The Many or the Few? [Design, Discussion Desired]

[Amechra]

In my opinion, class feature (and feat) design boils down to the following:

1. The Wizard Paradigm: You get a ton of different "class features", each of which are their own nice, discrete packets; the fact that you learned Fireball doesn't change how your Scorching Burst spell works, for example.

2. The "Melting Wax" Paradigm: You get a few decent choices out of the class, and then later "class features" modify how prior features work; for example, a Duskblade's Arcane Channeling, a Barbarian's Rage, and opening new Chakra for an Incarnum user.

3. The "Crazy Stupid" Paradigm: Where you get a few class features that don't really interact with one another in a constructive way. Why this is bad should be readily apparent.

I personally find the second route to be the better way to go; rather than giving you a completely new mechanic to work with, you just get to do what you were already doing better. Another example of the second paradigm would be the Eldritch Blast; its uses are expanded once you get into Eldritch Essences and Blast Shapes, which (especially with homebrew invocations taken into account) essentially turn it into a multitool.

Now, I don't deny that at least some of your class features have to be non-progressing; where can you really go from Improved Evasion without it getting ridiculous? However, I think that ultimately having a ton of options that don't interact with each other in any but the most cursory of ways is silly.

To give a more concrete example; let's say I was designing my own interpretation of the Barbarian class. After getting the concept squared away, I would sit down, and do one of the following:

1. Following the first paradigm, I'd probably write up about 50+ different "rage effects", give the Barbarian a pool of rages, and call it a day.

2. Following the second paradigm, I'd probably write up maybe 3 different base rages (let's say Rage, Whirling Frenzy, and Ferocity), and then I would have sets of class features that you could choose from (much like Eldritch Essences and Blast Shapes) that would build of the rages and each other (one set might make you build up to essentially getting the Feral template, for example, while there may be others that would deal with getting your rage under control and so on and so forth.)

I would like to hear your thoughts, if you are willing to share.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

1. The Wizard Paradigm: You get a ton of different "class features", each of which are their own nice, discrete packets; the fact that you learned Fireball doesn't change how your Scorching Burst spell works, for example.

2. The "Melting Wax" Paradigm: You get a few decent choices out of the class, and then later "class features" modify how prior features work; for example, a Duskblade's Arcane Channeling, a Barbarian's Rage, and opening new Chakra for an Incarnum user.

I would argue that the Wizard Paradigm is not, in fact, a ton of different class features. It definitely feels like it, but I'd put the Wizard in a separate category I'll call (to fit with your naming conventions) the "Systemic Paradigm." This contains Wizards, Binders, Psions, Warblades, Warlocks, Incarnum, and the like: any class that is built around its own unique mechanical system. Further, I think it's no coincidence that these classes are the most versatile, the most powerful and, often, the most interesting.

That's because having a unique system increases the appeal of a class (typically, that is: there are players who prefer simplicity), and increasing the number of potential options a character is capable of often increases a player's enjoyment.

Now, Systemic classes have variety in and of themselves, certainly. The Wizard does indeed have a slightly more disjointed feeling to his spells than, say, a Warblade does to his maneuvers. This is, however, a result of the specific design areas in question: magic is supposed to do everything, while things like Psionics or Maneuvers have a tighter theme. But most of these classes do have a single unified mechanic, even if that mechanic is a vague as "spellcasting."

It's a very strong design, as it allows a number of potential builds and options while retaining simplicity in the core: spellcasting is very easy to understand once you've learned the basics, and from there you simply select the spells you desire. It's graceful, even though the spells don't directly interact with each other. I'd rate it at as a better design than Incarnum, definitely: although you consider Incarnum to be in a "better" paradigm, its complexity is to its detriment, as is its interactions with a number of subsystems either pre-existing or designed specifically for Incarnum (Incarnum points, Chakra binds, item slots, and others). Of course, it would be more balanced (but not necessarily "better") to limit the Wizard in his selection somewhat, but the options for doing that are as varied as the options for reducing a Wizard's power: almost limitless.

Overall, I'd say that the "Wizard" paradigm doesn't really exist: you have the Systemic one I outlined above, the non-Systemic one where a class builds entirely on non-unique subsystems (most classes that don't have a defining and mechanically unique system driving them: the Fighter, the Barbarian [assuming no Rage power system], the Rogue, and so forth), and your strange classes that just get a glut of abilities seemingly at random (I'm looking at you, Monk).

Within the Systemic classes you have the incredibly simple classes, like the Wizard, which forgo complex interactions in favor of simplicity, and the more complex classes such as the Duskblade, which sees its mechanics evolve and get more complicated. Both are fine design, so long as the designer is aware of what his or her design decisions mean for the class.

[Yitzi]

The first paradigm makes it a lot easier to grant high levels of versatility, whereas the second is simpler to use when such is not required.

Therefore, I'd say that when you want a lot of versatility for your class, the first paradigm is a better way to go (but be careful that your versatility comes at a high enough cost that it isn't unbalancing); when you don't need a lot of versatility, the second paradigm is probably better.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Overall, I'd say that the "Wizard" paradigm doesn't really exist: you have the Systemic one I outlined above, the non-Systemic one where a class builds entirely on non-unique subsystems (most classes that don't have a defining and mechanically unique system driving them: the Fighter, the Barbarian [assuming no Rage power system], the Rogue, and so forth), and your strange classes that just get a glut of abilities seemingly at random (I'm looking at you, Monk).

Agreed.


