What do you think the best way to handle classes is.

[Tensu]

Be it freeform, tabletop, video game, or whatever, what do you think the best way to handle classes is? I'm curious to know...

question 1: wold you rather...

Spoiler

Show

Have a small number of classes with a large number of skills and abilities each, little to no "bleeding" of skills between classes, and nigh-infinite possibility for reflavoring? example: "Priest."

or

A large number of classes, but with a very specific flavor, a smaller number of unique abilities, and potentially a lot of bleeding between classes? example: "Cleric, theurge, druid, shaman, monk, inquisitor, Prophet, Friar, etc., etc."

or

have no real classes, but a set list of abilities possibly with some manner of prerequisite-ery or otherwise connectedness, that the player can speck in at their leisure? example: "healing prayers, smiting prayers, swordfighting, cheese-making, fish summoning, etc."

question 2: would you rather:

Spoiler

Show

have all classes be restricted to certain types of gear? example: No, You can't use a claymore and full plate: you're a mage."

or

Allow players to use any items regardless of class, but with such grave penalties that it's pointless. example: "Why do you want to use a claymore and full plate? you're a mage!"

or

Allow players to use any items with penalties for items not meant for their class, but nothing severe. example: "While most mages wouldn't want to use a claymore and full plate, I can see how it would work for you."

or

Allow players to use any items regardless of class, though stats may or may not still be a factor. example: "I've got the str and int to be a Claymore-wielding, Full-plate wearing, monster-nuking maniac!"

Question 3: would you rather...

Spoiler

Show

Have classes limited to a certain role "No, you can't smite them. you're a healer"

have classes best at a certain role, but be able to do other stuff "Just focus on healing for now."

have classes able to fill a multitude of roles "Are you a heal-cleric, and smite-cleric, a negociate-cleric, and buff-cleric, or a jack of all trades-cleric?"

[Sstoopidtallkid]

1: I hate class-based systems. Point-based builds all the way, IMHO. I shouldn't have to get another 10 HP if I want to be better at stabbing someone.

2: Well, once you've eliminated classes, then it just comes down to whether it is worth it for someone to try to cast in full plate, which comes down to the magic system and whether increases are linear, diminishing, or multiply. I prefer linear, but the exact system determines that.

3:See above.

[Starbuck_II]

1. Have a small number of classes with a large number of skills and abilities each, little to no "bleeding" of skills between classes.
With a caveat: What do we mean by classes?
Would Rogue and Fighter (both types of warriors) be same or different classes?

2. Allow players to use any items with penalties for items not meant for their class, but nothing severe. example: "While most mages wouldn't want to use a claymore and full plate, I can see how it would work for you."

Yes, nothing as extreme as arcane spell failure, but I see no issue with mages have no proficiency.

They can take the feats. Maybe a penalty to concentration checks (equal to armor check if they exists) if the game has the metal armor messes up magic flavor (depends on game, 2nd edition D&D said that).
Penalty is there and messes Mages up (at least at lower levels), but not too extreme.

3. A mixture of Best focus and jack all trades types.
I find the extreme: can't smite, you heal" to be abhorrent though.

[BRC]

I've always been more a fan of the way Shadowrun handled character creation. Yeah, it took longer, but it was more in-depth and versatile.

Though I suppose it really depends on the type of game. DnD is built for everything to fit nicely together. The rules say a party of X level will be challenged by, but be able to defeat, Y encounter, and should receive Z (or equivalent Z) for doing so. This system doesn't always work of course, but it provides a neat and easy framework.

Shadowrun on the other hand had no such system. The DM had no guidelines except their gut for how difficult an encounter was going to be, or how tough the party was. Then again, considering how lethal combat was, an odd roll this way or that could throw all that planning to the ground (One bad drain-resistance roll, and your mage is nursing the mother of all headaches for the rest of the day and is essentially out of the fight). Leading to more chaotic, less predictable gameplay.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Classless, level-less, skill-/ability-/trait-based systems without crazy artificial restrictions are the best. Bonus points for increasing the attributes through experience gained from something actually tied to the character (like following and playing their stated motivations, drives, and goals), rather than just using the skill (this results in characters only getting better at the skills that everyone has to use, or that they're the best in the party in) or killing monsters and "completing adventures."

