Classes and class concepts in an original system

[Cilvyn]

Hey Folks,

I require some feedback about the classes for my system.,

THe setting is 18th-19th century Europe where magic is real and the monsters from the classics are a serious threat. Think Van Helsing movie combined with brother Grimm fairytales in their more macabre version. Together with the age of reason, science and industry.

So the characters are mostly monster hunters, advocates of a churche that is there to protect the masses against the dangers of horrors, alchemists and witches. Magic is real, but scarse and feared like the plague. It is dangerous to use magic. Think the old witch trials and what the people feared back then. So no fireballs, but alchemy, runes, dark magic and necromancy.

The thing about my system is that I do not use levels. Players gain XP with which they can advance their characters by buying skills, talents, improve their attributes. They always stay level 1 for purposes of the game. Also characters can buy almost every talent and skill. So you as a player are very free to build your characters as you like. This has a few benefits. First of all the options are infinte. Want a witch who can also handle a pistol like no other? Go ahead. Want a fighter type who spezialises into purely defensive skills, be my guest. The downside is that one could ask the question "Since everyone can do anything, why have classes at all?" and that person would be right.. I thought mayhbe to use the aptitude system from Dark hersesy, but thats just a bit of an excuse to say "You can do everything, but some things are easier for certain characters". a bit weird. but let's talk about this later in this post.

I have been working around with 6 base classes:

Soldier
You average warrior, fighter, barbarian class.

Hunter
A ranger fighter class specialized in ranged combat

Rogue
your average dex based thief/trickster scoundrel type

Witch
Warlock/wizard/sorverer type. A caster

Scholar
Wizard, bard type. a semi caster, lore oriented knowledge character specialized in skills

Missionary
Cleric, paladin, bard type healer, zealous persecutor type of faith

Alright so each class has 3 sub classes


Soldier
- Dreadnought - tanky heavy weapon heavy armor specialist
- Marauder - a little more barbarian than fighter
- Knight Hospitaller - An armored medic knight type of class

Witch
- Occultist - Warlock type, necromancer something
- Elementalist - a more lightning bolt type of caster, control weather that kind of stuff
- Auramancer - specialized in protective magic, shields, buffs, enchantments

Hunter
- Gunslinger- your desperado wild west two pistol scumbag
- Musketeer - A long ranged specialist, master of rifles
...... well you get the idea... All classes can specialize in a lot of stuff.

Now the dilemma:

OKay so I mentioned the problem about having classes, but not really, maybe a little... Alright, so I thought about a few things to work with:


Having no base classes but only those specialized classes.
Pro: A lot to chose from, very nice to have specializations.
Downside: You can make infinite classes this way and you will never be complete, it also limits creativity

Having No classes at all
Pro: You can literally do anything and everything, you can build your character however you like and nothing is the same every time.
Con: less experienced players might have a hard time grasping this concept. People like to difine their character and their party role. It simplifies stuff when you can say "I am this and I can do that for the party" With no classes you also lose some inspiration players can scroll through and base ideas on.

Having specialized classes with high requirements so players can work towards it
Pro: You sta away from the idea of having to chose a class right away and having to fit in that class concept, you can work towards something epic
Con: You basically have their path of building set out for them, it limits creativity and you are still doomed to create more and more epic classes people can chose from

Having no classes, but only talents that hint towards party roles
Pro: Let players assemble their own characters as they please without limiting them in their choises (Ofcourse talents have requirements, so not everyone can just learn everything from the start
Con: I might get lost in a looong list of talents and stil have to work up a loooot of talents to represent most class concepts..

Alright I hope you understand what I wrote, it is all a bit chaotic, but I think my message and question comes across well enough for you to help me out.

Thank you!

[Tzardok]

One option that you could do is dividing talents into essentially three tiers. There's the basic tier, which anyone can learn, ther's the advanced tier, which requires membership in a class, and there's the specialist tier, which requires membership in a sub class.
To go back to your example of a witch learning to use a gun, just shooting a gun would be basic tier, doing stunts with a gun would be advanced, and trick shots or specialized sharpshooting or whatever would be in the specialist tier.

