Building a better Class system

You may also like...

23 Responses

  1. Bill says:

    So… Paraelemental planes?

  2. SAROE says:

    Why let PCs be anything but the 4 core classes at 1st level? Or even up to 3rd. Have the Hybrid/Specializations start at 4th.

    • greywulf says:

      That’s one option, and I could certainly see that work for some campaigns. I tend to favour the “choice is good” philosophy which allows all of the (campaign appropriate) classes from 1st level, with specialization a few levels down the line.

  3. Nightangel says:

    Sorry, but Rogue/Cleric mix already has a name: It’s a Bard. Why has everyone forgotten that? (Oh yeah… bards…)

    • greywulf says:

      Lol! Yeah. Bards.

      I want to do something different with Bards to give them their own niche which separates them from both the Cleric & Wizard as their special abilities don’t really fit with either spell list. Going the 3e route and making them jacks-of-all-trades is just too wishy-washy.

      I’ll be talking about this next time, but what I would do is add a 5th Core Class – the Psion – which opens up a whole new load of Dual-Class combinations, and make the Bard the Rogue/Psion. His abilities come from the creative side of the mind, rather than any arcane or divine power source. I’d totally play that.

    • drow says:

      bards are fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard, with a lute.

  4. drow says:

    “why do you have a holy spanner with your thieves’ tools?”
    “NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANNERISH INQUISITION!”

  5. random says:

    Nice!

    Wizard + Cleric + Rogue = Druid
    Cleric + Rogue + Fighter = Monk
    Rogue + Fighter + Wizard = Assassin (Ninja)
    Fighter + Wizard + Cleric = Warlord

    Wizard + Cleric + Rogue + Fighter = Bard

    • EmperorJD says:

      I like much of greywulf’s ideas, but I believe some of the combo classes are not accurate. I think saw this post and agree there could be even further combinations pulling from 3-combos and 4-combos.

      I don’t know about this poster’s Wizard + Cleric + Rogue = Druid; I think Druids pulls from Wizard and Cleric for sure, but I think Alignment and/or Planar callings must have an effect that would add to this molecular mixing. If we are think in an alchemy way. I believe Druids would be Wizard+Cleric+Nature=Druid.

      Other combos I would make changes to:
      Fighter+Rogue=Fencer/Duelist/Musketeer
      Fighter+Nature=Barbarian
      Rogue+Nature=Ranger
      Cleric+Nature=Shaman

      Wizard+Elementals=Sorcerer
      Wizard+Far Realm Power=Warlock?witch
      Fighter+Psychic (Far Realm Power)=Monk.
      Fighter+Rogue+Psychic or Shadow=Assassin(Ninja)

  6. Jeff says:

    I like this system a lot. And actually, while studying the Dungeon Crawl Classics rules (and hacking them up to create my own classes and races), I noticed they operated on a very similar structure. Each class breaks down roughly as follows: two major abilities, one moderate, and one minor. So then to create a new class, all you’d have to do is trade features with another.

    • greywulf says:

      That’s how I would see this working as well. Pick half the features from one class, and the other half from a second. Dual-Classes get a unique special ability that is their own (possibly with more features as they rise in level).

      I’ll have to take a look at the Dungeon Crawl Classics rules. Thanks for the heads-up.

  7. Xandyr78 says:

    Also, Wulf, Reed Richards = Water. Gotta love typos. ;-)

  8. Edward says:

    Hmm, like the structured thinking. That would make the rules much simpler, since everything outside the Core Four is just a combo. You can focus on designing the core well and everything else falls neatly into place. Intellectually I like it, but it’s not grabbing me emotionally. The non-core classes don’t really have their own identities any more–there’s a loss of “cool factor” (well, okay, Summon Flaming Zombies is pretty epic).

  9. Very nicely done. Almost duplicates what I’d used several years ago with a 1st ed AD&D game I ran; everyone had to begin with one of the four core classes and at certain levels they could dual-class into a secondary class. Now, the bard I did have established as X levels fighter/X levels rogue/X levels wizard before moving on.

  10. Ogrebear says:

    Very interesting idea- I like your structure there it is very easy to follow, esp with a few diagrams.

  11. ethan says:

    Why worry about “core classes”? Why not break everything into their individual class features and let the player choose them at first level?

    • Blalala says:

      I would like that the most!
      Just have a bunch of abilities/level-up quirks (like different BAB progress) with a point cost. Give points as they gain experience (a level system like now isn’t bad) and let the players juggle it as they see fit. On first level, I want the ability to sneak attack. I want to save enough points to be able to dual wield on 3th level, so I buy myself the cheap ability to cast one specific favored theme related spell at second. And after that, I’ll concentrate on giving a bit more punch by going with a better BAB progress…

  12. you might enjoy something similar that I worked on: http://www.behance.net/tkwickham/frame/2189999

    PM me or find me on twitter (tkwickham) if you want to discuss the project in depth – always interested in speaking with fellow infographic-design-nerds

  13. Wow. You guys did some great work visually. I tweaked what I saw from your efforts and put this Pathfinder Class Matrix together. I’m using it for home use only to help explain it to my daughter. Obviously, I make no claims for dreaming this up. The images were taken from the Paizo site. Enjoy!

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/42vz0rdrqi…07.23.2012.jpg

Leave a Reply