Quasi Classes: A Basic Fantasy Supplement

Creating game materials? Monsters, spells, classes, adventures? This is the place!
Post Reply
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 6934
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Quasi Classes: A Basic Fantasy Supplement

Post Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:04 pm

Post your comments here for R. Kevin Smoot's Quasi Classes supplement.

DO NOT Download the Supplement from the Main Downloads area. There is a better version in the Showcase Section~

The file for r4 has been uploaded to the Showcase section:
http://www.basicfantasy.org/showcase.cgi?sid=51
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
SmootRK
Posts: 3533
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Quasi Classes: A Basic Fantasy Supplement

Post Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:24 pm

Got permission to utilize someone's work (converted as a Quasi-class)... and I am otherwise updating and adding material to this supplement, so soon we shall get a 2nd release. If anyone has ideas for material to include, please let me know.
Urieal
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 7:58 am

Re: Quasi Classes: A Basic Fantasy Supplement

Post Sat Oct 30, 2010 10:47 pm

What's the difference between the Quasi-classes & the extra classes in the Olde Dungeoneers Almanack.
User avatar
SmootRK
Posts: 3533
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Quasi Classes: A Basic Fantasy Supplement

Post Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:03 am

The Quasi-Class supplement has 2 actual sub-classes within it, a redo/alternate Ranger, and a Knight (a BFRPG version of a Cavalier sort of idea). The actual Quasi-Class ideas are a sort of Option that can be utilized in combination with various base classes to specialize or further refine a character by adding some class-like options to layer upon their base class.

For instance, Holy characters was an attempt to get the basics of a Paladin sort of idea and open the concept up to other classes as well. The traditional Holy Fighter is pretty much a Paladin sort of character (at least a BFRPG sort of Paladin, bringing thing down to the most basic level)... but one could have a Holy Magic-User as well, or layer it upon Cleric or Thief (or even Ranger, Knight, etc).

Same goes with Barbaric characters. The essentials of being a Barbarian is something that can be layered upon the other classes, so that one can have Barbaric Fighters (the traditional variation), Thief, Cleric, or even rarely as MU. I approached barbarians as being Tough through durability, rather than the odd double-bonus thing with STR, DEX, etc.

I am adding the material shared on DF to make a Sage Quasi-Class option. I think it could work easy enough.

I never really had the preconception that it would universally accepted, as it departs from the traditional way of engineering classes individually. While it is very different than 3e templates (which give a one-time alteration to a character), the quasi-class ideas is something that grows as the character levels up too.... but there are similarities to templates (in how one layers it upon the character in addition to normal choices).
Urieal
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 7:58 am

Re: Quasi Classes: A Basic Fantasy Supplement

Post Sun Oct 31, 2010 7:00 pm

Sounds good, and it was similar to what I gathered from the read. It seems like a supplement that would work well with the core rules but might be difficult to make work with the classes presented in the Olde Dungeoneers Almanack.

I never worked with 3E templates, so I have no experience relating your quasi classes to those.
User avatar
SmootRK
Posts: 3533
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Quasi Classes: A Basic Fantasy Supplement

Post Mon Nov 01, 2010 6:14 pm

Urieal wrote:Sounds good, and it was similar to what I gathered from the read. It seems like a supplement that would work well with the core rules but might be difficult to make work with the classes presented in the Olde Dungeoneers Almanack.
Bear in mind that all the supplements are not necessarily meant to be used at the same time, even those appearing within the Dungeoneer's Almanack. In fact, I strongly recommend against trying to be very inclusive of the material. A GM should carefully evaluate which options he/she wishes to include in their game, erring on the stingy side. Consider all the supplements and Dungeoneer's Almanack as a grab-bag of various options to personalize your games.

Several Supplements approach certain material in different ways. For instance, one might prefer additional classes to cover certain archetypes, while another simply wants additional backgrounds to further flesh out characters, and yet another might want a full-fledged skill system installed, or CORE only for some... all still very viable, and each approach is neither right nor wrong.

But, having too many options also has the effect of making the game less "Basic"... so I recommend minimalism and serious thought before adding material in a willy-nilly fashion. I don't even utilize all the material that I have personally developed to share with the community... partly because the needs have not surfaced in our personal games, but also because I have not moved our campaigns in those directions, and some material, simply because I don't care for it or at least don't care for how it is implemented. For instance, the Necromancer/Grave Master will not likely make an appearance in our games (as a player option)... my kids are just too young to be dealing with undead minions, grave robbing, and such.

