PDA

View Full Version : How many classes does a talent-based system need?



gnomas
2011-04-09, 01:53 PM
Question in the title. Most talent based systems have very few classes. Like, 5 or six. This compared to D&D's 11 classes just in core. But, few talent based systems are high fantasy, so that removes a good chunk of the classes right there. So, how many classes do you need in a talent based version of D&D?

dsmiles
2011-04-09, 01:56 PM
Question in the title. Most talent based systems have very few classes. Like, 5 or six. This compared to D&D's 11 classes just in core. But, few talent based systems are high fantasy, so that removes a good chunk of the classes right there. So, how many classes do you need in a talent based version of D&D?

Maybe 3?

A melee type, a stealth type and a caster type.

Yora
2011-04-09, 01:58 PM
3 is pretty much the established standard. The Generic Classes variant has them, as do True 20 and Dragon Age. The destinction between mages and priests only really exists in D&D and fantasy worlds derived from it.

However, Star Wars Saga has 5: Soldier, Scoundrel, and Jedi would be the three basic types, with Scouts fullfilling a role between Soldier and Scoundrel, and Nobles being mostly a different kind of the Scoundrel role.

The Rose Dragon
2011-04-09, 02:02 PM
None. Why do you need a class system in the first place?

gnomas
2011-04-09, 02:11 PM
None. Why do you need a class system in the first place?

I'm all for point based, skill based, free form role-playing, and anything else. Sometimes people want to play a class based system. That's why I was specific in saying this is for a class based system.

Nero24200
2011-04-09, 02:28 PM
I would say "enought to fill all the typical fantasy archtypes that you want". If you have a warrior, rogue and mage class that has a vareity of flexable talents then you don't really need any others. If a talent system is done well enough it might not even need the classes.

On the other hand, if it's hard to push a class to fill a niche it may just be worth having another class for it if you're starting from scratch.

So start with the archtypes you want and make as many classes as you need to cover them. Once you cover them you have enough.

gnomas
2011-04-09, 04:54 PM
My problem seems to be figuring out how large a character concept gets before it becomes its own archetype. For example: I love playing characters that fit the 'arcane trickster' mold. Bards, illusionists, spell-thieves, and beguilers would all be classes to look at. Do the talents that create these characters fall under expert/scoundrel or mage? Or should I make a base class devoted to this type of character? If I do that, what about all the other hybrid concepts? Which are big enough to warrant separate classes? Suddenly I'm back to having a lot of classes.

Kiero
2011-04-09, 05:08 PM
Fight, Face, Skill, Knowledge.

dsmiles
2011-04-09, 05:08 PM
My problem seems to be figuring out how large a character concept gets before it becomes its own archetype. For example: I love playing characters that fit the 'arcane trickster' mold. Bards, illusionists, spell-thieves, and beguilers would all be classes to look at. Do the talents that create these characters fall under expert/scoundrel or mage? Or should I make a base class devoted to this type of character? If I do that, what about all the other hybrid concepts? Which are big enough to warrant separate classes? Suddenly I'm back to having a lot of classes.Maybe they can be available to everyone, with a reduced cost for certain classes (I'm assuming that you have points, of some sort, with which to purchase talents).

gnomas
2011-04-09, 05:26 PM
I was thinking more of the talent trees of systems like d20 modern or star wars SAGA. Classes alternate between getting talents and bonus feats/some other ability.

dsmiles
2011-04-09, 05:34 PM
Ah. I was going towards Rolemaster/HARP, where even though you have a class, no skills/abilities are prohibited. When you level up, you get points to spend. Certain classes get to purchase their related skills/abilities at a reduced cost.

kamikasei
2011-04-09, 05:36 PM
I'm all for point based, skill based, free form role-playing, and anything else. Sometimes people want to play a class based system. That's why I was specific in saying this is for a class based system.
As far as I can see, you weren't, and you didn't.

You need as many classes as you want mutually exclusive groups of talents. And I agree with TRD that the minimum is one or, effectively, zero. Anything higher will depend on exactly how you want to structure the system, and there's no general answer. In a system like 3.5 D&D with many, many classes mixing together many different approaches and the ability to dip levels and acquire significant abilities via feats, having no classes at all is actually the simplest way to allow that kind of freedom if you're starting with a blank slate.

gnomas
2011-04-09, 06:16 PM
As far as I can see, you weren't, and you didn't.

You need as many classes as you want mutually exclusive groups of talents. And I agree with TRD that the minimum is one or, effectively, zero. Anything higher will depend on exactly how you want to structure the system, and there's no general answer. In a system like 3.5 D&D with many, many classes mixing together many different approaches and the ability to dip levels and acquire significant abilities via feats, having no classes at all is actually the simplest way to allow that kind of freedom if you're starting with a blank slate.

I thought it over a little after I made my post, and I do apologize Rose Dragon. I had a an idea in mind an the more I think about it the farther I get from my original idea, so I suppose I'm just getting defensive.

kamikasei, you've put into words what I was struggling to: Mutually exclusive groups of abilities. I guess what I'm really asking is for opinions. I want to keep the fantasy archetypes mold, of party members who have defined roles, but I still want to keep things general. Where's the balance point?

(if i've begun rambling, my apologies. the day is not going well)

J.Gellert
2011-04-09, 06:40 PM
You can go the D&D way, and you can get shared talent trees between classes. Bard gets stealth, charm magic, songs; Rogue gets stealth, trapsmith, melee; Paladin gets melee, defense, protective magic...

You could also go the dragon age route, with the big three distinct archetypes, as "generic classes".

Or do it the Diablo way, with distinct talents yet specific flavors on the classes...

Or even "classless", with the talents chosen defining the class you end up being (which is the reverse of the first option.

--
Short answer: However many you want/need.

--
Personal preference: Diablo has a good compromise. Not bland, generic classes, but still very clearly defined roles (and mutually exclusive).

I am a huge fan of classless overall, but that's not working for you - then don't use the "three generic classes" either, because to me, that just screams "OH COME ON, YOU ARE SO CLOSE TO CLASSLESS! DO IT!" :smalltongue:

--
Edit: Sample ideas.

Subversive melee (Swashbuckler-type)
Subversive magic (Batman mage, Ninja???)
Subversive ranged (Hunter-type)
Power melee (Barbarian?)
Power magic (Blaster)
Balanced (Knight)

Dienekes
2011-04-09, 07:43 PM
None. Why do you need a class system in the first place?

As one toying with making my own talent based system, because it's far easier to balance this way.

Personally I like 4:
Meat Shield
Backstabbing Coward
Pretty Boy
Book Worm

Some like to add a 5 with Wild Man but I don't think it's altogether necessary.

erikun
2011-04-09, 10:24 PM
I would say that "none" would be the simplest answer. You're looking at earning "skill points" to distribute into whatever abilities you wish - which is pretty much how a classless system works. You can even use levels in a classless system: Just look at Mutants and Masterminds.

For a slightly more helpful answer, as few distinct archtypes as you want to create. Three (fighter, skiller, mage) works just fine, as does five (fighter, stealth, face, black mage, white mage). It depends on if you want, say, a distinct difference between offensive and defensive magic, or between physical skills and social skills.


For example: I love playing characters that fit the 'arcane trickster' mold. Bards, illusionists, spell-thieves, and beguilers would all be classes to look at. Do the talents that create these characters fall under expert/scoundrel or mage?
Note that D&D has something like 30+ base classes, but you still can't create a spellcaster that gets better while enraged. You can't create a character that reflects attacks back upon the attacker. You can barely create a character that blocks attacks intended for another target. No matter how granular you make the individual classes, there will still be concepts that fit somewhere between the two.

