PDA

View Full Version : classes: specific or general?



oxybe
2009-08-19, 12:39 PM
what are you guy's thoughts on how focused the classes of a system is?

some classes to be very specific archetypes, like the old D&D paladin who was made to embody the archetype and a few variations of the "knight in shining armor of pure saccharine goodness with a stick up his bum". these are generally pre-packaged with only a few variations between them, but tend to have the benefit of a "you get what's on the tin" with little surprises. leveling is pretty quick, marking just a few notes down.

more general classes like "Tough Hero" from D20 Modern that allows you to pick features from a pool or using a tree-type, where grabbing a few base features allow access to stronger ones? these tend to allow variations and mixing/matching of the "tough guy" archetype but require a bit of pre-planning on the player's part to get his character to match with his vision.

do you guys like the mixing & matching of these? to use D&D again, you have the paladin, which has a very particular archetype attached to it, while others like the wizard, who can easier mix and match his archetypes (if any in particular) through spell selection, can be Tim the Enchanter from Monty Python and blow everything up or a more Lovecraftian summoner dredging up portals to the far realms and pulling some eldrich abomination from it's slumber into our world, or anything in-between.

thoughts?

Tengu_temp
2009-08-19, 12:47 PM
General, without a doubt. And classless systems, where you can build precisely the character you want, are even better.

Mushroom Ninja
2009-08-19, 12:50 PM
I tend to favor general because I like being able to tailor the character to my every whim.

Optimystik
2009-08-19, 12:59 PM
Base classes are quite general by design. PrCs, multiclassing, feats and cohorts are used to fine-tune your character.

Even something as seemingly pigeonholed as a paladin is quite general, with PrCs such as Grey Guard, Hospitaler and Templar expanding upon the base concept in radically different directions.

Kylarra
2009-08-19, 01:00 PM
I like generic classes. Classless systems can be fun, but then a bit of optimizing goes a lot farther and can set up group power discrepancy very fast.

Granted, that can be avoided with a bit of help, but sometimes people don't all create their characters in the same room.

Dust
2009-08-19, 01:13 PM
It's a tough call.

Class-based systems tend to help prevent party roles overlapping, which can cause hard feelings among players. It's frustrating to play in a game where everything you can do, someone else does equally good...or better. But then you have 4th Ed, which takes this too far.

That being said, it's also hard to get excited about generic classes at times. I know that I don't find myself thrilled when I browse at classes named 'Tough Hero' or 'Smart Hero,'...a one-word description of a role is nice, sure, but I find myself flipping to the feats and skills for something that I find NEAT, then go back and choose a generic class that matches this.

My favorite system for character creation is ultimately Mutants and Masterminds, which is a build-whatever-you-want-with-few-restrictions setup. With so many options, all you need to do is talk to your fellow gamers for a minute, TOPS, to determine what they're plotting and build something else. A typical group makeup might be 'painter who makes things come to life,' 'guy in a power suit,' 'bird girl who makes everyone have flight' and 'teleporter.'

RagnaroksChosen
2009-08-19, 01:43 PM
I like class systems.. They tend to be the most fun for me.

My main disdain for the classless systems are the fact that its to easy to munchkin out your character. and the fact that as it has been said before but peoples "job" in a group tend to over lap.
Plus sometimes there are to many options... (heros any one)

Telonius
2009-08-19, 02:15 PM
Split the difference, for me. If you're going to have classes, make them distinct enough to be useful, but vague enough to allow some customization. Don't make a rule that requires all members of a class to act in an identical way (I'm looking at you, Paladin). Something like the Ranger, where you have a choice of enemies and skill styles, is the most interesting IMO. (The mechanical execution of TWF is another story altogether, but the concept was good).

Tengu_temp
2009-08-19, 02:21 PM
Classless systems can be fun, but then a bit of optimizing goes a lot farther and can set up group power discrepancy very fast.



My main disdain for the classless systems are the fact that its to easy to munchkin out your character.

Not to turn this into a balance debate, but:
Mutants and Masterminds. The quintessence of an open, classless and universal system, and much more balanced than DND 3.5.

oxybe
2009-08-19, 02:22 PM
hm... interesting.

i guess i'm in a weird boat, in that i want either all or nothing.

i like d20 modern and some of it's concepts but for "free for all" character building, i'd play GURPS. it may require a higher volume of classes, but i like the more focused ones.

Kylarra
2009-08-19, 02:24 PM
Not to turn this into a balance debate, but:
Mutants and Masterminds. The quintessence of an open, classless and universal system, and much more balanced than DND 3.5.

For fun,

White Wolf's Exalted/Scion vs WotC's 4e present a counterpoint to your point.


