PDA

View Full Version : What Are Classes?



GreatWyrmGold
2021-02-22, 06:52 PM
I've been involved in a few discussions on this forum which touched on, to some degree or another, more or less clearly, the question of what classes are in D&D. I don't mean in a mechanical sense—classes are the basic building block of characters, that much is obvious. The question being touched on is one of what makes classes what they are, why they exist as they do. (Beyond "They did it in AD&D and nobody's bothered to change it since," I mean—we're talking philosophy, not history.)

To explain what I mean, I'm going to point to two ancient classes which lie on opposite ends of the spectrum, Ranger and Fighter.

The Ranger has a very strong theme. The Ranger is Robin Hood, Aragorn, Drizzt. A woodsman who knows the land and knows his prey, who uses cunning and nature lore to defeat great foes. The class is pure archetype, a set of mechanics outlining a familiar fantasy form. But those mechanics are unremarkable. It's unclear what role a ranger is expected to fill in a party; it's less fighty than the fighter and less skillful than the rogue, without any truly distinctive powers of its own.

On the other hand, the Fighter has a very strong mechanical role. (Those mechanics tend to be a bit generic, and in some editions are kinda pathetic—3.5, I'm looking at you—but the intent, at least, was clear.) The Fighter is a warrior, durable enough to weather the storm and strong enough to whip up one of their own. But its flavor is thin; nothing defines a fighter's character beyond the fact that they fight. Theoretically this gives players the freedom to attach a wide variety of character archetypes to the fighter chassis, but in practice most players either don't need to be told they have that freedom or make generic warrior characters when they play Fighter. The Fighter is pure mechanics, with no flavor or archetype to call its own.

The Ranger and Fighter are practically polar opposites from a high-level design perspective. The Ranger exists as a set of mechanics to enable a specific archetype; you can use those mechanics to build a character who doesn't resemble the archetype, of course, but that's not what the class was designed for. The Fighter, on the other hand, exists as a set of mechanics to fill a specific mechanical role; you can bolt almost any archetype on it, but for better or worse it won't be reflected in the mechanics.

Neither of these class design paradigms are inherently bad. Having archetypical classes like the Ranger guarantees that each of your classes will feel distinct; each class will have a set of mechanics designed to evoke a certain type of character, to fulfill that fantasy most thoroughly. Having role classes like the Fighter guarantees that each of your classes will have a place in the game, while giving players with a character type in mind maximum freedom to pick whatever mechanics they want. (In both cases, obviously only if the classes are done right, but the question of if/how it's done right is beyond the intended scope of this discussion.)
Most classes in D&D are somewhere between those two extremes. The monk has a distinct kung fu flavor, and combines unarmed/unarmored combat with a generally mobile combat style. The paladin is the archetypical knight in shining armor, and serves the slightly messy role of a tank/support caster/occasional nova-striker. The rogue is a trickster or crook, and fills in the party's noncombat needs (with a few sneak attacks in combat, of course). But the tension between those two ideas of what a class is can be felt even in the classes with some sort of balance. What's the barbarian doing as a class when fighters are already so good at, well, fighting? What makes a druid conceptually different from a cleric serving a nature deity? Why are the classes divided the way they are?


What are classes? Are they classic character archetypes with mechanics built to match? Are they mechanical roles with appropriate flavor attached? What should they be?

This question can be felt in a wide variety of discussions. Discussions about why class X doesn't have fighting style Y, about how Class Z should best be played, and (of course) about what classes could be removed from the game. But I've never seen it spelled out so clearly and discussed on its own. So I wrote this thread.

So I open the floor to you. What the heck are classes?

Anonymouswizard
2021-02-22, 07:19 PM
Fighters honestly can have more flavour, but it's still a bit generic. Fighters are those who have dedicated their lives to mastering weapons to the exclusion of practically anything, until they attain nearly unheard of skill with one or more. This is sadly a flavour D&D seems somewhat unwilling to build into the class, but a Fighter should be Lancelot, or at the very least Boromir (skilled enough with sword and shield to kill a great number of orcs before dying). Every edition of D&D sucks at this flavour except for 4th.

Okay, to me the ideal example of what the Fighter class should be is Guts. He's a man who has pushed his body and skill to the point where he does the inhuman, including taking down 100 men by himself in a brutal skirmish. A man so skilled with two handed swords that he can wield one that weighs as much as him as if it was a hand and a half sword.A man who went three years with practically no sleep because demons attacked him every night.

So yeah, my view is that classes are archetypes instead of skillsets, and the fighter needs an overhaul so that 'ordinary soldier' is not part of it. A Barbarian powers through on rage, and a Monk medidated under a waterfall until they understood the world, but a Fighter trained continually for years or decades until they can leap out of their saddle, catch an arrow, draw their blade, and disarm you all in the same round. And look cool (if not necessar5ily stylish, that's a bard's job) while doing with.

Higher level fighters are doing all of that blindfolded with only a dagger.

Mechalich
2021-02-22, 07:46 PM
The Ranger and Fighter are practically polar opposites from a high-level design perspective. The Ranger exists as a set of mechanics to enable a specific archetype; you can use those mechanics to build a character who doesn't resemble the archetype, of course, but that's not what the class was designed for. The Fighter, on the other hand, exists as a set of mechanics to fill a specific mechanical role; you can bolt almost any archetype on it, but for better or worse it won't be reflected in the mechanics.

I disagree. Fighter and Ranger both enable archetypes, it is just that the conceptual space encompassed by 'fighter' is extremely broad and the conceptual space encompassed by 'ranger' is much narrower. Certain other classes, notably paladin and druid, are narrower still. Mechanically the Fighter and Ranger have the same role in D&D - they're both DPS classes (the ranger's utility options have become more important over time, but their initial function was extremely modest).

Generally D&D classes match poorly to 'mechanical role' because D&D has minimal role protection. It really only has three supported roles: DPS, healer, and skill monkey, with the latter being extremely situational - if you pay any isometric D&D video game you know you need a thief, but mostly the thief functions as a DPS until its time to check for traps or open a lock.

A game can use classes as a means of sorting character concepts into roles. This works well for video games that tightly constrain inputs and outputs but is less effective for tabletop, especially since the natural division between combat/non-combat that exists in real life isn't something you can tolerate at tabletop because it leads to players sitting around the table with nothing to do for huge stretches of the game.

Consequently tabletop classes are primarily used to enable archetypes, this makes sense when the gameplay space is appropriately tailored so the game needs to only support archetypes that make sense within the space. Shadowrun, for example, is a game about going on Shadowruns, and the game only needs to support characters who would plausibly be undertaking that activity, you don't need to represent everyone else on the planet with PC classes. D&D is supposed to be about adventurers who go on dungeon crawls (yes sometimes the 'dungeon' is a wilderness or a slum or whatever) and so the archetypes supported should be concepts tailored to the dungeon crawling experience. Unfortunately D&D hasn't exactly held itself to this very well and as a result there are D&D classes that are all over the place, but that's mostly a 'D&D is messy' thing rather than any sort of design principle.

Lord Raziere
2021-02-22, 08:02 PM
What are classes? Are they classic character archetypes with mechanics built to match? Are they mechanical roles with appropriate flavor attached? What should they be?

This question can be felt in a wide variety of discussions. Discussions about why class X doesn't have fighting style Y, about how Class Z should best be played, and (of course) about what classes could be removed from the game. But I've never seen it spelled out so clearly and discussed on its own. So I wrote this thread.

So I open the floor to you. What the heck are classes?

Honest Answer? They are Inconsistent. because they are incoherently designed.

some classes fall into "Clear Archetype" version, and some into "Generic Mechanics". To use DnD 5e:

Clear Archetype: Paladin (knight in shining armor), Ranger (Robin hood), Monk (kung fu flicks), Druid (magic nature person), Wizard (Merlin), Warlock (Deal with the Devil), Bard (Spoony Bard), Barbarian (Hulk/berserker trope) Sorcerer (younger more reckless mages)

Generic Mechanics: Fighter, Rogue, Cleric

why did I put Cleric on the generic side? because honestly there is no specific fantasy archetype that it embodies. you can argue that its a white mage, but the current Dnd vision of it is that what your actual focus is depends on the deity you worship and thus the magic they can do and thus what archetype they are varies from cleric to cleric. while rogue has this criminal flavor its actually tremendously flexible in terms of what it can allow to emulate. sure thieves cant is pretty unavoidable, but you can pass that off as the character just being very scholarly and able to decipher their language, despite not being a thief yourself. the rest is just a matter picking the appropriate skills.