What class is someone who uses magic to enhance their swordplay? A fighter with some magic? A mage with some weapon skill? A fighter/mage? (Why not allow multiclass?) Can't a mage ignore his magic skills to work on martial combat, or a fighter his martial skills for magical talent? Indeed, why not?!

PairO'Dice Lost
2011-04-09, 11:15 PM
Depends on how closely talents are to be tied to classes. In Star Wars Saga, for instance, you have your 5 base classes for, basically, the Force guy, the weapons guy, the social guy, the skills guy, and the movement guy. There are several concepts that are either hybrids or non-role specific and whose talents wouldn't fit perfectly into one base class, so if you want to make a bounty hunter character (for instance) you don't look for a soldier talent tree or a scout talent tree, you take levels in the PrC named, appropriately enough, Bounty Hunter. Thus, you can have a heavy-weapons bounty hunter who specializes in the "dead" portion of "dead or alive" (soldier/bounty hunter), a sneakier bounty hunter who infiltrates enemy strongholds to get his mark (scoundrel/bounty hunter), a bounty hunter who relies on the Force to find his prey (Jedi/bounty hunter), and so on. You also have Force talents, which can be taken regardless of class by any Force-sensitive character.

Thus, here you have two of the options for talents that don't fall into base class archetypes: talents that don't fall into any one archetype can be accessed by universal talent trees, and talents that fall into more specific archetypes that overlap multiple classes can be accessed through PrCs. So if you don't have something like PrCs or talent trees that can be accessed regardless of class, you need to either have very few, very generic classes or many, less broad classes, ensuring either that every possible talent fits into one of the classes ("magic talent" -> Mage class, "combat talent" -> Warrior class, "other talent" -> Expert class) or that there are enough classes to cover your bases.

And a nitpick of erikun's post:

Note that D&D has something like 30+ base classes, but you still can't create a spellcaster that gets better while enraged.
Rage Mage.

You can't create a character that reflects attacks back upon the attacker.
Occult Slayer, Binder with Dahlver-Nar bound, anyone with spell turning or the various "attack someone who attacked you" abilities.

You can barely create a character that blocks attacks intended for another target.
Crusader, Devoted Defender, Fighter with the appropriate feats.

What class is someone who uses magic to enhance their swordplay? A fighter with some magic? A mage with some weapon skill? A fighter/mage? (Why not allow multiclass?) Can't a mage ignore his magic skills to work on martial combat, or a fighter his martial skills for magical talent? Indeed, why not?!
Anywhere from ranger on the one hand to cleric on the other, with duskblade in the middle.

Erikun's rhetorical questions show the advantage of a system with bazillions of classes: chances are, some class somewhere has what you want. It also shows the disadvantages: Building certain characters can be unintuitive and hard to accomplish, some characters may not be possible to make at certain levels (or point values, for non-class-based systems), there are likely many ways to build a certain concept but only some of which are worthwhile, and so forth. Both have their advantages--on the one hand generic systems are more customizable, and on the other hand D&D-esque systems have (in theory) one simple class for every concept you could want--it just depends on which you prefer.

erikun
2011-04-09, 11:49 PM
Rage Mage.
But... you don't. The key ability is to use character level instead of class level, which would be the same thing as if they had stayed out of the prestige class. They get a DC increase, but they aren't doing any more damage while raging.

Although I guess it fits my qualifications of "getting better". Unless I am looking at the wrong class (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20031116a&page=7).


Occult Slayer, Binder with Dahlver-Nar bound, anyone with spell turning or the various "attack someone who attacked you" abilities.
I will admit to being a lot less familiar with any of these options, other than spell turning.


Crusader, Devoted Defender, Fighter with the appropriate feats.
I would have expected Knight or the Bodyguard PrC here. There are feats the Fighter can use, beyond Hold the Line?


Anywhere from ranger on the one hand to cleric on the other, with duskblade in the middle.
Ah, sorry. This was meant towards the proposed classes everyone is mentioning. Sure, we could use Fighter / Rogue / Bard / Magic-User, but where would this leave the armored, sword-swinging spellcaster?

And the point was that there are plenty of other "in-between" classes, regardless of how many other classes you can add. What about the character who is more roguish but still has a bit of magical talent? What about the magician who still has skills and finesse with a blade?

I suppose at this point we could just allow the Magic-User and Rogue access to the Bard's skill list, and the other way around, but wouldn't that basically be the same as allowing the Magic-User and Rogue access to each others' skill lists and doing away with the Bard class?

PairO'Dice Lost
2011-04-10, 12:03 AM
But... you don't. The key ability is to use character level instead of class level, which would be the same thing as if they had stayed out of the prestige class. They get a DC increase, but they aren't doing any more damage while raging.

Although I guess it fits my qualifications of "getting better". Unless I am looking at the wrong class (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20031116a&page=7).


I will admit to being a lot less familiar with any of these options, other than spell turning.


I would have expected Knight or the Bodyguard PrC here. There are feats the Fighter can use, beyond Hold the Line?


Ah, sorry. This was meant towards the proposed classes everyone is mentioning. Sure, we could use Fighter / Rogue / Bard / Magic-User, but where would this leave the armored, sword-swinging spellcaster?

And the point was that there are plenty of other "in-between" classes, regardless of how many other classes you can add. What about the character who is more roguish but still has a bit of magical talent? What about the magician who still has skills and finesse with a blade?

Yes, I realize what you were getting at. My point was that, as I mentioned, the advantage of having many classes is that some class somewhere is likely to have the ability that you want, but the disadvantage is that it might not be as easy to realize that concept; I was using the opportunity of your post to reinforce your point and show that there are multiple options for each of these concepts, but that those options tend to be PrCs (and thus higher-level), somewhat obscure, or less than effective.

Aux-Ash
2011-04-10, 04:39 AM
If you are intent on using classes, the answer is that you need as many classes/archetypes as you have different tasks that a group needs to be able to achieve regularly.

If the game is combat centric, and non-combat abilities are just added on the side, then you need as many classes as you have combat roles. If non-combat skills are the focus, and combat is just one of many ways to solve problems, then you will want classes that covers different non-combat challanges and a few for combat.

Each class should ideally do something no other class can do (or more precisely, do something good that none other can do as good). The more exclusive the abilities are, the more valuable hybrids become. If every class can pick any talent, then hybrids aren't really necessary (can be fun though). If classes have exclusive lists, then hybrids can be prudent.

If you have combat as the focus, then as mentioned you will want one class per combat role you have (at least). These roles should ideally be applicable in every combat encounter. If your system has say... the need for slow heavy infantry, light mobile infantry, ranged support and a controller then the amount of classes you should have is 4. Lacking one of these roles should be noticeable, but possible.

Non-combat classes should only exist if non-combat challanges are as important as combat (or just about). If you don't expect that groups will often be put in social challanges, then a class focused on social interaction should not exist. Add those social skills/talents to another class (or spread them equally between them all) instead. Same applies to stealth/acrobatic classes, if stealth and acrobatics are just situational having such a class is not really needed.

As a rule of thumb, no class should only be allowed to shine during rare circumstances but regularly. This also makes hybrids and toeing in on another's territory a bit tricky. They can't be as good at something as a focused class but not so much inferior that they aren't useful. One solution could be to only have hybrids (meaning at least to foci per class) or that single-focus classes have something a little extra.

If your game is primarily combat, but has a important but situational non-combat side. Then having each class have a combat and a non-combat focus might be a good idea. Both equally important and regular.