1. The Wizard Paradigm: You get a ton of different "class features", each of which are their own nice, discrete packets; the fact that you learned Fireball doesn't change how your Scorching Burst spell works, for example.
[...]
Now, I don't deny that at least some of your class features have to be non-progressing; where can you really go from Improved Evasion without it getting ridiculous? However, I think that ultimately having a ton of options that don't interact with each other in any but the most cursory of ways is silly.

Systemic doesn't have to mean disjointed like the wizard and binder where you have a big list and pick whatever you want. If you look at the psion and cleric, disciplines and domains provide groupings somewhere between "everyone in the class gets X" and "select things at will." The former approach is good for shorthand, so you can say that you're a member of class X, subclass Y, and have people generally know what you're talking about (and make building your character easier, too), while the latter approach is good for flexibility, since adding more spells/vestiges/rage powers/etc. is easier and better than adding a whole new class; combining the two gives you some of the benefits of both.

Generally speaking, I find that this strategy of making classes with a strong main schtick, class features (selectable or not) that augment that schtick, and selectable extras strikes a good balance between versatility and thematic focus. To use your barbarian example, instead of 3 base rages + 50 selectable rage-augmenting powers, you could do something like the warlock, where you have a basic blast invocation, shape/essence invocations, and "other" invocations. Come up with three totems (say, Bear, Wolf, and Jaguar), give each totem one type of rage, 10 rage-augmenting powers, and 10 "other" powers; you make roughly the same amount of powers overall (50-60), but it's now a lot easier for new players to get an idea of how to make a barbarian and you're not limited to powers that only augment the rage.

[EdroGrimshell]

I'm actually in agreement with Amechra here. Djinn does have a point, but, he's wrong about one thing, "Systemic" classes, as you call them aren't always as versatile as you say. Binding and Meldshaping are versatile, in a sense, but aren't nearly as potent as things like spellcasting or powers, since each spell/power can be a separate class feature in and of itself that can be split up and shifted around as necessary. Pact Magic and Incarnum are similar, but come in packages and have smaller numbers that can be used, effectively making them less powerful.

I'd say the Wizard Paradigm stands, as does the Systemic Paradigm. Both have merit and make sense.

I still agree with Amechra that the Melting Wax Paradigm makes sense as a main balancing point.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

...he's wrong about one thing, "Systemic" classes, as you call them aren't always as versatile as you say. Binding and Meldshaping are versatile, in a sense, but aren't nearly as potent as things like spellcasting or powers, since each spell/power can be a separate class feature in and of itself that can be split up and shifted around as necessary. Pact Magic and Incarnum are similar, but come in packages and have smaller numbers that can be used, effectively making them less powerful.

Do you mean more powerful? You say versatile, and then suggest Binding and Meldshaping, both of which are very versatile (and at least decently potent). Obviously neither compares to spellcasting, as spellcasting is supposed to be the broadest category: as I said, magic does everything.

In short, I'm not sure what you disagree with me on. :smalltongue:

[EdroGrimshell]

In short, I'm not sure what you disagree with me on. :smalltongue:

I'm disagreeing with putting all system based classes into a single category when classes like the 6 Tier Ones would be included in it. The less potent (not powerful, potent) classes should be in one category while the others should be in their own category since there's such a major difference in them that they deserve a separate category all their own.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

I'm disagreeing with putting all system based classes into a single category when classes like the 6 Tier Ones would be included in it. The less potent (not powerful, potent) classes should be in one category while the others should be in their own category since there's such a major difference in them that they deserve a separate category all their own.

We're talking design categories though. Tier 6 classes with independent systems like the Truename are in the same class as the Wizard in terms of design intent: they just don't work, because that system is poorly conceived and poorly executed.

Looking at the Tier list, let's see what classes have their own subsystem. I'm not counting partial casting here, as that's basically cribbing half of another class's mechanics. Classes in red have their own subsystems (i.e. an important system that changes the way the class plays in a major way and takes up the bulk of the options, giving you options above and beyond merely those presented in the main rules), classes in black don't. Classes in blue could be argued either way. I'll also use just the classes from the Tier List post on Brilliantgameologists.

Tier 1: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer, Erudite

Tier 2: Sorcerer, Favored Soul, Psion, Binder (with access to online vestiges)

Tier 3: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psionic Warrior

Tier 4: Rogue, Barbarian, Warlock, Warmage, Scout, Ranger, Hexblade, Adept, Spellthief, Marshal, Fighter (Dungeoncrasher Variant)

Tier 5: Fighter, Monk, CA Ninja, Healer, Swashbuckler, Rokugan Ninja, Soulknife, Expert, OA Samurai, Paladin, Knight

Tier 6: CW Samurai, Aristocrat, Warrior, Commoner

Just Broken: Truenamer -- Note that the Truenamer is actually not listed in a Tier, because it's only real issue is that the mechanics simply don't work.

Hence why I'd split them the way I mentioned above: there's a pretty clear line between classes that have their own unique mechanics to stand on (provided those mechanics offer options -- Healer and Warmage don't get real options, as they get, respectively, almost entirely healing and almost entirely hit point damage). The lower tier classes get cool tricks (some monk abilities, ninja abilities, partial casting, sneak attacks, rages, and so forth), but they don't get a set of abilities that really makes the class have a unique function. All they get is improvements along a line of normal function: Sneak Attack, Rage, Flurry of Blows, and so forth.

So there really aren't Tier 6 classes with their own mechanical subsystems. Those lower tier classes get tricks, and that's about it. What specific examples would you suggest as to classes that don't fit within the system? I'm honestly interested, since the opening post did request discussion.