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.
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.