So what character classes SHOULD be?

[Jormengand]

I'm not saying they're overpowered or something like that, I question the morality of these threads.

Wait, no, let's stop ourselves. The point is, what character classes WOULD you want in your standard medieval fantasy? What would you want your core classes to be? What about your low-degree (e.g. completes) splatbook classes? What about your higher-degree (e.g. Tome of X) splatbook classes?

[mephnick]

I'm not saying they're overpowered or something like that, I question the morality of these threads.

Wait, no, let's stop ourselves. The point is, what character classes WOULD you want in your standard medieval fantasy? What would you want your core classes to be? What about your low-degree (e.g. completes) splatbook classes? What about your higher-degree (e.g. Tome of X) splatbook classes?

Fighter, Mage, Archer. The classics! Nothing else!

[CantigThimble]

I would want Rogue, Fighter, Priest and Wizard. Really, I can define any class in terms of these 4, so any other class would exist as a way to simplify multi-classing.

[Eloel]

One per system.

Weapon-user, magic-user, skill-user.

[kyoryu]

Commoner. What else could you need?

[Morty]

My general rule is - if the only way in which your class-based system differs from a class-less one is restrictions, there's probably no point in there being classes. As such, I consider the warrior/mage/rogue trinity useless. They're so generic that you might as well chuck them entirely through the window. They don't give your character an identity, which to me is the main draw of using classes at all.

So instead, I'd rather have... I don't know, twelve or so classes that, while less broad and amorphous than Warriors and Thieves, still cover a reasonably wide variety of archetypes. Think Warblade and Knight instead of Fighter, Thief and Factotum instead of Rogue, and so on. Each class would be built less around "what you can do" and more "what's your speciality that sets you apart from others who use the same tools".

[Lord Raziere]

Melee Combatant (more than just a fighter, applies to any possible close combat thing- monsters, golems, anything you can think of that goes into the melee)
Ranged Combatant (Anything from Archers to Wizards, to blasting elementals, anything that could possibly damage things from range)
Leader (Any possible thing that primarily uses social and support skills to get things things done, not just combat, but social games in general as well as influencing societies, again this does not represent just things that are mortals but any possible creature or thing that can fulfill the archetype)
Subterfuge Specialist (Any possible thing that primarily uses stealth, trickery and other such skills to get things done from your normal thief to some illusionist, mystical shadow or trickster spirit)
Knowledge Specialist (Any possible thing that primarily uses knowledge planning and investigative abilities to get things done, from detectives to scholars to a scrying wizard, things like that)

Things like that. Why? because this would better give the concepts you want to play regardless of fluff. if you want to CoDzilla you have to use Melee Combatant just as you would for a fighter or a barbarian or a giant or whatever else. the classics are too tied in to certain kinds of fluff that limit the full capabilities of what a class system could be capable of. a Subterfuge Specialist is not a Rogue, because a Rogue is just one subset of what a Subterfuge Specialist can be.

of course, to make sure that you can do more than just one thing, you can pick your secondary class after wards that is kind of like a thing that your also good at, but not entirely, and these both combined make up the full range of what you can do, kind of like a class and a half. the variation comes from combining two classes in primary and secondary ways- Melee Primary and Leader Secondary is different from Leader Primary and Melee Secondary.

in short, divorce the classes from fluff entirely, make them choose one and a half of another at character creation to accomplish what you want to emulate, add whatever fluff you want onto it and your done.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Truenamer.

[TheCountAlucard]

Classless system all the way.

[BayardSPSR]

Classless system all the way.

If we're using classes as a supplement to a classless system in order to smooth the road for new players, you'd want one class for every kind of thing that it's possible to reasonably focus on. Think of Shadowrun: there's a class concept (even if not a set of mechanical limits) for each of the broad approaches a player can build mechanically. Melee-class, ranged-class (unless there aren't large mechanical gaps between those, in which case you'd have one combat-class), magic-class (unless you have multiple mechanically distinct kinds of magic, in which case you;d want a class for each), hacking-class, stealth-class, social-class... You don't need a "rigorously-ethical two-weapon combatant" or "nature-themed Mac-hacking class," just one per mechanical interaction system.

