PDA

View Full Version : So what character classes SHOULD be?



Jormengand
2015-04-22, 04:55 PM
I'm not saying they're overpowered or something like that, I question the morality of these threads.

Wait, no, let's stop ourselves. The point is, what character classes WOULD you want in your standard medieval fantasy? What would you want your core classes to be? What about your low-degree (e.g. completes) splatbook classes? What about your higher-degree (e.g. Tome of X) splatbook classes?

mephnick
2015-04-22, 05:03 PM
I'm not saying they're overpowered or something like that, I question the morality of these threads.

Wait, no, let's stop ourselves. The point is, what character classes WOULD you want in your standard medieval fantasy? What would you want your core classes to be? What about your low-degree (e.g. completes) splatbook classes? What about your higher-degree (e.g. Tome of X) splatbook classes?

Fighter, Mage, Archer. The classics! Nothing else!

CantigThimble
2015-04-22, 05:08 PM
I would want Rogue, Fighter, Priest and Wizard. Really, I can define any class in terms of these 4, so any other class would exist as a way to simplify multi-classing.

Eloel
2015-04-22, 05:11 PM
One per system.

Weapon-user, magic-user, skill-user.

kyoryu
2015-04-22, 05:16 PM
Commoner. What else could you need?

Morty
2015-04-22, 05:17 PM
My general rule is - if the only way in which your class-based system differs from a class-less one is restrictions, there's probably no point in there being classes. As such, I consider the warrior/mage/rogue trinity useless. They're so generic that you might as well chuck them entirely through the window. They don't give your character an identity, which to me is the main draw of using classes at all.

So instead, I'd rather have... I don't know, twelve or so classes that, while less broad and amorphous than Warriors and Thieves, still cover a reasonably wide variety of archetypes. Think Warblade and Knight instead of Fighter, Thief and Factotum instead of Rogue, and so on. Each class would be built less around "what you can do" and more "what's your speciality that sets you apart from others who use the same tools".

Lord Raziere
2015-04-22, 05:41 PM
Melee Combatant (more than just a fighter, applies to any possible close combat thing- monsters, golems, anything you can think of that goes into the melee)
Ranged Combatant (Anything from Archers to Wizards, to blasting elementals, anything that could possibly damage things from range)
Leader (Any possible thing that primarily uses social and support skills to get things things done, not just combat, but social games in general as well as influencing societies, again this does not represent just things that are mortals but any possible creature or thing that can fulfill the archetype)
Subterfuge Specialist (Any possible thing that primarily uses stealth, trickery and other such skills to get things done from your normal thief to some illusionist, mystical shadow or trickster spirit)
Knowledge Specialist (Any possible thing that primarily uses knowledge planning and investigative abilities to get things done, from detectives to scholars to a scrying wizard, things like that)

Things like that. Why? because this would better give the concepts you want to play regardless of fluff. if you want to CoDzilla you have to use Melee Combatant just as you would for a fighter or a barbarian or a giant or whatever else. the classics are too tied in to certain kinds of fluff that limit the full capabilities of what a class system could be capable of. a Subterfuge Specialist is not a Rogue, because a Rogue is just one subset of what a Subterfuge Specialist can be.

of course, to make sure that you can do more than just one thing, you can pick your secondary class after wards that is kind of like a thing that your also good at, but not entirely, and these both combined make up the full range of what you can do, kind of like a class and a half. the variation comes from combining two classes in primary and secondary ways- Melee Primary and Leader Secondary is different from Leader Primary and Melee Secondary.

in short, divorce the classes from fluff entirely, make them choose one and a half of another at character creation to accomplish what you want to emulate, add whatever fluff you want onto it and your done.

Hiro Protagonest
2015-04-22, 05:46 PM
Truenamer.

TheCountAlucard
2015-04-22, 05:47 PM
Classless system all the way. :smallcool:

BayardSPSR
2015-04-22, 06:13 PM
Classless system all the way. :smallcool:

If we're using classes as a supplement to a classless system in order to smooth the road for new players, you'd want one class for every kind of thing that it's possible to reasonably focus on. Think of Shadowrun: there's a class concept (even if not a set of mechanical limits) for each of the broad approaches a player can build mechanically. Melee-class, ranged-class (unless there aren't large mechanical gaps between those, in which case you'd have one combat-class), magic-class (unless you have multiple mechanically distinct kinds of magic, in which case you;d want a class for each), hacking-class, stealth-class, social-class... You don't need a "rigorously-ethical two-weapon combatant" or "nature-themed Mac-hacking class," just one per mechanical interaction system.

If the system is specifically built around classes, then each class should be mechanically distinct to the point that hybridization would be difficult. Ideally, all of each class' mechanical abilities would be unique, and most would interact with each other in a way that made them inseparable from the class. Think of the Apocalypse World/Dungeon World approach, where each class has a set of unique actions on top of a handful of generic actions that any character may make, plus abilities that are based on those unique actions. It's limiting, but it does allow for adding custom classes - and I don't see the point of using a class system if you're not looking for limitations on your character build/concept.

My personal tendency is towards a classless system all the way too, but those are the two frameworks in which I can see classes or "classes" Working Well.

Nightcanon
2015-04-22, 06:14 PM
I'm quite heavily influenced by 2nd Ed AD&D, so I tend towards:
Warrior-types: primarily live by the sword /other weapons. A degree of modularity required to allow the main archetypes- knight in armour, ranger, beserker and so on. Ranger/ Paladin divine casting replaced by thematic abilities, with similar things on offer to other Warrior-types.
Rogues: live off their wits and skill. Thieves and Bards
Divine Casters: limited by portfolio and religious ethics, such that if you are turning into a giant and smiting, you don't also get to raise the dead, and vice versa, and druids don't get to use woodland animals as meatshields without having to answer questions from Mother Nature. Can't do everything and make other classes redundant.
Arcane casters: find it harder to learn every spell and have to specialise somewhat, don't get to make other classes redundant.

Grim Portent
2015-04-22, 06:14 PM
Classless system all the way. :smallcool:

Indeed. Classes are far too cumbersome and restrictive as a method to create a character.

JBPuffin
2015-04-22, 06:35 PM
Melee Combatant (more than just a fighter, applies to any possible close combat thing- monsters, golems, anything you can think of that goes into the melee)
Ranged Combatant (Anything from Archers to Wizards, to blasting elementals, anything that could possibly damage things from range)
Leader (Any possible thing that primarily uses social and support skills to get things things done, not just combat, but social games in general as well as influencing societies, again this does not represent just things that are mortals but any possible creature or thing that can fulfill the archetype)
Subterfuge Specialist (Any possible thing that primarily uses stealth, trickery and other such skills to get things done from your normal thief to some illusionist, mystical shadow or trickster spirit)
Knowledge Specialist (Any possible thing that primarily uses knowledge planning and investigative abilities to get things done, from detectives to scholars to a scrying wizard, things like that)

Things like that. Why? because this would better give the concepts you want to play regardless of fluff. if you want to CoDzilla you have to use Melee Combatant just as you would for a fighter or a barbarian or a giant or whatever else. the classics are too tied in to certain kinds of fluff that limit the full capabilities of what a class system could be capable of. a Subterfuge Specialist is not a Rogue, because a Rogue is just one subset of what a Subterfuge Specialist can be.

of course, to make sure that you can do more than just one thing, you can pick your secondary class after wards that is kind of like a thing that your also good at, but not entirely, and these both combined make up the full range of what you can do, kind of like a class and a half. the variation comes from combining two classes in primary and secondary ways- Melee Primary and Leader Secondary is different from Leader Primary and Melee Secondary.

in short, divorce the classes from fluff entirely, make them choose one and a half of another at character creation to accomplish what you want to emulate, add whatever fluff you want onto it and your done.

THIS. THIIIIS. My word, what I wouldn't do to have this be an d20 game. The only change I would make is to make it like Homestuck's setup - Classpect is a rather cool way of doing things.

Frankly, I see "classes" as mechanics packages anyway, and quite often will ignore the fluff in favor of what's necessary (why I use Eclipse: the Codex Persona, no fluff to deal with). I do often use the fluff to inspire a build, of course, but all that's necessary for that are examples.

Lord Raziere
2015-04-22, 06:49 PM
Yeah, but a tendency I noticed in skill based or power point building systems, is that while its more flexible, it also raises what I call the Character Creation Barrier very high if you go overboard with them. Sure, Shadowrun, Eclipse Phase, Anima Beyond Fantasy and others all give you flexibility of concept, but they also go overboard in front-loading everything at Character creation by making it so that you have to allocate so many points everywhere properly and such. one of the reasons why Dungeons and Dragons has worked for so long is that it actually has a low Character Creation Barrier: sure, its a clunky cumbersome system and such, I'm not arguing that, but on the surface to the average player the choices are much simpler: just choose your class and race and your pretty much got most of your concept right there.

if you must do a classless system, you MUST make sure that your not going super-point crazy with it at character creation, because once you have like 600-1000 points to allocate around, it can get very complicated to someone who isn't specialized in math: suddenly you have lots of options. problem is, those options are not as simple as class and race, because you often have to decided how many points to put in, and in what skills to put them in! and if your not careful about where to put them, you could end up with an unworkable concept. a skill point system is infinitely more complex than a class-based one, because you have to build everything you want from the ground up, which is good if you know how to build it right, bad if you don't. this and the fact that some people could get overwhelmed by all the options and all the crunch for those options, can give the game a high Character Creation Barrier to entry even if the rest of the game is relatively simple by comparison. heck, I love Eclipse Phase but I know that I'd rather use the package system to make my characters from the Transhuman book rather than the usual 1000 point nightmare its default system has, and I like the Shadowrun world, I'd HATE to play SR's actual system, same goes for Anima Beyond Fantasy: I don't want to play that game because of the system, I want to play it in spite of it. and those are the ones I like.

if your going classless....make sure you do it right and that its at least something more like Mutants and Masterminds, than something like Gurps. I can't stress this enough.

Cluedrew
2015-04-22, 06:55 PM
Ranged Combatant (Anything from Archers to Wizards, to blasting elementals, anything that could possibly damage things from range)
The others too but this point in general I like because it helps cut down the "magic over mandarin" problem than many games (especially 3.X) have.

