Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Endarire Dec 15, 2004 15:57:15	[size=5]CHANGING CLASSES: VISION, MEET VIABILITY[/size] By Endarire 12 15 4 [size=3]Links[/size] Gamespy's "Complete History of Dungeons & Dragons" Funny Slaughter's Divine Trickster Szatany's Ultimate Monk Haldrik's Paragon System AKA Halp [b]|[/b] Crave's Uber Generics Contact me if these links are down so I can hopefully send the information. [size=3]Preface[/size] D&D started as a wargame called Chainmail by Gary Gygax, Jeff Perren and their Wisconsin friends including Dave Arneson after their GenCon wargaming experiences. It eventually evolved into a system with hit points, lone characters, fireballs, dragons, and dungeons. Did I mention classes? "Back in the day" classes rigidly determined who you were and what you could become. Maybe the lack of Wizard/Monk minis prevented people from doing such 'crazy' multiclassing back then. The "core four" of Magey McMissile, Walking Bandaid, Sneaky McLeetSkillz, and Sword Arm Tin Can (Wizard, Cleric, Rogue, and Fighter respectively) were covered, but even first edition had monks and barbarians. Second edition had kits, similar to third edition's prestige classes, though kits were generally only available at level 1 for single classers. Many besides me knew at the time that a multiclassed Fighter/Wizard was at least competitive with a straight Fighter or Wizard a level to three higher. Step forward twenty-six-and-a-half years to the release of third edition here multiclassing is allowed and generally encouraged. Because of how classes are set up, they say "you are this, and because you are this, you can do this, but you aren't necessarily banned from doing other things." Unfortunately, because of class features like Rage often unavailable as feats, even with Unearthed Arcana and various other material, people can't just have one class with all the stuff they want. [size=3]The Class Advantage[/size] Classes and prestige classes are simple to understand as each has flavor and mechanical purpose. Fighters are proficient with everything non-exotic from the get-go, have 1 BAB, a bonus feat, and rely on physical attributes mostly to get by. Dwarven Defenders require lawful dwarfhood, 7 BAB, the feats toughness, endurance and dodge, and specialize in defense. A logical path to Dwarven Defender would be Dwarf Ranger1/Fighter1-2/Ranger2-3/Fighter3-4. (The issue of how this character could 'spontaneously' learn to use all class features by the default leveling system is another article.) This character could be a clan hunter and specialize in killing underground animals as well as orcish, gnoll, and ogre invaders. This concept, luckily, is easy to manage and can probably compete with other builds that use all non campaign setting-specific first party material. [size=3]Class Disadvantages[/size] What about the swashbuckler concept? One exists in Complete Warrior because there was enough demand for a mechanical way to portray a certain skill set. Before that, lightly-armored rapier-using Rogue/Fighter/Duelist builds were common yet were said to be unable to compete with single-classed Rogues or Rogue/Fighter/Barbarian/Rangers. I could be a Rogue/Fighter and call myself a swashbuckler, but, believability aside, even a toddler commoner can do that. People want to be rewarded for talents and specialization, such as with the Assassin or Elemental Savant (Complete Arcane) and, ultimately, want their character concept to match a viable ruleset. Say you want to be a Rogue/Cleric Good luck. Were you a Rogue/Wizard, you could be an Arcane Trickster. Yes, you could use Funny Slaughter's Divine Trickster, but the Divine Trickster, like other meshed core concepts requires a patch class to be made viable. (See Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge.) Also, despite designers' intentions to make the core four handle all roles with the proper feats and multiclassing, Paladins, Rangers, and Barbarians exist, like the class system, largely out of tradition. Primary casters lose tremendous amounts by multiclassing since caster and spell levels are key. Complete Divine's Practiced Spellcaster helped, but Wizards are still stuck as Wizards, however prestigious, if they wish to be competitive. One other issue is that some people quite dislike 'excessive' multiclassing and 'cherry-picking' abilities, mostly by taking a level or two before changing class. While this is debatably necessary for visionary viability, more multiclassing means higher strong saves. [size=3]Quick Solutions[/size] Part of this is the lack of specializations within classes. Rangers get combat styles, Rogues get special abilities at 10, 13, 16, 19, and every 4 levels starting at 24, and Wizards can choose a specialty school from level 1. Perhaps were classes like Szatany's Ultimate Monk or, there would be fewer prestige classes and less desire to multiclass because classes would have built-in specializations. (See the rest of Szatany's classes for more ideas.) The advantage of using reworked classes, assuming everyone goes under the same rules, is that classes are simple and the work involved is less than if you reworked the system. (See below.) The disadvantages of using unofficial classes are balance issues and mistrustful tendencies, but, if you trust what you use, you should have no problem adapting. Another significant disadvantage of unofficial classes and reworking the system is that of compatibility: Prestige classes assume offical class use; therefore, if your Bard suddenly loses his spells, there go tens