PDA

View Full Version : Elements of Excellent Class Design



Person_Man
2013-05-24, 02:44 PM
I've been playing D&D for around 23ish years. I've played every edition and many third party variants (Pathfinder, Iron Kingdoms, etc). D&D Next has given me some strong feelings of nostalgia, so I took some time to go back through all of my old books, re-read the classes, and think about the playing experiences that they helped create. Here are some things I've found to be the elements of excellent class design:


Strong Core Concept: A succinct and interesting description of the class that gives players a reason to play it and provides an in-game justification for it's class abilities. I know that it's hard for min-maxers (like myself) to believe, but the fluff is one of the main reasons why some people choose to play a class. The core concept should also be unique enough that it's interesting to people who read it and sufficiently different from other classes, but not so detailed that it can only be played in a specific campaign setting.

Signature Mechanic: Something that class does that defines it as a class and is really fun to use in the game. When someone asks you what a Rogue does, you can say Backstab or Sneak Attack, and for some people, that's one of the main reasons people choose to play a Rogue.

Capstone Ability: A really cool 20th level ability. It's the ultimate reward to a player for making it to that level, an incentive to not multi-class (or prestige class or kit or whatever), and it sets truly high level characters and NPCs apart from their lower level brethren.

No Dead Levels: It is beyond frustrating for some players when they gain nothing (apart from hit dice and other similar things that every class gains) when they gain a level. No one likes gaining a dead level, and many hate it.

Meaningful Class Abilities: This is highly related to the dead levels issue. All class abilities should do something meaningful. Giving a class a +1 bonus to Whatever or one additional use of an ability they should have been able to use at-will or repeatedly through some sort of refresh mechanic is a major cop out. It smacks of lazy and/or uncreative writing, and is a boring addition to a class.

Never Useless: Everyone should have a meaningful option to contribute something during combat, exploration, and interaction. This means having a variety of different meaningful class features. In addition, well designed classes should never completely "run out" of class abilities, or be basically forced to make mundane highly repetitive melee or ranged attacks. This was a HUGE problem with low level magic in earlier editions. But it's also a big problem for many martial classes who have a more limited set of class abilities.

Customization: Not everyone wants to play a class in the exact same way. Class customization can allow classes to do a wider variety of things, cuts down on the need for multiple slightly different classes that fill the same basic archetype and/or design space, and giving players choices allows them to become more invested in their character.

Is aware of the larger rules ecosystem: Given the entirety of the rules, would most reasonable players who like the core concept and signature mechanic of a class choose to play it and take an additional level of the class each time they gain a level? Are there other existing classes that already do something similar, but better? Are there "break points" in the class (usually caused by dead levels or lack of meaningful class abilities) where you basically lose nothing by multi-classing or entering a prestige class or kit instead of taking more levels of the base class? For example, gaining an additional spell (or power, or maneuver, or whatever) is useful and meaningful class ability because there are many different useful spells to choose from. But if the class exists in a system where prestige classes fully progress spells while also granting additional abilities, almost all players are going to enter a prestige class.

Verisimilitude: Does the fluff of the class convincingly explain how and why the crunch of occurs within the narrative construct of the fictional D&D world. If so, it's easier to roleplay and image yourself as character of this class within a believable story. If not, it can cause some players metagame dissonance.


So, did I miss anything, or do you think I'm wrong on anything?

And how do people think that individual D&D classes from various editions stack up to this rubric, especially D&D Next classes?

Jacob.Tyr
2013-05-24, 02:51 PM
I'm going to throw out one the things that stands out to me in making a class interesting:

Customization: Can this class be built in multiple ways, allowing a unique feel while still remaining meaningful/useful?

Craft (Cheese)
2013-05-24, 03:54 PM
Well, here's one more thing that I think is important, though vague: Playing the class should feel like you're the person it represents. E.g., a Wizard class should make you feel like a wizard, a Thief class should make you feel like a thief. If playing a Fighter feels like a wizard, or a Wizard feels like a fighter, something is wrong.

Dread Angel
2013-05-24, 05:17 PM
I find that classes that do similar things but differently appeal to me massively. For example, when I play a Rogue (pathfinder) I invariably use the Knife Master archetype, because I feel that rogues should have an incentive to use the rogue-classic daggers instead of a rapier which is far more effective in standard rules.

I recently discovered the Cryptic psionic class in PF, which I found very, VERY interesting.

And then I ran into the Elocator prestige class and immediately added in a psychic-warrior (archer path) with a couple levels of Elocator. Why? Because the idea of a really, really quick archer who can literally run up walls and stand upside down like a bat (or...VAMPIRE!!!) and rain arrows from above while looking highly stylish, and can basically ignore difficult terrain (I have a very very very cool chase scene planned with this NPC). Yeah, this could be achieved via Spider Climb and a feat or two, but....this is way, way cooler and fits the campaign.


As an aside, wizard who feels like a fighter? Hah! Recently, two of my PCs went off on a side mission (actually one rescued the other, but yeah). They ended up fighting a summoner and his eidolon. The eidolon was duking it out with the monk, while the wizard and the summoner were both madly buffing their respective meatshields...until they ran out of useful buffs. Which resulted in them throwing a couple smaller spells around, which were useless....and they ended up going at it hand to hand with daggers off to the side of the monk-versus-eidolon fight. While every now and again dodging back to refresh a buff or something.