However, for the way D&D uses classes I would actually say most or all of them. Even if some of the classes aren't as good as the others, having more options is almost always better. The exception is when there are classes unconditionally more powerful (which does not mean better) than others. When things start braking into tiers there are problems.

Other than that though I say pass all of them. Even if they are bad it is nothing but a choice you can not pick.

Knaight
2015-04-22, 06:57 PM
This seems like an area to go classless. The entire point of classes is defined archetypes, and that works much better when you've got a more tightly defined setting with actual established walks of life that would sensibly grant powers. So if there's actually an established setting particular magical system? Bring on the mage classes. Are there actual setting established warriors paths (e.g. styles taught by temples in wuxia)? Bring on those classes. Something like Fighter? I think not.

Chaotic Neutral
2015-04-22, 07:01 PM
Artisan, Bartender, Blacksmith, Butcher, Carver, Charlatan, Cooper, Fisher, Fletcher, Laborer, and Merchant. I can fill any character backstory with these roles.

Morty
2015-04-22, 07:01 PM
If we're using classes as a supplement to a classless system in order to smooth the road for new players, you'd want one class for every kind of thing that it's possible to reasonably focus on. Think of Shadowrun: there's a class concept (even if not a set of mechanical limits) for each of the broad approaches a player can build mechanically. Melee-class, ranged-class (unless there aren't large mechanical gaps between those, in which case you'd have one combat-class), magic-class (unless you have multiple mechanically distinct kinds of magic, in which case you;d want a class for each), hacking-class, stealth-class, social-class... You don't need a "rigorously-ethical two-weapon combatant" or "nature-themed Mac-hacking class," just one per mechanical interaction system.

If the system is specifically built around classes, then each class should be mechanically distinct to the point that hybridization would be difficult. Ideally, all of each class' mechanical abilities would be unique, and most would interact with each other in a way that made them inseparable from the class. Think of the Apocalypse World/Dungeon World approach, where each class has a set of unique actions on top of a handful of generic actions that any character may make, plus abilities that are based on those unique actions. It's limiting, but it does allow for adding custom classes - and I don't see the point of using a class system if you're not looking for limitations on your character build/concept.

My personal tendency is towards a classless system all the way too, but those are the two frameworks in which I can see classes or "classes" Working Well.

Personally, I find myself leaning more towards... something like White Wolf/Onyx Path's "sub-splats" - vampire clans, Exalted castes/aspects and such - except heavier. As in, they inform what you find easier to use and learn, and give you one big thing that sets you apart and defines you.

Really, I think levels contribute to D&D's suffocating restrictiveness as much as classes do, or more. Because you need to be level X to do it, no ifs and no buts.

Tvtyrant
2015-04-22, 07:06 PM
Probably melee damage+CC single target, ranged single target damage +CC, area CC no damage, area damage no CC, single target damage + 1 ally buff, 1 buff +1 CC, area buffs. CC=crowd control.

Lord Raziere
2015-04-22, 07:20 PM
Personally, I find myself leaning more towards... something like White Wolf/Onyx Path's "sub-splats" - vampire clans, Exalted castes/aspects and such - except heavier. As in, they inform what you find easier to use and learn, and give you one big thing that sets you apart and defines you.


Yeah, but they have problems of their own: Solar Smart guys need to be different from Sidereal smart guys, which need to be different from Infernal smart guys, all of which need to be different from sneaky guys of any splat and so on and so forth until you tie yourself into knots trying to make sure none of them overlap, because eventually? they will overlap. the very nature of that sort of design is exception-based which can complicate things pretty quickly. and once you make an exception for one thing, you can't make that exception anywhere else! you can make a Solar super-inventor....but you can't make a Sidereal one. which can actually cut down on more character concepts than it allows through.

Cluedrew
2015-04-22, 07:41 PM
Umm... Is the idea of the class system self on- or off-topic for this thread. To me it sounds like something that would be its own thread. The thing is I'm completely biased because I've been planning to make such a thread for weeks, have part of the opening post writing and would still like to. But if that is to much in line with this thread then I won't.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-22, 09:13 PM
Yeah, but a tendency I noticed in skill based or power point building systems, is that while its more flexible, it also raises what I call the Character Creation Barrier very high if you go overboard with them. Sure, Shadowrun, Eclipse Phase, Anima Beyond Fantasy and others all give you flexibility of concept, but they also go overboard in front-loading everything at Character creation by making it so that you have to allocate so many points everywhere properly and such. one of the reasons why Dungeons and Dragons has worked for so long is that it actually has a low Character Creation Barrier: sure, its a clunky cumbersome system and such, I'm not arguing that, but on the surface to the average player the choices are much simpler: just choose your class and race and your pretty much got most of your concept right there.

Doesn't D&D also get point-buy-itis too as soon as you hit skill points and money? With added complexity due to the fact that your skill points are a number derived from two other numbers, and money is random AND different depending on which class you pick? That seems like the worst of both worlds to me.


Really, I think levels contribute to D&D's suffocating restrictiveness as much as classes do, or more. Because you need to be level X to do it, no ifs and no buts.

I concur. Plus the fact that it's a number that has the primary purpose of generating other numbers, which is apparently a bugbear of mine. Like the whole "roll to get your stat, the point of which is to determine a totally different bonus to things..."

(In the case of INT, it's worse: "roll to get your stat! Of course, you don't actually use that in-game; you use it to get your bonus! And you add that to your skill points! And you apply those to your skills! Which you then apply to your roll when you do those things! Plus another bonus depending on which skill it is!" So many degrees of separation between the number you start with and the one you use in gameplay...)


Umm... Is the idea of the class system self on- or off-topic for this thread. To me it sounds like something that would be its own thread. The thing is I'm completely biased because I've been planning to make such a thread for weeks, have part of the opening post writing and would still like to. But if that is to much in line with this thread then I won't.

Depends on your OP, and whether you want this thread to become that discussion. Up to you.

Lord Raziere
2015-04-22, 09:29 PM
Doesn't D&D also get point-buy-itis too as soon as you hit skill points and money? With added complexity due to the fact that your skill points are a number derived from two other numbers, and money is random AND different depending on which class you pick? That seems like the worst of both worlds to me.


Haha nope.

You only have to deal with like what? less than one hundred points for both? AND you've already chosen your class? which limits the amount of skills you can take AND the skills that are viable for you to take? that and equipment that is pretty much obvious given how what equipment you can take is limited by class and race? Class/race practically makes all the choices for those for you, or at least narrows them down to the point where its pretty easy.

practically a cake walk compared to point buy systems.

Sindeloke
2015-04-22, 09:29 PM
Hmn. If we're going as vague as "standard medieval fantasy," I'm going to go:

The Juggernaut: a character with minimal mobility, but high durability.
The Skirmisher: a character with low durability but high mobility.
The Fop: a character with low durability and damage, but high utility.

Each class would have regular intervals at which you can choose between abilities that improve your single-target damage, your AoE damage, your crowd control capability, and your buffing/healing capability. How these abilities manifest would be dependent on your class. A skirmisher who goes down the single-target damage tree would resemble a D&D rogue. A juggernaut who goes down the single-target damage tree would let you emulate a barbarian. The buff trees would let them emulate paladins or warlords. Control trees would give juggernauts tanking abilities, and fops hold person spells. A buff-focused fop could look like a cleric or bard.

Trees could be shared between classes, given different power sources, and added to with splats and supplements over time to put forward almost any normal fantasy archetype. You could be a necromancer by being a fop with a minion tree, or a wild-shaping druid by picking a transformation tree with a juggernaut or skirmisher. You couldn't have generalist batman wizards, but those don't actually exist in fantasy outside of D&D anyway, so no big deal.

TheCountAlucard
2015-04-22, 09:38 PM
You only have to deal with like what? less than one hundred points for both?Except gold pieces break down into silver and copper, and item costs vary across the board; a needle's worth more than its weight in gold, yet chalk costs copper. You're really dealing with thousands of points, and they in turn have to be checked against encumbrance.


which limits the amount of skills you can take AND the skills that are viable for you to take?Cross-class skills are and continue to be a thing, trapping newbies and confusing them further with half-ranks and max-ranks.


that and equipment that is pretty much obvious given how what equipment you can take is limited by class and race?It really isn't.


Class/race practically makes all the choices for those for you, or at least narrows them down to the point where its pretty easy.When's the last time you looked through the 3.5 PHB's equipment section?

BayardSPSR
2015-04-22, 09:39 PM
Haha nope.

You only have to deal with like what? less than one hundred points for both? AND you've already chosen your class? which limits the amount of skills you can take AND the skills that are viable for you to take? that and equipment that is pretty much obvious given how what equipment you can take is limited by class and race? Class/race practically makes all the choices for those for you, or at least narrows them down to the point where its pretty easy.

practically a cake walk compared to point buy systems.

:smallconfused: Hang on - literally 1000 point-nightmare? I haven't played the games in question; I thought you were exaggerating. By lots.

Lord Raziere
2015-04-22, 10:00 PM
:smallconfused: Hang on - literally 1000 point-nightmare? I haven't played the games in question; I thought you were exaggerating. By lots.

Yeah, in Eclipse Phase you have to allocate a single pool of 1000 points for skills, equipment, your body, everything. unless you use the Package system in another book, which is far simpler.

for Anima Beyond Fantasy must choose where 600 points go, often deal with how one point in this certain thing actually equals this many points because often in things you don't specialize in, you need to spend 2 or 3 points for every actual 1 skill point you gain.

and Shadowrun is a quagmire of skill points, attribute points, equipment lists with prices in nuyen routinely being in like the few thousand to the tens of thousands range so that pool of money you get is naturally also in the tens of thousands range. you get like, 600 points to allocate starting out for your entire character and every thing costs some measure of points. 400 if you want lower powered, I believe?

@ The CountAlucard:
in DnD I just buy some armor, some clothes and a weapon and then assume everything else is fluff. never really played a game where inventory management and resource stuff was all that important.

