3 Class C&C idea

[IanTheMoxious]

An idea that has always appealed to me is only allowing three classes. A presentation of this idea was made in the d20 Unearthed Arcana book. The big problem with it is that it is nearly impossible to really accomplish in the third edition. I think that C&C is the perfect playground for this. I just need to ponder on the direction that I will take.

The class selection is so easy as to hardly be worth mentioning (Warrior, Rogue, and Magic-User). The hard part is decided what system to implement in order to maintain the player's ability to customize their characters (multiclassing would be available too).

The warrior needs to include the classic fighter, barbarian, and maybe even ranger archetypes. The magic-user needs to fill the roll of wizard, cleric, and druid. The rogue is probably the easiest of the three.

I am trying to figure out how to allow the warrior class to be versatile but not resorting to separate classes. I guess I could use "skill packages" which wouldn't really change anything rule wise but, it would help determine what checks the character would add his level to (Example: a Warrior that selects the Survivor background could add his level to track rolls while a Man-At-Arms would not).

The magic-user is going to require a complete overhaul. All casters are going to have d4 HD and poor attack bonus. My campaign setting has no need to separate divine and arcane magic, so there is no need to have different classes. I will probably break down the spells into schools in order to add the option of specialization (and probably require all casters to specialize, but have a general "Mage" option with a few drawbacks).

The rogue will probably be a pretty standard. It will also have a few skill packages like bard, thief, etc. Again the skill packages will only effect if the class can attempt a specialized skill and if he adds his level to it.

Any input or ideas? I will post more as I develop the idea.

[Turanil]

IanTheMoxious wrote:
Any input or ideas?

My ideas:

1) Create the three base class without class features gained at various levels. Just that the Warrior has d10 and ranger/knight (not fighter) BtH; Expert has d6 and cleric (not rogue) BtH; Spellcaster has d4 and rogue (not wizard) BtH; etc.

2) Extract all class abilities from all classes (including armor and weapon proficiencies gained at 1st level). Then, try to see if they are equivalent or not, and if not adjust/combine them so any ability would appear of a similar power level.

3) Try to see for each related class (that is: figther, paladin, knight, etc. for the new generic Warrior class) the average number of powers gained during the first 12 levels, and make an even distribution.

The idea is that at certain level the character will gain a bonus class ability that he will choose from a list. Hence a Warrior could choose "improved BtH" (i.e.: BtH as C&C fighter instead of C&C ranger/knight), and then later "Primal Fury" instead of weapon specialization, and then... etc.

[finarvyn]

Just a historical reminder that the 1974 brown book OD&D rules only had three classes:

1. Fighting Man

2. Magic-user

3. Cleric

The thief and other classes weren't added until the supplements.

If I wanted to select three classes, I would be more inclined to go with:

1. Fighting Man

2. Magic-user

3. Thief (Rogue, Expert, or whatever you like to call them)

As Turanil suggested, strip away the "extras" from the basics and allow for players to customize as they go. A cleric could be a fighter-mage with a different spell list and levels equally balanced between the two classes. A paladin could be similar, only with significanly more fighter levels than mage levels. A ranger could be a fighter-thief with a wilderness emphasis rather than urban. And so on.

[SavageRobby]

If you went that route, I'd think about not allowing multiclassing, but making hit points and combat ability just another skill package (and possibly tie them together). This way, a Cleric is just a Magic-user with increased combat compatibilities as one of their skill packages.

I'd start with each classes stripped down to their most basic: BtH, HD, primes and class abilities (in this case, just spells), and then assign experience tables. Figure out a rough XP base for each skill package, and which skill packages would need to be taken at character creation (such as improved HD or BtH), and which could be taken at different levels (tracking, stealth, etc). From there its a pretty each mix and match: take a package, it increases your XP base for each level from that level forward.

For XP bases, some classes should have an advantage (in terms of XP cost) to take a package vs. other classes. For example, you might rule a Magic User could take Turn Undead at a lower cost than a Fighter, and the Thief/Rogue class can't take it at all.

(I'd guess that Serelan's class deconstruction document works something along these lines, but that is just a guess not having seen it.)

[IanTheMoxious]

These are all good ideas.

I am still messing with the base classes that I have created. It might take a little time to fudge around before I am happy with them. After that I will probably go the skill package route rather than the "Talent Tree" pathways.

Talent trees arn't a bad way to go but, for some reason they don't seem very C&C to me. I'm not sure that I can explain why I feel that way though.

I am pretty much aiming for a class system that has just about all of it's choices made up front and the rest just falling into place as the game is played. I am usually so loose with the rules that I let my players TRY anything. So there really are no true skill prohibitions in my games. I will even let a fighter try to read from a magic scroll (if he can make out any of the symbols) what happens next.....

I am mostly interested in just defining what particular area of expertise a character has (for bonus adding, etc.) Other than base attack bonus, spell slots, and hit dice the classes tend to blur in my games. Heck, I have even had thief (in a 2e game I ran) become a fairly renowned alchemist, and a fighter that ended up being an excellent tracker and woodsman.

I do really like the idea of using thief BtH for mage, cleric for thief, and the reduced fighter. In fact, I might just blatantly rip those numbers out of 2e (for a while I actually used THAC0 with C&C) so it shouldn't be hard at all.

Sigh... I guess really what I will be creating is an extremely slim version of 2e with three classes and that uses most of the siege engine. I might nab the monster xp system as well (one of the finest points of C&C if you ask me).

I will be busy the next couple of days but, when I have the time I will come back and post the classes that I ended up with. Thanks guys! Any other ideas are welcome.