Cf. GURPS, The Riddle of Steel, RuneQuest (especially Mongoose's), HeroQuest, Shadowrun, etc.

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is the only class- and level-based system I really like, because it's quirky. (Although reconciling the various professions with traditional adventuring can be a pain, I like games where the PCs have a real place in the world beyond "I wander and kill stuff" anyway.)

Question 1: The third.
Question 2: The fourth.
Question 3: The third.

[Raum]

Why assume a need for classes at all? Get rid of 'em altogether!

[Fiery Diamond]

Well, this makes a giant, giant difference in my answers:
"Be it freeform, tabletop, video game, or whatever..."

Freeform:
1. Eliminate classes (third option)
2. Irrelevant, as I don't think freeform should be based on statistics and numbers in any way - think of it as all fluff, no crunch. (This is why freeform "games" online are abhorrent to me.)
3. Since no classes and no crunch, a cross between second and third option (keeping some of second option so people have a reason to work together).

Tabletop:
1. Either 1st or 2nd works for me, but I tend toward the second.
2. Third option for balance reasons, but fourth option would be very fun.
3. Mainly third option.

Video game:
1. Either 1st or 3rd option, mainly depending on how many characters you control and whether you can change classes.
2. I'm used to the 1st option (conditioned from FF), but I would prefer the 4th option.
3. The 2nd option.

[Tengu_temp]

I wanted to elaborate, but then this appeared:

1: I hate class-based systems. Point-based builds all the way, IMHO. I shouldn't have to get another 10 HP if I want to be better at stabbing someone.

2: Well, once you've eliminated classes, then it just comes down to whether it is worth it for someone to try to cast in full plate, which comes down to the magic system and whether increases are linear, diminishing, or multiply. I prefer linear, but the exact system determines that.

3:See above.

Replace "hate" with "don't like very much" and this is my point as well.

[Shpadoinkle]

They all have thier appeals. Point based systems with no classes like GURPS are nice for building the exact character you want, without having to go through a bunch of bull**** to get the one ability you want and not have to be saddled with all this useless crap you'll never use.

On the other hand, class based systems give a distinctive feel and better definition. You know, in general, what everyone is capable of.

[Draz74]

I'm going with "tabletop" since it's the only one I do enough to deeply care about.

Be it freeform, tabletop, video game, or whatever, what do you think the best way to handle classes is? I'm curious to know...

question 1: wold you rather...

I can see the appeal of all three, as long as they're stuck to strictly. But my own preference is probably closest to Option 3. But I don't mind still having "classes" as a basic framework that determine very basic attributes of a character, like overall fighting ability or overall casting ability.

question 2: would you rather:

Allow players to use any items with penalties for items not meant for their class, but nothing severe. example: "While most mages wouldn't want to use a claymore and full plate, I can see how it would work for you."

Dedication should be rewarded to some extent. A gish should never be as good at casting as a dedicated magic-obsessed archmage of the same level. But the gish should be fun, too, and powerful in his own right. And exploring creative combinations of abilities should certainly not be punished.

Question 3: would you rather...

I think what I've already written should clear this up. Dedication should be rewarded somewhat, but classes shouldn't be the way to shoehorn people into this dedication. Under my "basic framework" idea of classes, a caster-class could be a blaster mage, a healer, a necromancer, a shaman, or a multitude of other concepts.

[Flickerdart]

I prefer a mix of the no-class and set-class approaches. There are some abilities that should belong to anyone who wants them (such as, say, acrobatic skills or basic weapons training), abilities that anyone of an archetype can use (such as Wisdom-keyed magic for spiritual classes) and some abilities so specialized that you have to dedicate yourself to them. So, for example, you chose to be an arcane spellcaster. Joe over there is a close quarters combatant. There is no reason that the both of you can't run or jump almost as well as one another, or play chess, or train pet riding alligators. But Joe is going to be better at weapons than you, and will be able to do things that you will never be able to do for walking down the path of magic, such as, say, punching through a magical shield with your fist while picking Balor bits out of your teeth.