Karl Aegis
2015-04-22, 10:22 PM
What are we trying to do here? Are we trying to create a new SRS system like Tenra War or Alshard? Just get Catholic Nuns on motorcycles with lances and call it a day.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-22, 10:47 PM
Yeah, in Eclipse Phase you have to allocate a single pool of 1000 points for skills, equipment, your body, everything. unless you use the Package system in another book, which is far simpler.

for Anima Beyond Fantasy must choose where 600 points go, often deal with how one point in this certain thing actually equals this many points because often in things you don't specialize in, you need to spend 2 or 3 points for every actual 1 skill point you gain.

and Shadowrun is a quagmire of skill points, attribute points, equipment lists with prices in nuyen routinely being in like the few thousand to the tens of thousands range so that pool of money you get is naturally also in the tens of thousands range. you get like, 600 points to allocate starting out for your entire character and every thing costs some measure of points. 400 if you want lower powered, I believe?

Wow. Okay. Yeah, I was expecting something in the 10-40 range. :smalleek: And as someone who does find the D&D skill points and equipment buying annoying and frustrating (though I'm sure that goes away with system mastery that I don't have), those sound like...

Those sound like there needs to be a thread on how point-buy systems should work.

HunterOfJello
2015-04-22, 10:50 PM
Bards and Orcus

BWR
2015-04-22, 11:04 PM
In D&D, Fighter, Mage, Thief, Cleric. Paladins, bards, druids and monks are of secondary importance. Everything else is irrelevant.

In other games, it really depends on the setting and if you are going to have classes at all, how combat works, etc.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-22, 11:08 PM
Bards and Orcus

Question the morality of a class? Your class is now Orcus!

Morty
2015-04-23, 05:13 AM
Yeah, but they have problems of their own: Solar Smart guys need to be different from Sidereal smart guys, which need to be different from Infernal smart guys, all of which need to be different from sneaky guys of any splat and so on and so forth until you tie yourself into knots trying to make sure none of them overlap, because eventually? they will overlap. the very nature of that sort of design is exception-based which can complicate things pretty quickly. and once you make an exception for one thing, you can't make that exception anywhere else! you can make a Solar super-inventor....but you can't make a Sidereal one. which can actually cut down on more character concepts than it allows through.

Look back and note that I said "like", not "completely identical". At the end of the day, Exalted and both Worlds of Darkness aren't class-based games. They're point-buys where your character has two or three descriptors (Eclipse Caste Solar, Carthian Mekhet Vampire, etc.) that guide their development to a varying degree, and determine their place in the setting. Or not, if you happen to be playing a mortal. Which doesn't mean we can't poach ideas from there. Or, to put it another way, forget about different splats (Exalt types, supernatural types) and focus on how the divisions within them (Castes, Aspects, Clans, Paths, Kiths/Seemings) shape characters.



I concur. Plus the fact that it's a number that has the primary purpose of generating other numbers, which is apparently a bugbear of mine. Like the whole "roll to get your stat, the point of which is to determine a totally different bonus to things..."

(In the case of INT, it's worse: "roll to get your stat! Of course, you don't actually use that in-game; you use it to get your bonus! And you add that to your skill points! And you apply those to your skills! Which you then apply to your roll when you do those things! Plus another bonus depending on which skill it is!" So many degrees of separation between the number you start with and the one you use in gameplay...)


It's my opinion that in a class-based game, attribute scores are obsolete.

Yora
2015-04-23, 05:33 AM
Warrior, mage, rogue. Everything else is unnecessary. Or go without classes, either works for me.


Indeed. Classes are far too cumbersome and restrictive as a method to create a character.

https://40.media.tumblr.com/1e1ec4d2b5f1191ef1d199ca2d1b77c3/tumblr_nmwua727IR1rv231do1_500.jpg
:smalltongue:

Ashtagon
2015-04-23, 06:01 AM
Warrior - "heavy" warrior/soldier types
Rogue - "light" warrior/soldier types, plus urban survival tropes
Ranger - outdoors and ranged weapon specialist. Can unlock animal companion class feature.
Mystic - Monk/ninja/spell thief concepts
Berserker - Take the barbarian, and throw in the druid's wild shape for high-level hijinks
Champion - religious warrior (paladin/cleric tropes, but without the cleric's full caster status)
Priest - religious "shepherd" who tends to the congregation. Not a front-line combat class.
Wizard - specialism required. Batman need not apply.



Notably absent in this list are classes that are intended to be a "face". Any of these could be a face, but having a dedicated face class means that other players won't get as much opportunity to role-play, because that isn't their character's class.

Within this paradigm, bards would be wizards with a specialism in "music magic", or possibly priests of the god of song in certain campaigns. I'd consider making bardic music a feat chain that anyone can unlock with enough ranks in Perform. D&D clerics would be champion/priest multiclass characters. D&D druids might have levels in berserker, priest (of a nature deity), wizard (of a nature/elemental magical college) or ranger. D&D monks would be mystics.

Daedroth
2015-04-23, 06:55 AM
Lets say... ten:
- Sorcerer
- Beguiler
- Cleric
- Druid
- Duskblade
- Bard
- Warlock
- Dread Necromancer
- Some Summon-focused arcane spellcaster
- Healer (T.G. Oskar one)

I don't need dirty peasants BMX Bandits pure martials and i find them more suited for NPC clases like Combatant or Commoner.

Knaight
2015-04-23, 08:38 AM
Wow. Okay. Yeah, I was expecting something in the 10-40 range. :smalleek: And as someone who does find the D&D skill points and equipment buying annoying and frustrating (though I'm sure that goes away with system mastery that I don't have), those sound like...

Those sound like there needs to be a thread on how point-buy systems should work.

Plenty have fewer than this. HERO is the worst I know of, where 600 points is roughly standard, but the increment is the 1/4 point, so you effectively actually have 2400 points to distribute. On the other hand, something like REIGN has 85 for starting characters, and much of what you spend it on is in increments of more than one. I'd consider it much easier than D&D, particularly as money in REIGN is really easy to handle, whereas D&D gold is basically a point buy system for magic item abilities wherein the numbers get into the tens and hundreds of thousands pretty quickly.

TheCountAlucard
2015-04-23, 08:39 AM
I don't need dirty peasants BMX Bandits pure martials and i find them more suited for NPC clases like Combatant or Commoner.Maybe in D&D, perhaps - a fair number of other systems don't typically assume that a twentieth-level Fighter is just a sweaty guy in a metal shell who hits things with a sharpened metal stick, but a twentieth-level Wizard is Overgod Supreme, Master of the Cosmos.

SimonMoon6
2015-04-23, 08:47 AM
Warrior, Valkyrie, Wizard, and Elf.

Amphetryon
2015-04-23, 08:55 AM
Melee combatant, Ranged combatant, Sneak, Divinely-inspired magician, Scholarly magician, Innate magician, Wilderness survivalist, Socialite.

Daedroth
2015-04-23, 09:14 AM
Warrior, Valkyrie, Wizard, and Elf.

Oh, good idea, lets add one more:

- Sorcerer
- Beguiler
- Cleric
- Druid
- Duskblade
- Bard
- Warlock
- Dread Necromancer
- Some Summon-focused arcane spellcaster
- Healer (T.G. Oskar one)
- Giant (Literal one, nothing in the lines of "I want to be strong as a giant, but i want to be a normal person" Snowflake)

Necroticplague
2015-04-23, 09:20 AM
None. Classes inherently comes with restrictions that means having one ability means have a different, unrelated ability. Your character should be what you want them to be, without the idiotic extra parts hanging off as a result of grafting a class on them. Want to build a martial who does large amounts of damage with low accuracy? Sorry, the martial damage-doing classes increase your accuracy.

Even more annoying is the opposite; when you have to sacrifice a part of your character concept because the rest of it doesn't fit within the tiny jar of your class.

Cluedrew
2015-04-23, 09:34 AM
But if you have decided to used a class system which seems to be the assumption for this thread then what?

Creating classes that can be modified (or are divide of flavour aspects by default) can help create more options, but it also looses out on one of the strengths of classes which is having a packaged character base ready to go. Which is why I like the idea of having a lot of classes, so there is one close to what you want and then you can role-play or tweak it to your exact concept if the class doesn't quite fit.

P.S. I made a different thread for the system level topic of classes vs. classless (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?411296-Classes-and-Character-Creation).

Ashtagon
2015-04-23, 09:50 AM
Oh, good idea, lets add one more:

- Sorcerer
- Beguiler
- Cleric
- Druid
- Duskblade
- Bard
- Warlock
- Dread Necromancer
- Some Summon-focused arcane spellcaster
- Healer (T.G. Oskar one)
- Giant (Literal one, nothing in the lines of "I want to be strong as a giant, but i want to be a normal person" Snowflake)

Blue wizard is about to die. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauntlet_%281985_video_game%29)

Necroticplague
2015-04-23, 10:20 AM
But if you have decided to used a class system which seems to be the assumption for this thread then what?That assumption did not appear in the original post, to which I was responding, in any method. To quote it below:



Wait, no, let's stop ourselves. The point is, what character classes WOULD you want in your standard medieval fantasy? What would you want your core classes to be? What about your low-degree (e.g. completes) splatbook classes? What about your higher-degree (e.g. Tome of X) splatbook classes?
To which I answer: none, none, none. I wouldn't want any, much less any specific one.

malkarnivore
2015-04-23, 11:35 AM
classes are templates that have theoretically been pre-balanced to operate within the constraints of the game.

They're fairly ok for game balance, but for a straight up story told in a fantasy setting? Not so much.

I mean hell, look at most novels based off of D&D. If the stories canonically were constrained to a "Level 5 fighter" then the plots don't work, because organic characters don't operate on a level/point-buy system.

Nightcanon
2015-04-23, 11:46 AM
Melee combatant, Ranged combatant, Sneak, Divinely-inspired magician, Scholarly magician, Innate magician, Wilderness survivalist, Socialite.

Any particular reason why you need innate and scholarly magicians, while melee combat in all its forms is only one thing? Genuine question.:smallsmile:

Hiro Protagonest
2015-04-23, 01:06 PM
Warrior, Valkyrie, Wizard, and Elf.

Elf shot the food. Now why would he do that?

Vitruviansquid
2015-04-23, 01:56 PM
You need one class for each style of play, no more, no less.

Each class is (or should be) designed to put the player into a unique mindset whether through a unique subsystem or not. DnD 4e can be a fairly good example of what I mean by this; some classes, like Monks, have very obviously unique mechanics compared to everyone else that brings out a different style, but it is rather enough differentiation for the Rogue player to be someone who is constantly on the lookout for targets of opportunity and the Avenger player to constantly think about how to bypass other opponents in order to stick to and isolate their one target.