But overall I'd say that DnD is more on the archetype emulation side than the generic mechanics side. fighter and rogues are just in the unenviable position of having to be normal people among a bunch of classes that all have some clear supernatural flavor.

but this is general roleplaying. perhaps we should look at another system other than DnD to see how they did classes? like....the fantasy flight Wh40k games. in them, all the classes are real in-setting positions and terms with clear places in society, to use Dark Heresy:
Adept (Nonmagical scholars, with lots of knowledge and skills and also investigators and researchers)
Arbitrator (Enforces law, are basically police)
Assassin (kills people stealthily for hire. exactly what it says on the tin)
Cleric (no magic. inspires, oratory, general spiritual person keeps up morale mainly)
Guardsman (is a soldier, basically, shoots and fights)
Imperial Psyker (handles the magic of the setting so no one else has to)
Scum (is a criminal and does underhanded things of a scoundrel nature)
Tech Priest (handles the technology of the setting)

all of these have clear methods of progression that make sense in setting, with a bunch of titles for this and that class for how much they leveled in their career. but how they advance is half skill-based, and their skillsets are wider than they seem. often they have secondary skills to round out their primary ones in the things they can advance. you may wonder why Assassin is a separate class from Guardsman or Scum but rest assured an Assassin is someone specifically on the path to become a member of the Officio Assassinorum a very important and powerful organization in Wh40k, which the other two are not. how they all fit together as a group is pretty obvious, as they are all investigators for the Inquisition to kill threats to mankind, and each class has some use for that and an established place within the setting. not all of them are equally good at combat- Adept is more useful for the knowledge they have than any lasgun they fire-but they can all contribute in some manner, and all they all have a distinct identity. the difference between playing a fighter in DnD and playing a Guardsman is that the guardsman is probably from the Imperial Guard which has certain assumptions tied into it.

so it could be that DnD classes are incoherently designed, because its setting isn't defined enough. Wh40k for its all grimdarkness is able to establish clear identities for all its archetypes and detail all their jobs and lives in great detail so that you know what each person does IC and OOC. there is some slight wiggle room but in the end the path you choose is pretty clear on what you'll do, where you'll end up, what skills you have and what your place is. if your that thing, your that thing in setting in Dark Heresy with no room for doubt.

for DnD it can be a bit harder to figure out what exactly is a classes place within a setting or if they even have a distinct word for them. some places are clearer than others but the classes even the defined ones are pretty floaty and unbound in terms of what they're supposed to be in relation to them. thus its not always clear what leads to a life with the skills and abilities of that class, or what they're supposed to do with their lives.

So I think classes if they are to exist, best work when they are tied into the setting and have a very well defined place in them.

Anonymouswizard
2021-02-22, 09:08 PM
Generally D&D classes match poorly to 'mechanical role' because D&D has minimal role protection. It really only has three supported roles: DPS, healer, and skill monkey, with the latter being extremely situational - if you pay any isometric D&D video game you know you need a thief, but mostly the thief functions as a DPS until its time to check for traps or open a lock.

Sadly, the one time D&D included specific (combat) roles for classes it got a very negative reaction. And I think the same happened with Pathfinder 2e sliding casters out of blasting and tanking and solidifying them as battlefield control. Reduced skill selection has also helped let players define more clear outside of combat roles, but it's also lead to a skill tax problem *everybody wants Perception, and a good number of low skill classes also want Athletics).

Honestly D&D could do much worse than going back to the Defender/Leader/Striker/Controller(/Artillery) setup, although they might want to leave it out of the books and keep it as just a design process. It would give each class a mechanical purpose, and then they could go through the big list of fantasy archetypes and assign one that fits the class. (Also bring back Racial Powers, they did better at differentiating races than stat boosts.)

4e was very good when it came to assigning classes mechanical roles, and somewhat decent at giving them archetypal ones. There were of course problems, but each class had a decent place and it gave the poor Fighter a bit more of an identity.

Cluedrew
2021-02-22, 09:11 PM
What are classes? [...] So I open the floor to you.Assorted cool ideas picked at random.

People talk about them being archetypes but really... are they? "The Knight in Shining Armour" might have been an archetype but the holy powers thing doesn't seem to be common until the Paladin came along. The Cleric isn't really either and was created out of a need to have a healer in combat, with a hint of vampire thrown in apparently (maybe that's where turn undead came from?).

There was no centralized design philosophy, and it there was it wasn't updated as the editions went on (except for 4th).

Saint-Just
2021-02-22, 09:28 PM
but this is general roleplaying. perhaps we should look at another system other than DnD to see how they did classes? like....the fantasy flight Wh40k games. in them, all the classes are real in-setting positions and terms with clear places in society, to use Dark Heresy:
Adept (Nonmagical scholars, with lots of knowledge and skills and also investigators and researchers)
Arbitrator (Enforces law, are basically police)
Assassin (kills people stealthily for hire. exactly what it says on the tin)
Cleric (no magic. inspires, oratory, general spiritual person keeps up morale mainly)
Guardsman (is a soldier, basically, shoots and fights)
Imperial Psyker (handles the magic of the setting so no one else has to)
Scum (is a criminal and does underhanded things of a scoundrel nature)
Tech Priest (handles the technology of the setting)

all of these have clear methods of progression that make sense in setting, with a bunch of titles for this and that class for how much they leveled in their career. but how they advance is half skill-based, and their skillsets are wider than they seem. often they have secondary skills to round out their primary ones in the things they can advance. you may wonder why Assassin is a separate class from Guardsman or Scum but rest assured an Assassin is someone specifically on the path to become a member of the Officio Assassinorum a very important and powerful organization in Wh40k, which the other two are not. how they all fit together as a group is pretty obvious, as they are all investigators for the Inquisition to kill threats to mankind, and each class has some use for that and an established place within the setting. not all of them are equally good at combat- Adept is more useful for the knowledge they have than any lasgun they fire-but they can all contribute in some manner, and all they all have a distinct identity. the difference between playing a fighter in DnD and playing a Guardsman is that the guardsman is probably from the Imperial Guard which has certain assumptions tied into it.

so it could be that DnD classes are incoherently designed, because its setting isn't defined enough. Wh40k for its all grimdarkness is able to establish clear identities for all its archetypes and detail all their jobs and lives in great detail so that you know what each person does IC and OOC. there is some slight wiggle room but in the end the path you choose is pretty clear on what you'll do, where you'll end up, what skills you have and what your place is. if your that thing, your that thing in setting in Dark Heresy with no room for doubt.


for DnD it can be a bit harder to figure out what exactly is a classes place within a setting or if they even have a distinct word for them. some places are clearer than others but the classes even the defined ones are pretty floaty and unbound in terms of what they're supposed to be in relation to them. thus its not always clear what leads to a life with the skills and abilities of that class, or what they're supposed to do with their lives.

So I think classes if they are to exist, best work when they are tied into the setting and have a very well defined place in them.


Surprisingly 2e D&D (oldest that I read, though never played) talks about clerics as being modeled on Templars and the like, so not your average priest (that's why the heavy armor, martial weapons and so on). Which makes it almost redundant on the conceptual level with Paladin (and even though by 3e it went somewhat separate ways you still see the suggestions of replacing the Paladinb with ACF'd Cleric or converting it to the prestige class - including in the Unearthed Arcana).

I do agree that Dark Heresy's (I am somewhat less acquainted with other product lines) advancement is less arbitrary because it's grounded in the institutions of the Imperium. I think the piecemeal leveling also helps very much (to those who hadn't read it - it's a restricted point-buy, you can learn a new skill or talent or increase one characteristic for 100 XP well before you achieve 2nd rank, and when you achieve that rank you don't get any automatic increase, you get more and stronger options to purchase for more XP, so you don't have sudden jumps in power and also there is no dead weight - if the option (like increased HP, or more skill with melee weapons, or ability to track) is not helpful to the character then the player does not take it). But even if you notice that "Guardsman" is not necessary from Imperial Guard, nor Adept is not necessary from Administratum it still doesn't allow you to play Imperium:the RPG. Dark Heresy's classes work better than D&D because the authors had chosen a simpler task and did it well. Unless you treat D&D as primarily a tactical game where character options doesn't need to emulate anything besides themselves then even exploring the dungeons will likely involve more diverse people not necessary reducible to the core classes. And then it gets much worse when you try to emulate other fantasy plots - courtly intrigue, monster-hunting with a focus on hunting etc. Right spell can solve anything but that just creates another pitfall.

