PDA

View Full Version : D&D - Trimming Classes



Pykmi
2013-06-01, 02:29 AM
I started noticing this problem back in 3.5, when Wizards begans publishing more and more different spellcasting classes. We already had the basics; wizard, sorcerer, cleric, and druid, which were followed by truenamer, binder, and shadowcaster. It is cool to have variety but to me it seems kind of forced and silly. The problem was compounded in 4E, when difference classes, although they use the same power source and arbitrarily cast different spells, although they still basically do the same thing.

Nothing makes this more clear than the silly differences between wizard and sorcerer. I get the idea behind the two, but on a level of game mechanics there is close to no real difference between the two. Of course, this is not limited just spellcasters. Same applies, possibly even more so, to melee classes, such as fighter, barbarian, and ranger, just give some examples. They all have something they use to hit the other guy with.

I do not really blame WotC for this, since, lets face it, they need to make a profit out their products and one of the best ways of doing that is to published half a dozen accessories with different classes in them, and of course, a series of accessories to give those classes more options; paragon paths/prestige classes, spells, feats, etc.

I, however, have been envisioning weeding the garden a bit, so to speak.

I would like to combine all spellcasting classes, or at least most of them, into one class, and all melee classes, to one class. E.g. all sorcerers, wizards, clerics, and druid would just be classes "wizards" or "sorcerers," or any other name you want. That would mean managing a joint spell / power pool would be a lot more uniform, balanced, and not to mention easier. It would also stop the different classes from reinventing the wheel. Right now, there are plenty of examples of two different classes basically having the exact same ability, with maybe flavor differences in damage and what not.

For example, in 4E you can actually build a two weapon fighter that looks and acts exactly like a ranger. It just is not called "ranger."

The flavor to each class would come from the exact build, the choice of class features, and lore. You could make a wizard and make it act like a druid, if that was the sort of spellcaster you wanted to play.

Any thoughts or experience from this type of class system? Too radical of a change maybe or just right?

Rolep
2013-06-01, 03:12 AM
I agree with what you are saying. I have been wanting to do something similar now for a while. However, reducing them this dreastically. A decent range of classes is on of D&D's main attractions. I propose soemthing like this:

Fighter: Hits things with stick
Gains Un-vancianised manoeuvres and stances (I am planning to post my own homebrew with rules for this)
Plenty of Bonus Feats

Rogue: Skills, Sneaking etc

Mage: Insert every spell here
Allow people to choose how they cast (possibly by taking feats)

Druid: Shapeshifting, Animal Companion, Tracking, Survival, Summon animals etc

Warlord: Inspire others to grant non-magical bonuses

Monk: Re-design to make a class for mage-slaying (which is what it was originally for)

This is just me throwing around ideas. What do you make of it?

Altair_the_Vexed
2013-06-01, 03:29 AM
The OP's proposal has been done already - it's in Unearthed Arcana. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm)

There are three generic classes, and class features are turned into feats.
It's not a very popular idea, because it's power level suffers a little compared with regular 3.x D&D.

You probably would want to expand the list of class features that get turned into feats, to make sure you include all the features you like.
I'd also recommend using the Pathfinfder feat progression - so that you get a feat at 1st level, and every odd-numbered level thereafter - so that everyone gets more feats, and so more of the class features that they would get under normal rules.

Pykmi
2013-06-01, 05:47 AM
The OP's proposal has been done already -

it's in Unearthed Arcana. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm)

There are three generic classes, and class features are turned into feats.
It's not a very popular idea, because it's power level suffers a little compared with regular 3.x D&D.
True, while I have not read the book from cover to cover, it does have some undesirable features. The main issue is that I think 4E is a more favorable system to use, over 3.x, which is what the Unearthed Arcana is based on, unless I'm mistaken. Of course, that is just my personal preference.

4E has some advantages over 3.x, like fixing power creep, balancing classes, and importantly, streamlining the classes. All classes use the exact same format for their spells and powers, which is ideal for this type of conversion. I would happily remove the whole class role idea from 4E (defender, controller, etc.) and place all powers in the same pool that is used by all classes.

In general, 4E is more malleable than 3E and 4E also has a universal format for class features, which is very important. 3E did have class features, naturally, but the format is not balanced and uniform across all the classes and certainly not across all prestige classes. 4E also has the tiered character progression feature; heroic, paragon, and epic, and also makes the difference between rituals and combat abilities.

Just a few reasons why I personally favor 4E and why I think converting 4E to this type of system would turn out a better system. I will elaborate a bit more below.


I agree with what you are saying. I have been wanting to do something similar now for a

while. However, reducing them this dreastically. A decent range of classes is on of D&D's main attractions. I

propose soemthing like this:

...

This is just me throwing around ideas. What do you make of it?
Yeah, that is something very similar to what I was thinking. However, I would compress them even further. To something like this:

Warrior
Fighter, Ranger, Monk, Barbarian, Rogues, etc.

Mage
Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, etc.

Psion
Psion, Battlemind, etc.

The structure of these proto-classes would be divided into three parts:

1) General premise of the class; warrior uses either their fists, stick, or head to bash stuff, one way or the other, and mages use some form of magic, whether it is healing, fire, curses, is yours to decide.