I would actually say what DnD 3.5 and the 3.5-likes should look into is reduce the number of hybrid classes and kill off a bunch of their classes-that-are-like-that-other-class-but-with-this-minor-change. Does this reduce the number of possible combinations and the ability for players to fine tune their characters? Yes. But the remaining classes will feel so much better.

Jormengand
2015-04-23, 03:06 PM
The thing with "Archer, warrior, mage", "None whatsoever," and "Cleric" is that my game system actually has a social aspect - le gasp - and also has classes (though it also has the Dissociate, which is sort of like being classless? I mean, it is a class, but you choose all of your stuff so it's ok), and the gods need to be asked if they feel like smiting this dude or healing your friend, and they might be a cheapskate and send an angel to do it for them. The current divine class - the Divine Champion - works for gods, but actually uses their own magic. So there's that.

The reason I have classes is that...


The entire point of classes is defined archetypes, and that works much better when you've got a more tightly defined setting with actual established walks of life

See, in the game I'm making, you actually get something very much like Roy's fighter college, only you have...

Okay, there's these twelve noble houses. They each keep a standing army, because everyone is at war with everyone right now (Okay, not really, and they're only small armies. Shh). To train those armies, they actually teach them (gasp) how to do their jobs properly. When you take a class, you are literally taking classes (though classes are actually called Associations, and you don't gain levels, you gain ranks. Shaddup). So what that means is that they actually represent, like, your degree. Only your degree in killing things. Shaddup.

If you take a combined honours in everything, ever, or you aren't part of the noble houses and just picked up skills from off the street, you're a Dissociate. Go and buy stuff with points, basically. Choose a few class skill equivalents (only they're not really the same thing as class skills). Go to town.


Artisan, Bartender, Blacksmith, Butcher, Carver, Charlatan, Cooper, Fisher, Fletcher, Laborer, and Merchant. I can fill any character backstory with these roles.
I am considering having some kind of non-combat classes and near-enough gestalting them with a more combat focused class. So if you want to be magicky, you can be Mage//Enchanter, and of you want to be sneaky, you can go Infiltrator//Charlatan, but you might also want to be a conjurer of cheap tricks and go Mage//Charlatan.


Bards and Orcus

The divine pantheon does include Amkii the Ineffable (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17815483&postcount=140)...


It's my opinion that in a class-based game, attribute scores are obsolete.
Only you have to roll to magic, so good luck playing, oh, say a Restoration mage with a WL of 2 or a Universal mage with an IN of 2.



Incidentally, the current classes that exist are:
Ascetic (Monk with a small amount of magic, spell lists are called "Sword Spine" (Dodge), "Hammer Hand" (Falcawn.... PUUUUUNCH), "Spear Soul" (HADOKEN!) "Mantle Mind," (Invisibility and stuff), Or you can be a Sohei and give up magic for armour and extra features)
Dissociate (As discussed above)
Divine Champion (Sorta paladin- alignment nonsense/inquisitor/battle cleric, spell lists are Champion Transcendent (Skills), Paragon Militant (Hit things), Guardian Immortal (Defence), and Veteran Superior (Tactics and stuff), no ACFs yet)
Infiltrator (Rogue, no ACFs yet),
Mage (Spell lists Chronology, Dynamism, Telekinesis, Universal, Emulation, Illumination, Inspiration, Restoration, Conflagration, Empathy, Illusion, Telepathy, Abjuration, Enhancement, Necromancy, Summoning; you can be a Magic Knight and give up a third of your spells at each rank to be better at fighting),
Warrior (Recommended as a simple fighty class for newer players even though fighty classes that do more things don't exist yet, no ACFs yet).
There's also the Shaman, who creates "Totems" to do things in combat for him, but I haven't actually made any of the spell lists for him yet.

Cluedrew
2015-04-23, 04:27 PM
That assumption did not appear in the original post, to which I was responding, in any method. [...]
To which I answer: none, none, none. I wouldn't want any, much less any specific one.

Fair enough. But now I find myself wondering. What classes or types of classes would you as someone who disapproves of the class system give the most credit to?

Wardog
2015-04-23, 04:31 PM
My ideas. Note: the names given are not necessarily the best - they're more to

Man-at-Arms.
Well-trained martial character capable of using all sorts or weapons and armour well. Should be able to represent, knights, soldiers, samurai, Viking warriors, Roman legionaries, etc. (I.e. basically the D&D Fighter). While some people might think that's too generic, I think there is enough overlap petween the concepts that they might as well be represented by different builds of the same class. None of those concepts have any inherant abilities that would be unreasonable for the other concepts to have.

"Conan"
Powerful fighter who uses little or no armour and relies on a combination of toughness and agility to avoid damage, and has enough skill-points to do skill-stuff. I'm not sure what the real name for the class should be, but not "barbarian", the barbarian concept covers more than just this class (e.g. Mongols and Vikings), and this class could easily represent non-barbarian concepts (e.g. pirates or martial artists).

Commando
Powerful fighter than also has stealth and rough-like abilities. Could also represent ninjas, assassins, etc. A bit like a D&D Ranger without all the nature-magic aspects, or a D&D 3.x Rogue with better BAB but fewer non-combat skills.

Prestiege Class (or feat chain):
Berserker.
Like a D&D Barbarian Rage (with the potential for becoming a Cuchulain-stlye Warp Spasm at high level). Shouldn't be tied to any one class, as I can easily concieve a knight-like heavy berserker, as well as a non-berserking barbarian.


Thief
Primarily focused on stealth, subtlty, traps, and avoiding combat (or making combat unnecessary). Bilbo Baggins or Aladdin rather than the "weak commando" that is the 3.x Rogue.

Magic Figher
A fighting class similar to one of the first two that sacrifices some combat ability for some sort of magic. The magic system should be designed so that you could make something similar to a D&D Paladin - or go for something else.

Vancian Wizard
A wizard that has to prepare their spells in advance. Their spell list and spell-casting mechanic should be designed to make sense in light of this. Assume, in fluff terms, that they are mixing up potions, preparing artefacts, or summoning spirits that are consumed or dismissed when the spell is cast. So they will generally focus on potions, buffs that can be envisaged as applied via potions, alchemy, possibly summoning, and possibly necromancy (if they are e.g. using some sort of magic powder to raise corpses). Their main stats will be mental (int and/or wis, depending on what this system means by those).

Energy Wizard
A wizard that summons, channels, and controls energy, spirits, and other such forces, whether drawn from some inner power, or called from outside. Their casting mechanic will be completely different from the Vancian wizard - e.g. casting from hit-points, or unlimmited casting but they have to make fortitude checks to avoid taking damage. Their spell list will focus on things like blasting, shields, etc.

Spiritual Wizard
A wizard (or priest, or shaman, etc) that calls on gods or spirits (or demons) to help him. Will have a different spell list and a different casting mechanic to the previous two wizards.


Important note on the magic users:
Different magic-user classes should have distinct spell lists and distinct casting mechanics. Not "same list/somewhat different mechanic" like D&D mage and sorcerers, or "different list/basically the same mechanic" like D&D mage and cleric.

Also, "priest", "cleric", and several other terms for magic users both "divine" and "arcane" are fluff-terms refering to social roles. A Spiritual Wizard might be a priest or cleric - if they run or work in a temple, but not all Spiritual Wizards will do so, and not a priests need be Spiritual
Wizards.

TheCountAlucard
2015-04-23, 05:35 PM
"Conan"
Powerful fighter who uses little or no armour…Conan relied on armor quite a bit; The Phoenix on the Sword had Conan assailed by twenty men, and part of the danger is that he only had time to put about half of his armor on. The stories where he doesn't wear armor are typically the ones where either he's still a young penniless thief, or has pretty good reason for not being armored (he was captured/jailed/crucified and stripped down to loincloth and sandals, he fled a port town by swimming through shark-infested waters for over a day, he was traveling through a desolate hell of a desert after a pitched battle with few supplies and thus probably had to ditch his armor due to weight, he is on a job that necessitates sneaking around, he's been crawling through a swamp on his belly for three days trying to avoid detection, et cetera.), but he usually wears whatever armor he can get. Oftentimes he's the most armored character in the story.

Amphetryon
2015-04-23, 06:16 PM
Any particular reason why you need innate and scholarly magicians, while melee combat in all its forms is only one thing? Genuine question.:smallsmile:

Because the method in which they obtain their particular weapon - in the case of casters, magic is the weapon - is more narratively significant and interesting than splitting 'polearm guy' from 'sword girl' at a Class level. You can build in more granularity at a lower level of building (or higher, I guess, depending on perspective) for Melee combatants without needing to split them into different Classes.

Morty
2015-04-23, 06:30 PM
The differences between melee fighting styles aren't between swords and polearms. They're between the archetype of a super-strong and durable warrior, one who relies on aggression and mobility and one who relies on a superior sense of tactics.

Amphetryon
2015-04-23, 07:12 PM
The differences between melee fighting styles aren't between swords and polearms. They're between the archetype of a super-strong and durable warrior, one who relies on aggression and mobility and one who relies on a superior sense of tactics.

Difference of opinion duly noted.

Ninjadeadbeard
2015-04-23, 07:52 PM
Truenamer.

You are a gentleman of taste.

Lurkmoar
2015-04-23, 08:09 PM
So what should classes be? Something that tells everyone at a glance what they're strong in, what they're not so good at, what they're weak at and what they just plain can't do.

-Martial Classes that could fit several varieties of how someone could approach combat.

-Spell Casting Classes that range from support, utility and blasting.

-Sneaky classes for handling locks, distractions and other things that a Martial Class would be too loud in doing and the Spell Caster might not be handle at the moment.

Eloel
2015-04-23, 08:33 PM
The differences between melee fighting styles aren't between swords and polearms. They're between the archetype of a super-strong and durable warrior, one who relies on aggression and mobility and one who relies on a superior sense of tactics.

So, melee brute and sneak?

Knaight
2015-04-23, 08:50 PM
So, melee brute and sneak?