Once you have established what you need to fill for roles, then you set out naming them, establishing their mundane/mystical nature and social position. You don't begin with saying that you need a mage for instance, instead you figure out what you want for roles and then call the most appropriate one for mages.

Ravens_cry
2011-04-10, 05:08 AM
None. Why do you need a class system in the first place? Because making a charachter when you are a newbie in a classless system is really, really, hard. It feels like a quicksand box, so many options and no idea how to use them to create the kind of charachter you want. There is definitely something to be said about all those features, Mutants and Masterminds would not be worth playing if it was class based, GURPS just wouldn't be GURPS, but it's definitely a barrier to entry.

Yora
2011-04-10, 07:03 AM
Classes have a huge advantage in that they have a lot of choices already made for you. 3.5e Generic Classes, d20 modern, and Star Wars Saga for example solve the subjects of attack bonuses, defenses, hit points, number of skills, and so on. You have a solid framework which you can then customize with feats and talents.
In a true point based system, you are free to pick and combine almost any abilities, which makes it much harder to learn the system and much longer to create a character and it gets very hard to compare characters at all. While that's not neccessarily something a game must be like, it does have a lot of advantages in certain situations.

Samurai Jill
2011-04-10, 08:23 AM
Classes have a huge advantage in that they have a lot of choices already made for you.
If that were what class systems existed for, you could simply present them as 'sample characters' or 'starter templates' that the player could take or leave or tweak as they desired.

What defines a class system is that it imposes restrictions on how the character is allowed to develop after they've been 'created'. In which case, on must ask the question, why? Why does it do that? It certainly has nothing to do with simulating an imaginary world- there's no inherent reason why sorcerors should have a learning disability when it comes to swordplay.

And in answer to that, I would state that the purpose of the class system is to provide players with tactical/strategic niches that cannot be invaded by the other players, which is useful in the context of highly competitive play that values 'balance' more than 'realism'. (In which case, you don't want arbitrary multiclassing, because it defeats the original purpose of a class system- it allows players to invade eachother's niches.)

So here's the short version: You need one class per player. No more. No less.

Yora
2011-04-10, 09:56 AM
Yes, classes means restrictions, which also means less work. It depends on the campaign and the style of the group what ratio of freedom and accessability works best for you.

Urpriest
2011-04-10, 11:41 AM
The granularity of your class system should, ideally, depend on the granularity of your game system as a whole. How many distinct strategies are there for defeating encounters? A freeform system might have lots of different sorts of mages and warriors and whatnot, but if everything boils down to getting a bigger bonus on a 2d6 roll then you only need one class, the one that gives a bonus on a 2d6 roll.

Essentially, my advice is to base your classes on mechanical strategies, not the other way around. Look at what ways your system has to overcome challenges, and apportion the classes to those. That way each class can have its niches and feel mechanically distinct.

BayardSPSR
2011-04-10, 12:43 PM
'Best' way so far seems to be a system that is essentially classless, but with class ideas/potential templates/here's-something-you-could-try-if-you-want-to-save-time, like Samurai Jill said. As I see it, it has all the freedoms of a classless system (as it is a classless system), but with less of a learning curve. Saves the expense of having to purchase ridiculous volumes of additional material in order to have access to all your options, too, unlike a D&D-ish system with too many classes to count.*

Or classes could be setting/campaign specific... I like that idea. Always found it funny how all the settings for an entire system happen to have exactly the same archetypes...


*Just how many published classes ARE there? I mean officially published, not homebrew.

Samurai Jill
2011-04-11, 07:50 AM
'Best' way so far seems to be a system that is essentially classless, but with class ideas/potential templates/here's-something-you-could-try-if-you-want-to-save-time, like Samurai Jill said. As I see it, it has all the freedoms of a classless system (as it is a classless system), but with less of a learning curve. Saves the expense of having to purchase ridiculous volumes of additional material in order to have access to all your options, too, unlike a D&D-ish system with too many classes to count.*

Or classes could be setting/campaign specific... I like that idea. Always found it funny how all the settings for an entire system happen to have exactly the same archetypes...
It's not that class systems are inherently bad things- they're not. They can serve a very useful function when the game is basically all about cohesive, lockstep teamwork in overcoming a challenging tactical/strategic obstacle-course. (A focus on teamwork doesn't mean low-competition: you are judged based on how effectively you contribute.) And if players have a wide gap in real-world skill-level, it's very easy for one or two to fall behind unless you give them unique specialties, so that folks have incentive to co-operate and can't render other characters redundant.

By the same token, I would say that the foremost concern of designing a class system is making sure they fit the tactical/strategic needs of overcoming particular types of obstacle, rather than making sure they fit with the political/geographic/social structure of the setting. (By way of example, warlords in 4E have only a very vague correlation with particular fantasy archetypes, but their tactical/strategic role is spot-on.)

If setting-faithful verisimilitude is what you're aiming for, you'll probably be better off without classes. Just draw up an evocative skill list, possibly some race/profession-specific starter bonuses, and thrown in some sample builds for illustration if you like. (Hell, if you really want to go the distance, use a Lifepaths system and be done with it.)

*Just how many published classes ARE there? I mean officially published, not homebrew.
This. Gods. Yes. I mean, no offense to the hard-working homebrew folks, but if you genuinely want flexibility to define the character you want, the solution is abolishing classes entirely, not multiplying them ad infinitum.

stainboy
2011-04-11, 08:29 AM
For talent-based D&D, I think this is a workable list of metaclasses.

(Core)

Fighter. This one's pretty obvious. If you like ToB, this class gets maneuvers.
Rogue. Includes some class based access to magic. The skillmonkey role basically requires it, and most skill-based classes get magic anyway. How much you focus on the magic side depends on talents.
Mage. Besides the obvious, covers a pure caster cleric or archivist.
Champion. Fighter-mage hybrid. This is how you build clericzilla or a wildshape-based druid.


(Non-Core)

Monk. Basically swordsage. Full maneuver based class.
Invoker. Alternate-magic-system class based on all-day buffs rather than spells. After some mechanics changes, covers Warlock, DFA, Incarnate, Totemist, and Binder.
Psion. Pure manifester.
Psywar. Champion variant with psionics instead of magic.
Psyrogue. Rogue variant with psionics instead of magic.
Monster Classes. I got nothing. You're on your own on this one.


If you wanted to get rid of the three psionic classes you could fold them into magic. I assume your theoretical talent system would have spellcasters choose their spell list with talents anyway, so psionics could be a type of magic you could access with a Mage, Rogue, or Champion.

raitalin
2011-04-11, 10:41 AM
I used 4 (Fighter, Rogue, Magic-User, Cleric) for my DnD SAGA game (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194291). Each of them has 4 talent trees with ~8 talents each.

I plan to have prestige classes for Assassin, Bard, Monk, Druid, Ranger, Paladin and Sage (the Cleric/Mage hybrid).

Ravens_cry
2011-04-11, 10:51 AM
This. Gods. Yes. I mean, no offense to the hard-working homebrew folks, but if you genuinely want flexibility to define the character you want, the solution is abolishing classes entirely, not multiplying them ad infinitum.
Is it? Actually, I think D&D 3.X, while certainly a little kludgy, allows some of the best of both worlds. With multi-classing, feats, and equipment, you can have mechanically distinct characters from a huge variety of possibilities while at the same time it is fairly simple to make a charachter for yourself as a newbie. I made my own 3.5 charachter in about a day, complete with corny back story. I own both DC Adventures and Mutants and Masterminds 2nd Edition and I am still intimidated by all those numbers with no idea what in the Abyss to do with them all. Maybe I am alone in this but your idea of a solution seems to keep out people who want to play.