In the end I do agree that strict classes work better in a narrow situation - one setting, and probably a particular tone of game also.To properly cover different times or different tasks you'd need a new set of classes (that's kind of what FFG did with Wh40k RPGs - they made a separate one for at least five different "taskforces" - and yes, it can be a desire to extract more cash from gamers, yet I do not think it was solely motivated by that). Alternatively you need a classless system, or at least potentially classless one - where your starting packages are limited but potentially you can learn anything regardless of starting class. Those can have their own issues, of course.

Mechalich
2021-02-22, 09:39 PM
Sadly, the one time D&D included specific (combat) roles for classes it got a very negative reaction. And I think the same happened with Pathfinder 2e sliding casters out of blasting and tanking and solidifying them as battlefield control. Reduced skill selection has also helped let players define more clear outside of combat roles, but it's also lead to a skill tax problem *everybody wants Perception, and a good number of low skill classes also want Athletics).

Dedicated combat roles tend to feel very 'gamey,' meaning they often demand rather extreme bits of suspension of disbelief that can be tolerated in video games (often because they are obscured mechanically), but become rather ridiculous when employed at tabletop. Tanking, in particular, tends to rely on very arbitrary mechanics - 'I shout really loud and now all the enemies who attack anyone other than me suffer a damage penalty' - that don't mesh with any concept of immersive roleplay.

There's also the issue that, if you want highly engaging MMO-style tactical combat you should just play an MMO. Advances in technology have made computer games simply better at offering certain types of experiences than tabletop can ever be. This is a natural progression in entertainment mediums. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries live theater was dominated by epic melodramas like Ben Hur and The Count of Monte Cristo, but theaters no long put on such pieces because they simply cannot match the kind of energy and spectacle of the film versions.

The generalized trend towards rules-lite and narrative TTRPG systems is indicative of this, since they focus on the parts of the tabletop experience that works better around a live table rather than on a game server (even D&D 5e represents a significant simplification in many ways). Of course, such games have less need for a class system because the greatest utility of classes is in simplifying mechanical complexity by pre-selecting options along a progression.

Lord Raziere
2021-02-22, 09:44 PM
Assorted cool ideas picked at random.


Which really is my entire point. classes again work best when they are well-defined parts of the setting. when they are chosen not for random coolness but for their functionality not in an abstract mechanical sense but in an in-setting sense. the Wh40k classes/career paths are full of things chosen for functionality. I've already detailed Dark heresy, so lets how we can makes classes to be functional in an adventuring DnD like world, discarding the normal archetypes.

What do we need?
-to fight things
-to get rid of traps since that seems to be a common problem, much like Indiana Jones
-to deal with magical problems
-investigate things to learn more about them, whether it be in old ruins or otherwise
-to explore and traverse dangerous environments
-to negotiate with people you've never met before as your constantly traveling

so the classes might be something like:
-Archeologist (a knowledgeable person specifically designed for delving into dungeons, getting rid of traps and whatnot)
-Explorer (a person who knows how to navigate wilderness, chart out paths and some fighting stuff along the way)
-Merchant (a social face who is also a common traveler and goes looking for stuff in ruins to sell)
-Bodyguard/Mercenary (a bodyguard who protects the other guys with their ability to fight however that is)
-Field Mage (an archetype of a magic user explicitly less about academic stuff from books and more about getting hands on knowledge in the field)
-Missionary (a divine person if we want to replace cleric who travels to other lands spreading their faith, with social skills to match)

now, Archeologist could probably be rolled into the Explorer, but you see what I mean. these are all more clear about the classes purposes and what they're supposed to be. "rogue" or "fighter" is vague but "Explorer" or "Bodyguard" has explicitly connotations about exploring wild untamed lands or protecting someone else. Field Mage focuses on the wizardly archetype into someone who goes for magic that will be useful for adventuring, while missionary focuses divine magic into a reason they are traveling around. its IC functional, and thus can easily be OOC functional as well. there is no technical need for adventurers to involve themselves in often society-based underworlds of crime, so rogue is out and you get explorer which makes much more sense for what DnD adventurers do. now there is the argument that these archetypes are less general and more focused and thus cut off other campaigns, but I'll wait for people to respond with the kind of campaigns they'd want that this list would cut off before thinking any further on it.

It could probably use some work, but a more IC functionality and defined place for the classes would probably do wonders.

OldTrees1
2021-02-22, 10:53 PM
At their root classes are a delivery mechanism for mechanics used by a class based game as a tool to help the player instantiate their character concepts.

So, if that is the goal then how are they designed?
1) Players have character concepts.
A class with characterization (strong theme) will have mechanics that synergize to reinforce that characterization and enable the characterization to continue or evolve to meet the new demands of higher and higher levels. This gives new players an idea of what the mechanics will do for them and an archetype for them to consider as an example when crafting the characterization of their character concept.

A class without characterization is going to be a blank slate. That provides no help to a new player working on the characterization of their character, nor on finding which mechanics help instantiate their character concept. On the other hand a blank slate does not get in the way if someone has a better grasp of their characterization and what mechanics they are looking for.

So generally a class tries to strike some sort of idea balance where they are not too specific (Waterdeep Geology Professor) nor too general (Adventurer). There might even be a mixture where some are more specific (Ranger) and others less specific (Fighter) so there are specific classes and an alternative generic class for when the specific classes don't fit the character concept.

2) Classes are an ordered bundle of features
The Barbarian class knows the 14th level Barbarian feature will arrive at 14th level or later and will come after Barbarian 1-13. This lets the design plan ahead with some idea of context. It can design how the bundle of mechanics will evolve as the character goes to higher and higher levels.

Multiclass design is just an advanced topic / course of this design. If you allow multiclassing in your design, then you want reasonable multiclasses to also evolve to meet the expectations and demands of higher levels.



Now which concepts are turned into classes is a subjective decision on the part of the designer.

MoiMagnus
2021-02-23, 06:13 AM
The main goal of classes is to guide players toward creating characters that make D&D what it is.
You can take the same rule system, but if the classes were "Noble, Architect, Merchant, etc", the game would be vastly different.

Sure all the customisation options and subclasses published in latter books mean that experienced players will be able to go outside of those tropes reasonably easily, but the point of the classes is to ensure that those tropes remain tropes.

Compare the cleric class to the wizard class. One of them emphases high level of knowledge, and does not wear any armour or battle protection, while the other is likely in battle armour and is more competent at being a field medic than at organising a religious office.
Sure, you can make a battlemage in heavy armour, and you can make a priest in robe. But those are not what the class system will push the players toward, and those kind of design choices shape what D&D is.

The goal of classes is to guide the player. In some sense, it's not a problem by itself that the classes are inconsistent, as different classes might target different kind of players.

Together with that first goal, the set of classes is also here to guide players toward creating a varied but compatible team.

All D&D classes heavily favour combat, and that's a good thing that they are homogenous on that.
It's much more a problem when one class push forward a specific kind of gameplay for the campaign, but the other classes either do not cover at all this gameplay, or at the contrary push toward ignoring it.

Anonymouswizard
2021-02-23, 06:13 AM
Dedicated combat roles tend to feel very 'gamey,' meaning they often demand rather extreme bits of suspension of disbelief that can be tolerated in video games (often because they are obscured mechanically), but become rather ridiculous when employed at tabletop. Tanking, in particular, tends to rely on very arbitrary mechanics - 'I shout really loud and now all the enemies who attack anyone other than me suffer a damage penalty' - that don't mesh with any concept of immersive roleplay.

Eh, 4e tanking worked about as well as could be expected because it punished via dealing damage. But yes, there's a reason you use the 13th Age model of not giving explicit tags in the book and instead talk about the intended play style. Although I think 13th Age mainly got rid of Defenders in exchange for having them be more durable strikers.