Items shouldn't be restricted by class, but not everyone is going to get the same use out of the same item. No restrictions are necessary on this, if you want to run around in full plate and dual-wield greatswords, go ahead, only why did you decide to cast magic again? Oh. That's not a bad reason, actually. Have fun.

Classes, as their specialities go, should be better at one area than others, but not locked down in what they do. So, as a wizard, you get bonuses to your spells, and better spells than a fighter who wants to dabble in sorcery. But you don't have to cast spells. You can weave baskets if you want.

So... 3, 3, 3.

[JeminiZero]

Cf. GURPS, The Riddle of Steel, RuneQuest (especially Mongoose's), HeroQuest, Shadowrun, etc.

And of course, Mutants and Masterminds 2e.

[Agrippa]

question 1: wold you rather...

A large number of classes, but with a very specific flavor, a smaller number of unique abilities, and potentially a lot of bleeding between classes? example: "Cleric, theurge, druid, shaman, monk, inquisitor, Prophet, Friar, etc., etc."

But mostly by taking pre-existing classes, like cleric and tweaking them for the player in question.

question 2: would you rather:

Allow players to use any items regardless of class, but with such grave penalties that it's pointless. example: "Why do you want to use a claymore and full plate? you're a mage!"

or

Allow players to use any items with penalties for items not meant for their class, but nothing severe. example: "While most mages wouldn't want to use a claymore and full plate, I can see how it would work for you."

While I think that classes represent a combination background, training and mindset and firmly beleive in class-based armor and weapon restrictions, I see nothing wrong in allowing a mage (whether you call it a magic-user, wizard or sorcerer) to use a claymore, with penalty, if he or she is strong enough too wield it. The arcanist could even learn how to all weapons proficiently at higher levels. Either by multiclassing or raising the mage's experience point threshold.

Question 3: would you rather...

have classes able to fill a multitude of roles "Are you a heal-cleric, and smite-cleric, a negociate-cleric, and buff-cleric, or a jack of all trades-cleric?"

Not every one can be expected to play a cleric or wizard the exact same way.

[ericgrau]

1. A
2. C
3. None of the above. I'd like classes that can fill a small number of roles equally well, regardless of build focus (though build focus might change the *pool* of roles somewhat, and class limits which roles you can choose from).

[Knaight]

For Tabletop-Classless, Skill Based, Non HP, point based character creation, or subjective character creation, preferably with individual weapons(fairly broad though, so not something like Class IV roman gladius, more along the lines of "swords") as skills to avoid the whole "mages can't wield swords" issue.

Videogames, it depends on the game. RPGs, MMORPGs, etc. should be classless. That said, some turn based strategy games(Fire Emblem ie.) could work either way.

[Irate Ranger]

It would depend on what kind of game I was tailoring the classes for.

Just as an example, lets say that I was creating a Hack 'N Slash, focusing on simple objectives, linear storyline, and co-operative gameplay. In this scenario, I'd probably keep the number of classes to a maximum of six, with each class having its own set of unique abilities and filling a specific role in co-operative play. I would still allow for a bit of customization, mind you. But it would be nowhere near that of a more complex RPG.

On the other hand, lets say I'm creating an MMORPG that focuses on depth, player interaction and an open-ended world. I'd probably have a moderate number of classes (around 6-12) that had a unique flavour, with maybe one or two "Jack-of-all-trades" style classes. I'd be a bit more liberal with what skills are unique to certain classes (Universal spell list, maybe?) But other than that, every class would be unique.

Basically, it all depends on what kind of game you are trying to create, and what classes would fit better in your setting/design plan.

[PinkysBrain]

1 : I'd favour the first option, but there has to be a lot of room for character customization to change the options open to the character in combat/social situations ... feats/skills/powers/tricks/whatever). Also flexible and effective multiclassing is required (ie. none of the "can't multiclass a caster without a fitting PrC" **** from D&D). If there is not a lot of character customization available outside of class abilities, then I'd prefer the second option.