Roderick_BR
2011-04-11, 03:33 PM
Based on D&D? As was said, 3 is a good number. 4 if you want to differentiate arcane from divine casters.
You may want to add "gishes". For the 3 classes, you can add a warrior/caster (something like a paladin or duskblade), a warrior/expert (like a tougher rogue/spell-less rogue/non-sucky monk), and a expert/caster (bard, beguiler, etc).
If you go with the 4 classes, you need 6 more for the gishes (warrior/mage, warrior/expert, warrior/priest, expert/mage, expert/priest, mage/priest).
I was working on something like that for a mix of generic classes and E6.
The classes become more of a "base" to work upon than a final concept in itself.

Any concept, except for things like psyonics, ToB's maneuvers, or those weirder spell stuff, should be fairly easy to emulate with it.

BayardSPSR
2011-04-12, 06:53 AM
It's not that class systems are inherently bad things- they're not. They can serve a very useful function when the game is basically all about cohesive, lockstep teamwork in overcoming a challenging tactical/strategic obstacle-course. (A focus on teamwork doesn't mean low-competition: you are judged based on how effectively you contribute.) And if players have a wide gap in real-world skill-level, it's very easy for one or two to fall behind unless you give them unique specialties, so that folks have incentive to co-operate and can't render other characters redundant.

By the same token, I would say that the foremost concern of designing a class system is making sure they fit the tactical/strategic needs of overcoming particular types of obstacle, rather than making sure they fit with the political/geographic/social structure of the setting. (By way of example, warlords in 4E have only a very vague correlation with particular fantasy archetypes, but their tactical/strategic role is spot-on.)

If setting-faithful verisimilitude is what you're aiming for, you'll probably be better off without classes. Just draw up an evocative skill list, possibly some race/profession-specific starter bonuses, and thrown in some sample builds for illustration if you like. (Hell, if you really want to go the distance, use a Lifepaths system and be done with it.)

This. Gods. Yes. I mean, no offense to the hard-working homebrew folks, but if you genuinely want flexibility to define the character you want, the solution is abolishing classes entirely, not multiplying them ad infinitum.

Must say I agree with you - I personally lean towards the RP-before-tactics mindset in the metagame (though my characters do tend to be tactically-minded), which would explain why I put that first. Also, I have a bit of a bias against role-based class because they remind me of typical MMORPG gameplay, which I dislike for what I consider to be its illogical counterintuitive silliness (I find 'tanking' to be a fundamentally ridiculous concept). This extends to my dislike for D&D, which I find to be more of a small-scale wargame with experience and levels (two more things I dislike).

However, I do believe that a well-built classless system could still provide what you enumerate in your first paragraph, though it would certainly require a better understanding of the rules and options on the part of the players in order to either build characters that are complementary or utilize whatever characters they have built in a complementary fashion. I'd still agree with you and say that classes with defined roles make that easier.

As regards your last point about D&D homebrew, I'd say that's a major flaw of fundamentally class-based systems. As I see it, D&D homebrewers are trying to take a class-based system and turn it into a classless system simply by adding anything they want. However, as D&D is fundamentally class-based, this is a nigh-impossible exercise, and the net result is to create a vast volume of material devoted to doing things slightly differently. You can't turn a system that is based on the premise of classes into a classless one. You can't make a truly classless D&D (though I hope someone will prove me wrong). What you can do, though, is give a fundamentally classless system classes - and often quite easily, too. This is why I ultimately come down on the side of classlessness.

Oh, one last thing: may I sig the "This. Gods. Yes." part, quoting it to you?

gnomas
2011-04-12, 01:59 PM
Look at all the comments! I don't have time to reply to all of this directly, but I want to thank everyone for their perspectives. I've read through it all, talked with some of my players, and I think I have the answer (for my group, anyway). Basically, I think that the main reason to use a class system for a fantasy game, rather than something looser, is because the heroes in high fantasy are always archetypes. So...

The Warrior (everything from knight to barbarian)
The Expert (rogues, bards, etc. expert/spellcaster gets folded in to here)
The Spellcaster (all kinds of mystical heroes. at first level, choose to be an int, wis, or cha based caster)
The warrior/spellcaster (the ranger with healing powers, the paladin with the magic sword, shapeshifting druid, the battle-mage)
The expert/warrior (marital artists, fencers, scouts)

ericgrau
2011-04-12, 02:11 PM
What, no spellcaster/expert? Nothing like telekinesising a lock mechanism or sniping with a magical ray.

IMO there are 1 or 3 most likely. 1 as in another way to say none, or 3 for the 3 classic archetypes (thief, wizard, fighter or similar). My opinion is that thief should be open to all and that leaves only 2: wizard and fighter. Furthermore I think they should be able to fit into each-other's shoes by default: combat boosting spells and magic or etc. that can be used in place of weapons. Or in other words the 2 roles are warrior/spellcaster+expert and spellcaster/warrior+expert.

erikun
2011-04-12, 02:19 PM
The Warrior
The Expert (expert/spellcaster gets folded in to here)
The Spellcaster
The warrior/spellcaster
The expert/warrior
I find it odd that you specify the warrior/spellcaster and expert/warrior, but the expert/caster gets wrapped up into expert. :smalltongue:

Also, I'll assume that the party face is rolled into expert, that the unarmed monk is a type of warrior, and that healing spells are part of the spellcaster domain. It sounds like you have everything covered, then!

Doug Lampert
2011-04-12, 03:21 PM
My problem seems to be figuring out how large a character concept gets before it becomes its own archetype. For example: I love playing characters that fit the 'arcane trickster' mold. Bards, illusionists, spell-thieves, and beguilers would all be classes to look at. Do the talents that create these characters fall under expert/scoundrel or mage? Or should I make a base class devoted to this type of character? If I do that, what about all the other hybrid concepts? Which are big enough to warrant separate classes? Suddenly I'm back to having a lot of classes.

What do you get that's NOT from talents?

In D20 talent based games you still get HP, BAB, and BSB from the class progression. So your minimum number of classes is the number of distinct groups of those 5 things you want to have available. (In theory, with 5 HD sizes, 3 BAB progressions, and two choices each for three save progressions you could have up to 120 classes, but in practice you won't want nearly that many.)

I find that nitche protection can be done by abilities and by having the talent trees set up right. I've played plenty of classless games where everyone still had a distinct nitche that wasn't really subject to invasion, as long as specialization has advantages over trying to build a jack of all trades and every role is functional this will work out.

kyoryu
2011-04-12, 03:53 PM
What's interesting is that there's a pretty decent split in this conversation between people making "class" distinctions based on power source/fluff (mage, warrior, etc.) and people making those distinctions based on effect/role (damage, healing).

stainboy
2011-04-13, 10:25 PM
I find it odd that you specify the warrior/spellcaster and expert/warrior, but the expert/caster gets wrapped up into expert. :smalltongue:


I like that. You start with three pure classes, three hybrids:

Fighting
Skills
Magic
Fighting/Skills
Fighting/Magic
Skills/Magic

... but then you don't know what to do with Skills. It can't be good with a weapon because then what's the point of Fighting/Skills, and it can't fight any other way because it doesn't have magic. It would have a pure utility role, and if this game is anything like 3.5 it won't be as good at that as Skills/Magic. So pure Skills is a trap and you cut it.

ericgrau
2011-04-13, 10:28 PM
What about a 7th class, warrior/expert/spellcaster? Magical sneaky attacks.