There's also the issue that, if you want highly engaging MMO-style tactical combat you should just play an MMO. Advances in technology have made computer games simply better at offering certain types of experiences than tabletop can ever be. This is a natural progression in entertainment mediums. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries live theater was dominated by epic melodramas like Ben Hur and The Count of Monte Cristo, but theaters no long put on such pieces because they simply cannot match the kind of energy and spectacle of the film versions.

Having played tactical miniatures combat, it's still fun and enjoyable even though computer games do it 'better' (and actually they don't do so definitively).

If computer games did tactical combat better, would Games Workshop still be selling Warhammer? There's obviously something about the game people can't find on a computer.

Oh, and I've seen epic productions on stage (and heard them on radio). They can be very good, because they can't rely on the impressive visuals films use and so have to get more artistic.


The generalized trend towards rules-lite and narrative TTRPG systems is indicative of this, since they focus on the parts of the tabletop experience that works better around a live table rather than on a game server (even D&D 5e represents a significant simplification in many ways). Of course, such games have less need for a class system because the greatest utility of classes is in simplifying mechanical complexity by pre-selecting options along a progression.

Whether or not this is true is debatable, there is still a market out there for more rules-heavy games. It is the current trend of the industry, but that doesn't mean it's going to remain the trend forever.

Especially because crunchy games like Wrath & Glory and The Dark Eye still sell. So somebody still thinks crunch is fine at the game table, even if it's no longer the majority of players.

Cluedrew
2021-02-23, 08:25 AM
Having played tactical miniatures combat, it's still fun and enjoyable even though computer games do it 'better' (and actually they don't do so definitively).Until we get holographic projectors I don't think computers will be able to replicate the feeling of setting up and realizing your opponent's army is made almost entirely out of extra-large miniatures. But still designing "board games on the computer" is a thing people do, that is design computer games using the lessons learned (or restrictions forced on you) by board games.

I will say though for all the flack 4th edition gets it was the only system where combat interested in at all. I do want to try Lancer sometime which is built off that formula, or at least has the same feel.

Morty
2021-02-23, 08:31 AM
Assorted cool ideas picked at random.

People talk about them being archetypes but really... are they? "The Knight in Shining Armour" might have been an archetype but the holy powers thing doesn't seem to be common until the Paladin came along. The Cleric isn't really either and was created out of a need to have a healer in combat, with a hint of vampire thrown in apparently (maybe that's where turn undead came from?).

There was no centralized design philosophy, and it there was it wasn't updated as the editions went on (except for 4th).

Correct. D&D class design is a work of accretion. Ideas were slapped on as needed, but without anything resembling a unified or coherent design direction. And after 3E, it seems no class can ever be removed.

Anonymouswizard
2021-02-23, 08:54 AM
Until we get holographic projectors I don't think computers will be able to replicate the feeling of setting up and realizing your opponent's army is made almost entirely out of extra-large miniatures. But still designing "board games on the computer" is a thing people do, that is design computer games using the lessons learned (or restrictions forced on you) by board games.

Oh, I do love computerised board games, but there's something great about handling actual physical miniatures (or LEGO, depending on the game and who's running). And there's nothing wrong with using lessons learned in one medium when creating something in another, in fact it's a very good thing.


I will say though for all the flack 4th edition gets it was the only system where combat interested in at all. I do want to try Lancer sometime which is built off that formula, or at least has the same feel.

4e has a lot of good ideas that 3e threw out to appeal to the hatebase. Healing Surges, abilities that worked on a per-eno****er basis (instead of a per three encounters basis), separating combat and outside of combat magic, stronger roles for classes, attacker always rolls, three/four defences each dependent on the better of two stats, and other bits that skip my mind now. It was just combined with a (seeming) radical shift in priorities, a flawed marketing campaign, and an apparent reduction in class variation.

Oh, and Racial Powers. Those were an excellent idea.

I'm really liking 13th Age the more I read it and really want to run it. It's got most of the good parts of 4e, but with some changes (Recoveries are randomised unlike Healing Surges, defences are based on the middle of three stats, combining the three tiers into one...), while bring in more 3.X style class variation. Plus more freeform rituals, all you need to do is justify one of the effects being related to one of your spells.

Also having been annoyed by how little my 5e Battlemaster used their maneuvers, I'm really liking Flexible Attacks. It looks like it makes playing a Fighter fun, instead of making me worry if I'll need any of my three SD later in the battle.

Quertus
2021-02-23, 01:37 PM
Well, it's complicated.

I have my own ideas on the topic, but those who have few sanity points to spare should probably skip on past my mad rambling.

Example 1 - 1 modular class

There is only 1 class, with modular options. Each level, you choose which options to take.

Maybe this level you took "wear armor", "cast in armor", and "cantrips of Tzeentch with the cost of potential sanity loss".

Or maybe this level you took "Toughness of Boromir" and "voice of an angel".

Or maybe this level you took "10' step", "parry lasers" and "Lay on Hands at the risk of Warp phenomenon".

Or maybe this level you took, "recover Hero Points by drinking blood" and "skill monkey".

Example 2 - 2 teams

Green.

Purple.

(There is no difference between these classes - they merely represent or determine which side of the conflict you are on.)

Example 3 - 3 pillars

There's 3 pillars in D&D: social, exploration, and combat.

A) what if those were your 3 classes? Your class tells you which part of the game you play.

B) what if your class was a Tristalt, where you had to choose a class to specify *how* you contribute to each pillar?

Example 4 - 4 elements

What if your class determined your acumen with each *approach* - an Earth heavy class might struggle with stealth or deception compared to a Water or Air class, for example.

Example 5 - 5 character choices

Suppose I create a new game, with the following classes:

Quertus, powerful tactically inept academia mage.

Thristen, skulking vampire skill monkey.

Bob, Beholder warrior.

Evan, the Last Son of Magnus, devout follower of Tzeentch.

Sentient Potted Plant, considers abilities like "holds items", "pushes buttons", and "moves under own power" to be super powers beyond its reach.

-----

So, what *can* classes do?

Well, *something* needs to tell you what, mechanically, you can do.

Something needs to provide a rough measure of what you're capable of.

Something needs to be used to represent how you grow over time / as you gain experience.

Something needs to indicate which "team" you're on.

Something needs to give you a role.

Something needs to give you a personality.

Something needs to indicate what you are and have the opportunity to become familiar with.

Something needs to show your knowledge and skills.

And Classes *could* (and do) cover any or all of those.

-----

How *should* classes be built?

I think that the "Quertus" class is too narrow of a focus. But I think that choosing between social / exploration / combat, or the 6 d20 stats, is… wrong on several levels, but also too vague.

Saying that you are a "Ranger" or a "Dread Pirate" is evocative. (And that, I think, is the true value of a class).

But there *also* needs to be enough generic space - classes like "Fighter" to fill in all the gaps.

So, if I want to be a Dread Pirate in 6e, I should be able to take a generic class, mix and match kits / ACFs / feats / whatever resources I have, and make something playable that doesn't get in the way of my concept.

-----

Classes serve two opposed purposes: to facilitate the instantiation of character concepts, and to provide a framework of what valid concepts look like in the first place. To feed inspiration, and to ground it. It is not surprising, then, that two opposed class types would be required to facilitate both of these goals.

Anybody got enough sanity left to comment on whether or not that made any sense?

MoiMagnus
2021-02-23, 01:51 PM
Anybody got enough sanity left to comment on whether or not that made any sense?

It does. I'd add that a game probably benefits from having more than one class system.
E.g 5e has classes and subclasses that are at different level of precision.

Taking one of your example, I'd probably not expect "Dread Pirate" to be a class because of how specific it is IMO, but that would be a perfect subclass.

And "Example 4 - 4 elements" made me think that D&D's "elements" are actually ability scores.
The use of Cha/Wis/Int for spellcasting does not have a major gameplay significance, but it shapes what kind of ability is expected and the approach a character of this class is expected to take. Con spellcasting, when it exists, also communicate something very different about the character.
Similarly, Dex vs Str for martial is probably what you would expect from having martial themed by two opposite elements.

Luccan
2021-02-23, 02:44 PM
Correct. D&D class design is a work of accretion. Ideas were slapped on as needed, but without anything resembling a unified or coherent design direction. And after 3E, it seems no class can ever be removed.

3e had dozens of base classes that haven't made a reappearance in 5e and 4e has at least a few that have also not seen a return. D&D just hasn't removed any "classics", because those have made their way into existing D&D settings as actual in-fiction categories of people.