Not really. That better describes a front-line heavy infantry as opposed to a skirmisher. There are a lot of different skills that go into fighting, beyond just what weapons there are and how sneaky they are. There's the ability to make use of having allies - some people are able to get quite a lot out of it, some people can't capitalize on it very well at all (though there's still some benefit generally). There's the ability to get in and out of fights particularly quickly, there's battlefield awareness, there's the sheer knack for knowing where you can be the most useful at any given time, so on and so forth. There are tons of different ways you can distinguish melee combatants, and if classes are narrowly defined then it can make sense to have several, even without getting into actual sneakiness. In practice though, weaponry and sneakiness seem to be the big two - you've got the brute with the big weapon, and the sneaky person with the small one (which is another point of oddity - if you can't capitalize on unawareness with a big sword or polearm, you have no business being in the fighting business).

Jay R
2015-04-23, 09:02 PM
My goal is to simulate fantasy characters. In the ideal world, each class would enable you to play several characters from literature, and not create a D&D-specific creation.

So I would include:
Fighter: Lancelot, Boromir
Thief: (not Rogue): Bilbo, Grey Mouser
Archer: Robin Hood, Legolas
Ranger (nothing like a D&D Ranger): Aragorn
Bard: Orfeo, Taliesin, Fflewder Fflam

I don't know how to create a magic-using class that simulates any wizard of legend, who tend to have few spells, but always the one the plot calls for.

And I have no idea what characters the cleric class is for. I understand it was invented to attack a vampire PC in Gygax's first game.

Knaight
2015-04-23, 09:07 PM
I don't know how to create a magic-using class that simulates any wizard of legend, who tend to have few spells, but always the one the plot calls for.

One method I have seen is with systems that have some sort of metagame point mechanic - you've got some narrow amount of points, and in general you can use them for a lucky twist of fate (the kind that literary characters frequently have), where you often replenish them through a poorly timed unlucky twist of fate (also the kind that literary characters frequently have). Then, magic takes these points. It's going to be rare, and because of the mechanic it is tied to it can also be exactly what's needed at the time.

Granted, occasionally you run into literature where magic is being thrown around like candy (e.g. Journey to the West), but that's also an example of something that's outside of the cultural tradition of your examples anyways.

Amphetryon
2015-04-23, 09:30 PM
My goal is to simulate fantasy characters. In the ideal world, each class would enable you to play several characters from literature, and not create a D&D-specific creation.

So I would include:
Fighter: Lancelot, Boromir
Thief: (not Rogue): Bilbo, Grey Mouser
Archer: Robin Hood, Legolas
Ranger (nothing like a D&D Ranger): Aragorn
Bard: Orfeo, Taliesin, Fflewder Fflam

I don't know how to create a magic-using class that simulates any wizard of legend, who tend to have few spells, but always the one the plot calls for.

And I have no idea what characters the cleric class is for. I understand it was invented to attack a vampire PC in Gygax's first game.

How would you emulate Friar Tuck?

Morty
2015-04-24, 05:28 AM
So, melee brute and sneak?


Not really. That better describes a front-line heavy infantry as opposed to a skirmisher. There are a lot of different skills that go into fighting, beyond just what weapons there are and how sneaky they are. There's the ability to make use of having allies - some people are able to get quite a lot out of it, some people can't capitalize on it very well at all (though there's still some benefit generally). There's the ability to get in and out of fights particularly quickly, there's battlefield awareness, there's the sheer knack for knowing where you can be the most useful at any given time, so on and so forth. There are tons of different ways you can distinguish melee combatants, and if classes are narrowly defined then it can make sense to have several, even without getting into actual sneakiness. In practice though, weaponry and sneakiness seem to be the big two - you've got the brute with the big weapon, and the sneaky person with the small one (which is another point of oddity - if you can't capitalize on unawareness with a big sword or polearm, you have no business being in the fighting business).

Yeah, that. I'm not entirely sure why the gaming industry in general has such a problem with the concept of a fighter who is not a juggernaut clad in the heaviest armour available, but isn't a sneaky "rogue" archetype either.

Jay R
2015-04-24, 06:58 AM
How would you emulate Friar Tuck?

I would simulate him as a Fighter character with woods-based skills and the profession: Friar. He certainly would have no divine powers like turning undead or healing, since no legend ever shows him having any.

emulate him by dedicating my life to the church and fighting against the king's tyranny.]

Ashtagon
2015-04-24, 07:03 AM
How would you emulate Friar Tuck?

Which version of him? Depending on your specific interpretation, varying levels of warrior, rogue, and ranger. Throw in a religious background (similar to d20 Modern backgrounds), and you're golden.

Amphetryon
2015-04-24, 07:54 AM
I would simulate him as a Fighter character with woods-based skills and the profession: Friar. He certainly would have no divine powers like turning undead or healing, since no legend ever shows him having any.

emulate him by dedicating my life to the church and fighting against the king's tyranny.]

You're correct, I didn't specify 'have your Character emulate him.' How very silly of me not to be that precise in my choice of language. Thankfully, I'm the only one who ever makes such a faux pas. You're totally right for calling me out on it.

Frozen_Feet
2015-04-24, 08:57 AM
This is something I'm currently weighing for my game system. Going full point-buy would be too cumbersome, as it'd give no sense of background or character to a new player. My current division looks roughly this:

Soldier; any martially trained person,
Scholar; any academically focused character, such as healer or alchemist
Craftsman; any profession centered around making stuff, such as blacksmith, tailor, cook etc.
Commoner; any non-educated person who primarily makes a living via farming, hunting or fishing
Outlaw; anyone acting outside the law and making a living via illegitimate pursuits
Nomad; reindeer-herders, hunter-gatherers and other folks living out of civilized areas

These classes primarily reflect in-game differences in place and way of life. Player characters are primarily intended to be Soldiers, Scholars and Craftsmen, with Commoners and Outlaws being sort-of self-imposed challenges, and Nomad being mostly reserved for non-humans.

Within the broader class, a character can narrow into more specific archetypes via the game's equivalent to Feats. Hybridization via the game's equivalent to multiclassing is also possible.

Kane0
2015-04-24, 09:15 AM
The rule of threes!

Warrior, caster, skilled.

Warrior is split into say power, agility and tactical categories (eg warrior, scout, Tactician)
Caster is split into vancian, spell point and cooldown varieties (eg mage/priest, sorcerer/shaman, warlock/chosen)
Skilled is split into smart, cunning and personable types (eg investigator, scoundrel, emissary)
Just change names to taste for game/genre.

Each of the 9 base classes have offensive, defensive/support and utility options, perhaps as a subset or 'subclass'.

That leaves a total of 27 possible combinations before factoring in multiclassing and other means of customising a character beyond class. You could also introduce another layer of 3s by having three tiers of the subclass options and three chances to choose, so you could take the first tier in offense/defense/utility, pick 2/1/0 or 3/0/0.
But you wouldnt want to get much more minute than that.

Jay R
2015-04-24, 09:57 AM
You're correct, I didn't specify 'have your Character emulate him.' How very silly of me not to be that precise in my choice of language. Thankfully, I'm the only one who ever makes such a faux pas. You're totally right for calling me out on it.

My apologies. I wasn't trying to call you out. But more people have been misunderstanding the term, and my "teacher mode" turned on automatically.

One of the hazards of the profession. Again, I apologize.

grimsly
2015-04-24, 11:38 AM
So, full disclosure: I skimmed over several of the posts in this thread, so it's possible I missed something that makes this post unnecessary. However, even if there was something, it probably wouldn't stop me from spewing my opinions all over the internet, so...

Classes.

The way I see it, D&D needs three, specifically fighter,mage,and thief ( bet you didn't see that coming, did you?). More specifically, feat based, spell/specialty based, and skill based. MORE more specifically, spread out all the classes specialties among skills, feats,and ability trees (like, say, a spell selection system) and then have each player choose how they want to level: extra feats beyond normal, extra skills, or skip both and go straight for the power. That's about as minimalist as you could get while still keeping the complexity of D&D pretty much intact.

Morty
2015-04-24, 12:00 PM
So, in order to give some solid example of my ideas, here's how I'd write up a half of the classes I have in mind. The names are quite obviously placeholders. First, the three warriors.

"Tough" Warrior: Called Dreadnaught, Armiger, Weaponsmaster... something along those lines. The archetype of the strong, durable warrior who wades among enemies and trades blows. Could be an armoured knight, could be a raging berserker who is nigh-immune to pain. The important thing here is that I don't want it to be the "tank" archetype. It could be that, but it's just one option. In general it's the classical image of a warrior that most RPGs and players never think past, but self-aware about it. Out of combat, they support their party with their strength and endurance, getting past obstacles, carrying the gear, and not slowing down even in blistering desert heat. The one problem I see here is that I can't really squeeze a ranged option into this class.

"Mobile" Warrior: Skirmisher, Duellist, Vanguard. This class covers more aggressive warriors who move around the battlefield and hit hard - up close or at range. Could be a duellist, could be a skirmisher type in medium-weight armour, could be a berserker of a different stripe than in the previous archetype, could be an archer or javelin thrower. Either way, it's the mobile and aggressive kind of warrior. Some wear moderate armour while others keep it light, but they can't eschew armour entirely. So they're by no means squishy, but they can't remain in a sustained bout for as long as the tough archetype. Their strength is the ability to strike hard at the right place and time. Out of combat, their speed, strength and constant awareness of their surroundings makes them second only to thieves in getting across difficult terrain.

"Tactical" Warrior: Warlord, Tactician, Centurion. This is the archetype of a warrior who doesn't have as much durability, strength, speed or aggression as the above two, but instead relies on superior training. They have the largest bag of tricks of them all, and can pull out different maneuvers for different situations. They support their allies, hamper their enemy and control the battlefield, either in the thick of it or from the back lines. I suppose one could build this class would always be at its strongest working with others. Out of combat, their sense of teamwork and an eye for weaknesses can help them direct their party to work together coherently.

Now, for the "expert" classes. They exist in that weird space of characters who use neither magic nor martial skill. They have more skills than other classes. But more importantly, they can do things with them other classes cannot. Each of them has a group of skills they can perform even better than others and some special abilities to enhance them. I've thought about whether there's a point to them, but for now I'm running with it. They are, as you will note, more hazy than the martial ones.

