Many people go about creating new classes all the time, but a lot of them aren't particularly good.

Here, I'm going to examine a few of the elements of what I view to be good class design, and hopefully help a few people out (since they seem to keep asking me for help in this regard). I would love to get some feedback here to make this guide more complete and better able to communicate its points. Ultimately, this guide should help people to create fun and balanced classes, while avoiding common pitfalls. Is there a reason to create a new class? This is one that people miss out on a lot. I can't count the number of classes I've seen on these boards that actually served very little purpouse, because oftentimes the exact same concept could be managed by existing classes (and done with similar or sometimes better mechanical elegance). In order for a base class to be a solid new addition to the roster, it has to do at least one of two things: It must either A) Fill a new niche. For example, the Artificer fills the item creation and use niche as a class, where previously that was never the focus of any base class. or B) Be mechanically original. For example, while the Warblade fills the "Fighter" niche, it does so in a new and mechanically unique and elegant way. If it doesn't do either of these things, it may as well not exist. Mechanics for mechanics' sake is bad. Seriously. People add little +1s and -1s and tiny little details that don't actually affect the character much based on this and that, and bog it down (and actually can limit the versatility of the character concepts it can fill), when you actually don't need any new mechanics. Some good examples of "mechanics for mechanics sake" are actually some classes that have received high acclaim from some, but criticism from board veterans like myself and Tempest Stormwind, such as Szatany's classes and Frasmage's Gemini Dancer. This is largely because the presentation looks good, but the underlying mechanics are actually rather unnecessary. Basically, mechanics should have some meaning and significance. They should do something you care about, instead of bogging down the system. Dead levels suck. Make sure the player gets something new every level. The reason for this is simple and straightforward: No one wants to take a level where there is no benefit, and moreover dead levels are boring and just plain not fun. Even if it's something minor, you should at least put *something* to fill the void. Ideally, you should be giving a fairly even progression of cool class features.

It is worth noting that gaining a level of spells or something is *NOT* a dead level, because a level of spells actually represents an array of new class features. In fact, it often represents a larger array of new class features at the new level than many other classes get. Don't confuse "class features" with "entries in the special column," because it's just not true. It's also worth noting that if you have a lot of abilities that scale by level, it can also be acceptable to have a few seemingly "dead" levels, since you're actually getting something nifty at those levels even if you don't see it right there in the special column. A bad dead level is one where you're basically the same guy as you were at the last level, except with a bit higher numbers. You should feel more powerful, more versatile, and generally cooler at every level. A player should not be doing just the same old thing, except with slightly higher numbers. Tempest helps to clarify, here: Spoiler Quote:

Uneven progressions suck. There are two common sides of the coin here. There's toploading, and there's the "suck now, but own later" mentality. Both of these ideas generally suck. Toploading is bad because it means that most of your class's progression is actually useless (for instance, the Swashbuckler is often considered a 3-level long class. The other 17 levels are wasted). And "pay for it now for power later" and similar such uneven progressions *really* don't actually work that way in play. Sure, many PrCed up gish builds will be pretty lame at low level, and killer at higher level, but the reality is that most campaigns aren't actually played from levels 1-20. They'll be more like "5-12" or "1-14" or "12-18" or whatever. So that "evening out cost and benefit over levels" doesn't really exist. Making a class good at one level and crappy at another is a bad thing. Ideally, a class progression should be as even as possible and a class should contribute to the party in a level-appropriate way at *every* level. No more, no less. It doesn't actually have to be perfect... but it should be a fairly even progression of cool class features. Make the class for everyone who's going to use it, not just you. Basically, this follows a principle that when designing something for public consumption, you want to make it adaptable to everyone's needs. A class shouldn't look like "your specific character's build choices." It should be able to embody a variety of concepts. Writing extensive fluff on the history of some order and the exact way a certain character fights and so forth doesn't actually make for a better class in any way. We've all seen these classes that look like one guy's character, instead of a real base class that can be adapted to a variety of concepts. Keep it flexible in build. Building on the last point, a class should provide many