But yes, I do realize that in terms of "balance" there are "good" and "bad" systems on both sides of the spectrum.

Person_Man
2009-08-19, 03:33 PM
I tend to prefer archtype base classes (Fighter, Magic-User, Rogue, Priest) and specific prestige classes (Dwarvern Defender, Alienist, Assassin, Radiant Servant of Pelor). But with a game like 3.5 with 175 base classes and 782 prestige classes (not counting homebrew), there's no reason you can't have both.

Also, balance is not function of using a generic system or a class based system. It's a function of using balance as a design goal, the size of your system, and play testing. If you set out with the goal to make each player equal, write 1 page of rules, and play test the system thoroughly, you get a balanced game (that is often entirely dependent upon luck once you've mastered the basic strategy - think of Risk, Axis and Allies, or Candyland).

The design goal of 3.5 was basically to update the 2nd edition material to be more workable, and combine it with what they had learned from Magic the Gathering (create lots of different things so that everyone can find something fun and interesting to do, and reward rules mastery). The core rules are around 1,000 pages, with tens of thousands of pages of supplementary material. WotC published several books a month for 7 years, so play testing was probably limited to whatever the individual authors did on the side.

erikun
2009-08-19, 07:17 PM
I prefer more general. Getting very specific, such as "fighter who wields two weapons and fights with an animal companion and casts spells with a nature flavor" can end up unnaturally restrictive, either producing a class that is mostly ignored (if there are better options) or players who dislike the extraneous abilities and restrictions placed on them.

Of course, if the point is to portray a specific setting, then specific classes are a good way of presenting the setting. I've seen one setting where High Wizard are connected to their magical staff, so much that taking it away ruins their spellcasting. Clerics needed to follow strict guidelines set out by their church or risk falling, and Elementalists had to work around dealing with Nodes and the levels of Elemental Energy in the area. Such very specific classes would be unnecessarily restrictive in a general-fantasy sense, but really helped to distinguish the setting from D&D Clone Setting #34765.

Mushroom Ninja
2009-08-19, 07:36 PM
Base classes are quite general by design.

Not in every system. Pre-3rd edition D&D had quite specific archetypes filled by each class.

Katana_Geldar
2009-08-19, 08:44 PM
I really like specific, yet room for customisation. I GM a Star Wars Saga game and 3 out of five players at the table are scoundrels, yet they have built them very different (I actually insisted on it).

Maybe I come from the Diablo II school of classes.

alchemyprime
2009-08-19, 08:54 PM
Generic classes with paths. I am currently redoing all of the 3.5 classes for my updates to the system and I found I use a standard that Sztanzy did on the WotC boards.

Barbarians are all barbarians, but why need they rage? Rogues are all rogues, but why need they sneak attack? They may, but they need not follow such stereotypes.

That's the way I like it.

Dogmantra
2009-08-19, 09:03 PM
Either a load of narrow classes, so you can always find exactly what you want (as in there are different classes for sword and shield, two weapons and two handed) or very broad classes so that you can customise them to exactly what you want. I'd prefer the second, though.

Katana_Geldar
2009-08-19, 09:25 PM
Lots of classes I think can be a problem, given the amount of stuff the GM/DM has to keep in their head. How do you DMs do it?

HamHam
2009-08-19, 10:07 PM
Depends on the setting and system. Tightly defined classes work for DnD, but generic classes make more sense for something like LotR.

The New Bruceski
2009-08-19, 11:50 PM
I like specific with wiggle-room, but I really want a class to say what the guy does, not who he is. As an example against doing that, there's the incredibly-bound D&D paladin (pre-4e, where he's just a champion of his god and how he does that is left to the player, which is enough wiggle for me). On the other hand I can make a fighter that's anywhere from an upright noble shining armor guy, to a street fighter who's the first in any fight to stop "playing fair".

Wings of Peace
2009-08-20, 01:00 AM
General or classless for me feels more natural and allows the player to be truer to their character. To me 3.5 was so structured that it really wasn't about what class best represented your character it became about what amalgamation of feats, classes, and prestige classes could give my character the abilities I want them to have and let them have the sort of alignment I want to role play them with.

quick_comment
2009-08-20, 01:06 AM
General classes, specific feats.

Draz74
2009-08-20, 02:02 AM
My system uses the following classes:

Commoner
Warrior
Rogue
Mage
Spellsword (i.e. Gish)
Scout (i.e. skilled warrior)
Trickster (i.e. skilled caster)
Adept (i.e. Jack of All Trades)
Juggernaut (brute type)
Expert (i.e. NPCs who are too cool to be Commoners)

Your class determines:

One of your feats
Your HP (or whatever substitutes for HP once I find a damage system I like)
Your skill points (or whatever substitutes for them)
Your caster level progression
Your BAB progression


Everything else about your character is selectable independent of class, via feats and so forth.