"Physical" Expert: Rogue, Thief, Acrobat. The expert on stealth, precise strikes and getting into places. The archetypal cat-burglar. They get into difficult-to-reach places, bypass obstacles and slip away from pursuit. In battle, they rely on catching their enemies unaware or out of balance, whether by using trickery or their allies' support, to deliver lethal strikes.

"Mental" Expert: Factotum, Savant, Scholar. The class that relies on knowledge, lore and craft skills, applying them to all sorts of task. Could be an adventurer-scholar, a criminal mastermind of an alchemist. In combat, they rely on their knowledge and observational skills to spot weak openings, or create them.

"Social" Expert: Bard, Preacher, Swashbuckler. It relies on a mastery of social inspiration to inspire, convince, sway or demoralize others. They excel when negotiating, arguing, intimidating or lying, but they can also use those skills to inspire their allies or taunt their enemies.

I don't really know what I'm going to do about magic-users, yet. My current idea is to have a learned magic raw magic and granted magic class, one for each source of power a magician may have. I'm not sure if divine/arcane casting is worth enshrining in the rules. If not, then a priest and a warlock would actually belong to one class - the former prays to a deity for magic, the other strikes a bargain with a devil.

Generally speaking, I imagine it as everyone having access to all pools of abilities. What your class determines is how easy the access is. It also gives you a selection of features that are unique to it, since they express its archetype. I figure the scale would go from Unique => Available to the class but can be poached => Available to everyone. Or something along those lines. I wouldn't use levels.

Eloel
2015-04-24, 01:13 PM
My problem there is "Mobile" Warrior and "Physical" Expert overlap in a lot of ways.

That reminds me, one skill-set per 'attribute', with one primary and one secondary attribute per character, where you gain your secondary attribute's bonuses slightly slower.

With D&D, that means 36 different classes, although only 6 sets are determined.

Morty
2015-04-24, 02:00 PM
It's a problem I'm aware of, yeah. Not much to say about it, other than if I were to write some actual rules for it, I'd do my best to give those classes unique, identity-affirming abilities. Whether or not I'd succeed is hard to say at such a conceptual stage. The idea, I suppose, is that the physical experts' combat abilities would focus on avoiding direct confrontation - whereas mobile warriors still seek direct confrontation. It gets fuzzy when ranged combat enters the equation.

Wardog
2015-04-25, 03:32 AM
Conan relied on armor quite a bit; The Phoenix on the Sword had Conan assailed by twenty men, and part of the danger is that he only had time to put about half of his armor on. The stories where he doesn't wear armor are typically the ones where either he's still a young penniless thief, or has pretty good reason for not being armored (he was captured/jailed/crucified and stripped down to loincloth and sandals, he fled a port town by swimming through shark-infested waters for over a day, he was traveling through a desolate hell of a desert after a pitched battle with few supplies and thus probably had to ditch his armor due to weight, he is on a job that necessitates sneaking around, he's been crawling through a swamp on his belly for three days trying to avoid detection, et cetera.), but he usually wears whatever armor he can get. Oftentimes he's the most armored character in the story.

True, but many stories did have him running around in nothing but a loin cloth and and sandals (as do 101 Conan ripoffs). And there are plently of non-barbarian fighters in various stories who also wear little/no armour but still manage to avoid getting hit even when fighting face-to-face. So there ought to be a class that simulates that.



"Tough" Warrior: Called Dreadnaught, Armiger, Weaponsmaster... something along those lines. The archetype of the strong, durable warrior who wades among enemies and trades blows. Could be an armoured knight, could be a raging berserker who is nigh-immune to pain. The important thing here is that I don't want it to be the "tank" archetype. It could be that, but it's just one option. In general it's the classical image of a warrior that most RPGs and players never think past, but self-aware about it. Out of combat, they support their party with their strength and endurance, getting past obstacles, carrying the gear, and not slowing down even in blistering desert heat. The one problem I see here is that I can't really squeeze a ranged option into this class.


I recently asked a question about that on the Real World Weapons and Tactics thread. It seems to be perfectly possible for an archer to wear heavy armour and still be an effective archer. It would restrict tactical mobility, but not all archers are skirmishers, and in a siege survivability would probably be more important. And if you do need mobility, some steppe nomad cultures fielded heavily armoured horse-archers.


This is something I'm currently weighing for my game system. Going full point-buy would be too cumbersome, as it'd give no sense of background or character to a new player. My current division looks roughly this:

Soldier; any martially trained person,
Scholar; any academically focused character, such as healer or alchemist
Craftsman; any profession centered around making stuff, such as blacksmith, tailor, cook etc.
Commoner; any non-educated person who primarily makes a living via farming, hunting or fishing
Outlaw; anyone acting outside the law and making a living via illegitimate pursuits
Nomad; reindeer-herders, hunter-gatherers and other folks living out of civilized areas

These classes primarily reflect in-game differences in place and way of life. Player characters are primarily intended to be Soldiers, Scholars and Craftsmen, with Commoners and Outlaws being sort-of self-imposed challenges, and Nomad being mostly reserved for non-humans.



This is possibly being overly pedantic, but some of those names don't really match the descriptions:
"Soldier" implies being a member of a proper army. For "any martially trained person", you might be better with "warrior".

"Commoner" has a specific meaning (well, two actually): 1) Anyone who isn't royalty or nobility. 2) Someone who has rights to the use of common land. "Peasant" might be better for what you are talking about.

"Outlaw", in a medieval sense, doesn't just mean criminal. All the other classes you describe could also be someone "acting outside the law and making a living via illegitimate pursuits". An outlaw is someone who has been banished from civilized society and not only acts outside the law but is outside the protection of the law. (Incidently, "ban", "bann", "bannished" and "bandit" are all etymologically related).

And why is "Nomad" mostly reserved for non-humans? After all, all known nomads in real life are/were human.

TheCountAlucard
2015-04-25, 05:24 AM
True, but many stories did have him running around in nothing but a loin cloth and and sandals (as do 101 Conan ripoffs).Except, as I said, more or less all of them had reasons for his lack of armor. There's no accounting for ripoffs, obviously.

This is possibly being overly pedantic, but some of those names don't really match the descriptions:…"Conan." :smallamused:

Morty
2015-04-25, 06:29 AM
I recently asked a question about that on the Real World Weapons and Tactics thread. It seems to be perfectly possible for an archer to wear heavy armour and still be an effective archer. It would restrict tactical mobility, but not all archers are skirmishers, and in a siege survivability would probably be more important. And if you do need mobility, some steppe nomad cultures fielded heavily armoured horse-archers.

It's not about what sort of armour they wear. I'm inclined to make AC class-based and let everyone describe it as they please, anyway. It's about the abilities they get and the approach to combat they favour. Neither of which mesh with using a ranged weapon as their primary choice.

malkarnivore
2015-04-25, 06:42 AM
Classes are optional honestly. Point-buy systems applied to class features (x points for # of skills per level, x points for a d10 HD) could be good but ut could also be horribly bad.

Classes are simply an ease of use, low-learning curve method of chargen/advancement.

The only problem is I've never seen a point-buy system that couldn't be broken in half by a player with a basic knowledge of arithmetic.

Ashtagon
2015-04-25, 07:41 AM
Personally, I'd be inclined against making a class based on the idea of "the shooty guy".

It means that every melee build every can feel justified in being useless when they see enemy archers on the other side of a ravine. By having "heavy", "light urban", and "light rural" as the core "mundane" combat classes, none of them as burdened with being the shooty guy or being the melee guy. Mages have access to both melee weaponsspells and ranged weaponsspells; so too should warriors.

Necroticplague
2015-04-25, 07:53 AM
Fair enough. But now I find myself wondering. What classes or types of classes would you as someone who disapproves of the class system give the most credit to?

Classes that are more based off of what you do than how you do it. I don't particularly care whether I'm on fire because of a fire arrow or a combustion spell, and neither should the system. Instead of trying to present very specific archetypes to be, a class should be a mechanical role you can refluff into a broad array of concepts and archetypes easily. The most basics roles I can think of are
-Defender. Stays close to the enemies and tries to keep her allies safe from them. Applies status effects that make it harder for enemies to attack her allies or move away from her.
-Striker.Does their damage up-close, but suffers from relative fragility, so they have to flit in and out of enemy lines, making them one of the most mobile classes.
-Controller. Ensures that the battlefeild is set up as to take best advantage of her allies abilities. Places down areas to disincetivise or prohibit enemy movement out of where the controller doesn't want enemies to go.
-Leader. The polar opposite of a controller, these guys ensure that the team is operating at full efficiency by improving the teamates. Heals, buffs, lending out extra actions.
-Blaster. Does heavy amount of damage from a range, but has limited mobility or utility, so must be careful to acid retribution.

And then, of course, there should be a prestig system and/or multiclass system by which one can either emphasize a specific part of their role (a defender might prestige into juggernaut, trading some of his utility for greater reselience and damage; or prestige into crippler, trading some of their damage for the ability to stack gradually-worsening debuffs), or integrating part of another role into their own (a defender might have on option that gives them a controller-type zone around them that debuffs enemies near him, to make use of his habit of being head-to-head with enemies). Of course, all of this should be fluff-neutral so you can make of it what you want.

Jay R
2015-04-25, 11:08 AM
There should be classes if we think of the characters in the genre we’re simulating in classes. As long as we think about a knight, a thief, a wizard, and a bard as different sorts of people, there should be classes.

Since we don’t think of modern policemen, doctors, and accountants as different kinds of people, a modern game doesn’t need classes.

--------------------

One idea that might be fun to try would be basing classes on, well, you know, … classes: serf, peasant, yeoman, gentry, knight, nobility, etc. Then skills could be learned based on that. A yeoman fighter learns the longbow, a serf peasant learns a pole arm, a knightly fighter learns lance, longsword, and horsemanship.

A serf magic-user becomes a hedge wizard or witch, with simple healing, charms, curses, and other minor effects with little or no material components. A nobleman with magic ability becomes a scholar and learns fewer, but higher magics, with expensive components and complicated rituals.

Eloel
2015-04-25, 11:44 AM
Since we don’t think of modern policemen, doctors, and accountants as different kinds of people, a modern game doesn’t need classes.

Umm, what?

Karl Aegis
2015-04-25, 11:47 AM
Umm, what?

They're all ninjas in disguise. It's a conspiracy.

Knaight
2015-04-25, 12:21 PM
Umm, what?