"viable" build options, allowing it to embody a variety of concepts. With a look at the Wizard, we can see that you can make a tricky illusionist, a war wizard that makes buildings explode, a calculating seer, or a thousand other concepts. Where possible, you shouldn't be restricting the sort of concepts you can use with the class. Give it options in play. Using the same tactic over and over is boring. If you're a trip fighter with that one trick (trip, trip, trip) then your gameplay is going to become more monotonous. By contrast, the Warblade introduces more versatility and options into every battle. This is notably distinct from versatility in build. Versatility in build refers to the ability of a Fighter to be built in many different ways, but versatility in play refers to have many options of actions available to you during play. Plot writing abilities SUCK. Just don't do it. This is a no-no. When I say "plot writing" abilities, I mean stuff like the HORRIBLE Thunder Guide class in the Explorer's Handbook where you get abilities like "Serial Hero: At 8th level, famed Korranberg Chronicle reporter Kole Naerrin writes a serialized account of your adventures appearing over the course of thirteen weeks. You earn 1000 gp per point of your charisma bonus for the rights to your story (minimum 1000gp)." Seriously, WTF? "A guy writes a book about you" isn't a class ability. A class ability is supposed to be some ability that your character has, not something that happens in the plot. MAD isn't a bad thing. Now, before you say "What? zomgwtf? MAD makes you weaker!" Well, yes, it does. However, SAD is actually a problem, while MAD is probably a good thing. Allowing a person to excel in different ways by excelling in different stats increases his customizability and versatility in build, which is a good thing. A world where everyone invests in and only cares about the same stat is *not* such a good thing. This goes back to the "make the class versatile in build" point. Allowing for decent multiclassing is a good thing, too. You know what's annoying about a lot of full spellcasters? They kinda just feel cheated when you multiclass 'em most of the time. This isn't fun... it impedes on the "make it versatile in build" principle. By contrast, we see a more elegant multiclassing mechanic in Tome of Battle classes, where your maneuvering abilities don't just become completely obsolete if you decide to take a few levels at level 7 or 8 (As opposed to getting magic missile at level 9 with a caster level of 1). Thankfully, they've got a few PrCs and a feat or two (like Practiced Spellcaster) to mitigate the multiclassing issue of some classes, but it would be better if they didn't have to. However, this is a fairly advanced concern, and people aren't going to mind *terribly* if it doesn't multiclass well, just because multiclassing generally sucks across most of the board in D&D.

Choose a paradigm for balance. This is to say, don't just shoot in the dark, then post on the boards saying "is this balanced?" Decide, from the beginning, what you consider to be your standard for balance. Many people will recommend the Rogue or Psychic Warrior as a "middle-of-the-road" point for balance. Frank uses the single-classed transmuter Wizard. It's ultimately up to you. But the point is... know what power level you're shooting for and go for that. Keep your conceptual goals in mind. You want to know where you're headed. You find a new niche to fill, or you think of a mechanically original way to handle something. From there, keep that goal in mind, and work towards realizing the concept of the class, and moreover keep in mind *how it will work in play.* Synergy matters. If you're making a paladin, don't just throw in a bunch of holy warrior-y abilities for 20 levels... think of the cohesive whole and how the whole thing works together to create an even class progression that fills a useful and fun role. Capstones are cool abilities, but don't really change the class's playstyle. Basically, a capstone should be something and cool and shiny that says "congrats, you just hit 20th level." However, it should *not* be something that significantly alters the style of play, such as, say, a Duskblade's Arcane Channelling, which is a "meat of the class" ability. You want to get those sort of abilities when you can use them for more than 1 level. Instead, a capstone is something like "you turn into an outsider type," which is cool and all, but doesn't really revolutionize the way the class is played. Mind the CR system. You want your base class to be balanced, so measure it up against encounters of the appropriate level (including monsters, other characters, encounter traps, and non-combat obstacles and encounters). Look up the CR system, and know what it's supposed to mean. If a character cannot contribute in a way appropriate to his or her level against encounters appropriate for their level, or if they can completely floor all of those encounters, you don't have something balanced on your hands. What you DO NOT want to do is just eyeball it and say "Hey, that looks balanced." Examine it. Scrutinize it. Make comparisons. Playtest it. Get other people to playtest it if possible, so that you can get away from your own biased opinion. Balance your options. That is to say, each build option should be good in its own way, with no clear "best" or "worst" choice. When you can feel the indecision, that's balance, right there. Pretty straightforward, but worth mentioning. You don't want "Cat's Grace vs. Bite of the Wererat." You want "Invisibility vs. Silence." Present your class clearly. The last thing is that you want your class write-up to look nice. This doesn't actually have so much to do with class design itself, but it's an important point when designing classes. You want some flavorful stuff to entice the reader to pay attention, like a quote from a character of the class or a picture. You want to have a clear table, clear ability entries, and something that's legible instead of all just kinda blending together in a great blob of text. You might even want to link up your spell list table to stuff in the SRD or something. Whatever. The most important part of this is making the rules clean and concise, to avoid misinterpretations and generally make

everything go down smooth. A badly explained ability entry has led to more than one long, heated, pointless argument on these boards. Don't make it happen to your class. That's all I got off the top of my head. May edit more in as it comes to me. Please have the courtesy to reply maturely, like it was a Regdar's thread. The last thing I want to see is frivolous tangents and opinion bumps corrupting an otherwise valuable resource.