Edit: should probably be pointed out, D&D has never really dropped any class that appeared in an initial Player's Handbook. It's not a new thing that Sorcerers stuck around after 3e. It's actually a bit of a break in the pattern that Warlord didn't get updated to 5e

Lord Raziere
2021-02-23, 03:21 PM
Edit: should probably be pointed out, D&D has never really dropped any class that appeared in an initial Player's Handbook. It's not a new thing that Sorcerers stuck around after 3e. It's actually a bit of a break in the pattern that Warlord didn't get updated to 5e

Technically if you count Banneret and Battlemaster some of the features did make it into 5e fighter. though they thought that the warlord was somehow not a good enough archetype on its own but thought the fighter was a better class to go with, who knows. we could've had some much needed utility and a good reason why the PC class isn't just some random fighter dude: they're not just a soldier but someone who can lead others. if the person wanted to just hit things anyways, they could've done that anyways with a warlord and have common useful social skills out of combat if they ever feel like it, like persuasion and insight or perception that would help in more investigative parts of a campaign.

Luccan
2021-02-23, 03:31 PM
Technically if you count Banneret and Battlemaster some of the features did make it into 5e fighter. though they thought that the warlord was somehow not a good enough archetype on its own but thought the fighter was a better class to go with, who knows. we could've had some much needed utility and a good reason why the PC class isn't just some random fighter dude: they're not just a soldier but someone who can lead others. if the person wanted to just hit things anyways, they could've done that anyways with a warlord and have common useful social skills out of combat if they ever feel like it, like persuasion and insight or perception that would help in more investigative parts of a campaign.

Were I to replace Fighter with something (I'm hesitant to do so, I think there's legitimate value in a less rigidly archetypal warrior class), it would be with something like Warlord. I'd honestly be fine combining the two, but that might overcomplicate things.

HumanFighter
2021-02-23, 04:11 PM
3e had dozens of base classes that haven't made a reappearance in 5e and 4e has at least a few that have also not seen a return. D&D just hasn't removed any "classics", because those have made their way into existing D&D settings as actual in-fiction categories of people.

Edit: should probably be pointed out, D&D has never really dropped any class that appeared in an initial Player's Handbook. It's not a new thing that Sorcerers stuck around after 3e. It's actually a bit of a break in the pattern that Warlord didn't get updated to 5e

I thought the Battlemaster subclass for Fighter was kind of the Warlord for 5E?

Anyways, if we're talking numbers of different classes in a Tabletop RPG game, what do you guys think is the "optimal" amount? I think I prefer 6 or 7 different classes in total.
Not enough class choices, and you feel you just don't have enough options as a player, and it hurts replayability.
Too many class choices is overwhelming, so it is good to find a right amount, a happy medium if you will.

Mechalich
2021-02-23, 05:53 PM
I thought the Battlemaster subclass for Fighter was kind of the Warlord for 5E?

Anyways, if we're talking numbers of different classes in a Tabletop RPG game, what do you guys think is the "optimal" amount? I think I prefer 6 or 7 different classes in total.
Not enough class choices, and you feel you just don't have enough options as a player, and it hurts replayability.
Too many class choices is overwhelming, so it is good to find a right amount, a happy medium if you will.

In general classes are more useful as a game design element if they are narrowly tailored, and also easier to balance. As such, a larger number of narrow classes is more useful than a small number of broad but largely meaningless classes. Star Wars Saga, for example, has only five base classes: Jedi, Noble, Scoundrel, Scout, and Soldier and in terms of matching character concept to mechanics they are largely useless with even the Jedi class being almost endlessly malleable.

At the same time, having too many classes is likely to lead to balance issues because one particular class, or more likely one specific class/race/build combo, always has the chance to become the 'one true build' and thereby drastically lowering the utility of all other character options. This is particularly common in tabletop games with significant publication schedules, since it quickly becomes impossible to test all options against each other.

Generally a game wants a class package for every major concept that could conceivably see play, but if the number of major concepts is over a dozen, then classes are probably not the way to go.

MoiMagnus
2021-02-23, 06:03 PM
I thought the Battlemaster subclass for Fighter was kind of the Warlord for 5E?


Thematically, somewhat. But if I remember correctly one of the point of 5E Warlord is that it was roughly able to compensate for the lack of a Cleric in term of support capability, potentially including healing if you chose the adequate options. (While Battlemaster can only provide temporary hit points to allies, and is not very good at it).

Battlemaster is more "what if the 4e Warlord could only buff themself?"

Luccan
2021-02-23, 06:09 PM
I thought the Battlemaster subclass for Fighter was kind of the Warlord for 5E?

Anyways, if we're talking numbers of different classes in a Tabletop RPG game, what do you guys think is the "optimal" amount? I think I prefer 6 or 7 different classes in total.
Not enough class choices, and you feel you just don't have enough options as a player, and it hurts replayability.
Too many class choices is overwhelming, so it is good to find a right amount, a happy medium if you will.

Battlemaster, from the arguments I've seen, doesn't quite work for what people are looking to get out of Warlord. Frankly, its tactical maneuvers are a bit underwhelming in comparison to just using personal maneuvers. There's also a lot of "use up an Ally's reaction" going on and a number of them will only benefit front-liners most of the time. It's just not designed to be a replacement Warlord. Also, apparently people really liked the Warlord's capacity for non-magical healing, which they shoved onto a different, worse subclass.

I think you could easily cut D&D down to about 7 or 8 classes, though I don't think it's necessary. Taking 5e, Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger can be rolled under Fighter as subclasses. For this hypothetical, Pally and Ranger keep their current casting mechanics and Eldritch Knight gets a boost to match. Some people want to put Monk there, but I think Monks have enough differences (all armor vs no armor, all weapons vs specific weapons, monks have a lot of special abilities). So that's already down from 5e's current 13 to 10.

Pick two of the closely related full-casters (Cleric/Druid, Cleric/Warlock, or any two arcanists but Bard) and roll them into one class. I favor getting rid of Warlock and giving Sorcerers Invocations, but take your pick. That's 9.

Turn Bard back into the Jack of All Trades it used to be and make it a Rogue subclass, with casting comparable to 5e's half casters (this replaces Arcana Trickster). That's 8.

If you want it down to 7, there's arguments for Artificer being a Wizard subclass, but I'm actually going to say it should be a Rogue subclass instead. They've always had ties to the skill-monkey, traps-and-locks roll, might as well stick them in the class that already gets Thieves Tools. Get rid of the spell-casting and refocus them on infusions and getting a boost to item crafting.

Again, due to how many unique mechanics they get, I think Monk is better off as its own class, but if you had to make it a subclass I'd make it one for Fighter or Rogue.

Duff
2021-02-23, 07:59 PM
It's no surprise the the original 4 classes (Fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard)* are also the least defined by Achetypes and most defined by an in-game role and set of mechanics, given the history of the game


* Yes, some of the names have changed but I think it's pretty clear these are the current names for the classes which are basically the same linages

Pauly
2021-02-24, 12:26 AM
Well you can have ‘classless’ games. In these systems either all the players are the same class (eg Superheroes) or it’s a reality based system (eg everyone is a regular human).
In the classless games players choose their skills and progress them as they see fit. A character’s attributes will impact on their ability to use their chosen skills, but ultimately the player has freeform to choose whatever they want. Sometimes they will yave backgrounds/careers that allow access to specific skills.
The problem a lot of players have with these systems is that the menu of choices is too big and complex. Unless the player has an expert level in the system it is very hard to build effective characters.

What character classes do is to pre-package skills and abilities. This allows the player to only have to master one of the skill sets and know one of the skill trees. If I’m playing a wizard I don’t need to fill my head with the nuances of being a Rogue or Cleric.
The problem with this approach is that it seems forced and arbitrary.

Morty
2021-02-24, 06:53 AM
3e had dozens of base classes that haven't made a reappearance in 5e and 4e has at least a few that have also not seen a return. D&D just hasn't removed any "classics", because those have made their way into existing D&D settings as actual in-fiction categories of people.

But the cure class list was rolled back to 3E's + warlock after the modest changes 4E tried to make.

Yora
2021-02-24, 07:51 AM
Does anyone know of a game that has classes but not levels?

Batcathat
2021-02-24, 07:58 AM
Does anyone know of a game that has classes but not levels?