Most epic battle ever. I reduced both the NPC caster and the PC wizard to trying to stick each other with knives.

Phelix-Mu
2013-05-24, 06:04 PM
Something that I think contributes to both "Signature Class Abilities" and "Meaningful Class Features" is proper scaling. Flat bonuses are silly (both when small and when large), and in some editions, the manner of scaling (when it existed), was extremely non-intuitive.

One of the reasons why magic is both cool and effective across several editions is that even weaker spells get better as a spellcaster rises in level. One of the reasons that the typical martial shtick is not quite as cool is that hoops must be jumped through in order for the martial mechanics to scale. Can greatsword damage be increased over time as level increases? Of course. Does it happen automatically, like that wizard's fireball scaling with CL? No, not in the slightest.

I'm not proposing that all weapon damage scale like spells, but that, if sword-swinging is your thing, that that thing inherently gets better as level increases. Not based on shiny sword. Not based on stance of x or y other class feature.

Anyway, scaling. Sometimes they got it right, but more often then not, it's poorly done (remove disease 1/week...get out your calendars, pallys!), irrelevant (slow fall, yay!), or altogether absent (Still Mind).

Corvus
2013-05-24, 07:28 PM
There is a lot of hit and miss with classes over the years and systems. Some worked well, some poorly - and a lot of it comes down to bad balance.

You just need to look at bards - 2nd ed bards were amazing. 3rd Ed not so much so.

Despite its problems, 4E did come up with some unique new classes that I feel worked well and fhit most of your talking points. Specifically the Warlord, Warden and Invoker. The concepts for each were good, and they were useful at what they did in a unique way.

AuraTwilight
2013-05-24, 07:39 PM
You just need to look at bards - 2nd ed bards were amazing. 3rd Ed not so much so.


That's HIGHLY debatable. 3rd Ed Bards are one of the best classes that isn't a full caster.

Person_Man
2013-05-28, 08:29 AM
I'm going to throw out one the things that stands out to me in making a class interesting:

Customization: Can this class be built in multiple ways, allowing a unique feel while still remaining meaningful/useful?

That is most definitely going in the (now updated) list.

Cheiromancer
2013-05-28, 09:38 AM
Ease of play should be an element of class design, too, even if it conflicts with some of the other goals. Not every class should involve a whole new sub-system, for instance. And while customization is nice, not every class should be a chameleon or a factotum. Sometimes people like classes that are easy to play, and whose elements are basically familiar.

I think some of the nicest pieces of class design consist of ACF's for an existing class. A first-level only feat could do much the same thing, or a tactical feat that opens up new possibilities in a stale class.

For example, a delightful house rule I saw in Unearthed Arcana was for elemental damage (fire, electricity, acid, sonic) to not be subject to spell resistance. This makes an evoker or direct-damage sorcerer more viable, and lets them deal with golems. If you don't want this house rule to apply to everyone, make it an ACF for spellcasters from a particular region or race, or who belong to a particular organization.

The evasive reflexes feat in ToB opens up new possibilities for a build that take optimizes AoO's. It counts as Combat Reflexes for the purpose of prerequisites. The same idea can be used to transform other aspects of play for a particular character, and lead to fresh new possibilities.

I guess what I am saying is that a tweak in a class, feat or ability can totally transform it, and is more elegant than having to write thousands of words describing new class features.

neonchameleon
2013-05-28, 10:33 AM
Feels Right: As Craft (Cheese) said.

The Best There Is At What It Does: No class should have their schtick overshadowed by another class wandering in to their territory.

And I'm going to argue against customisation - in rare circumstances. The exception I'm bringing up is the 4e Vampire; the least customisable class in the game. On the other hand it's a vampire straight from the Hammer House Of Horror. What more do you want? The Vampire mechanics don't make anything other than a vampire terribly well so there's not too much need for customisation (unless you want to play V:tM). But this really is an exception. I'm also going to argue that fighters and thieves in 1e had no customisation to speak of - but fighters at least were pretty popular.

Joe the Rat
2013-05-28, 11:05 AM
Customization - being able to play the class the way you want it to be, so it feels right, is good. But here's a couple of questions: Is it better to have a few, versatile classes, or several related classes with a common core or theme, but a different focus or approach? Is it better to multiclass, or build a new class that combines two (or more) classes?

Think about a lot of the wacky dip-dip-de-dip builds. A level of this, a level of that. You are not really any of your classes - the classes are just specific platters of powers and proficiencies that were picked up to create your build. The Build is the Character, not its classes.

I suppose that's more of a metagame perspective on class design - should we build classes that easily interlock, or should be build enough classes (or class options) that you don't need the modularity.


As an aside, wizard who feels like a fighter? Hah! Recently, two of my PCs went off on a side mission (actually one rescued the other, but yeah). They ended up fighting a summoner and his eidolon. The eidolon was duking it out with the monk, while the wizard and the summoner were both madly buffing their respective meatshields...until they ran out of useful buffs. Which resulted in them throwing a couple smaller spells around, which were useless....and they ended up going at it hand to hand with daggers off to the side of the monk-versus-eidolon fight. While every now and again dodging back to refresh a buff or something.

Most epic battle ever. I reduced both the NPC caster and the PC wizard to trying to stick each other with knives.

It's not a proper wizard duel unless it ends in a fistfight. :smallbiggrin: