Adding Classes

[Daniel]

I was looking at Dragonsfoot and downloaded "The Netbook of Classes". I read through it.

This made me curious, do you use classes from other sources? Do you feel the need for them?

If you have any particular favorites from other sources I would love to hear that as well.

[Treebore]

As a CK,and a player, I don't feel any need for them. Those extra classes are desired by players, and I think I have allowed all of the ones that have been requested. My thing is playing unusual races, like right now in Rigon's game, I am playing a half human and half dragon character, based on his write up you can find in his sig. I have played Minotaurs, Goblins, Kobolds, Ogre's, half Ogres, Centaur, Wemic, Half giants, etc... in previous games.

[serleran]

I treat every character as its own class, primarily because I encourage my players to just tell me what they want to play and its almost never in the books... I could modify what's there, sure, but I find it more fun to create instead of change.

[Go0gleplex]

I have several of my own classes that I allow in my games. It may not be a need, but it is fun.

[Buttmonkey]

I haven't had a need to bring in outside classes. In fact, I disallow some of the core classes (knight and paladin, I'm looking at you). However, if a player wants something outside the box, I'm open to it. My wife wanted to play a fairy, so I adapted the pixie-fairy race from Hackmaster 4th edition. It wasn't difficult and it made my wife happy. Basically, a win-win.

[Rigon]

I don't actively encourage it, but if a player wants to try something, I look the class over and tweak what I think is over the top. In my current game, Lurker wanted to play a swashbuckling bravo from a merchantile city, so asked if he could play class of his own divising and I was ok with it.

R-

[Arduin]

I find that players can get most of what they want from the existing classes. Most desire for a "new class" is some hyper specialization of a core class. That can be accomplished without a whole new class. The only new class I'm thinking about is a warlock.

[Treebore]

I do have my version of the D20 Runemark the Troll Lords did in my House Rules, but I think only my daughter ever plays them. I'm not a fan, not yet anyways, of their new Rune system in the Rune Lore book. I suspect if I am ever going to like it, someone will have to play it.

[Daniel]

One thing I have done in the past is just re-skin a class. The player wanted a "Knight of the Order of the Red Rose". The way he described the character, I had him create a Cleric. Worked just fine. No new class needed.

[Treebore]

One thing I have done in the past is just re-skin a class. The player wanted a "Knight of the Order of the Red Rose". The way he described the character, I had him create a Cleric. Worked just fine. No new class needed.

Thats one of the BIG reasons I like the EPIC RPG, every character you play is connected to a guild/organization, and its that connection, and the role playing that goes with it is what makes the character unique.

[Daniel]

That's one of the BIG reasons I like the EPIC RPG, every character you play is connected to a guild/organization, and its that connection, and the role playing that goes with it is what makes the character unique.

While Paranoia was a silly game, that is one of the things I really liked in their system. Each character selected a faction and your choice came with additional motivations and/or agenda items the character wanted to do.

I think it could add some interesting situations for the players. Yes, we all want to stop the Evil necromancer, but I also want to find and return the Jewel of Pathma to " the organization" ....

[serleran]

While it is entirely possible to create any character based solely on the fighter, it is less exciting to do so.

Perhaps my warrior gets his endowment through magical tattoos. Perhaps that makes him a magic-user, or a cleric. Except he wears no armor and fights better than either of them (and both combined.) Does not actually use spells, merely produces magical effects. At some point, and it is an arbitrary one, a reasonable expectation of "new" can be made... it may not be an archetype, as archetypes are those for a reason. But, derivatives can be as much, if not more, fun than the classics.... not that they do not offer their own brand o' awesome.

I think it just comes down to whether one likes to assume possibilities are their own unique thing or merely a copy of an archetype.

[Daniel]

While it is entirely possible to create any character based solely on the fighter, it is less exciting to do so.

Perhaps my warrior gets his endowment through magical tattoos. Perhaps that makes him a magic-user, or a cleric. Except he wears no armor and fights better than either of them (and both combined.) Does not actually use spells, merely produces magical effects. At some point, and it is an arbitrary one, a reasonable expectation of "new" can be made... it may not be an archetype, as archetypes are those for a reason. But, derivatives can be as much, if not more, fun than the classics.... not that they do not offer their own brand o' awesome.

