world, but not in the same character.)
Finfreeze 01-15-07, 10:57 PM	For what it's worth, both the generic spellcaster and the generic warrior are significantly better than their core counterparts. Warrior's just a fighter with a customizable skill list and the ability to pick up any feat at the cost of heavy armor. The spellcaster is just the sorcerer with feats, varying skills, a slightly slower spells per day progression, a broader spell list, and a one simple weapon restriction. You could just replace the Fighter with the Warrior and the Sorcerer with the Spellcaster and integrate the Expert with the rest of the other classes. I doubt there'd be that much trouble. That said, I really do like the idea of letting every casting class cast from every spell list, provided that they have the proper spell level slots... For more fun, include generic versions of the Fighter and Sorcerer variants. Hello battle spellcaster...