Samurai Jill
2011-04-14, 06:54 AM
Must say I agree with you - I personally lean towards the RP-before-tactics mindset in the metagame (though my characters do tend to be tactically-minded), which would explain why I put that first. Also, I have a bit of a bias against role-based class because they remind me of typical MMORPG gameplay, which I dislike for what I consider to be its illogical counterintuitive silliness (I find 'tanking' to be a fundamentally ridiculous concept).
Yeah... 'tanking' in the sense of "stands there taking a beating until the opposition gets bored and goes home" doesn't correlate too well with anything reality-based. I mean, Hit Points by themselves aren't so bad, it's the powergaming aspect of indefinite returns on HP that really tends to strain suspension of disbelief.

But again, the problem with Wound-based mechanics is that they usually lead to a death spiral where you're increasingly likely to lose after one solid hit. So, if you want to get as much savour out of combat tactics as possible, there's a lot to be said for the death-by-a-thousand-cuts paradigm.

Similarly, the blood, sweat and tears needed to establish skills gradually thorugh practice makes a lot more sense in terms of verisimilitude, but XP allows short-term per-encounter tactics to be chosen independantly of long-term character-build strategy- thus presenting two arenas for canny optimisation, rather than just one.

And, when you've all that emphasis on wringing maximal benefit out of the system, levels can provide a handy yardstick for calibrating relative character proficiency... though Gods know that actual class-by-level balance was only achieved pretty recently in tabletop RPGs. *sigh*


However, I do believe that a well-built classless system could still provide what you enumerate in your first paragraph, though it would certainly require a better understanding of the rules and options on the part of the players in order to either build characters that are complementary or utilize whatever characters they have built in a complementary fashion. I'd still agree with you and say that classes with defined roles make that easier... ...What you can do, though, is give a fundamentally classless system classes - and often quite easily, too. This is why I ultimately come down on the side of classlessness.
I kinda see it as the difference between buying a couple of sets of lego bricks that allow you to 'build whatever you want', and just... buying a plastic fire engine or something. If you give the former to your average group of toddlers and expect them to just spontaneously 'build something together', one or two of the brighter/pushier kids will probably try to seize control, and/or they'll spend all day squabbling over the fancier pieces, and/or wind up finding that nothing they make really 'fits together' very well. (I say this as someone who loves lego bricks.)

As regards your last point about D&D homebrew, I'd say that's a major flaw of fundamentally class-based systems. As I see it, D&D homebrewers are trying to take a class-based system and turn it into a classless system simply by adding anything they want. However, as D&D is fundamentally class-based, this is a nigh-impossible exercise, and the net result is to create a vast volume of material devoted to doing things slightly differently. You can't turn a system that is based on the premise of classes into a classless one. You can't make a truly classless D&D (though I hope someone will prove me wrong).
Yeah... part of the reason for this is that, if you took out the classes, folks would complain it doesn't feel like D&D anymore.

The real tragedy, to my mind, is that it's perfectly possible for the range of viable class builds to be extremely broad, once you realise that they exist for the benefit of the players, not for the benefit of characters.

That is, you only need 1-class-per-player, not one for every possible form of fantasy character. The number of possible 'Fighter' builds could, potentially, cover everything from bards to paladins to barbarians to monks- as long as you encode some form of hard guarantee that "this is the dude who can take a beating", and that nobody does it better.

Oh, one last thing: may I sig the "This. Gods. Yes." part, quoting it to you?
Please do. *blush*

BayardSPSR
2011-04-14, 10:09 AM
Yeah... 'tanking' in the sense of "stands there taking a beating until the opposition gets bored and goes home" doesn't correlate too well with anything reality-based. I mean, Hit Points by themselves aren't so bad, it's the powergaming aspect of indefinite returns on HP that really tends to strain suspension of disbelief.

But again, the problem with Wound-based mechanics is that they usually lead to a death spiral where you're increasingly likely to lose after one solid hit. So, if you want to get as much savour out of combat tactics as possible, there's a lot to be said for the death-by-a-thousand-cuts paradigm.

True, though I do like wound-based mechanics for this reason. I read somewhere that the average duration of a real sword duel would usually be a minute or two, since the first person do start bleeding would be at a disadvantage, causing them to be wounded again, etc. That, and I enjoy the fact that it makes fights more dangerous, for the same reason - a few lucky hits early on can make all the difference. I must agree with you in that a very harsh wound-mechanic wouldn't be that fun; it's always more dramatic to have the injured hero come back for the win, right?


Similarly, the blood, sweat and tears needed to establish skills gradually thorugh practice makes a lot more sense in terms of verisimilitude, but XP allows short-term per-encounter tactics to be chosen independantly of long-term character-build strategy- thus presenting two arenas for canny optimisation, rather than just one.

And, when you've all that emphasis on wringing maximal benefit out of the system, levels can provide a handy yardstick for calibrating relative character proficiency... though Gods know that actual class-by-level balance was only achieved pretty recently in tabletop RPGs. *sigh*

I'm not sure I know what you mean in the first paragraph there.

In the second, I do. And I agree. I guess my main gripe with the typical use of XP is that it's handed out too objectively. By this I mean that a player knows what they're going to get XP for (traditionally, by killing goblins), and thus has an incentive to do that more than would be realistic for their character (several webcomics criticize this). I know in the first session of D&D I ever played (or: half the sessions of D&D I ever played), my group had this problem.

What happened was that our group was looking to rescue some captured gnomes from goblins in this inexplicably large (medium-sized) prison in the gnome village. We're confronted with two doors; my paladin checks the first and finds goblins, but no gnomes. He promptly shuts the door (my logic being that there's no need to kill them, the gnomes are probably in the other room, and time is of the essence since the town's on fire). As he shut the door, though, a comrade immediately said "awww, no, now we don't get the XP..."

That kinda put me off the concept.

In games I run now, there is an advancement system (using 'fame' points), but they're handed out arbitrarily by the person running it to remove the incentive aspect.


I kinda see it as the difference between buying a couple of sets of lego bricks that allow you to 'build whatever you want', and just... buying a plastic fire engine or something. If you give the former to your average group of toddlers and expect them to just spontaneously 'build something together', one or two of the brighter/pushier kids will probably try to seize control, and/or they'll spend all day squabbling over the fancier pieces, and/or wind up finding that nothing they make really 'fits together' very well. (I say this as someone who loves lego bricks.)

I love lego too! After all, why just get a fire engine when you can get a flying submarine fire engine crewed by headless zombies? (I'm weird)

Once again, though, I agree completely.


Yeah... part of the reason for this is that, if you took out the classes, folks would complain it doesn't feel like D&D anymore.

That's one of the reasons I like classlessness. I do not like D&D...


The real tragedy, to my mind, is that it's perfectly possible for the range of viable class builds to be extremely broad, once you realise that they exist for the benefit of the players, not for the benefit of characters.

That is, you only need 1-class-per-player, not one for every possible form of fantasy character. The number of possible 'Fighter' builds could, potentially, cover everything from bards to paladins to barbarians to monks- as long as you encode some form of hard guarantee that "this is the dude who can take a beating", and that nobody does it better.

Yes.


Please do. *blush*

Why thank you. *bow*

druid91
2011-04-14, 10:14 AM
None. Why do you need a class system in the first place?

Why do you need an alternate system?

You don't. we don't.

Some enjoy having defined classes.

BayardSPSR
2011-04-14, 10:18 AM
Why do you need an alternate system?

Ah, but for me, it is your system that is alternate.

druid91
2011-04-14, 11:52 AM
Ah, but for me, it is your system that is alternate.

True. But all systems are alternate.

Some use points, some gain experience... There are so many differences that someone might prefer.