I think it just comes down to whether one likes to assume possibilities are their own unique thing or merely a copy of an archetype.

I agree with this thought process, my only concern is that often the -first thing- tried is to make a new class. One game system we play now has more than 30 classes. I am just not sold on the idea that all thirty were really needed as new classes.

But as you say, the point something needs to be new is an arbitrary and thus subjective point and what I feel is "new" and what others feel is "new" are not the same.

I also want to say I have also seen many folks reject a class because of the name and not the content. That is also often used as a reason to need a new class and in many of those cases, I wonder if I gave them the same class with a new name if they would have been happy.

Great conversation though.

[Arduin]

While it is entirely possible to create any character based solely on the fighter, it is less exciting to do so.

I've never heard someone say that they would try to create any FRPG character based only on a fighter. That would be ... challenging to say the least.

But, players who want to have a character that uses arcane type magic, is a better fighter than a fighter, sneaks as good as a rogue, etc., etc is 99.99999% of the time a munchkin. I don't cater to that particular psychosis in my games.

[Go0gleplex]

Well...when I do create a class, I try to give it its own feeling and sense of purpose rather than a rehash/"x"-by-another-name thing. My version of the Shaman is a decent example of this I think.

[alcyone]

I like the variant archer/hunter type classes, though fighter can just be relaxed to allow combat dominance to work with ranged weapons too. In my game I also have two of my own classes, the Glimjack which is a super torchbearer, and the Skirmisher, which is sort of a complement to the knight; the knight controls the battlefield by inspiring allies, and the Skirmisher does so by throwing the enemy into disarray. I submitted both to the Society so maybe someday they will be online. Skirmisher is sort of a work in progress; right now there are a few bugs to work out.

[Captain_K]

With multi-class, class and a half and some flavor the PH classes can be just about anything... Ninja, spellsword, thief-acrobat, archer, its already in there.

[Arduin]

With multi-class, class and a half and some flavor the PH classes can be just about anything... Ninja, spellsword, thief-acrobat, archer, its already in there.

Agreed. I don't see much limitation. I tend to look at classes as broad professions that are applicable to adventuring. So, I don't do a Tinker Class, a Fisherman Class, a Hunter Class, et al. Those don't translate well into an "adventurer" of the D&D type.

[Captain_K]

A first level ranger makes a great trapper, hunter, crazy old woodsman... etc. A hedge witch could be a mage/druid or a druid/Illusionist... a Ninja is an assassin/monk, etc.

[Andrew]

My thought is that the number of classes is already fairly broad-spanning. If a player wants to play a particular style not "spanned" by the current list of classes, I allow adjustments instead to what is already available to give them that "feel" they want.

[Arduin]

A first level ranger makes a great trapper, hunter, crazy old woodsman... etc. A hedge witch could be a mage/druid or a druid/Illusionist... a Ninja is an assassin/monk, etc.

Exactly. But a pure Hunter is not a full class. It is but a couple of the skills of a Ranger.

[Lurker]

Well, I hate to admit it, but I’m an incessant fiddler and tinker. Because of that, I have added (well, when I say “have” I mean I have ideas kicking around that I would like to eventually one day think about trying if I ever compiled them all into a home brew but as I don’t DM and won’t in the foreseeable near future) various classes. As Rigon mentioned, the swashbuckler in his game is one. Others I’ve thought about are duelist, and pankrationist. I also have half-baked concepts for 1 or 2 other classes

I also don’t like the races as “races’ so I’ve tried to kick around ideas on making “racial character classes” for all of the races I like and have played (which leaves out the half-orc & gnome).

That said, 9 out of 10 times I don’t like the final through-put of the idea … It always seems a bit to clunky for me. However, that may just me being critical of myself. Thus far my swashbuckler has been a good balanced class that does fit the niche I wanted him to do, so it may actually be a usable class after all.

On top of my own ideas, I barrow heavily from others’ homebrew classes. Things like gallowglass, horse warrior and marksman to name a few.