To a large extent modern society thinks of a group like that as people with fundamentally different kinds of jobs, not fundamentally different kinds of people. That's not really the case in the context of a system with actual classes (or castes), where people are generally seen as fundamentally different kinds of people.

Eloel
2015-04-25, 01:40 PM
To a large extent modern society thinks of a group like that as people with fundamentally different kinds of jobs, not fundamentally different kinds of people. That's not really the case in the context of a system with actual classes (or castes), where people are generally seen as fundamentally different kinds of people.

By different backgrounds, wealth, education levels and work conditions, while there are no law-based classes, de facto classes with little permeability are formed in modern society too. Just because one person or one group sees everyone as humans, unfortunately, doesn't make it as such.

Anything further and this'll probably dive headfirst into real life politics, I'd be happy to take it to private messages with anyone interested.

Knaight
2015-04-25, 01:50 PM
By different backgrounds, wealth, education levels and work conditions, while there are no law-based classes, de facto classes with little permeability are formed in modern society too. Just because one person or one group sees everyone as humans, unfortunately, doesn't make it as such.

I'd agree with this, but I'd also say that the extent to which this happens in modern society and the extent to which people think about it is drastically reduced relative to the sort of standard that emerges with legitimate hereditary nobility in power.

Frozen_Feet
2015-04-25, 02:39 PM
This is possibly being overly pedantic, but some of those names don't really match the descriptions.

I know. I'm working primarily in Finnish and there are no exact translations, insofar as there exact words in either language in the first place. It's pretty hard to find words that are both sufficiently descriptive and broad enough to cover all the connotations the classes have in the game.


And why is "Nomad" mostly reserved for non-humans? After all, all known nomads in real life are/were human.

Because in the game's setting, the governing human society is wholly agrarian and close to industrial revolution. There are very few human groups who act as true nomads, living on the fringes of human society - and they're mostly outcompeted by non-humans.



Since we don’t think of modern policemen, doctors, and accountants as different kinds of people, a modern game doesn’t need classes.

Says you.

Just a few days ago, I heard a few people talking about police and military officers, and quite soon the people talking concluded that "those people are really their own species".

Different professions appeal to different kinds of people ad require radically different skills - to the point where certain professions and groups of professions are de facto social classes of their own.

Nathiar
2015-04-25, 02:39 PM
Get rid of the class system and use point buy system so you can dabble or specialize in any class.

Jormengand
2015-04-25, 03:19 PM
Get rid of the class system and use point buy system so you can dabble or specialize in any class.

There's a thread for that and it is not this thread.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-25, 04:33 PM
Different professions appeal to different kinds of people ad require radically different skills - to the point where certain professions and groups of professions are de facto social classes of their own.

Certain professions also tend to have their own cultures, insulated from the public at large, which can mean that their views of themselves have little to do with reality - or possibly the same for the public's view of them. Even if all people are fundamentally similar, that can produce a very different perception.

BootStrapTommy
2015-04-25, 07:14 PM
Warrior
Rogue
Mage

/thread

All variants on character design and archetype can be accomplished through the loose and variable definition of those three classes, or through multiclassing there between.

Knaight
2015-04-25, 07:43 PM
Warrior
Rogue
Mage

/thread

All variants on character design and archetype can be accomplished through the loose and variable definition of those three classes, or through multiclassing there between.

Really. So where does something like a merchant fit in? How about an alchemist (in the non-magical historical sense)? How about a mundane scholar? An artist?

BayardSPSR
2015-04-25, 07:45 PM
Really. So where does something like a merchant fit in? How about an alchemist (in the non-magical historical sense)? How about a mundane scholar? An artist?

Class systems assume that either there's a class for it, or you don't want to play it.

Knaight
2015-04-25, 07:51 PM
Class systems assume that either there's a class for it, or you don't want to play it.

Exactly. As those areas cover a lot of fantasy characters, it's suggesting that just Warrior, Rogue, and Mage don't really cut it as classes unless the game is really narrowly focused.

Karl Aegis
2015-04-25, 07:52 PM
I would go with:

Best
Good
Fair
Poor

or:

Industrial
Commercial
Private

That's just my opinion.

Eloel
2015-04-25, 08:20 PM
Really. So where does something like a merchant fit in? How about an alchemist (in the non-magical historical sense)? How about a mundane scholar? An artist?

Rogue, Mage, Mage, Mage. In a world with magic, some mundane stuff don't exist.

BootStrapTommy
2015-04-25, 09:08 PM
Really. So where does something like a merchant fit in? How about an alchemist (in the non-magical historical sense)? How about a mundane scholar? An artist?

All variants on character design and archetype can be accomplished through the loose and variable definition of those three classes, or through multiclassing there between.
Skill:Profession

You roleplay merchants and artists often?

Me neither.

Cluedrew
2015-04-25, 09:11 PM
You roleplay merchants and artists often?

Me neither.

My last D&D character was an artist actually. The technical class was artificer but because the party was low level I made a lot of mandarin pieces of art as characterisation. Wood carvings mostly.

Hytheter
2015-04-25, 09:14 PM
Really. So where does something like a merchant fit in? How about an alchemist (in the non-magical historical sense)? How about a mundane scholar? An artist?
Well, in most class-based systems that I'm aware of, your class represents your skillset as an adventurer. Looking at DnD, A Fighter can fight monsters. A rogue can sneak around and steal stuff. A Ranger knows how to traverse the wilderness. Being a merchant, artist, alchemist or scholar doesn't offer much in a dungeon, or on a battlefield, or in the wilderness. And if that's all you have to offer - which is to say it's your class - then you aren't much good in an adventure at all and should probably be an NPC. Of course, a Rogue can also be a merchant. A Wizard can (and probably will be, to some degree) a scholar. The Fighter might paint in his downtime as a hobby or profession.
Of course, they may work as classes in a system that has a more... mundane focus, rather than an adventurous one. But I don't think that's the default assumption here.

BootStrapTommy
2015-04-25, 09:14 PM
My last D&D character was an artist actually. The technical class was artificer but because the party was low level I made a lot of mandarin pieces of art as characterisation. Wood carvings mostly.
So you played a variant of Mage. Who happened to do art.

TheCountAlucard
2015-04-25, 09:19 PM
You roleplay merchants and artists often?Yes, but then again, I'm the GM more often than not. Still, merchants can be pretty darn adventurous, especially the traveling ones, and I've played merchant PCs and NPCs, and GMed for players with merchant PCs.

As for artists, that's gonna depend on what you mean by "art," but if "music" or "poetry" or "storytelling" falls into your definition then bards are right there in the D&D books.

BootStrapTommy
2015-04-25, 09:24 PM
Yes, but then again, I'm the GM more often than not. Still, merchants can be pretty darn adventurous, especially the traveling ones, and I've played merchant PCs and NPCs, and GMed for players with merchant PCs.

As for artists, that's gonna depend on what you mean by "art," but if "music" or "poetry" or "storytelling" falls into your definition then bards are right there in the D&D books.What was that? Rogues and more Mages?

Cluedrew
2015-04-25, 09:27 PM
So you played a variant of Mage. Who happened to do art.

Yes and those who make art are called artists. You can play and still classes in different ways then the original. Which is actually in favour of your low class count suggestion.

Although is the mage pure blasty? That character in particular I played as a support-summon hybrid, rarely did anything directly, and that falls outside of what I would usually call "mage".

TheCountAlucard
2015-04-25, 09:29 PM
What was that? Rogues and more Mages?Nope. Merchants and musicians. :smallcool:

BootStrapTommy
2015-04-25, 09:41 PM
Yes and those who make art are called artists. You can play and still classes in different ways then the original. Which is actually in favour of your low class count suggestion.

Although is the mage pure blasty? That character in particular I played as a support-summon hybrid, rarely did anything directly, and that falls outside of what I would usually call "mage".I'm talking about as loose a definition of the terms as possible. A Mage being everything from a divinely inspire party buffer to a blaster to a summoner to a " bard" to a telekinetist. Or a mix and match.

Druids, sorcerers, wizards, shaman, tinkerer. They're all just Mages.

Obviously I have no clue how it would function mechanically, otherwise I'd be profiting from my Fantasy Roleplaying for Idiots. But I imagine a more complex archetype system than that from 5e D&D. Maybe a backgroundish thing for professions and back story.

Likewise with Rogue and Warrior.

erikun
2015-04-25, 09:54 PM
I'm under the impression that classes should give a skillset that fits what the class should be, and then allow players to expand beyond that. If the system has levels as well, then the class should also grant the basic assumed functionality at the set level. This is perhaps the exact opposite of what classes have been in traditional D&D editions, but once D&D started getting into skill points, it sort of lost the claim of simplicity and class-specialization.

As an example, a class Soldier would be skilled in melee combat, and have training in maintaining their equipment (as expected of a soldier) and working with tactics. Besides that, they would get 4 skill points to spend on other skills or abilities - so that one player's Soldier would be different from another player's Soldier, even though they are both Soldiers and both have the same basic abilities. A class Knight would also be skilled in melee combat, but also skilled in mounted combat and caring for their mount and more social conversations that would be expected of a Knight. The Knight could of course spend their skill points to pick up the equipment maintanence and tactics of the Soldier - effectively becoming a Knight/Soldier - and the Soldier could spend their points picking up the Knight skills, for the same effect.

Ideally, there would also be a more generic "Melee Combatant" class which just has melee combat as a skill, and getting 8 skill points (or equivalent) that they could spend however they wish. They could spend it on the Soldier and Knight abilities, effectively becoming the same Knight/Soldier as the others, or spend on wildly differnet abilities in the game. And if they base melee combat abilities can be picked up with skill points, then you could have just a "Generic" class and treat the game as point-buy.

The nice thing about this idea is that a group could increase the "point buy" for more powerful characters. If the Soldier class in 12 points total, for example, then the group could play with 24 points and allow for "gestalt" characters. It would also allow for more powerful classes. If someone makes a Bearwizdruid class that's 20 points strong, then the group could just bump everyone else to match those 20 points and make the Bearwizdruid playable. This means that the Soldier would increase their skill points form 4 up to 12, to make up the difference.