Samurai Jill
2011-04-15, 05:49 PM
True, though I do like wound-based mechanics for this reason. I read somewhere that the average duration of a real sword duel would usually be a minute or two, since the first person do start bleeding would be at a disadvantage, causing them to be wounded again, etc. That, and I enjoy the fact that it makes fights more dangerous, for the same reason - a few lucky hits early on can make all the difference. I must agree with you in that a very harsh wound-mechanic wouldn't be that fun; it's always more dramatic to have the injured hero come back for the win, right?
Well... that's the thing. Some people argue that dangerous combat is inherently more dramatic because it means that the decision to fight in the first place entails more risk, and therefore does more to affirm the sincerity of the character's convictions, and assume that realism is neccesary to get danger. Others get more pleasure from the 'cinematic' idea of miraculous comebacks and rallying one's strength for a final blow, with 'dramatic' here meaning 'like it happens in the movies'.

I'm not sure I know what you mean in the first paragraph there.
Well, the thing is that- if you're using a system such as Runequest or CoC where individual skills advance separately through practice, so that no amount of swordplay will advance your ornamental-basket-weaving- then new skills have to be earned through direct use in specific scenes/encounters. Whereas, in D&D, you can go out, kill a bunch of Orcs, and invest skill ranks in things like Profession: Cook, or Use Magic Device, or even multiclass as a Sorceror. Now, broadly speaking, over time supply tends to match up with demand- players only invest in skills/spells/feats they have some intention of making use of, but from a simulation perspective it's still kinda putting the cart before the horse.

...In games I run now, there is an advancement system (using 'fame' points), but they're handed out arbitrarily by the person running it to remove the incentive aspect.
Yeah- there's a simple solution to combat-mongering that way, simply by handing out XP for completing quest-objectives rather than any particular activity en-route. It doesn't really alter the fundamental 'obstacle course' nature of most D&D play, but it's also easier to adapt to different play styles, so I'm glad that worked out for you.

stainboy
2011-04-15, 06:55 PM
Well, the thing is that- if you're using a system such as Runequest or CoC where individual skills advance separately through practice, so that no amount of swordplay will advance your ornamental-basket-weaving- then new skills have to be earned through direct use in specific scenes/encounters. Whereas, in D&D, you can go out, kill a bunch of Orcs, and invest skill ranks in things like Profession: Cook, or Use Magic Device, or even multiclass as a Sorceror. Now, broadly speaking, over time supply tends to match up with demand- players only invest in skills/spells/feats they have some intention of making use of, but from a simulation perspective it's still kinda putting the cart before the horse.


I don't know, no matter how careful you are as a designer, use->gain systems eventually reward making illogical IC choices just to improve the abilities you want. Even if you're only interested in verisimilitude it's not a strict win.

Roderick_BR
2011-04-15, 11:28 PM
I like that. You start with three pure classes, three hybrids:

Fighting
Skills
Magic
Fighting/Skills
Fighting/Magic
Skills/Magic

... but then you don't know what to do with Skills. It can't be good with a weapon because then what's the point of Fighting/Skills, and it can't fight any other way because it doesn't have magic. It would have a pure utility role, and if this game is anything like 3.5 it won't be as good at that as Skills/Magic. So pure Skills is a trap and you cut it.
That's true. I was putting some stuff on a spreadsheet once. Fight, Skill, and Fight/Skill are only different in how much fighting power (Armor/Weapon proficiency, base attack bonus, and Hit Points) they have from each other. In fact, they look like just variants of the same class.
I don't really see it as a bad thing, if you can get enough benefits with a pure Skill class, that it would be a viable option to a pure Fight class.
In normal D&D, rogues gains several abilities that fighters don't, using it as balance. If all abilities are available, you're likely to get the thougher guy and just cherry-picking the abilities.

One possible way would be to have talents/feats require some skills, so, for example, to have Sneak Attack, you'd need to put points in Move Silently and Hide in Shadows. The pure Fight guy would find problem assigning the skill points, but the pure Skill one would have points to spare, with the hybrid being able to specialize anyway he wants.

In the end, the base class is just the base chassis of your character. You are choosing how much of combat power and how much skills you want to have available. In this case, you could choose the pure Skill for a pure utilitary class, but if you want some fighting ability, you just go with Fight/Skill.

Another alternative would make special "powers" available depending to your base class. Magic, obviously get spellcasting. Fight could get maneuvers, similar to Tome of Battle. Skill would need some exclusive special ability. Then, the hybrids would get limited access to each kind of ability. Then again, I guess people will try to avoid this option, as it looks too much with 4E's abilities.

stainboy
2011-04-15, 11:55 PM
A fighter or barbarian is Fight.
A 3e rogue is Fight/Skills.
A 2e thief is Skills, and we all remember how that went.
A good 2e thief is actually a fighter/thief, so again, Fight/Skills.

So I call the rogue as we know it today Fight/Skills. The 3e expert or 2e thief would be Skills.


You could justify all three if Fight was the barbarian or warblade chassis, Skills was the rogue chassis (and still got to be good with weapons), and Fight/Skills was the ranger chassis. Fight/Skills trades a couple of skillpoints for full BAB or a couple hitpoints for more skills, depending on how you look at it.

Samurai Jill
2011-04-16, 07:20 AM
I don't know, no matter how careful you are as a designer, use->gain systems eventually reward making illogical IC choices just to improve the abilities you want.
I dunno. Can you give some examples of what you're talking about?

BayardSPSR
2011-04-17, 01:30 AM
Well... that's the thing. Some people argue that dangerous combat is inherently more dramatic because it means that the decision to fight in the first place entails more risk, and therefore does more to affirm the sincerity of the character's convictions, and assume that realism is necessary to get danger. Others get more pleasure from the 'cinematic' idea of miraculous comebacks and rallying one's strength for a final blow, with 'dramatic' here meaning 'like it happens in the movies'.

It's possible to do both, depending on the system; I think the one I use manages both. How it works is that every injury/'injury' makes the injure-ee more prone to further injury (specifically, by reducing the minimum roll needed to injure), but does not actually inhibit the injure-ee's capacity to injure the injurer.

That was unnecessarily complex. How it works is that the system uses the same stat to determine the probability of being injured and the number of injuries the target can take before defeat - to compare it to D&D, that particular mechanic works sort of as if the attack roll was against HP, rather than AC, or as if damage went straight to AC instead of HP. It wouldn't work so well in D&D, but it's not by any means a perfect comparison; the system's very different.

In the end, it often does work out dramatically - a character can be beaten to exactly one hit short of 'now-you're-bleeding-on-the-floor-for-'n'-turns-until-you-DIE' and still beat the bad guy - the drama being enhanced by the fact that it's not so much 'he hurt me, that's okay it doesn't really hurt me' or 'he hurt me crap now I'm completely ineffective' but 'he hurt me, now it's going to be easier for him to keep hurting me so I better take him down quick'.


Yeah- there's a simple solution to combat-mongering that way, simply by handing out XP for completing quest-objectives rather than any particular activity en-route. It doesn't really alter the fundamental 'obstacle course' nature of most D&D play, but it's also easier to adapt to different play styles, so I'm glad that worked out for you.

It has worked out for me, but not quite the way you interpreted it. They don't get the XP-analogue for completing quest objectives - they can get it for anything the Narrator (DM/GM equivalent) deems worthy. Most sessions, they get it just for survival (with good reason). It's arbitrary, so it can sometimes be hard to assign them a fair quantity, but since it's arbitrary it's easy to correct a mistake by giving them more or fewer in the next session.



I dunno. Can you give some examples of what you're talking about?