I can think of one, but it might not be of much use for most of you. It's Swedish game called Drakar och Demoner ("Dragons and Demons", I wonder what name they were inspired by? :smallwink: ). Like the more familiar game with the same initials it has a bunch of different editions and I think some of them have levels (it was something of a controversy) but the one I played as a teenager did not, while it did have classes.

Cluedrew
2021-02-24, 08:48 AM
Does anyone know of a game that has classes but not levels?Many Powered by the Apocalypse systems including Apocalypse World itself don't have levels but still have playbooks which act as classes. They do have level ups where you earn XP and then upgrade, but its basically a point-by system where all upgrades have the same cost. Now Apocalypse World divides things up into tiers where you need a certain number of upgrades (at least level X) to get them.

I think Blades in the Dark has no leveling at all. Outside of a couple abilities that can be repurchased and improved and the max stat ceiling going up (from 2 to very situationally 5) there is no ordering on any upgrades.

And possibly every Story-Teller system. There is some ordering required in them and the classes are pretty soft but I would probably count them.

Anonymouswizard
2021-02-24, 09:21 AM
Does anyone know of a game that has classes but not levels?

From what I've seen most playbook-style systems (Powered by the Apocalypse, Forged in the Dark, some I've never heard of our don't know enough about) might qualify, White Wolf stuff blurs the line between 'race' and 'class', and later FFG 40k stuff might qualify. As might pre-4e Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, it all depends on your definition.

Morty
2021-02-24, 09:30 AM
As always, it really depends on what you mean by "class". Many systems use some kind of categorization for player characters, but few if any make those categories as defining as D&D does. PbtA games are probably the most notable example - ironically enough, given how otherwise different they are.

MoiMagnus
2021-02-24, 09:39 AM
Does anyone know of a game that has classes but not levels?

If I remember correctly, Star Wars (from FFG) had classes that gave access to some skill tree (XP-based progression), but no level.

If your question is "a game that has classes but no progression system linked to it", then I don't know.

Telonius
2021-02-24, 12:04 PM
As always, it really depends on what you mean by "class". Many systems use some kind of categorization for player characters, but few if any make those categories as defining as D&D does. PbtA games are probably the most notable example - ironically enough, given how otherwise different they are.

Yeah, Masks: A New Generation has defined class roles. They have some progression of powers, but you'd have to squint pretty hard to call them levels.

EDIT: As to the OP - I'd say that classes ought to be (or at least, support or enable) a general approach to problem-solving. So, for what the 3.5 PHB classes are trying to do:

Fighter: Shove a sharp bit of metal at the problem.
Paladin: Shove a sharp bit of metal at the problem in a Lawful and Good manner.
Barbarian: Get very angry and shove a sharp bit of metal at the problem.
Ranger: Stalk the problem through miles of wilderness, then shove a sharp bit of metal at it.
Rogue: Sneak around the problem and/or steal the problem's pants.
Sorcerer: Nuke the problem from orbit.
Wizard: Magically arrange things so the problem is not a problem.
Bard: Seduce and/or convince the problem to not be a problem.
Cleric: Protect your friends as they're solving the problem.
Druid: Turn into a bear and eat the problem.
Monk: Throw crazy kung-fu at the problem.

Democratus
2021-02-24, 04:14 PM
Classes are narrative tools, explaining what archetype a given character adheres to.

The classes are what a storyteller would use as shorthand to describe what a character is.

Want to be a hero? Try fighter! "Hero" was once literally the title of a 4th level fighter.

How about a mysterious Conjurer? 3rd level magic-user.

Sneaky cutpurse? 5th level thief.

Saint-Just
2021-02-24, 07:19 PM
Does anyone know of a game that has classes but not levels?

To add to what people above has said (White Wolf traditions/kits/clans are kinda race-classy and FFG Wh40k has strict classes but levels do nothing but unlock new things to be bought point-buy style) - surprisingly some GURPS products are like that. System is an unrestricted point-buy, but a lot of attention in some products is spent on templates - which are nothing but a pre-packaged set of what is normally available (some customization allowed, usually in format of "spend N points on anything from the following list" but other variations are possible like "add skill X or spend the points on any skill you already have"). It's especially notable in the Dungeon Fantasy series (and it's standalone adaptation DFRPG), but other products do it too (though Dungeon Fantasy tend to assume that further advancement is confined to a restricted list, some others may allow unrestricted advancement after the character creation(within the bounds of setting and situation - no magic or psi powers in a normal historical setting; no picking up foreign languages if you have no one to teach you).

AntiAuthority
2021-02-24, 10:14 PM
Well, they were (going off of what I can find) supposed to be archetypes of what you'd find in stories/mythologies. Issue with that is that some classes are overly broad (Wizard, Sorcerer, etc.) and others are overly narrow (Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian).

For example, what's a Wizard in fantasy? Uh, yeah, good luck with that. It's real broad, and you'll get a ton of different answers as to what that means. Of note, in AD&D, the Wizard is described: "The wizard group encompasses all spellcasters working in the various fields of magic-- both those who specialize in specific schools of magic and those who study a broad range of magical theories." This is pretty broad.

The same is true for Fighters, but also not... It's weird. It states Fighters are: "The fighter is a warrior, an expert in weapons and, if he is clever, tactics and strategy." But AD&D lists Hercules, Cu Chulainn and Siegfried as Fighters, but Hercules would probably be a Fighter-Barbarian (due to his homicidal rages), Cu Chulainn would be a Fighter-Barbarian-Wizard (because of the fact he went into berserker rages and apparently knew a spell to become invisible) while Siegfried would be a Fighter-Ranger (he knew how to talk to birds).

As the games and its derivatives go on, classes become more varied (then less varied).

Conan the Barbarian is clearly a Barbarian, it's in the name! ... Except Conan the Barbarian would probably best be represented as a Barbarian-Fighter-Ranger and has quite impressive Will Saves based on how he can No Sell psychic attacks/spells meant to break his mind.

But overall, it's a little weird as the classes don't really emulate what the archetypes that inspired them are capable of. You either have classes who are so broad that almost any character from any story can qualify or they're so overly specific in archetype that they essentially represent only one part of an archetype.

But you also asked what I think they should be...I would say "Get rid of the overly narrow classes." Maybe merge them into one class, such as combining Fighter and Barbarian. Adrenaline boosts are a thing and I think the Rage feature would cover a Fighter getting an adrenaline boost...

Or just expand their concepts and archetypes. So, keeping with Conan the Barbarian, the 3.PF/5E Barbarian isn't just someone who flies into homicidal rages, they also have understanding of other cultures, understand how to lead others (such as being a chieftain, or Conan being a king), can negotiate with others beyond threatening impending violence, may or may not dabble in creating medicines/drugs, and probably are capable of sneaking around (unless they hunt via noisily moving through the environment and alerting everything to their presence long before they're seen.) All baked into the class features, they can be Conan and you can be very specific by picking an archetype/subclass of it.

JoeJ
2021-02-25, 01:32 AM
Well, they were (going off of what I can find) supposed to be archetypes of what you'd find in stories/mythologies. Issue with that is that some classes are overly broad (Wizard, Sorcerer, etc.) and others are overly narrow (Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian).

For example, what's a Wizard in fantasy? Uh, yeah, good luck with that. It's real broad, and you'll get a ton of different answers as to what that means. Of note, in AD&D, the Wizard is described: "The wizard group encompasses all spellcasters working in the various fields of magic-- both those who specialize in specific schools of magic and those who study a broad range of magical theories." This is pretty broad.

The same is true for Fighters, but also not... It's weird. It states Fighters are: "The fighter is a warrior, an expert in weapons and, if he is clever, tactics and strategy." But AD&D lists Hercules, Cu Chulainn and Siegfried as Fighters, but Hercules would probably be a Fighter-Barbarian (due to his homicidal rages), Cu Chulainn would be a Fighter-Barbarian-Wizard (because of the fact he went into berserker rages and apparently knew a spell to become invisible) while Siegfried would be a Fighter-Ranger (he knew how to talk to birds).

As the games and its derivatives go on, classes become more varied (then less varied).

Conan the Barbarian is clearly a Barbarian, it's in the name! ... Except Conan the Barbarian would probably best be represented as a Barbarian-Fighter-Ranger and has quite impressive Will Saves based on how he can No Sell psychic attacks/spells meant to break his mind.

