Less is More: Three Worlds Campaign Classes Redux

[Xeviat]

While the races of my setting have never been a problem for me (thematically; mechanically they've required some work), the classes of my setting have been an entirely different story. In the beginning, I had wanted to operate with a "less is more" philosophy, but somewhere down the line I forgot that.

Previously, the classes in my setting fell down to this:

Non-casters: Barbarian, Fighter, Knight, Rogue
Casters: Cleric, Druid, Psion, Sorcerer, Wizard
Hybrids: Bard, Channeler (my own class), Monk, Ranger, Templar (my own class)

This caused some problems, though. The largest of the problems was that there were far too many warriors: barbarian, fighter, knight, channeler, and templar, and to a lesser extend the monk and ranger all had primarily combative roles. A symptom of that problem was that too many classes filled the same role: largely the problem was between the Knight and Templar, and the Fighter and Knight.

Then it hit me: the Knight was causing the problem. Long ago I created the Knight as my answer to the Samurai; the class was created fairly similar to the original OA samurai, and was intended to fill the role of western knights and eastern samurai. When I began to consider dropping it, even though I liked it very much, I remembered an aspect of my setting I had wanted to exemplify from the beginning: My setting is supposed to focus on Law vs. Chaos.

Originally I had thought that the Fighter was so generic that it wouldn't be part of the Law vs. Chaos dichotomy; that would be for the Knight and Barbarian. The problem with this, though, was that the rogue sat aside as the only raw adventurer: while the bard was an adventurer, it was also a hybrid class.

So, I dropped the Knight and was now left with the Fighter and Barbarian as the only pure warriors. The Cleric and Druid were also my only two priests ... which got me thinking: There are four class archetypes (warrior, adventurer, priest, mage), and it may be possible to ensure that there are only two classes from each archetype. One class from each would operate best within civilization, the construct of Law and Order, while the other class from each would operate best within the wilds, the opposite of civilization and thus the manifestation of Chaos and Freedom.

Fighter/Barbarian, Cleric/Druid, Wizard/Sorcerer was easy, but the Rogue sat aside as the only class without a counter part. The rogue is clearly a civilized class; while Rogues tend towards chaos, they opperate within civilization ... I needed a class that possessed lawful tendencies but operated within the wilds.

Then it hit me: The Scout. The Scout works perfectly into my hybrid class scheme as well: Fighter/Cleric makes Templar, Barbarian/Sorcerer makes Channeler (more on my channeler later), Rogue/Wizard makes Bard, and now Scout/Druid makes Ranger.

This left two classes: The Monk and the Psion. For some time I had been wrestling with creating a distinction between psionic powers and psionic feats: my monk class was a hybrid psionic caster, replacing the Psychic Warrior. While still following through with the momentum of slaying sacred cows, I realized the most simple solution: remove psionic powers; remove the Psion.

With the psion gone, the Monk stands alone. There is no need for a second class to fit the "Ki user" archetype in my setting, because the Monk is removed from both civilization and the wilds; in traditional eastern thinking, Monks are not nobility but are also not peasantry, they are removed from the traditional orders. Thus, the monk would be the same in my world, and all of the Ki related powers would be relegated to feats (and anyone can take such feats if they take an activator feat as well).

So, now only two problems remain: 1) how do I differentiate the Scout and the Ranger (whose roles seem quite similar to me); 2) should I use the advanced class system (presenting the templar, ranger, bard, and channeler as 15 level PrCs, in the style of the UA PrC Paladin), or leave the hybrid classes as specialized base classes.

I'd like to hear your opinions on this. Once this is complete, work should resume on the Three Worlds, and I'll attempt to create some more generic crunch for everyone.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

I recommend making them advanced classes, as this solves the scout/ranger problem.  The ranger is a specialized scout with magic powers.  On the other hand, ranger is the more chaotic version of scout.

You might even consider the monk and bard as the opposing versions of the same thing (which means redesiging bard), if you don't want bard as advanced.  For example, monk could well be Order (with discipline, training, and belief in society), and the bard be Chaos (with passion, wanderlust, and defiance).  There's no reason the bards abilities could not be psionic like a monk's.

[Túrin]

Continuing in your line of reasoning, you could differentiate between Ranger and Scout by stretching (fluff-wise, crunch-wise or both) that they have a connection with the divine force of nature (as do druids) and thus get magic, while the scout is just a regular (possibly untrained) nature-boy.

I can see why you'd want to use advanced classes for your hybrids (specialized combined roles) but on the other hand they might needlessly complicate the route for a player character to a desired archetype. Not much else to say on that I think: it's really your call.

Did I get it right that you are removing the monk as a class, but keeping him in the form of ki-feats? You said: "Thus, the monk would be the same in my world," but this could be read as "they are removed from traditional orders, i.e. not a class" or "they are the same as in the PHB, i.e. a class".

Túrin

PS Yay symmetry!

[Numinous]

PS Yay symmetry!

Ditto

[Xeviat]

Turin, the monk is a class, but non-monks can pick up ki feats if they select Ki Activation (ala: Wild Talent). What I meant by Monks being removed from the traditional orders is that the monk is neither part of society or the wilds; while they are a lawful class, they remove themselves from the rest of civilization.

It does look like I'm going to have to increase the ranger's mystical ties. And I now agree about advanced classes: I really like them, but using them will cause certain classes to have unnecessary baggage (bard would have sneak attack, ranger would have skirmish, characters would have to wait to sing as a bard). So I'll keep them as classes, giving me a total of 13 classes.

[Johnny Wraith]

I've been working on the idea of a different kind of monk and even though psionics wasn't my course of action, I'd love to see how yours looks like. Do post it if you have it finished, please :)