If the game has sub-systems for different styles of play, then you probably want at least one class for each system. Which would probably mean:

a Melee Combat class
a Ranged Combat class (you are making ranged different, right?)
a Skilled class
a Social class
a Magic System Flavor Blue class
a Magic System Flavor Orange class (because there is always at least two)
a Magic System Flavor Periwinkle class (for the obligatory oddball third option)

In addition, there could be some that are appropriate for some settings but not for others. A Mounted Combat class would be great with settings like the knights of King Arthur or with the Mongolian horsemen, but not so much with cavern-exploration.

DMVerdandi
2015-04-25, 10:43 PM
Personally, What I would like in a game or setting is a dark fantasy esque kind of thing with a fresh spin on names and mechanics of the "classes".

Ideally there would only be two in my dream setting. Fighter and Mage.At first level you start as either a fighter or a mage, and through the gaining of XP you can either choose to advance the first class you have, or purchase the second class and gain it's abilities.
All of the other classes that we are familiar with find similar roles in the kits.

Each kit has exclusive and individual powers that are themed somewhat around the character's Favored ability score.

[INT AND WIS become replaced with WIT, which is something like intelligence, wisdom and imagination all at once.

Strength and Con become replaced with Vigor or VIG.

The Fifth ability score is soul, which is needed for the mage class and magic itself. Unlike other ability scores, Soul can reach zero without detriment to a character.]



These are the kits.
VIG: Berserker/Warlock
(Obviously, berserker goes into frenzies to get stronger. Warlock Creates, manipulates and transforms matter and energy, through evocation, transmutation, and conjuration magics.)

DEX: Reaver/Trickster
(Reaver takes over rogue stuff with more combat focus. Trickster Uses Illusion and space/time magic, to fool, redirect, and disappear)

WIT: Savant/Oracle
(Savant has hella knowledge skills, combat abilities based on extreme calculative prowess. Oracle uses divination and abjuration types of magic to gaze into the abyss, and to defend against what they might see. Also great at universal magic.)

CHA:Ardent/Enchanter
(The Ardent is of course the mundane face. Gets the ability to inspire different emotions for individuals and group. The enchanter can charm, dominate, and exert their will over creatures, and summon monsters from other planes for aid)



The Advanced Kits advance the Both classes at the same time (Like Gestalt, but as a prestige class)
The names of the Advanced Kits are
VIG:Titan
(The Titan would apply many of the physical benefits it got from rage, to it's spell casting, casting stronger magic because of it, and crushing all opposition, while remaining unfazed.)

DEX:Revenant
(The Revenant would take it's space/time and illusion magic, and apply it to it's physical arts, making espionage, assassination, and other clandestine actions a breeze.)

WIT:Geist
(The Geist applies all of it's knowledge alongside it's magics to always seem like they are aware of what's going on. It's like they are everywhere at once. In combat, that level of awareness just provides them with an impenetrable defense and offense. Some would say they can't be touched when prepared)

CHA:Dæmon
(Dæmons apply their ability to boost/lower morale widespread with their generally single target spells to cast wide area effects of influence. Causing enemies to wet themselves in fear, or allies to forget their own fears.
Moreover, they can apply those benefits to the servants that they summon, dominating the battlefield.)



[personally I just like naming the classes something outside of what they do, and moreso whom they are like.]

Lord Raziere
2015-04-25, 11:15 PM
Yes, but then again, I'm the GM more often than not. Still, merchants can be pretty darn adventurous, especially the traveling ones, and I've played merchant PCs and NPCs, and GMed for players with merchant PCs.


Aye, I once had a merchant PC, was this goblin called Mantakax Boomabillion. you couldn't fit him into any class, because he is this magic-using guy....who fires magical fireballs through a shotgun, can negotiate and lead others well, invent cool devices, plan good tactics and strategy, ride a motorcycle, balance a budget, and teleport. he was awesome.

Knaight
2015-04-25, 11:23 PM
Skill:Profession

You roleplay merchants and artists often?

Me neither.
Yes actually. It's not a character type that I'm likely to play in D&D, but as regards broad scale RPGs in general (which is what this discussion is about, with the caveat of only including class based ones) absolutely. I've played a number of noncombatants, and a larger number of characters who had fighting skills, but had substantially better skills in other areas. Your categorization leaves out a lot of valid PCs.


Well, in most class-based systems that I'm aware of, your class represents your skillset as an adventurer. Looking at DnD, A Fighter can fight monsters. A rogue can sneak around and steal stuff. A Ranger knows how to traverse the wilderness. Being a merchant, artist, alchemist or scholar doesn't offer much in a dungeon, or on a battlefield, or in the wilderness. And if that's all you have to offer - which is to say it's your class - then you aren't much good in an adventure at all and should probably be an NPC. Of course, a Rogue can also be a merchant. A Wizard can (and probably will be, to some degree) a scholar. The Fighter might paint in his downtime as a hobby or profession.
Of course, they may work as classes in a system that has a more... mundane focus, rather than an adventurous one. But I don't think that's the default assumption here.
This assumes a particular type of adventurer and particular type of adventure. There are plenty of scenarios in which adventuring absolutely does happen, in which a mundane merchant, scholar, or artist can fit in just fine. For instance, take a game that focuses on city based intrigue - all three likely have connections that another character type wouldn't, the merchant quite possibly has some hefty cash that they can throw around beyond most other characters, and some degree of social skill is necessary for all of them beyond that needed for a fighter, rogue, or mage.

Basically, unless the system is designed specifically for a narrow definition of adventuring (which can be fine), the three classes listed have major holes. They absolutely don't cover everything.

Frozen_Feet
2015-04-26, 09:32 AM
Rogue, Mage, Mage, Mage. In a world with magic, some mundane stuff don't exist.

Magic is a buzzword which can mean anything a setting maker wants it to mean. Hence, you can't make an universal statement of what magic replaces or doesn't.

In a world where there are people who can do magic and people who can't, a class system ought to make a distinction between a magical and non-magical academic types.

Also, Rogue and Thief are not synonyms for Specialist or "skilled labor". They are more specific than that, and using them to cover everything that's not fighting or magic is really baking a point-buy system to heart of your class system, undermining the whole exercise. Profession skills are an example of that, really. So is the Expert NPC class.

Eloel
2015-04-26, 11:11 AM
Also, Rogue and Thief are not synonyms for Specialist or "skilled labor".
No, they're not. But I'm pretty sure Merchant is still a subset of either of them.

Jormengand
2015-04-26, 11:20 AM
All variants on character design and archetype can be accomplished through the loose and variable definition of those three classes, or through multiclassing there between.

But by the time you're loosing and varying the definition of fighter and arguably mage enough to get something like the unarmed swordsage, you might as well have a new class. Which Wizards were perfectly justified in doing. Binder, new class. Doesn't use anything like the normal magic system. Bard could get away with being rogue/mage, sure, but after a while you're just trying to cram things into boxes in which they won't fit.

Even though I'm using my mage class to cover all of wizard, sorcerer, cleric, druid, psion, wilder, and truenamer, I'm not going to tell people who want to play a paladin that they should just multiclass mage/warrior, because that makes no real sense.

Frozen_Feet
2015-04-26, 12:50 PM
No, they're not. But I'm pretty sure Merchant is still a subset of either of them.

Well someone here has a cynical outlook on them. :smalltongue:

Tvtyrant
2015-04-26, 03:56 PM
I personally hate the idea of thieves as experts. Or mages as experts for that matter. A warrior is as or more likely to be an expert at: Making boats, farming, making houses, making swords, using alchemy to heal themselves, husbandry/animal taming, etc. "Skilled" should not be a class designation, everyone ever is skilled at something.

Eloel
2015-04-26, 06:21 PM
"Skilled" should not be a class designation, everyone ever is skilled at something.
Sure, but that warrior is also skilled in weapons and armor, while the expert is good in sneaking and deception (or whatever else)

Hiro Protagonest
2015-04-26, 07:18 PM
Sure, but that warrior is also skilled in weapons and armor, while the expert is good in sneaking and deception (or whatever else)

...Why would he be? Why would every skilled craftsman in the world be good at sneaking, combat, or magic?

Tvtyrant
2015-04-26, 07:21 PM
Sure, but that warrior is also skilled in weapons and armor, while the expert is good in sneaking and deception (or whatever else)

No, the thief, or assassin, or rogue, or spy, is good at those things. "Expert" is a term which applies to skill at tasks, and sneaking and deception is no more linked to that then swordfighting is. An Expert is someone with skills, a swordsman has skills and a sword, a thief has skills and sneaking. All too often the classes are: Good at spells, good at skills, good at fighting. Skills should not be associated with thief/sneaky types anymore than any other combat archetype.

Eloel
2015-04-26, 07:26 PM
No, the thief, or assassin, or rogue, or spy, is good at those things. "Expert" is a term which applies to skill at tasks, and sneaking and deception is no more linked to that then swordfighting is. An Expert is someone with skills, a swordsman has skills and a sword, a thief has skills and sneaking. All too often the classes are: Good at spells, good at skills, good at fighting. Skills should not be associated with thief/sneaky types anymore than any other combat archetype.

Expert has more skills than any other. Warrior has skills and a sword. Expert has skills and more skills. If he's going into a dungeon, those skills better be useful for combat - sneaking is a good one for that.

Tvtyrant
2015-04-26, 07:33 PM
Expert has more skills than any other. Warrior has skills and a sword. Expert has skills and more skills. If he's going into a dungeon, those skills better be useful for combat - sneaking is a good one for that.
I could not disagree more. Skills are not combat abilities, therefore the Expert should not be a class. If sneaking has to be a skill instead of an ability, then give them an inherent bonus to it and give them the same skills. Sneak attacking, spying on people, etc. are already benefits of being good at sneaking.

There is no reason a warrior would be less good at anything except sneaking than the sneaky guy. Spending your days avoiding people does not suddenly make you good at making swords, except in RPGs.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-26, 07:56 PM
Third base!

The way D&D defines "skills" seems to be a bit of a problem.

Millstone85
2015-04-27, 11:33 AM
Still very much a newbie but I am starting to envision my ideal system as having lots of "martial and magic schools" to borrow from. At least one martial school per weapon, including one's bare hands, while magic schools would focus on blasting, healing, summoning and so on. Whether you learned your art in the street, in the army, as a wizard's apprentice, under a god's guidance, or whatever, would come in addition to any of this.