Homebrew Project: Generic Classes Based on Role


Homebrew and House Rules


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm thinking about a fairly significant redesign of the PF1e chassis.

One idea I was tossing about was to create a series of 'generic' classes based on major party roles. I was looking at a list like this.

Thus, there would be nine classes:

Blaster
Defender
Face
Healer
Librarian
Scout
Striker
Support
Utility Caster

Each of these generic classes would draw on the archetypes and class options for the classes under the role headings to customize a given character.

Anyone have any interest giving feedback/input to this idea? One question I still have is where the occult classes fit into this schema.


I think your idea would lead to over specialisation. The 9 roles, plus sub roles mentioned in the source article, plus other roles not covered, need to be covered by (usually) four characters. A party that lacks one or more of the roles will have capability holes that will make some CR appropriate encounters very difficult whilst being specialised (optimised) to the point where some types of encounter are too easy.

There are numerous posts about over specialised characters that waltz through encounters and your suggestion is only likely to exacerbate the problem.


The majority of these aren't even combat roles, meaning a character with the respective class would utterly suck in combat.

An even bigger problem, hower, is that a disctinction between roles is not how Pathfinder works. You don't have/need to have/should have one of most of these, but rather spread them out. For example, there's literally no reason to have all the knowledge skills on one character, spreadind them across multiple characters works just as well, often even better. The same is true for just about any of these roles. Likewise, there's no reason for a "defender" to not do damage, buffs, debuffs etc. as well, or a "supporter" to not do damage as well (your link talks about that, too - "each character must fill multiple roles to form a complete party").

This means this isn't a "redesign of the PF1e chassis", you're ripping out what defines the game.


I say gut it, redesign it and see how it works.

Pathfinder has a lot of holes in the system, many of them inherited. As to non combat roles, I think RPGs have become way too combat focused lately. Let's break some molds.

I'd recommend keeping it simple by sticking to the core book. Once your generic classes are roughed out you'll probably find a lot of overlap.


There was an old 3rd edition (I think) alternate rule set where there were three classes:

The warrior (they're tough and good at fighting)

The specialist (less good at fighting, less tough, but more skills)

The spellcaster (least good at fighting, least tough)


That was Unearthed Arcana and a similar system in True20 from Green Ronin. I'm thinking of something like that, but with more roles -- like 'buddy class', 'spontaneous caster class' etc., but am still trying to decide what those essential roles are.


I think the whole point of generic classes is to cut out as much crap as you can.

Spontaneous spellcaster class? That's way too specific, if you ask me. That's just a different take on the same concept: a spellcaster.

Define the different categories of characters within the genre; categories you'd find in any rules system. The difference between a shaman, a witch, a wizard, a socerer, a,warlock and a mage are fundamentally nonexistent.

I'd say something like...the warrior, the scout, the spellcaster, the priest...maybe someone who does stuff with nature and someone who is good at talking to people .


Sebecloki wrote:

I'm thinking about a fairly significant redesign of the PF1e chassis.

One idea I was tossing about was to create a series of 'generic' classes based on major party roles. I was looking at a list like this.

Thus, there would be nine classes:

Blaster
Defender
Face
Healer
Librarian
Scout
Striker
Support
Utility Caster

Each of these generic classes would draw on the archetypes and class options for the classes under the role headings to customize a given character.

Anyone have any interest giving feedback/input to this idea? One question I still have is where the occult classes fit into this schema.

D20 Modern did something similar. I don't think this works in Pathfinder though.

To me, a class is about how you fight. Other things fall into backgrounds (which should probably be more powerful).

So Joe the Peasant Fighter. Fighter gives him BAB, feats, hit points, etc. Background gives him... probably something regional based, because Profession (farmer) is pretty weak by itself.

Dunk the Town Fighter. Fighter gives him the same thing. Town background gives him education and social skills.

Bohemund du Lac the Noble Fighter. Fighter gives him the same thing. Noble background gives him social and leadership skills.

This is why I'm so peeved by most versions of the ranger. They conflate the fighting style (exemplified by Legolas) and the background (being a noble warlord with healing hands) and try to give the class the whole thing.

My idea could not be reconciled with Pathfinder completely, however. While divine spellcaster and priest are somewhat different (not every priest can cast spells), in practice no adventurer would want the priest role if they aren't getting spellcasting out of it. (NPC non-casting priests would be... NPCs.)

There are other problems with the initial idea. Strikers deal damage... but rogues, rangers who use archery, and barbarians all do damage in very different ways. Can blasters cast any defensive spells? Where do control wizards fall into this?

The list itself works... sort of. I recall how people liked the Beguiler, a late 3.5 more limited wizard. I never played one, but I presume it still had enough defensive spells and could still use illusions against the undead to ... not suck.

In effect, the list is a list of archetypes, attempting to push all of the PCs into one of these archetypes.


I wonder if you added in a substantial social combat system that would make some of these archetypes more appealing. I was also imagining this system using gestalt.


There's a social combat system in Ultimate Intrigue. I've never seen a thread on paizo.com about using it, optimising a character for it, or homebrew to improve on or replace it. The one thread I remember seeing about a (different) social combat system on another forum was unenthusiastic. My conclusion from this is that social combat is not how people prefer to roleplay.

Edit: I ran a search and there has actually been one thread in the Rules questions forum and a few in homebrew (most without replies) since UI came out. Still looks amazingly unpopular. Apparently there's another system involving a deck of cards which Paizo put out before that which was also unpopular.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Homebrew Project: Generic Classes Based on Role All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules