PDA

View Full Version : Class or Not?



Deathtouched
2008-08-02, 11:13 PM
Hello. I've recently (my whole life) been trying to develop a well-structured campaign world using variant rules that won't get boring or fall apart after a few games. I initially thought the problem was that I always started by creating everything at once and so I tried starting from the bottom. It worked better, but it didn't fix the problem. So I've been trying to figure out a different world theme other than swords and sorcery and thought I'd try steampunk. Which is perfect because I drool over the artificer classes as much as the necromancers.
But I've trying to create a classless system, and this brought up a problem. My recent campaign ideas have followed the guidelines of characters being Str-based, Dex-based, or Int-based (mages), with the other attributes as lesser things. But I don't want to have only artificers, I also want chemists, and alchemists and such. So I can't just have one generic list of mage-spells like I normally use in my campaigns, and just have magic-users be anyone who meets certain requirements. So I thought I could have a generic fighter, rouge, and different types of scientist-wizards.
The only problem ended up being my own logic that if scientists who do different things need different classes, then "fighters" and "rogues" should have different classes too. But what is the line between having a title and having a class. Any character could attempt an assassination, but a trained assassin is it's own class, like a thief (focusing on rogues an Dex-base). But while the two are similar, they use different skills, ex: assassins need to be better fighters for the killing blow, thieves need to be able to steal without being caught.
And the other thing is that I feel bad leaving out the other attributes. They should be just as necessary to certain characters as Str or Dex is to others. So I either need to somehow make generic guideline "classes" for the different attributes, without using tons of skills, or I need to make a ton of classes, some of which are really only titles. Are classes necessary for diversity without a skill system?

Sorry for the babbling.

Shadow_Elf
2008-08-02, 11:32 PM
I've found that dealing with a classless system can make character progression and comparison of character strength to monsters' strength a pain. I took a few looks @ a GURPS book my aunt got me, and basically said "screw this, I want the game to tell me how I rank on a scale from 1 to x"
Despite that, i'm sure there's a way to make it work though.

TeeEl
2008-08-02, 11:57 PM
So I either need to somehow make generic guideline "classes" for the different attributes, without using tons of skills, or I need to make a ton of classes, some of which are really only titles. Are classes necessary for diversity without a skill system?

I'm not sure I understand your dilemma. Why are expanded skill/ability choices not an option? :smallconfused:

Deathtouched
2008-08-03, 12:03 AM
Because I DESPISE the overly developed skill system for D&D and I'd rather go with rolls based on highly increased attributes. Example: character adds to STR to get better at Climbing, etc. It leaves a lot out since all characters with similar attributes have similar skills, but as someone I know put it "if they have been trained to be that way than they know the same things as the others who are trained". But really all those complicated skills that are really categories for smaller skills (Knowledge, hisss) and everything adds up to too many svaing rolls and too many rules to remember.

RTGoodman
2008-08-03, 01:25 AM
So I either need to somehow make generic guideline "classes" for the different attributes, without using tons of skills, or I need to make a ton of classes, some of which are really only titles.

Two ideas come to mind when I read this, though I don't know if either is really what you're looking for.

1. The d20 Modern system doesn't have classes like "Fighter," "Wizard," or anything like that. Instead, the classes are "Strong Hero," "Tough Hero," "Smart Hero," and so on - each one is focused on one main ability score (Strong for Str, Tough for Con, Smart for Int, etc.). You could possible come up with classes based on those, and then "Paths" in each one that deal with more specific things. An assassin might be a Fast Hero (based on Dex) who focuses on the Assassination path and but can also take powers (or whatever you call the abilities) from the "Acrobat, "Stealth" and "Thief" trees. Each "class" has abilities unique to it, but you can multiclass (3.x style, or maybe even 4E via "feats" or whatever you have that are like feats) to gain abilities from other classes. You success is mainly based on your ability score, but you get benefits if your doing something you're focused on more.

2. You could try a hybrid system that uses "classes" like the above (based on Ability Scores rather than archetypes or jobs) and use a Character Point system like Hero System and other RPGs use. A Dex-based character who wanted to be an assassin would spend points at Character Creation on Stealth, Dagger, Poison, and other important skills. A standard Wizard-style character would take the Smart Hero "class" and just put points in skills like Fire Magic, Movement Magic, and similar abilities. Your class could determine not exactly WHAT skills you can pick, but how expensive it is for you to pick them. (For instance, the Sword skill would cost more for an Int-based character than a Str- or Con-based character, but a Dex-based character might be able to get it for somewhere in the middle.) Increasing experience earns you more CPs (Character Points) rather than levels, which you can spend to improve your existing skills or even buy new ones. Feats or perhaps certain expenditures of points could be used to decrease the price of skills that normally cost you more. This would be a drastic departure from d20/D&D and what you're looking for (since it's VERY skill-training based), but I kinda like the idea myself.

Deathtouched
2008-08-03, 07:32 AM
Hmm... I guess something like that could work. I've never actually used the d20 modern system for campaigns, but the talent tree idea could fix the problem. Of course I still need to come up with enough skills, but that's easier. And the "hybrid" system you talked about is sort of the same thing as cross-skills in D&D. It encourages the characters to take points in the skills they really need. Still, it is a big change, but I like your idea all the same.