Simple Class Creation

Over the years there have been several methods made available for creating custom character classes from D&D. Some methods involved point buy systems (like 2E) to determine the class' XP value; others were "classless" systems that let you create your class as you played. Most of these complex systems stem from the subclasses that came out for Original Dungeons & Dragons, via supplements and magazine articles. Classes as we know them today are described via various abilities and restrictions, and usually a laundry list of those. Even back in the 70's "subclasses" were getting unique XP progressions, and tons of abilities and unique traits.

I finally took a look at the OD&D Supplement I: Greyhawk a few days ago. Something I noticed about the Paladin, the first subclass introduced, was that it wasn't very unique to itself. In other words, it was still just a fighter, with a few quirks. This reminded me a lot of the treatment of subclasses in the Rules Cyclopedia; wherein Paladins and Rangers were simply Fighters, with a few special abilities, like casting spells. Why did this change?


I thought to myself "why not go back to it?". With my Dungeon Crawl variant, there were four core classes, and a slew of subclasses, each with 2-3 special abilities, and 1-3 restrictions or drawbacks. These classes still resembled the current (current since AD&D 1E really) sorts of classes with several of the abilities being rather complex. Bards had special spell progressions, an assortment of Thief skills; Monks had lay on hands, Thief skills, and increasing unarmed damage with multiple attacks; and so on.

I've decided now that "subclasses" if I'm even going to call them that, are basically just going to be a few special abilities, with a few restrictions. Let me outline specifically what I mean this time, and how it's different than what I described above. The basis of the system is this:

Every subclass gets one cool ability; one unique and interesting feature that makes them different and worthwhile to play. This includes the core classes; Fighters are going to get an AC bonus, and Strength bonus; Thieves get their skills and backstab; and so on. Then for every restriction a class takes, they are allowed one more ability; it is up the Referee to determine what he sees as a fair trade off.

This is really no different than AD&D, or the OD&D supplements. The main differences are that I'm going to limit it to 3 abilities, and 2 restrictions for most subclasses. If I keep the abilities simple, but interesting, there is no need to have separate XP progressions, or to treat them as separate classes entirely. To better illustrate my idea, I'll give some examples.

PALADIN

(Ability) Lay on Hands: The Paladin can heal 1d4 hit points per level once a day, on either himself or others.
(Ability) Detect Evil: The Paladin may cast the Detect Evil at will, taking one minute to focus on the spell.
(Restriction) Alignment: The Paladin must be of Lawful Good alignment. If the Paladin ever acts against this alignment, he must seek repentance, or lose all his Paladin abilities.

RANGER

(Ability) Dual Wield: The Ranger is skilled in his with two weapons. When fighting with two weapons, the Ranger makes one attack roll; if it is successful he rolls damage for both weapons totaling the damage done.
(Ability) Surprise: Rangers are sneaky and surprise on 1-4 on a d6.
(Restriction) Armor: Rangers need to be agile and light on their feet, therefore they are restricted to leather type armors.

They both seem familiar I hope. One thing you'll notice is the lack of spell casting ability for either class. This is a decision I've come to after much consideration. In AD&D even, Paladins and Rangers don't gain their spell casting ability till around 9th level; furthermore it is a very minimal spell ability. One of my old school players doesn't even recall Rangers being able to cast spells in 1st Edition (they are). When he played he simply played a Ranger till around 9th level, and then dual classed to a Druid.

It dawned on me that's the point of dual classes and multi-classes. If you want to play a hybrid Fighter/Cleric, just play a Fighter/Cleric. There is not need for a in between class that is either A) Less powerful than both or B) More powerful than either. Multi-classing done right is balanced enough, if you divide the XP amongst both classes, and it's not all that complicated.

Then we move on to spell casting subclasses. This is even easier, as there is already precedent with the Druid and Illusionist. Simply give them a different spell list, and appropriate restrictions, and there you go. In fact I've decided to make my Bard a Cleric subclass, instead of a Thief subclass; as I'll admit the 2E Bard (despite being my favorite), is rather broken.

Well that's all for now, hopefully I got my point across.