of options. Finally, versions change and changing to accommodate major updates can be a pain. [size=3]Redoing The System[/size] Sometimes, it's better to start over. In my current campaign, I created a plot point which allowed them to reconfigure their characters to their liking, and three of four did. We first talked about Haldrik's Paragon System AKA Halp, but the players found that buying abilities every level got to be too much and disliked some balance things. Later, I checked the boards and found Crave's Uber Generics simple, balanced and effective enough. Numerous other fan-made systems exist, but by moving away from classes, reworking the system is merely making another system. Reworking D&D like these people have is a project for the devoted and available, but if it allows you your vision to become viable, so be it. Answer these questions if you intend to redo the system or if significantly altering existing classes: Am I reinventing the wheel? Someone has probably done something similar before you, and checking around, especially the Unearthed Arcana and House Rules[/i] board go on a mad quest. If you think you're better off helping a current project, contact the author(s) with suggestions. How can the PHB classes be made under this system? Assuming everyone starts with the same point pool or such, make these classes as examples. What sourcebooks are included? Including only the core books is much easier than trying to incorporate everything the Coastal Wizards have produced. How viable is multiclassing? If people straight out can't multiclass, then a facet of D&D is gone; however, if they merely are unlikely to because the bonuses make single-classing more appealing, that's another matter. How will casters, especially multiclass casters, be handled? I advise including a rule to grant partial caster levels for non-caster classes, like each fighter level granting 1/3 or 1/4 caster level to one casting class. How difficult is character creation compared to the default rules? If veterans scoff that the creation time is too long for their level 1 character, imagine the DM! How compatible with published sourcebooks is your system? Can a "Wizard" in your system take Elemental Savant from Complete Arcane for instance without a severe DM judgment call? Do "Rangers" still cast? How do spells and psi powers work? Assuming you keep the current spell and power level structure, such as level 5 Wizard spells at Wizard9 and level 4 Psion powers at Psion8, what are the prerequisites? If you scrap it, who can use these when? Are spells and powers the same? How much is each skill and feat worth? What prerequisites should exist for feats and class features? Spot and listen are probably the two most important general skills while profession and heal are rarely picked. Feats that grant skill bonuses exist mostly as prerequisites, yet almost all physical combatants take Weapon Focus. If Perfect Self is a feat, what should its prereqs be? Uber Generics has some ideas. Does your system require buying by level or by class? Halp gives 20+double character level in points with which to purchase everything while Uber Generics make classes. -EE
#2 Xeviat-DM Dec 16, 2004 14:22:35	I have not taken the jump to an entirely classless system just yet, but I have taken steps to increase the variability of class archtypes and class customization. My game has a rather large scope; as a DM, I'm willing to put up with a lot of prep time. My games have 10 classes: Berserker, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Knight, Psion, Rogue, Savant, Sorcerer, Wizard. The Knight and Savant are my own creations, the Berserker is a modification on the Barbarian, and my Cleric and Sorcerer classes are changed so much that they share little with the original class other than name and function. Additionally, I have 5 advanced classes: Bard, Channeler, Monk, Ranger, Templar. These are 15 level "prestige classes" that are so archetypical in my setting that they could be core; but the nature of their early levels can be replicated by multiclassing, and multiclassing allows for further customization. Each advanced class has several entrance paths which determine the exact nature of the character. For instance, Bards can be Druid3/Rogue2 or Wizard3/Rogue2 in my campaign, while Rangers can be Fighter2/Druid3, Berserker2/Druid3, or Knight2/Druid3. Channelers may be Berserker2/Sorcerer3 or Fighter2/Sorcerer3, Monks may be Savant2/Psion3 or Savant2/Sorcerer3, and Templar may be Fighter2/Cleric3 or Knight2/Cleric3. Next, I have implemented, or will implement or convert, a number of 5 level "technique" classes, PrCs that have lax entrance requirements. Each is used simply to expand upon a certain technique. One is being converted or constructed for each major fighting style (duelist and cavalier are examples) and class specialization (wizard school specialists will get something fun). The difference between a PrC and a TecC in my games is that someone can have multiple TecCs in my game, and can take them as far or as short as they wish. PrCs represent focused dedication, and a character can only have one (until they go epic or possibly take a PrC that represents further study in the order). Combined with my willingness to convert many PrC abilities into feats, and design new feats as needed, my game lacks no amount of customization, even though I still use a class based system.
#3 mudlock Dec 16, 2004 14:43:02	...is there suppose to be more to this? It seems to cut off right in the middle. I'm curious to see where you're going with it.