But overall, it's a little weird as the classes don't really emulate what the archetypes that inspired them are capable of. You either have classes who are so broad that almost any character from any story can qualify or they're so overly specific in archetype that they essentially represent only one part of an archetype.

But you also asked what I think they should be...I would say "Get rid of the overly narrow classes." Maybe merge them into one class, such as combining Fighter and Barbarian. Adrenaline boosts are a thing and I think the Rage feature would cover a Fighter getting an adrenaline boost...

Or just expand their concepts and archetypes. So, keeping with Conan the Barbarian, the 3.PF/5E Barbarian isn't just someone who flies into homicidal rages, they also have understanding of other cultures, understand how to lead others (such as being a chieftain, or Conan being a king), can negotiate with others beyond threatening impending violence, may or may not dabble in creating medicines/drugs, and probably are capable of sneaking around (unless they hunt via noisily moving through the environment and alerting everything to their presence long before they're seen.) All baked into the class features, they can be Conan and you can be very specific by picking an archetype/subclass of it.

Barbarian wasn't an official class in AD&D until Unearthed Arcana came out in 1985, although it had appeared before then in Dragon magazine (I played the Dragon version, and it was a blast). At that time rage did not exist as a class ability. Instead, they had wilderness skills and some abilities to counter magic, and were very restricted in their ability to use magic items. The class was originally much more like Conan than it became in later editions.

AntiAuthority
2021-02-25, 03:19 AM
Barbarian wasn't an official class in AD&D until Unearthed Arcana came out in 1985, although it had appeared before then in Dragon magazine (I played the Dragon version, and it was a blast). At that time rage did not exist as a class ability. Instead, they had wilderness skills and some abilities to counter magic, and were very restricted in their ability to use magic items. The class was originally much more like Conan than it became in later editions.

Sorry, I see how my point might have gotten lost. I know the classes back then were Fighter, Paladin and Ranger for the Warrior classes (along with, IIRC, Barbarians going out of their way to destroy magic items in AD&D).

While I was using AD&D's examples of what a Fighter was (master of weapons and tactics), I was doing so to say how that character's archetype and the examples listed... Got divided up into what would be separate classes in later editions, despite both being interpretations of the same character. Essentially, Hercules would be a Fighter in AD&D, but his character classes in 3.5E were Fighter/Barbarian. Rounding back to it's sort of hard to understand what a Fighter archetype is because it's "someone trained with weapons." Which is strangely narrow and broad at the same time... As Barbarians are also trained to use martial weapons, and Paladins, and the archetype as a whole has no real identity beyond, "I use weapons." There are so many characters (even NPCs like the Warrior from 3.PF) that share the same archetype space as a Fighter, with their defining feature being "weapon master" but the archetype isn't capable of doing such things the archetype does in stories such as attacking vital points (that's the Rogue's class feature), being able to scout (that's a Ranger's class feature) or getting a burst of adrenaline (Barbarian's class feature).

Mechalich
2021-02-25, 03:41 AM
EDIT: As to the OP - I'd say that classes ought to be (or at least, support or enable) a general approach to problem-solving.


One of the things classes are intended to accomplish is to restrict character build options to ones that will function within the gameplay mode mandated by the game. Ideally they should prevent the creation of characters who can't contribute or are wholly unsuited to way the game is to be played. For instance, if your game is about military commandos you'd have classes associated with the different members of a special forces unit, but you wouldn't have 'bureaucrat' or 'drug dealer' as options for PCs because they wouldn't fit the game - even though you might very well have NPC mechanical packages to represent such character types in world.

D&D really succeed at this, for a variety of reasons that differ from one edition to the next, in part because the game can't really decide which types of challenges beyond combat are important - ex. stealth, which many classes fall flat when attempting even though it's pretty important for most 'dungeon crawl' type experiences. By contrast, classes work exceedingly well in many video and board game RPGs because for the most part there is only combat and literally everything else is fiat-based narratives.

A class-based system is therefore most appropriate to a game system that tells a specific type of story that operates using very distinct character archetypes. Basically if the character is part of a specific story because it's their job - the shows about cops, doctors, and lawyers that dominate network TV are all built this way - then classes make sense.

erikun
2021-02-25, 01:15 PM
What are classes?
Classes are a holdover from a system which used Fighter/Thief/Mage/Elf as a way to determine character abilities, added some optional modified versions of those in magazines for specific character ideas, then expanded those into official classes in later editions. This is how you get "a bunch of sneaky skills and stab people in the back" Rogue classes alongside "made a pact with an ancient intelligence from the stars and now throw around magic balls of endless energy plus a few magic talents" Warlock classes right next to each other.


What should they be?
I have found classes to have two very useful purposes.

For one, they help with character creation. It is much, much easier to tell somebody to pick a class and a few skills than it is to drop a GURPS book on them and ask them to piece together a functional character. Even if they have no clue about how the system works, "Level 5 Wizard" still gives them the HP and defenses and attack stats which they'd need to operate in the game, even if the player might not understand how all that works yet. This helps a lot in getting people into the game and getting them start playing; system proficiency can be picked up over time. It's also a bit more helpful in generating NPC characters, or at least establishing a baseline of what a bunch of town guards would look like.

For two, classes help to generate ideas. There have been a lot of times I've been interested in playing a particular character, not because I thought up a neat concept from scratch, but because I saw a particular class/race combination or a feat with class ability that I thought would be fun to play. Druid/Wizard Arcane Hierophant? Gnome Paladin with Bard multiclassing thanks to the +2 INT/CHA from D&D4e? Cleric/Thief in AD&D2e for healing and sneaking? These aren't necessarily character ideas that I came up with myself, but by looking through class options, they turned out to be interesting class combinations and so generated character ideas as a result. And they certainly generated more interesting concepts than simply "well singing is CHA and holy aura is CHA, how about a CHA character with holy singing?" would result in.

Quertus
2021-02-25, 01:58 PM
One of the things classes are intended to accomplish is to restrict character build options to ones that will function within the gameplay mode mandated by the game. Ideally they should prevent the creation of characters who can't contribute or are wholly unsuited to way the game is to be played. For instance, if your game is about military commandos you'd have classes associated with the different members of a special forces unit, but you wouldn't have 'bureaucrat' or 'drug dealer' as options for PCs because they wouldn't fit the game - even though you might very well have NPC mechanical packages to represent such character types in world.

D&D really succeed at this, for a variety of reasons that differ from one edition to the next, in part because the game can't really decide which types of challenges beyond combat are important - ex. stealth, which many classes fall flat when attempting even though it's pretty important for most 'dungeon crawl' type experiences. By contrast, classes work exceedingly well in many video and board game RPGs because for the most part there is only combat and literally everything else is fiat-based narratives.

A class-based system is therefore most appropriate to a game system that tells a specific type of story that operates using very distinct character archetypes. Basically if the character is part of a specific story because it's their job - the shows about cops, doctors, and lawyers that dominate network TV are all built this way - then classes make sense.

Aw, c'mon, the "Sentient Potted Plant" class is perfectly cromulent - why the hate?

"I wasn't always a preacher, Mal."

I think that "drug dealer" and "bureaucrat" would be perfectly valid classes for a military game - in fact, Edge of Tomorrow follows just such a character.

I'd go one step further, and suggest that military games that lack that connection to the greater world would be… lacking.

Still, representing that background with a *class* may well be suboptimal - especially for a more focused game.

Which circles back to my initial madness-inspired train of thought: there's so many things that *could* be represented by class… but which ones *should*? And *how* should those other factors be represented?

Certainly, giving the players limited options (ie, classes), *all* of which are guaranteed to be capable of some acceptable threshold / minimal level of participation, sounds like a good use for classes.

Of course, careful analytics of "shine / participate / twiddle thumbs" spotlight sharing is likely to be done - and done well - by… 0 game companies?

I think that a related thing that classes could attempt to accomplish is to ensure that modules / expected scenarios / etc are solvable.

If I've got a party of a Jedi, an awakened tree, an Earth bender, and Hypnotoad, what does a valid challenge for them look like? Can classes make that easier to answer? *Should* classes make that easier to answer?

MoiMagnus
2021-02-25, 02:15 PM
If I've got a party of a Jedi, an awakened tree, an Earth bender, and Hypnotoad, what does a valid challenge for them look like? Can classes make that easier to answer? *Should* classes make that easier to answer?

