Creating new classes, based off AD&D2e DMG...

[Nelzie]

Has anyone given this a good look yet?

I have been considering running a few tests to see how close I can come to creating one or two of the base classes before I jump out and say, "This is the House Rule for creating new classes".

Of course... if someone has already done that and found it works/doesn't work or needs to have "X" or "Y" tacked on or removed, that would be most excellent.

So, has anyone done this work yet or shall I strike out into this uncharted territory for the "greater good"?

[PeelSeel2]

I might have to go back to the 2E DMG and check that out. I never remember a class building engine.
_________________
Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.

-George Washington

[Maliki]

I played around with this a little back in my 2E days, I remember one having a player run one classe I made but he died 2nd nights. It may be worth another look, if I remember the XP were a little high compared to the core classes.
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

[PeelSeel2]

I would be interested in seeing your work when you complete it. I started to 'decontruct' the C&C classes, attempting to reverse engineer a system that could build the C&C core classes. Using a method, I got the Fighter and Ranger, Rogue and Assassin, and was working on the Barbarian and Monk, Sorcerer and Wizard, and the Knight, Paladin, and Bard. But it hurts my brain after a while. I work on it sparatically but am not too into it.
_________________
Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.

-George Washington

[rabindranath72]

Maliki wrote:
I played around with this a little back in my 2E days, I remember one having a player run one classe I made but he died 2nd nights. It may be worth another look, if I remember the XP were a little high compared to the core classes.

Yes, it was meant to "discourage" creating classes. In fact, the core classes could not be recreated with it at all (that is, at the same XP progression). It was clearly an attempt at reverse engineering.

[serleran]

Yes, the 2E DMG method was an attempt to reverse engineer the classes, but it even admits that the base classes cannot be duplicated with 100% accuracy. I don't suppose it would be too terribly out of sync to use it with C&C... but its been a while and I'd have to look at it closer.

[Geron Raveneye]

There's still this pretty good article by Erin D. Smale about decontructing the Basic D&D classes, and fitting the XP tables to that. It gets 100% reversible results, except for the magic-user, which turns out to be too expensive, XP wise. Might have some good ideas, too.

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Geron Raveneye wrote:
TIt gets 100% reversible results, except for the magic-user, which turns out to be too expensive, XP wise.

Errr... Just to clarify, that's 100% reversable results for the D&D classes not for C&C classes. Not unless I really screwed up somewhere. Still, you could always use the article (found here: http://www.tridrpg.org/characters/newclass.php ) and figure out something for yourself.

Me, I'm building a version of the base C&C classes using the above article. Once I've gotten close enough with that, I figure I should be able to use the numbers to build relatively reasonable custom classes.

Of course if you wanted a really dirty conversion, you just decide roughly the closest class there is (in terms of HD, BTH), and then make up new abilities to replace the old ones. Pick the appropriate Prime and you're set.

[JonusBlackthorn]

There was also a really good article in OD&Dities on creating classes in OD&D. might want to take a look at that.

[rabindranath72]

Geron Raveneye wrote:
There's still this pretty good article by Erin D. Smale about decontructing the Basic D&D classes, and fitting the XP tables to that. It gets 100% reversible results, except for the magic-user, which turns out to be too expensive, XP wise. Might have some good ideas, too.

It gives 100% reversible results, but with a notable bias: it factorises in the class construction General Skills, which are not available in the core classes as written. If you remove them, the match becomes much less good.

[Geron Raveneye]

Hmmm, what you mean with General Skills is the Weapon Mastery rules, right? All the other stuff is part of the "core" BD&D ruleset, if I recall correctly, including the Expanded Combat Maneuvers for fighters and demi-humans. I'd guess the Weapon Mastery part can be easily subsumed into some other static class feature to keep the calculations on track.
On the other hand, I was already surprised somebody managed to actually deconstruct the (to me back then) wildly coincidental XP tables.

[Nelzie]

Scurvy_Platypus wrote:
Errr... Just to clarify, that's 100% reversable results for the D&D classes not for C&C classes. Not unless I really screwed up somewhere. Still, you could always use the article (found here: http://www.tridrpg.org/characters/newclass.php ) and figure out something for yourself.

Me, I'm building a version of the base C&C classes using the above article. Once I've gotten close enough with that, I figure I should be able to use the numbers to build relatively reasonable custom classes.

Of course if you wanted a really dirty conversion, you just decide roughly the closest class there is (in terms of HD, BTH), and then make up new abilities to replace the old ones. Pick the appropriate Prime and you're set.

Up to now, that's what I have been doing. If I have some extra time this week, I am going to work up a few of the custom classes I have built using the AD&D2e DMG custom class rules and see how close they are. I would post the results here.

[rabindranath72]

Geron Raveneye wrote:
Hmmm, what you mean with General Skills is the Weapon Mastery rules, right? All the other stuff is part of the "core" BD&D ruleset, if I recall correctly, including the Expanded Combat Maneuvers for fighters and demi-humans. I'd guess the Weapon Mastery part can be easily subsumed into some other static class feature to keep the calculations on track.
On the other hand, I was already surprised somebody managed to actually deconstruct the (to me back then) wildly coincidental XP tables.