2) Class Features; the theme of the class and what determines what kind of spellcaster or warrior the character is. If you want a dual-wielding, you pick one or two class features that support that type of play. If you want a druidic type caster, again you pick the class features that fit a nature loving bush-jockey the best.

3) Spells & Powers; this part is self-explanatory, except the power / spell / exploit -pool is universal. Naturally, again, you pick the kind of abilities that fit your playstyle. E.g. a dual-wielding warrior would pick powers that rely on two weapons.

The thing that binds the whole thing, are class features, which is why 4E is do ideal for this system, because it already has class features as part of the class structures. Examples of these are things like Channel Divinity from clerics and paladins, Combat Challenge from fighters, and Two-Bladed Ranger from rangers, and so on. Some of these, in the current system, are written as powers and some are just passive abilities.

This concept just needs to be expanded upon and make them describe the unique features that gives a character
a theme and concept. Swordmages are a very good example of this; about how one or two class features gives a character its unique playstyle. That is all 4E classes essentially are; flavor text wrapped around a couple of class features.

In my opinion, this is a lot better than using feats as features, like Unearthed Arcana does. For one, 4E type of feature can do and be more than what feats can be, or what they were designed to be, and secondly, it does not flood the player with an overwhelming number of feats. Feats are really good for passive, small to medium bonuses or modifiers, where as features can do the same and provide an active ability or advantage for the character.

A good example of a unique ability could be Sneak Attack for rogues. It has always been the kind of hallmark for rogues. You can add additional flavor by choosing powers and abilities from the pool like Shadow Step (short blink from one shadow to another), Phase Stance (stance that blurs the rogue in the shadows and gives a defense bonus), and daily power like Shadow Strike.

This also has the added benefit for writers, like myself, who enjoy creating builds and new abilities, where as we can avoid writing a whole new class and just focus on creating a build that can be added to almost any character. It also has potential to solve 4E's clumsy multi-class feature (or should I say the lack of it).

You could create a build that combines, for example divine spells with martial attacks, effectively creating a battle priest or a paladin.

Actually... now that I think about it, following this line of thinking, you do not actually need classes. All you would need do is 1) allocate your stats to reflect your playstyle, 2) choose a power source (martial or magic), and you pretty much have the same effect.

Feat progression would be the same for everyone, one / 2 levels maybe. Skill progression would be dealt the same way; gain X skill point / level and allocate them as you see fit. All characters would gain a basic armor and weapon proficiency, and choosing the Martial power source would give like, maybe two extra, or something like that. Certain feats would be dependent on your power source, weapon/armor proficiency, level, etc. E.g. nobody would gain Ritual Casting as a bonus feat and it was only available to those with magic as power source.

Glimbur
2013-06-01, 08:53 AM
You might look at Legend (http://www.ruleofcool.com/). Every character gets three 'tracks', which are collections of class features. You can trade tracks out to customize. It's not the same as 3.5's multiclassing, but it has the advantage of being much harder to make a terrible character.

Ragingsystem
2013-06-01, 10:33 AM
If your going to use 4e you really are looking at splitting the classes in the wrong way, you don't split them by power source split them by what they do. That would leave you with four "generic" classes: The Striker, The Leader, The Defender, and The Controller. Just my opinion of course.

Pykmi
2013-06-01, 11:19 AM
You might look at Legend (http://www.ruleofcool.com/). Every character gets three 'tracks', which are collections of class features. You can trade tracks out to customize. It's not the same as 3.5's multiclassing, but it has the advantage of being much harder to make a terrible character.
Cool, thank you for the suggestion. Sounds like a nice, fresh idea. Will have a look at it tonight :smallsmile:


If your going to use 4e you really are looking at splitting the classes in the wrong way, you don't split them by power source split them by what they do. That would leave you with four "generic" classes: The Striker, The Leader, The Defender, and The Controller. Just my opinion of course.
That is actually the very opposite of what I want to do. First, to make it clear, I do not like the whole leader, striker, defender, and controller -thing. I think that is a really poor MMORPG ripoff feature and completely unnecessary.

What defines wizards as a controller type class? What rule says that warlord's must be defenders or what rule says that clerics must be leaders?

Why can I not create am abjurer, a wizard defender or a fighter controller?

The only thing that these arbitary roles do is forces the game to have a long list of classes that it does not need. It also stops players who like playing clerics to always be leaders. A wizard cannot play like a striker. This is why the split the classes by what they do is a really bad design choice and why I choose to split them by what they represent.

E.g. fighters and rangers are both warriors and should be treated as such. The only thing that makes ranger different is the flavor text in the class, which is something a player can easily provide himself. You do not need to have the class of your character call it ranger, in order to be a ranger. Just call it and play it like a ranger and voila, you have a ranger.

So power source is really the only true distinction the classes have. Sure, druids and clerics are divine casters but again, that is something you can easily fix with the lore of the campaign world you play. There are plenty of fantasy worlds with lore that says that wizards and clerics can both cast healing spells. That is just an arbitrary difference that D&D has forced upon its players.