Basically, gave the option for a DM to break class options down to the 3 classic archetypes of warrior, expert and spellcaster. You could take class features as "bonus feats".
I was wondering Veeky Forums, has anyone tried to do something similar with 5e with any success? Would it be hard to do and keep it balanced? Or do you have any thoughts on how to do it?
I'm asking because I have a stubborn group that won't play anything but D&D, and I want to do a campaign that doesn't rely on 5e's default class paradigm.
>>tl;dr help me find a viable way to do a 3-class system for 5e that allows players to chose class features without being horribly horribly broken.
These actually look quite nice. I'll need to look them over a few times to decide for myself but definitely one possibility. Do you have any experience playing these (the 5e versions)?
Josiah Mitchell
No but I'm hoping to give it a try soon. I feel like you will need to make a lot of adjustments if you want it to fit the default 5e gameplay (i.e. any pre-written adventures, pretty high-magic stuff) but on paper they look pretty good.
Official modern d20 (3.0 or 3.5, I forget) had an issue where going Dex hero was almost almost always the mechanically superior choice, unless you wanted to be a total skillmonkey. I don't think it's quite that bad in this homebrew but ymmv.
Gavin Allen
i run this.
Levi Wright
Makes sense. The campaign I want to do is a pre-industrial urban adventure where magic is mostly considered folklore but in the shadows and unlikely places magic and magic-users can be found. Part of the reason why I want to look into something that I know I can control a little bit thematically. In a world where magic is rare, I don't there to be a bazillion different magic options or caster types.
Xavier Long
The 3e version or a 5e take?
Evan Wilson
It will probably work about as well as any D&D system adapted for fairly low magic play.
I like the aspect of Modern D20 rules (not mentioned in the 5e homebrew, but present in original 3.0) where taking 15+ damage from one attack makes you roll a Fort/Constitution save or fall to 0 health but it wouldn't work at all if people sling 4+ d6s worth of magic damage instead of 2d6/2d8 firearm shots (which may add more dice with automatic fire, but that is extra effort and not always an option)
Nathan Hernandez
The expert and warrior are pure downgrades, albeit slight, but entirely down.
The "Magic User" gets >She may select her spells known from the cleric, druid, and sorcerer/wizard spell lists.
Brandon Perez
Of course, but that's D&D casting for you. When I say 'balanced' I mean 'no more imbalanced than the standard D&D'
Juan Reed
use spell points or rewrite magic system like everyone else. vancian/pseudo-vancian is shit.
Lincoln Hernandez
But it literally is more imbalanced than "standard D&D," by which I assume you mean 3.PF, (which my AD&D-loving ass takes issue with, but we can table that for now)
In "standard" 3e, the "warrior" and "expert" classes are generally bad. In "generic classes" mode, they are worse. In "standard" 3e, each given caster class is OP because of the immense versatility. In "generic classes" the caster is even MORE versatile because they have the complete combined spell list to choose from.
so your statement that generic classes is >'no more imbalanced than the standard D&D' is objectively false... it is somehow, even MORE imbalanced.
Nolan Mitchell
>Quest for Glory >that rush of nostalgia and maudlin Man, that series.
Hudson Cook
>not picking a paladin and smiting ALL THE EVIL SON What a good series of games that was. If not for the typical "I forgot an item on the first screen and now I can't beat the final boss" Sierra thing.
Connor Clark
>Warrior Must select his training method: Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Swordmage... >Expert Must select field of expertise: Rogue, Ranger, Bard... >Spellcaster Must select origin of magic: Arcane, Divine, Primal, Psychic
And at level 6 must choose an Advanced Path, and at level 11 a Paragon Path, at level 16 a Master Path, at 21 an Epic Path and at 26 an Immortal Parth.
There! You just made the classes into subclasses of these überclasses, doing more for nothing!
Juan Watson
>There! You just made the classes into subclasses of these überclasses, doing more for nothing
Essentially this. OP is wanting to basically re-write the entire class system, when in reality it would be much simpler to figure out what his players want to do and homebrew a subclass from there.
There's also this. Not mine, but I skimmed through it. Incomplete and I could never get my maths-smart friend to look it over and offer a decent progression for casters.
Lucas Perez
Why does that sound so much like 4e...
Thomas Rogers
>2017 >Class and level system
Elijah Gonzalez
I think you've misread, I'm not stating that those generic classes from 3e Unearthed are no more imbalanced. I'm asking if there's a way to work with the same idea for 5e and make it relatively balanced.
The problem is I find maybe only two or three of the 12 PHB main classes as they are actually fit into the world I'm making at all. I could compromise with the system and make my world to accommodate the system, but I feel that's a worse idea.
Also, I like the idea of less defined constraints of how your character works.
Cool, will take a look, ty user.
Adam Morgan
Maybe you should try other systems? Better than deforming D&D until it breaks.
Jacob Kelly
It sounds stupid if you oversimplify it (like a lot of things), but it does have the advantage that a character's abilities aren't strictly delineated into tangenially related linear paths. If you're a ranger, that doesn't mean you have to be a ranger and nothing else; you could combine a Monk's unarmed prowess (but not the weird exotic martial arts) with a Paladin's ability to smite evil, and be a holy man who kills vampires with his bare hands.
>multiclassing That has a quite a few problems, not the least of which is that a class's later abilities tend to be progressively more powerful than their earlier ones; a multi-classed character tends to have several weak powers that don't synergize well and can't keep up with those of his single-classed companions, rather than functioning as a "true" hybrid of his classes.
James James
Could do. I have been shopping around with a few different systems so far but I'm not crazy about them, and I feel my players would be less so. So far GURPS looks like the best bet for alternative systems
Angel Hughes
That being said, I really like the look of what the 5e modern classes posted earlier could do for my idea. The only thing is I'm not sure how well it actually all works practise.
Jacob Morris
Honestly, you're sort of better off just using the classes as written, but if you're really gung-ho about generic classes, let's look at them.
First, you need to split the spellcaster up into Priest and Mage and have four classes rather than three. Otherwise, the spellcaster will dominate and it will be horribly horribly broken (like they were in 3e's Generic Classes). Doing this, your Warrior classes could be Fighter, Barbarian, and Monk; your Expert classes could be Rogue, Bard, and Ranger; your Priest classes could be Paladin, Druid, and Cleric; and your Mage classes could be Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock.
From there, you have to decide when your characters get class features. For Warriors and Experts, that's going to be really often because those classes tend to have a lot of class features. For Priests and Mages, their classes don't have as many features (because they get spells) and so you're not going to be offering them features all that often. Some levels, they're going to get more than one.
As for archetypes, I think your best bet is keeping them as-is and just letting players choose from them. You could make some prereqs (because it doesn't make sense grabbing Way of the Shadow if you don't have Ki, for example) or just let the players use their brains and not take the worst options (they won't and they will).
You may also want to split the class features into combat class features and exploration/social class features, and then say like "at level 1 you get to choose one combat and one exploration/social class feature" because I guarantee most players will just front-load combat features.
Again, I think it's a terrible idea, just play 5e normally.
Ethan Baker
>That has a quite a few problems, not the least of which is that a class's later abilities tend to be progressively more powerful than their earlier ones; a multi-classed character tends to have several weak powers that don't synergize well and can't keep up with those of his single-classed companions, rather than functioning as a "true" hybrid of his classes.
So then use the gestalt class rule.
Angel Gonzalez
That's fair. I think I will either go with GURPS, or possibly run 5e using the 5e Modern classes if I can figure out whether or not they are any good.
Adrian Moore
Because only 4e gives a shit about primal magic I miss it so much
