Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Torgrim 01-12-07, 06:50 AM	I am sure there have been a number of posts on this before, so forgive me if I am asking an old question. For the longest time I have been tempted to use the Generic Classes presented in UA. I am currently running a game and I would not be implementing the generic classes anytime soon, but I am looking for some general opinions on the subject. I have been working with the idea of "magic is just magic" (no difference between arcane and divine), so the spellcaster generic class seems to work well for that idea. As far as the expert and warrior go, they seem fine by me. I was thinking about just going with feats from the PHB, and not allowing any PrC's (i think there is enough ability to properly customize and define a PC without taking one in this system). So..... My actual question..... If anyone out there has used the Generic Classes from UA in their game, i was wondering what sources you allowed feats to be chosen from (if any beyond core material), how they worked in actual gameplay, and how they scaled up to monsters presented in the core MM? Your opinions are greatly appreciated. :D
DreadArchon 01-12-07, 04:13 PM	Honestly? Totally craptastic. I'm in a campaign with them now. Let me break it down: ~ Pros ~ + Trivial separation between Divine and Arcane spellcasting + Spellcasters are fun and useful and all-around well done + Easier for DM ~ Cons ~ - Warriors are EXACTLY like SRD Fighters, but with freedom to choose their good save and class skills and their heavy armor proficiency removed - Experts aren't much better than the NPC class of the same name, ending up with half to a third of the abilities a Rogue would have and only 6 skill points per level. They also only get 12 class skills, twelve! They have only half +1 as many feats as Warriors (from the same choice list), the second-worst hit die possible, 3/4 BAB progression, and insufficient skills to be a skill horse. ~ Overall ~ Spellcasters are an across-the-board improvement to Sorcerors (and a wash with Clerics and less optimized for Druids), but the already-thought-weak Fighters got weaker and Experts are absurdly bad, useful only for a Rogue Splash at level 1. Houserule the hell out of it if you're going to use it at all. A simple fix might be d12 Hit Die for Warriors, 10 skill points for Experts, and no cross-class skills for anyone. Edit: But if you just want a party of mages, it actually works fine.
widow 01-12-07, 06:54 PM	It depends on the campaign. Here are a few things to keep in mind. 1. If you have alot of players, there will be alot of overlap. 2. The warrior and expert don't offer any neat tricks, expect few melee characters. 3. If you have multiple casters, they will end up with pretty much the same spells. Encourage the casters to adopt spell themes to reduce overlap. 4. Class abilites are boring. Let the characters pick feats from any source you have available. It is the best way to get divergence. 5. Beware of generic multiclassing with sneak attack. A warrior/expert mix is great, even necessary, but there are no limits on selecting class abilities more than once. For instance, once you qualify for the highest sneak attack "class ability," there is nothing saying you cannot take it once in both classes (or all 4 classes). Personally when I played with them, I allowed PrC's. That is the best way to get some difference between the characters and encourage melee. If you are worried about power, just limit your campaign to one PrC per character and follow all the fluff in the entries. Make them roleplay the connections to get into the PrC's with special entries. Even just the PrC's in the DMG will add alot of variation. The only good advice though, is talk to your players. Ask them what they would play and if they would get bored. Then you can adjusted as needed and the group will be happier.
highbulp 01-12-07, 07:39 PM	I've been more tempted to use a modification of the basic classes from d20 Modern (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/modern/smack/basicclasses.html). They allow the players to start off as "normal" people (sort of), and then after a few levels they move onto more specialist classes or PrCs. Those don't seem TOO shabby, though they would require a lot of work to be able to replicate what the normal classes in D&D can do. This also means that magic would be restricted to level 4 and higher, giving the world a more low-magic feel (which is part of the appeal to me).
Ra-Tiel 01-13-07, 09:26 AM	You might also want to check out Crave's Uber Generics, a vastly expanded and improved version of the UA generic classes. However, it appears discontinued. :(