That said, I tend towards increasing options for races/classes and we can never have enough spells to work with. I like to be able to assist a player in producing whatever kind of character he/she wants to play... an Enabler sort of GM. Such material can also be removed easily when not in active use. So if Gnomes prove problematic, change/remove the option for Gnome characters moving forward when such a problem is discovered. If your game seems to be moving towards wilderness explorations and fey encounters, then perhaps you should add Druids or some additional race option to accentuate the direction of your campaign... but perhaps Dwarves and Orcs should be removed as options in that case.
Sir Bedivere
Posts: 998
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 10:46 pm

Re: Quasi Classes: A Basic Fantasy Supplement

Post Sun May 01, 2011 8:12 am

I've been working on my own set of quasi-classes and in looking at yours I had a question. I noticed that the ability requirements to take a quasi-class are much higher than the prerequisites to take any of the regular classes. E.g., you only need a 9 WIS to become a Cleric, but you need a 15 CHA to add on the Holy Character quasi-class. I'm curious about why you set it up that way.

Also, could you give us an update on how have these worked out in actual play?
User avatar
SmootRK
Posts: 3533
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Quasi Classes: A Basic Fantasy Supplement

Post Sun May 01, 2011 6:14 pm

Sir Bedivere wrote:I've been working on my own set of quasi-classes and in looking at yours I had a question. I noticed that the ability requirements to take a quasi-class are much higher than the prerequisites to take any of the regular classes. E.g., you only need a 9 WIS to become a Cleric, but you need a 15 CHA to add on the Holy Character quasi-class. I'm curious about why you set it up that way.

Also, could you give us an update on how have these worked out in actual play?
I did not want to make these appropriate for every character, and the easiest way to limit access (in a mechanics sort of way) is to crank up the requirements. I fully expect others to tweak things to suit themselves, so if something seems too much, feel free to adjust the number to something that suits you. 1e/2e paladins need 17 CHA, so I did not think it was too much in that case.

Make sure you share your ideas, perhaps you could add one or more quasi classes to this document!
User avatar
Joe the Rat
Posts: 1242
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: Quasi Classes: A Basic Fantasy Supplement

Post Sun May 01, 2011 10:31 pm

One of the main functions of the secondary requirements is to limit availability - Only a subset of characters in a given class can qualify for the quasi class or subclass. Assuming 'standard' character generation (roll and play where it lands) Having a 15 CHA requirement means that only a bit over 9% of characters could qualify - keeping it a rarity in the setting. Several of the supplemental classes use a secondary around 13 - giving you about 26% of characters able to qualify. If you dropped it all the way to 9, this goes up to 74%. Having multiple requirements thins the field even further.

The other mechanic here is to ensure that there is a bonus, or at least no penalties, for the ability in question. 13 or higher guarantees that you''ll have at least a +1, so any class specials that rely on ability bonuses will have something to work with - unless you are willing to let a player take the class without them being capable to using all of the abilities.

The obvious point to doing this is that what you pick fits thematically with the class: barbarians need to be extra strong or tough, necromancers need a hearty constitution to shrug off grave-borne illness (or at least not catch cold in dank misty graveyards), Holy characters and Knights are commanding or inspiring, needing better charisma, and so forth. Really this is the decision that should come first, then worry about ability-based mechanics, and then look at rarity.

It's much the same principle as the stat requirements for races - they fit a set of racial traits, and will be somewhat in the minority. This also means that some classes tend to fit certain races better (every elf could become a Magic-User, every halfling could be a Thief), and by extension fit to subclasses if nonhumans are allowed. For example, 35% of halflings would have high enough DEX to become Archers. Fear the halfling with a rock.
Sir Bedivere
Posts: 998
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 10:46 pm

Re: Quasi Classes: A Basic Fantasy Supplement

Post Sun May 01, 2011 11:32 pm

SmootRK wrote:I did not want to make these appropriate for every character, and the easiest way to limit access (in a mechanics sort of way) is to crank up the requirements. I fully expect others to tweak things to suit themselves, so if something seems too much, feel free to adjust the number to something that suits you. 1e/2e paladins need 17 CHA, so I did not think it was too much in that case.
I had forgotten that about 1e paladins! It's been so long ... I'm afraid I think of class concept first, and only later (sometimes too much later!) about how the class fits in with the rest of the rules. The argument I was thinking of is just that quasi-classed characters are special in some way. You simply can't have an uncharismatic paladin; that doesn't fit the class concept.

I'm not sure what I'm going to do with requirements, but when I get a decent draft written up I'll post it here.
Joe the Rat wrote:One of the main functions of the secondary requirements is to limit availability ...
Maybe it's strange, but I don't even think this way. Yeah, what you're saying is an important consideration in the game design, but like I said above, I've always been more concerned about whether the class felt right than limiting access to it. As far as PCs go, I don't see the point in limiting access to classes unless something just doesn't fit the campaign world. NPCs are another matter, and from that standpoint I can see making some classes more difficult to qualify for than others. Maybe I should take the stats into consideration more often.
Post Reply