[Cilvyn]

I like this a lot,

However it does need a class system.

I could also do the base classs as some sort if background option (i already work with origin, motivation and the like from the rogue trade mechanics). I could combine the base classes with some sort of core attribute. It would work a bit like aptitudes but different.


Another thing is to make skill trees, but this is a looooot of work, very hard to balance. Think path of exile.. I don't think one individual can make this

[clash]

A system I've been noodling with uses short classes which one included below. Then each class upgrades into one of 3 classes of the next tier letting you really customize as you go without much cognitive complexity while playing. I think a class system like that would be really cool Hopefully some of the ideas below help. For example archer can choose stormbow, marksman or fencer, soldier can choose fencer, warrior, or spellblade.

Archer - killing shot
Solider - combat manuevers
Mage - words of Power
Hedgewitch - natural magic
Tactician - tactics

Stormbow - at will magic shots
Marksman - killing shot
Fencer - multiattack
Warrior - combat maneuvers
Spellblade- integrated casting
Sage - words of Power
Channeler- combine 2 magics
Shaman - natural magic
Beast tamer- pet, tactics, natural magic
Strategist- improved tactics
Conjurer - magical pet, words of Power

Soulbow - summon a bow
Sniper - even better killing shot
Swordmaster- blade dancing
Knight- defense, mount, combat maneuvers
Knight mage - integrated casting
Archmage- words of power
Mystic - remove components
Druid - natural magic
Beast master- multiple pets
General - auras, commands
Summoner- same as before

Starry hunt- interplanar shots
Deadeye - one hit, one kill
Trueblade - bladedancing
Guardian - defensive maneuvers
Arcane champion- same
Archsage- tomes of power
Ultimate magus- tons of magic
Archdruid- calamities
Feral lord - monstrous pets
High commander - auras, commands
Grand summoner - ultimate summons

[Herbert_W]

I think a better question to ask would be "What do I expect classes to do, and are classes the best way to do that for my players?"

The answer to the second part of the question depends on your answer to the first, and your answer to the first will depend on the players that you're designing the game for. It's only when you have a clear view of both your design goals and what being a member of a class could mean that you can assess whether that view suits those goals.

Being a member of a class could, for example:


Guarantee that a PC will be at least decent in a certain role. A Fighter (who doesn't make deliberately suboptimal choices like dumping every physical stat) will always be able to hold their own in a fight, and a Sorcerer will always be at least decent at melting foes' faces with spells.
Define one of several archetypes to which the players are limited. For example, you might decide that you want to allow your characters to play as classes inspired by grim fantasy tropes - but you don't want it to be possible to build a character like the lighthearted cartoon versions of Robin Hood, because that would be inappropriate for the theme or setting of your campaign. Each class would represent one out of a curated list of options.
Support a particular playstyle or role, but neither make it mandatory or guarantee that a character will actually be any good at it.
Just, uh, be a class. There would be some mechanical impact, but not impact that matters. People expect classes to be there so you're just giving them what they expect.


Personally, if I were designing a game for a general audience, I'd lean towards including classes which would do the first of these. That'd make the game friendly to new players (since they'd be able to easily build a viable character by selecting a class that matches how they want to play) while also allowing customization and the ability to create characters with great versatility and complex resource management via the point-buy part of character creation so as to continue to be rewarding to players as they develop deeper system mastery.

Only you know your players, though. This might not be the best approach for them.

[Cilvyn]

I was also thinking about making skill tree "clusters'. These clusters aren't really classes, but you can ascent within these clusters (maybe clusters have certain prequisitions?)


https://i.redd.it/xiix9mjexli01.jpg


You can ofcourse name these clusters after classes, but the idea is that characters can choose multiple clusters and pick skills they like (ofcourse following the tree) and then move on to a different tree (it would function a bit like having certain skills be a prequisition for other skills, but designed in a bit more esthetic way :P