Kurald Galain
2009-08-20, 02:53 AM
some classes to be very specific archetypes, like the old D&D paladin who was made to embody the archetype
Paradoxically, I do prefer classes to be archetypical, but I also prefer classless or skill-based systems. A hybrid between the two gets clunky really fast.



more general classes like "Tough Hero" from D20 Modern
For instance. I haven't played d20 modern much, but the concept of having six classes (one per ability score) feels really silly to me. If they wanted you to pick features from a pool or tree, they should have dumped the class legacy (of course, they couldn't do that because of marketing).

bosssmiley
2009-08-20, 06:00 AM
General classes, or GTFO! (I am a devoted child of the retro-stupid (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-got-your-threefold-model-right-here.html) era)

Broad classes mean you're not constrained by a tight, specific and sometimes irrelevant role, but the semi-casual player still has some idea of what heroic fantasy archetype he's fulfilling.

Cleric, Fighter, Thief, Wizard
Dwarf, Elf, Obbit, Octopus (http://poleandrope.blogspot.com/2009/07/he-wants-to-hold-your-hand-hand-hand.html)

Yep. That'll do for me. I can fill in the FX as we go along.

Systems without meaningful class roles, or with so many the boundaries are blurred into irrelevance, are the cancer that almost killed RPGs in the 90s (*cough* WoD *cough*). "I'm a unique and special snowflake who fits none of your bourgeois categories" is not a meaningful character role; it is a recipe for sprawl, incoherence and magic tea party antics. :smallannoyed:

Matthew
2009-08-20, 09:57 AM
I like general base classes, but narrow subclasses are fine.

Epinephrine
2009-08-20, 10:16 AM
Maybe I come from the Diablo II school of classes.

Lol... chuckadins, hunter druids, hammerdins, tankazons, daggermancers. There was some definite fun in taking the classes and playing them in odd ways.

Optimystik
2009-08-20, 10:27 AM
Not in every system. Pre-3rd edition D&D had quite specific archetypes filled by each class.

I would have thought you realized I was specifying 3.x with the whole "PrCs" and "feats" bit. :smalltongue:


Lol... chuckadins, hunter druids, hammerdins, tankazons, daggermancers. There was some definite fun in taking the classes and playing them in odd ways.

Bardarians
Rabidruids
Jabazons
Burizons
Kicksins
Golemancers
Smitedins
Chargedins
FoHadins...

Good times :smallbiggrin:

oxybe
2009-08-20, 10:47 AM
i was affectionately called a lagomancer for those curious about my D2 days

this term was usually given a necro with 20+ each skeleton and revives and a golem. it would kill anyone with dialup back in the day.

Kylarra
2009-08-20, 10:57 AM
i was affectionately called a lagomancer for those curious about my D2 days

this term was usually given a necro with 20+ each skeleton and revives and a golem. it would kill anyone with dialup back in the day.
BURNING RAGE! :smallfurious:



I played a sorceress, so my stuff was only marginally less laggy than a lagomancer. OH DAYS OF FIREWALL PRE CAST DELAY! :smallamused:

oxybe
2009-08-20, 12:17 PM
i was saddened to find my account hacked though... my necro had his gear stripped (all my +charms were gone, my sojs, ect...), my IK whirlybarb cleaned out & my magic find teleport-icesorc lost all her magic find AND combat gear.

and my mules were cleaned too. that's pretty much when i quit.

Master_Rahl22
2009-08-20, 02:39 PM
I like general classes with specific paths or ways to specialize within those classes. Come to think of it, yeah D2 was a freakin awesome game. :smallbiggrin:

The few times I've played oWoD, I enjoyed picking a general class (Mage: Celestial Choir or Virtual Adept; Vampire: Toreador or Malkavian) that gave a bit of structure and then being free to go where I wanted within that structure. I also really like 4E with the 2 (3 once the relevant Power books is out) build paths that help define your character, but don't restrict it. You can still take powers meant for a different path than the one you have, they just aren't as effective at times.

valadil
2009-08-20, 02:43 PM
Classless is better for representing a specific character. Classed is more interesting to powergame. I know they don't model reality very well, but I really like games with levels instead of a slow progression. Hitting a new landmark level is fun and exciting to me. Characters with levels also usually have classes. I can't even think of a classless game system with levels.

The Rose Dragon
2009-08-20, 02:45 PM
I can't even think of a classless game system with levels.

Mutants & Masterminds, the best thing to have come out of d20 System ever.