I think what stainboy means is that, no matter what method you have for improving a character's skills, the players are always going to have the incentive to metagame in order to improve those skills. Which isn't entirely unrealistic (for example, people exercise), but is still rightly dubious.



Also, in response to the main discussion, is there really a need to make a distinction for 'Skill' classes? I mean a conceptual need, not a need in the sense of 'D&D works this way therefore so must we'. Or alternately, is there a need to have classes that don't have access to practical skills?

Zaq
2011-04-17, 01:48 AM
Also, in response to the main discussion, is there really a need to make a distinction for 'Skill' classes? I mean a conceptual need, not a need in the sense of 'D&D works this way therefore so must we'. Or alternately, is there a need to have classes that don't have access to practical skills?

As I see it, it falls down to two distinctions:

1) What kinds of problems is this class/archetype/whatever best at solving?

2) What methods does this class/archetype/whatever use to solve those problems?

The first question is shaped by the setting first and the system second. The second question is shaped by the system first and the setting second. Nonetheless, system and setting affect both questions, which are what your fundamental archetype really does. In this case, I think, "Skills" has a good chance of meaning "problems that aren't directly solved by violence" and which, in some systems, has a good chance of meaning "sets the stage for the other teammates to do their respective things." The rogue who picks the lock that gets you into the vault. The snoop who digs up the blackmail dirt on Mr. Johnson and gets him to give you the tools you actually need for your latest run. That sort of thing.

Part of the problem, it seems, is that we keep trying to think of things in terms of specific systems (or, just as often, an amalgamation thereof) without actually admitting it.

I don't know if what I'm saying makes any sense. If it doesn't, feel free to ignore it.

Indon
2011-04-17, 10:47 AM
D20 modern has:
Strong hero
Quick hero
Tough hero
Smart hero
Clever hero
Uh... talky-good hero?

One for each stat anyway. It's all about how subdivided you want the character archetypes that classes offer. You could consolidate the first three options there into a generic "Fighter" that could be flavored any number of different ways, for instance.


... but then you don't know what to do with Skills. It can't be good with a weapon because then what's the point of Fighting/Skills, and it can't fight any other way because it doesn't have magic. It would have a pure utility role, and if this game is anything like 3.5 it won't be as good at that as Skills/Magic. So pure Skills is a trap and you cut it.

In some systems, a broad variety of skills are vital to do a lot of things, including fight competently in different environments. It can potentially be a trap in D&D, though, where that doesn't happen (edit: because skills aren't actually very useful).

Yora
2011-04-17, 11:59 AM
How useful skills are in D&D depends entirely on how the dm runs the game and sets up encounters.
You could easily make an encounter in a regular forest that makes it neccessary to make lots of Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Listen, Jump, Spot, and Swim checks. If you can obstacles with this skill and the enemy can not, you gain a huge advantage. If the enemy can but you don't you're pretty much screwed.
If you fight in an open field with firm and flat ground, those skills will make no difference at all.

Samurai Jill
2011-04-17, 12:04 PM
It's possible to do both, depending on the system; I think the one I use manages both. How it works is that every injury/'injury' makes the injure-ee more prone to further injury (specifically, by reducing the minimum roll needed to injure), but does not actually inhibit the injure-ee's capacity to injure the injurer.
Well, if you're happy with that approach well and good, but AFAICT you still have a 'death spiral' in terms of increased likelihood of damage, and it's shying away verisimilitude since attack probabilities aren't being affected. (When they logically should, due to distraction from pain/bleeding. FWIW, Burning Wheel and The Riddle of Steel work around the problem with their metagame reward mechanics- Artha and Spiritual Attributes, respectively.)

It has worked out for me, but not quite the way you interpreted it. They don't get the XP-analogue for completing quest objectives - they can get it for anything the Narrator (DM/GM equivalent) deems worthy. Most sessions, they get it just for survival (with good reason). It's arbitrary, so it can sometimes be hard to assign them a fair quantity, but since it's arbitrary it's easy to correct a mistake by giving them more or fewer in the next session.
I would incline to the view that it's best to give players a clear idea of what the GM 'deems worthy' in advance. I would also caution that what you reward players for may actually be at odd with the message sent by what you reward players with. "Role-Play XP", for example, sends notoriously mixed messages about what the players are supposed to be aiming for (i.e, maximising personal power vs. making sacrifices for beliefs.)

I think what stainboy means is that, no matter what method you have for improving a character's skills, the players are always going to have the incentive to metagame in order to improve those skills. Which isn't entirely unrealistic (for example, people exercise), but is still rightly dubious.

On reflection, I think this may be with reference to what sometimes happened in Runequest, where players would try to use every possible weapon during combat in order to earn maximal opportunities for advancement (since you only had to use a given skill once in a given session for a chance at advancement.) This is clearly illogical, since focusing on a single skill should, In Reality(tm) cause it to advance rather more rapidly than spreading yourself so thin.

This is further complicated by differences in time-scale for resolution. e.g, in Burning Wheel, you might make a dozen separate skill tests during a hectic combat scene that only lasted a minute or so of in-game time, whereas an upkeep check to earn a living as a blacksmith over a period of several months might only involve one dice roll. (BW works around this by only allowing one 'tick' per skill per scene and explicitly ruling against 'test-mongering' by insisting that every scene be 'about' something, but in honesty it's something of a hack.) Logically, skill tests that represent skill-application over longer periods of time should earn more 'XP' for their trouble.

Problem is, this raises the excellent question of how questing adventurers manage to pick up skills far more rapidly than day-to-day drilling would suggest. I guess the prospect of hanging concentrates the mind wonderfully?


Also, in response to the main discussion, is there really a need to make a distinction for 'Skill' classes? I mean a conceptual need, not a need in the sense of 'D&D works this way therefore so must we'. Or alternately, is there a need to have classes that don't have access to practical skills?
Yeah... what exactly do people mean by 'skill' in this context? Stealth is a skill, but so is 'hitting things' or 'using magic'. What's the specific tactical/strategic situation that this class needs to handle?

alchemyprime
2011-04-17, 12:29 PM
I'm seeing a lot of people sayin 5 or less, so let me toss this in:

However many you dark well please.

Me? I've run games with only 3 classes, I've run games with all the D&D classes. I've decided to make every class I like into a talent tree based class.

So far, I've gotten Barbarians (Wild Smashy Guy), Rogue (Stealthy Stabby Guy), Sorcerer and Fighter almost done, with Ranger closely following. But I do plan on updating every class to be customizable.

So yeah. Whatever works for you. But start with 5 basic roles: The Face, The Sword, The Shield, The Fire and the Healz.

Kalirren
2011-04-17, 01:01 PM
I'm joining in the opinion of SJ, Aux-Ash, and some other people whose names I can't see above the 20-post review threshold. Classes are for niche -protection-. They're not for niche -specialization-. D&D 3.x's idea of a "base class" is dumb, because it shoehorns relatively unspecialized PCs into defined roles. Players handle specialization all by themselves, you don't need to write classes to help them do that.

In a talent-based system, one class per player is about right, since a class basically represents a way of doing things, a natural narrative domain belonging to that PC's player. I say "about right" because you can get into big arguments about whether or not significant NPCs ought to be entitled to their own classes.


I want to keep the fantasy archetypes mold, of party members who have defined roles, but I still want to keep things general. Where's the balance point?

One class per archetype, then. Not one per manifestation of the archetype, as D&D PrCs are wont to go.

stainboy
2011-04-17, 06:05 PM
On reflection, I think this may be with reference to what sometimes happened in Runequest, where players would try to use every possible weapon during combat in order to earn maximal opportunities for advancement (since you only had to use a given skill once in a given session for a chance at advancement.)