2 : The third option, with the caveat that it shouldn't be impossible to use the items effectively it should just come at a cost ... getting away from your archetype shouldn't be impossible, but I think archetypes are still worth having so there should be some pressure towards them.

3 : Silly question, absolutes are rarely interesting ... the second.

As for the off "classes/levels suck" discussion, I think level less systems suck ... it rewards hyper specialization too much (having point limits which can be invested in specific abilities which go up as the campaign advances IS a defacto level based system).

[Sstoopidtallkid]

As for the off "classes/levels suck" discussion, I think level less systems suck ... it rewards hyper specialization too much (having point limits which can be invested in specific abilities which go up as the campaign advances IS a defacto level based system).

What about systems with diminishing returns? For example, AQ:Jaern sets it up where to buy the next tier of any ability, you have to multiply the tier you're going to be by the abilitie's 'base cost'. IE: HP costs 25 xp times (your current HP total +1). Means that the experience spent to boost your current highest ability once could instead boost an untrained ability 5-6 levels. Makes for a lot more versatility.

[Oracle_Hunter]

If you're going to uses classes at all, 1A-2C-3B is the way to go. A Class (as I understand it) should hew to a particular role/job and not be pushed aside by some other, more versatile class. The 2E Bard is a good example of a "Jack-of-all-Trades" Class that does not step on the toes of the Mage or Thief while still being flexible. I don't think equipment should necessarily be the province of any particular class, though certain classes should have greater proficiency with their "tools of the trade" than interlopers. Of course, you don't want to make each Class too constrained - nobody likes playing the heal-bot - so leave some flexibility within the role-description.

1C-2D-3C is barely a class system at all, IMHO.

Still, these aren't really all the options available, even if you assume class based systems. For instance, you can have a large number of classes, each grouped around certain roles but with distinct mechanical differences - the 4E Rogue vs. 4E Ranger, for example.

In any case, there is no standard definition of what a "class system" means, aside from it being used to label systems as diverse as AD&D and Rifts (and many others, I'm sure). I use the definition of Class I picked up from AD&D; I'm sure other people use different ones.

A more interesting question would be what people think the base characteristics of a Class System would be.

[Harperfan7]

The last option of all three.

Take Oblivion for example, anybody can do anything anybody else can do (eventually), it's just a matter of how well/early on. Some people will never be as good as others at certain things, but they can both do them. And if you want to be a full plate wearing, great sword wielding, nuclear fireball throwing mage, go right ahead, you just won't be as good a fighter as a straight fighter and same with magic/mages.

[Tempest Fennac]

1. Large number of similar classes because I like freedom of choice, but classes with similar rolls should play differently.

2. Anyone can use what they like, but there should be penalties for trying to use things which you're not trained to use.

3. I prefer classes to focus on 1 roll while being descent in another area, if they won't end up being overpowered.

[Satyr]

Question 1:

A classless system is in almost every regard superior and preferable to a class-based system'; players have more influence on their character's development and further carreer, more fine tuning and personal adjustments allow for a higher degree of character individualisation and identification of the player with the character, and the finer adjustment and individual development makes it much easier to create well- rounded characters, while many class systems force the player into certain stereotypes.
Class systems in roleplaying games are an anachronism, and are only kept alive through a sense of tradition; there are virtually no reasons from a quality point of view to keep them. Even the one pseudo-advantage a class-based system has - orientation for undecisive players and are marginally faster character creation - can easily emulated in most classless systems through the use of prefabricated templates and lenses for the character, which are often not nearly as restrictive as most class systems.

Question 2:

Since I found classes to be an outdated model, class-based restrictions on equipment are probably worse, as long as there is no workale explanation within the foundation of the gaming world for it ("Iron, and especially cold iron are an active countermeasure for magic. While your mage can wear all the full plate armors he can carry, that may not be the wisest idea"; "Only the nobility and the warrior caste are trained in the combat with the sword - a mage who wear these sysmbols of power is treated as an impostor and can be banished by the local lords"). Arbitrary and unexplainable limitations are mostly stupid, and should by avoided. Sensible limitations based on the inner logic of the gaming world are a different matter.