IMO, while the set of available classes within the RPG should make this answer easier, the specific classes chosen by the players should not significantly affect this answer. If the class choice have too much influence on that, you significantly increase the probability of having a character not fit at all with the remaining of the team. Or the team be vastly unfit to the module/campaign chosen by the GM.

I'm assuming here that "simultaneous gameplay" is the norm (and it is for D&D). You can get away with having a much broader class system if PCs are not expected to all face the same challenge together, but instead take turn at handling vastly different kind of problems (like one is handling politics at the capital, the second is fighting a dragon in a duel, the third is crafting a magical item, etc) building toward the same goal.

[Even in simultaneous gameplay, exceptions still apply. Systems like M&M heavily encourage the GM to significantly interfere with character creation by collaborating with the player and being quite proficient with the ban-hammer, in order to ensure that the team of heroes matches the campaign and are compatible with each others, both in tone and capabilities.]

Tyndmyr
2021-02-25, 02:35 PM
Honest Answer? They are Inconsistent. because they are incoherently designed.

Inconsistent, yes. Incoherent, no.

Pretty much the newest person playing D&D understands what sort of character a fighter is, or what sort of character a ranger is.

I don't hold with the GNS style of decreeing things to be incoherent simply because one doesn't like the design style. That is, after all, not really using the word properly.

In addition, it would be demanding uniformity for the sake of uniformity, and for no other reason. It simply does not matter if a fighter encompasses more potential character concept space than a ranger. If one is poorly balanced, well, sure, that's a straightforward mechanical question, but parties are relatively small, the number of class options large, and duplicates are not necessarily a problem. There is no reason why we need to concern ourselves with the scope of class concept.


so it could be that DnD classes are incoherently designed, because its setting isn't defined enough. Wh40k for its all grimdarkness is able to establish clear identities for all its archetypes and detail all their jobs and lives in great detail so that you know what each person does IC and OOC.

Assassin is a far narrower path than guardsman. There is no difference here from the examples of Ranger and Fighter. There are a mere handful of assassins in comparisons, grouped into a mere few orders, with *very* specific imagery and roles. Guardsmen are like grains of sand in the desert. Literally beyond counting, and with so many distinct legions as to encompass almost any idea.

So, even if we embrace the conceit of needing equivalent levels of specificity in classes, we see that other games do the exact same.

And thus we see that "coherency" is a made up term intended to lend some degree of importance to simple preferences.

A more reasonable explanation is that the game started with relatively few class options, and gained more the longer it went on. The later additions were necessarily more specific, and as the process continued, prestige classes in particular began to be used to illustrate particular paths. From a historical standpoint, the trendline seems quite clear. In nearly any sort of design, one works from the broad general idea to the specific, and so it is in D&D. More splatbooks, more detailing of specifics.

Jay R
2021-02-25, 06:10 PM
Originally, classes were intended to represent actual social classes. Fighting Men1 were men who grew up among soldiers; their youth was spent learning to fight. Magic-Users grew up in ivory towers learning magic. You couldn't pick up a new class because your class meant how you grew up.

1Yeah, yeah. It was the 1970s, and there were no female gamers. The class name was changed to "Fighter" not long afterwards.


Does anyone know of a game that has classes but not levels?

Flashing Blades, by FGU. It's set in Paris in the time of the Musketeers, and the classes are Nobleman2, Gentleman2, Soldier, and Rogue, and they affect which skills you can buy at what price. A Rogue can buy Cutpurse for one point, Acrobatics for 2 points, but Horsemanship would cost 3 points.

One supplement expanded the class list to include Sailor, Marine, and Pirate.

Each skill starts at the level of its associated characteristic (Dexterity, Intelligence, Endurance, Charm, etc.). You improve your skills only by using the skill. If a Rogue never cuts a purse, he never gets any better at the Cutpurse skill.

Your initial fighting skills depending on how you learned to fight. If you knew the Spanish style, you were better with a slash. If you learned Italian style, you were better with the thrust.

2Yeah, yeah. It was the 1980s, with very few female gamers. I invented the Actor class for a woman in my game, because women who were actors at that time had more freedom than women in most classes.

GreatWyrmGold
2021-02-26, 06:19 PM
Dedicated combat roles tend to feel very 'gamey,' meaning they often demand rather extreme bits of suspension of disbelief that can be tolerated in video games (often because they are obscured mechanically), but become rather ridiculous when employed at tabletop. Tanking, in particular, tends to rely on very arbitrary mechanics - 'I shout really loud and now all the enemies who attack anyone other than me suffer a damage penalty' - that don't mesh with any concept of immersive roleplay.
I disagree pretty firmly with this.
First off, I don't see why "dedicated combat roles" would necessarily feel gamey. Sure, the gamiest versions feel gamey, but that's hardly necessary. Combatants with distinct roles are common in the real world and even more common in fantasy fiction; the five-man band (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FiveManBand) predates World of Warcraft. (And the genre of fantasy as we know it, for that matter!)

And with regard to tanking, there are absolutely less-gamey ways to make tanking work. For instance, 3.5's attack of opportunity mechanics meant that melee enemies could be forced to attack only the fighter if the fighter got up in the enemy's face properly...or if the fighter was just there in any sufficiently-narrow space.


There's also the issue that, if you want highly engaging MMO-style tactical combat you should just play an MMO. Advances in technology have made computer games simply better at offering certain types of experiences than tabletop can ever be.
[...]
The generalized trend towards rules-lite and narrative TTRPG systems is indicative of this, since they focus on the parts of the tabletop experience that works better around a live table rather than on a game server (even D&D 5e represents a significant simplification in many ways). Of course, such games have less need for a class system because the greatest utility of classes is in simplifying mechanical complexity by pre-selecting options along a progression.
You're not wrong, but there exist options besides "terrible combat but some RP" and "Literally World of Warcraft".



we could've had some much needed utility and a good reason why the PC class isn't just some random fighter dude: they're not just a soldier but someone who can lead others.
My understanding is that fighting-men used to be like that back in the old AD&D days...the problem being that this worked more like 3.5's Leadership feat than 4e's Warlord.



I'd say that classes ought to be (or at least, support or enable) a general approach to problem-solving. So, for what the 3.5 PHB classes are trying to do:

Fighter: Shove a sharp bit of metal at the problem.
Paladin: Shove a sharp bit of metal at the problem in a Lawful and Good manner.
Barbarian: Get very angry and shove a sharp bit of metal at the problem.
Ranger: Stalk the problem through miles of wilderness, then shove a sharp bit of metal at it.
Rogue: Sneak around the problem and/or steal the problem's pants.
Sorcerer: Nuke the problem from orbit.
Wizard: Magically arrange things so the problem is not a problem.
Bard: Seduce and/or convince the problem to not be a problem.
Cleric: Protect your friends as they're solving the problem.
Druid: Turn into a bear and eat the problem.
Monk: Throw crazy kung-fu at the problem.
Not a terrible idea, but the approaches you describe seem too vague and similar to be of any use. A bunch of these classes are about shoving their sharp metal bits at problems; what does that mean, in practical terms? If you need something else to explain these approaches, what use is the shortlist of approaches?



D&D really succeed at this, for a variety of reasons that differ from one edition to the next, in part because the game can't really decide which types of challenges beyond combat are important - ex. stealth, which many classes fall flat when attempting even though it's pretty important for most 'dungeon crawl' type experiences. By contrast, classes work exceedingly well in many video and board game RPGs because for the most part there is only combat and literally everything else is fiat-based narratives.
Which touches on one of my D&D pet peeves. D&D doesn't want to be a pure combat game (which I think is a good thing), but it also doesn't want to commit to providing meaningful support for anything except combat. The messy vagueness of something like 3.5's Diplomacy skill doesn't give DMs any practical advice for how to run the game, just a bunch of abstract numbers. Rich's version of Diplomacy (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?172910-Articles-Previously-Appearing-on-GiantITP-com&p=9606632&viewfull=1#post9606632) works better, because it is much more specific; it lets the players roll specific checks for specific requests, instead of affecting moods that vaguely affect behavior.
I personally feel like a game which claims combat and social encounters are equally important should have comparable guidelines for combat and conversation, but I understand that the very idea of bringing mechanics into social encounters is seen as tantamount to murdering roleplay in its sleep by certain gamers, so I won't go there today.