Yeah, stuff like that. I was thinking about letting weak monsters beat on you in Final Fantasy II (J) to farm up your HP, or jumping everywhere in Morrowind to raise Acrobatics. Same idea though.




Also, in response to the main discussion, is there really a need to make a distinction for 'Skill' classes? I mean a conceptual need, not a need in the sense of 'D&D works this way therefore so must we'. Or alternately, is there a need to have classes that don't have access to practical skills?

A game called D&D needs to support the rogue archetype. Skills is just an easy shorthand for that. I don't think there's a mechanical need for fighters to be bad at all problems that cannot be solved with a pointy stick.

Kaervaslol
2011-04-17, 09:04 PM
I'm designing a game for my next campaing setting. And by designing I mean stealing from everywhere and blending all together.

Back on topic, one of the design choices I've made is that there is no multiclassing. Instead, you can opt for classes that are basicall hybrids of the big four.

Magic User

Fighter

Priest

Thief

Which basically boils down to:

MU/THIEF : Rogue (As Gray Mouser)
MU/FIGHTER: War Mage ( As Brian from KoDT)
MU/PRIEST: Witch Hunter/Inquisitor (Church approved magic only warhammeresque stuff)
FIGHTER/THIEF: Scout (Tracker/Explorer lightly armored )
FIGHTER/PRIEST: Crusader/War Priest (Church zealot)
THIEF/PRIEST: Ranger (Survivorman with druid powers)

I really really dislike multiclassing.

BayardSPSR
2011-04-18, 07:52 AM
In this case, I think, "Skills" has a good chance of meaning "problems that aren't directly solved by violence" and which, in some systems, has a good chance of meaning "sets the stage for the other teammates to do their respective things." The rogue who picks the lock that gets you into the vault. The snoop who digs up the blackmail dirt on Mr. Johnson and gets him to give you the tools you actually need for your latest run. That sort of thing.

I know what you mean, but I kind of feel like there shouldn't be a class for that; I mean that I think no player should be prevented from doing something clever like that if it occurs to them. As a GM, I'd hate to have players come up with a brilliant plan Ocean's 10+n style only to say 'naah, I'm the wrong class for that; I don't have the skills'. Why should a character with combat skills be obliged to solve all their problems violently?


Part of the problem, it seems, is that we keep trying to think of things in terms of specific systems (or, just as often, an amalgamation thereof) without actually admitting it.

I don't know if what I'm saying makes any sense. If it doesn't, feel free to ignore it.

It does, so I will not ignore it, sir! As often as not, though, it's actually admitted; there's a definite tendency in these forums to assume that a system being discussed is one with six stats that uses funny-sided dice derived from a certain popular series of games. Hell, just Ctrl+F 'D&D' and see how many times it shows up on the page. I'll probably mention it at least one more time in this post just to complain about it. Or even if it's not implied that we're playing the same game, we all do seem to like comparing things to specific systems we play or have played. Even I'm guilty of this, despite the fact that I have the enforced humility of knowing that I'm exactly the only person on this forum who has ever played my particular system (funny considering it's the only one I've played more than two sessions of, and one of two I've ever played at all if we count that nemesis I love to hate in all its incarnations).


Well, if you're happy with that approach well and good, but AFAICT you still have a 'death spiral' in terms of increased likelihood of damage, and it's shying away verisimilitude since attack probabilities aren't being affected. (When they logically should, due to distraction from pain/bleeding. FWIW, Burning Wheel and The Riddle of Steel work around the problem with their metagame reward mechanics- Artha and Spiritual Attributes, respectively.)

Yeah. That's the problem with trying to have the best of both worlds; you come up with neither. Just like how if you try to be British and American, you pretty much end up Canadian.


I would incline to the view that it's best to give players a clear idea of what the GM 'deems worthy' in advance. I would also caution that what you reward players for may actually be at odd with the message sent by what you reward players with. "Role-Play XP", for example, sends notoriously mixed messages about what the players are supposed to be aiming for (i.e, maximising personal power vs. making sacrifices for beliefs.)

In fewer words: Rule of Cool. That's what they get it for; so far, they've seemed to understand it well. Well, broadly speaking, they get a fairly reliable average no matter what (between high-yield and low-yield sessions); Rule of Cool just applies to what they get tacked on top.


So yeah. Whatever works for you. But start with 5 basic roles: The Face, The Sword, The Shield, The Fire and the Healz.

But doesn't the 'Paladin' concept cover four of those (arguably)? Face, Sword, Shield, and Healz. It's not a 'basic' role, I guess - I'm not quite sure how you'd define that - but it's a common enough concept; it's been mentioned here at least a few times.


I really really dislike multiclassing.

Me too. I figure, If you're not playing one class, why have classes? My concept will never perfectly match up with one anyway, probably even with multiclassing (imagine my disappointment in discovering that a holy-fury-type Paladin/Barbarian is technically illegal in RAW 3.5 D&D base classes). But this has been discussed.


I'm joining in the opinion of SJ, Aux-Ash, and some other people whose names I can't see above the 20-post review threshold. Classes are for niche -protection-. They're not for niche -specialization-. D&D 3.x's idea of a "base class" is dumb, because it shoehorns relatively unspecialized PCs into defined roles. Players handle specialization all by themselves, you don't need to write classes to help them do that.

In a talent-based system, one class per player is about right, since a class basically represents a way of doing things, a natural narrative domain belonging to that PC's player. I say "about right" because you can get into big arguments about whether or not significant NPCs ought to be entitled to their own classes.

With this, I could not agree more. Apologies to all for the long post.

Samurai Jill
2011-04-21, 06:48 AM
Yeah. That's the problem with trying to have the best of both worlds; you come up with neither. Just like how if you try to be British and American, you pretty much end up Canadian.
Oh, I'm not saying the tradeoff can't be worthwhile for a given group, just that there is a tradeoff involved- you can't get 100% of both at the same time.

...I rather liked Canada, FWIW.


Yeah, stuff like that. I was thinking about letting weak monsters beat on you in Final Fantasy II (J) to farm up your HP, or jumping everywhere in Morrowind to raise Acrobatics. Same idea though.
Yeah, but I think that's more a case of 'broken realism', again. (e.g, you can build muscles with 30 minutes workout 3 times a week, but no amount of lifting pencils will do the trick.)

BayardSPSR
2011-04-22, 02:01 AM
Oh, I'm not saying the tradeoff can't be worthwhile for a given group, just that there is a tradeoff involved- you can't get 100% of both at the same time.

...I rather liked Canada, FWIW.

Exactly. It's a matter of taste, not of value. Some people like Canada, others do not. I, personally, do.

Though I think the metaphor might have gone too far.

Samurai Jill
2011-04-22, 05:55 AM
With multi-classing, feats, and equipment, you can have mechanically distinct characters from a huge variety of possibilities while at the same time it is fairly simple to make a charachter for yourself as a newbie...
I still feel that this is a misunderstanding of what a class system really is. If you just wanted to give newbies some 'starter packages' for a new character that loosely correlated with the social structure of the world or particular literary archetypes, then all you'd need are some sample builds or race/profession templates.

That would affect how the character starts out, or just let the player make use of the "here's one we baked earlier" approach. But what makes a class system a class system is that it limits how the character is allowed to develop after character-creation.

Yes, you can subsequently work around that with multiclassing and feat-selection, but if you want that level of post-chargen flexibility, why should you have to work around the class restrictions in the first place? How are those restrictions benefiting you? Why are they even there?