However, after saying that, I will admit that for most character concepts I have played – outside of a very specific niche like the swashbuckler – a multi class or class & half mix of classes fills it perfectly. So my halfcocked classes very likely are unneeded wasted efforts.

Also, I agree with Daniel – 30 classes probably is not needed, and Arduin on not munchkining and not needing a hunter/fisher/tinker/candle stick maker class

I guess you could boil it down to there being 2 outlooks. are you a ‘generalist’ or a ‘specialist’ when it comes to classes. A generalist can make almost any character concept with little tinkering and modification to the base classes. The specialist makes a new class whole cloth for the specific concept that doesn’t perfectly fit the core class.

As I lean toward serl’s ‘unique thing’ instead of a archetypical copy I guess I’d be a middle of the road specialist

[Captain_K]

Tinkering and creating is FUN, its part of the game, at least for some. Creating or even trying to create anything, a class, a monster, a magic item, a list of cool herbs, etc. is all great stuff.. well it can be for those who like that sort of thing. If someone didn't tinker to make things different then we would no have DnD, ADD or even CnC... so someone has to do it.

Is not this forum the place to bring forth those ideas? To share with like, or in many cases diametrically opposed, minds?

Personally I recently had a great time working with one of my players and Relaxo to create The Adversary... many on the boards gave input to my research.. those several threads on the anti-paladin.

ADVERSARY: HELL’S CHAMPION, THE UNPALADIN (charisma)
by Captain_K & edited by Relaxo
The Adversary is truly Hell’s Champion. This class is a thoroughly evil holy warrior chosen for adherence and devotion to an evil deity, demon, devil, or similar evil cause. They are every paladin’s nemesis, they are their opposition. Adversaries have been called “anti-paladins”, but they are only opposite to the paladin in alignment. They are neither pacifists nor atheists, they are strongly tied to evil divinities/powers and they are very capable warriors. An Adversary’s very soul is tied to their patron and their evil cause(s). .....

With Abilities such as Undetectable Evil, Black Soul, Smite Good, Infernal Perception, and Blood Offering (to name a few) I think most CKs may find a use for this new class. We had a great time writing this NPC class (since few play evil PCs). Was it an exercise in futility? Lurker, I say "NO", even if the class goes no further than becoming one or two well written NPCs against my PCs then it was worth the effort.

Currently The Adversary has been submitted to the Crusader.. so if the Trolls favor it, you might all see it (soon?).

[Arduin]

That said, 9 out of 10 times I don’t like the final through-put of the idea … It always seems a bit to clunky for me.

What may work well as a guide is that AD&D 2nd Edition advice on how to create a new character class and how to scale its XP vis-a-vis existing classes. It's pretty neat check list.

[Daniel]

Tinkering and creating is FUN, its part of the game, at least for some. Creating or even trying to create anything, a class, a monster, a magic item, a list of cool herbs, etc. is all great stuff.. well it can be for those who like that sort of thing. If someone didn't tinker to make things different then we would no have DnD, ADD or even CnC... so someone has to do it.

Is not this forum the place to bring forth those ideas? To share with like, or in many cases diametrically opposed, minds?

I don't think anyone is saying not to tinker. In fact I believe that tinkering is one of the hall marks of old school gaming. I would also say that of all the forums I have been on, this one is clearly not concerned about "follow the rules as written". To your point many here house rule and adjust for fun.

[Treebore]

Yep. I tinker all the time. I think my C&C House Rules document is proof enough of that.

[ssfsx17]

My problem is that I don't know when to stop tinkering

At some point, you have to settle on a rules set so that players' heads don't explode, and they feel like they are getting a generally balanced deal. Even if that means making your own complete PDF.

[Treebore]

My problem is that I don't know when to stop tinkering

At some point, you have to settle on a rules set so that players' heads don't explode, and they feel like they are getting a generally balanced deal. Even if that means making your own complete PDF.

Thats why I talk my rules over with my players at the time I come up with the rules. They help me decide if the new rule, idea, class etc... adds to the game, or is unneeded.