No, General Skills are General Skills (from gazetteers and Rules Cyclopedia). That's why I said results are strongly biased; no surprise that the Magic-User does not work.

[GreyLord]

I've used the class creation system before...great way to make classes, and kept them a heck of a lot more balanced then the 3e method (which basically boils down to toss whatever you want on a character class and even if it's the most munchkin class afterthat, call it balanced and your good).

However, it wasn't all perfect. I created an adventurer type class (with some weapons, armor, restrictions, treasure restrictions, and the rogue XP progression and a d6 or d8, can't remember) which only needed 500 XP for 2nd level and had a very quick advancement rate, quick enough almost that it could come close to matching a warrior in the first few levels (and then of course it evened out later).

Also created an ultimate type class, but it took around 5000 XP to get to second level...I suppose the other extreme of the book.

Fun system, haven't used it for C&C though so no opinions on my part there.

[Treebore]

Greylord,

I should use your first paragraph in my sig at ENWorld and WOTC and see how much love I get.

[Nelzie]

Treebore wrote:
Greylord,

I should use your first paragraph in my sig at ENWorld and WOTC and see how much love I get.

You would have to clarify by adding "AD&D2e DMG" in there so they know exactly what you are talking about.

[Geron Raveneye]

rabindranath72 wrote:
No, General Skills are General Skills (from gazetteers and Rules Cyclopedia). That's why I said results are strongly biased; no surprise that the Magic-User does not work.

Okay, now I know what you mean, but I fear I have to ask you to quote that part of the article to me then, because no matter how much I check, I can't find the part where Smale put in the General Skills in his calculations. He's put in Weapon Mastery, which includes the Weapon Proficiency points for different classes, but that's it, and he even gives advice on how to correct the calculations if Weapon Mastery is not used.

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Geron Raveneye wrote:
Okay, now I know what you mean, but I fear I have to ask you to quote that part of the article to me then, because no matter how much I check, I can't find the part where Smale put in the General Skills in his calculations. He's put in Weapon Mastery, which includes the Weapon Proficiency points for different classes, but that's it, and he even gives advice on how to correct the calculations if Weapon Mastery is not used.

I _think_ what he's talking about is starting the bottom of page 7. "Skills and Race abilities". It carries over to page 8.

Basically what the article is saying, is that anything not included in the Special I and Special II categories on page 6, is in fact behaving as if it were a skill. It might be a _special_ skill that's restricted to a race (such as the Halfling ability to Hide outdoors), but it's still going to count as a skill.

Honestly, I'm not quite sure what rabindranath72's point is though... The system as it's outlined in the document _does_ work for all the classes as they're built, except for the Magic User.

Of course, the system was specifically designed (as it's been pointed out before) for the Rules Cyclopedia. Rummaging around the 'net, a fair number of people comment that they like the _simplicity_ that C&C has which is similar to versions of D&D (the Rules Cyclopedia being a revised compilation of the Basic and other sets), although the rules themselves bear more in common with AD&D as far as some of the design aspects are concerned. Or the "feel" of the game is more AD&Dish than D&Dish.

*shrug* I don't know, I think the "feel" that people get from C&C is dependent on how they run C&C and how they used to run D&D/AD&D, but that's just my opinon.

I think people tend to use the Rules Cyclopedia as their starting point (as opposed to AD&D) because it seems to be a "simpler" system, and bearing more in common with C&C. Plus there's the aspect of people prefering the way the game ran under the R.C. compared to AD&D also.

For myself, I'm going to see what it's like trying the 2E design approach. Can't hurt, and might yield some interesting results.

[Geron Raveneye]

Hmmm, see, that's why I'm a bit puzzled. I understood that he meant the General Skills that were introduced in Gazetteer 1: Grand Duchy of Karameikos, and carried through from there to the Rules Cyclopedia. Because those are not included in the document as far as I can see.

On the other hand, trying the AD&D 2E chapter in the DMG might indeed give interesting creations. I'm also very curious as to what the CKG will contain on that topic.

[serleran]

I have made something available that may aid you in this task.

[JonusBlackthorn]

Awesome Serl, I've only taken a quick look but so far it looks about right.
_________________
Ignorance = lack of knowledge

Stupidity = Willful lack of knowledge

Ignorance is temporary, but stupidity...that's forever.

[rabindranath72]

Geron Raveneye wrote:
Okay, now I know what you mean, but I fear I have to ask you to quote that part of the article to me then, because no matter how much I check, I can't find the part where Smale put in the General Skills in his calculations. He's put in Weapon Mastery, which includes the Weapon Proficiency points for different classes, but that's it, and he even gives advice on how to correct the calculations if Weapon Mastery is not used.

He speaks about General Skills on page 8 of his document, at the top, under the voice Skills.

He also uses them when creating some classes, like Druid, Warden and the improved Magic-User.

The problem is, from a purely mathematical viewpoint, that he uses so many parameters and has so few data, that he can fit the progression of the classes as he likes. Mathematically, he is "overfitting" the class construction model.

Also, I think that behind the D&D classes, there was no parametric model, but they were created just by "eyeballing" and comparing the classes on the field.

So, Erin's results are interesting and one can certainly use them, but I would not go so far as, e.g., say that the MU is "flawed" since his model cannot reproduce it.

Cheers,

Antonio