Question 3:

If I have to cope with classes, I prefer as much individual influence of the player on the character as possible and as little enforced stereotypes and limitations of the system as possible.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Class systems in roleplaying games are an anachronism, and are only kept alive through a sense of tradition

And a silly one, considering Traveller ('77) and RuneQuest ('78) were never class-based, but skill- and career-based (your background loosely determined your starting skills).

[Satyr]

I don't know much about Traveller, but the Runequest rules I know included a character creation which were based on a roll to determine the character's culture and social standing / profession, which pretty much were a class system - it just wasn't level-based, so characters improved in the skills they used a lot.

[Tengu_temp]

Class systems in roleplaying games are an anachronism, and are only kept alive through a sense of tradition;

Woah, I actually agree with Satyr on something.

[Tsotha-lanti]

I don't know much about Traveller, but the Runequest rules I know included a character creation which were based on a roll to determine the character's culture and social standing / profession, which pretty much were a class system - it just wasn't level-based, so characters improved in the skills they used a lot.

The rolls (at a guess, I'd say the tables you refer to were from the RQ3 Glorantha: Crucible of the Hero Wars boxed set, book 3) are (obviously) optional, and that's not a class system - it's a background system. The system is entirely skill-, not class-based; there's no class abilities or limitations, and you can, if you care to, learn all three types of magic while wielding six different weapons masterfully and clunking around in plate armor (although you have to join a pretty specific cult or be Illuminated to combine "rune levels" in multiple practices; combined Rune Lord/Priest-Wizard-Shamans are only really found among one or two Gloranthan cultures, and even then they're rare). The basic book of RQ3, for instance, had no professions (I think the Deluxe book may have, though I'm not sure). You just picked your culture and got your X points to divide among your skills. In RQ2 (a scant 2 years after RQ1, which I don't have), you rolled for background (Peasant, Townsman, Barbarian, Poor Noble, Rich Noble, Very Rich Noble), which determined your wealth and starting equipment. Again, no class system at all.

[Arcane_Snowman]

I must agree with Satyr, BRC and Sstoopid; having a class-less system is most preferable.

[Tempest Fennac]

I prefer classes due to generally prefering to have some limits as far as character creation goes for some reason. I think it's because I don't like video games where characters are infinitly customizable ability wise due to it making the characters less unique. Which is strange because this doesn't apply to table top systems due to characters being infinitly more customizable anyway.

[Satyr]

The rolls (at a guess, I'd say the tables you refer to were from the RQ3 Glorantha: Crucible of the Hero Wars boxed set, book 3) are (obviously) optional, and that's not a class system - it's a background system. The system is entirely skill-, not class-based;

In the old version of Runequest I have (from the early 90s, I guess), the roll for the class seemed pretty obligatory and made for serious differences between characters (especially because at least half of the characters were peasants...)
I also think that class-based and skill-based are not completely contradicting terms. You can quite easily create a system were players pick a template or a lense for their characters and advance them more or less freely nonetheless, for example in Gurps: Dungeon Fantasy.

Woah, I actually agree with Satyr on something.

I am as shocked as you are.

I think it's because I don't like video games where characters are infinitly customizable ability wise due to it making the characters less unique

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me. The more a character becomes customized to the distinct ideas, wishes and perspectives of a player, the more unique the character becomes. More fine tuning allows for more unique characters, as they can differ in more aspects and the player has more contol over the character's carreer.

[Tempest Fennac]

With video games, I was mainly thinking about FF 7 and 8 where all of your characters abilities except for limit breaks are decided through things which are attached to them, which leads to the characters themselves not mattering because it's the Materia/Guardian Forces which decide what they can do. (I know this wouldn't be an issue in the sort of RPGs you're refering to due to them being more versatile while using different skill granting methods, but I was mentioning that as a possible reason for why I prefer classes.)