If the system is specifically built around classes, then each class should be mechanically distinct to the point that hybridization would be difficult. Ideally, all of each class' mechanical abilities would be unique, and most would interact with each other in a way that made them inseparable from the class. Think of the Apocalypse World/Dungeon World approach, where each class has a set of unique actions on top of a handful of generic actions that any character may make, plus abilities that are based on those unique actions. It's limiting, but it does allow for adding custom classes - and I don't see the point of using a class system if you're not looking for limitations on your character build/concept.

My personal tendency is towards a classless system all the way too, but those are the two frameworks in which I can see classes or "classes" Working Well.

[Nightcanon]

I'm quite heavily influenced by 2nd Ed AD&D, so I tend towards:
Warrior-types: primarily live by the sword /other weapons. A degree of modularity required to allow the main archetypes- knight in armour, ranger, beserker and so on. Ranger/ Paladin divine casting replaced by thematic abilities, with similar things on offer to other Warrior-types.
Rogues: live off their wits and skill. Thieves and Bards
Divine Casters: limited by portfolio and religious ethics, such that if you are turning into a giant and smiting, you don't also get to raise the dead, and vice versa, and druids don't get to use woodland animals as meatshields without having to answer questions from Mother Nature. Can't do everything and make other classes redundant.
Arcane casters: find it harder to learn every spell and have to specialise somewhat, don't get to make other classes redundant.

[Grim Portent]

Classless system all the way.

Indeed. Classes are far too cumbersome and restrictive as a method to create a character.

[JBPuffin]

Melee Combatant (more than just a fighter, applies to any possible close combat thing- monsters, golems, anything you can think of that goes into the melee)
Ranged Combatant (Anything from Archers to Wizards, to blasting elementals, anything that could possibly damage things from range)
Leader (Any possible thing that primarily uses social and support skills to get things things done, not just combat, but social games in general as well as influencing societies, again this does not represent just things that are mortals but any possible creature or thing that can fulfill the archetype)
Subterfuge Specialist (Any possible thing that primarily uses stealth, trickery and other such skills to get things done from your normal thief to some illusionist, mystical shadow or trickster spirit)
Knowledge Specialist (Any possible thing that primarily uses knowledge planning and investigative abilities to get things done, from detectives to scholars to a scrying wizard, things like that)

Things like that. Why? because this would better give the concepts you want to play regardless of fluff. if you want to CoDzilla you have to use Melee Combatant just as you would for a fighter or a barbarian or a giant or whatever else. the classics are too tied in to certain kinds of fluff that limit the full capabilities of what a class system could be capable of. a Subterfuge Specialist is not a Rogue, because a Rogue is just one subset of what a Subterfuge Specialist can be.

of course, to make sure that you can do more than just one thing, you can pick your secondary class after wards that is kind of like a thing that your also good at, but not entirely, and these both combined make up the full range of what you can do, kind of like a class and a half. the variation comes from combining two classes in primary and secondary ways- Melee Primary and Leader Secondary is different from Leader Primary and Melee Secondary.

in short, divorce the classes from fluff entirely, make them choose one and a half of another at character creation to accomplish what you want to emulate, add whatever fluff you want onto it and your done.

THIS. THIIIIS. My word, what I wouldn't do to have this be an d20 game. The only change I would make is to make it like Homestuck's setup - Classpect is a rather cool way of doing things.

Frankly, I see "classes" as mechanics packages anyway, and quite often will ignore the fluff in favor of what's necessary (why I use Eclipse: the Codex Persona, no fluff to deal with). I do often use the fluff to inspire a build, of course, but all that's necessary for that are examples.

[Lord Raziere]

Yeah, but a tendency I noticed in skill based or power point building systems, is that while its more flexible, it also raises what I call the Character Creation Barrier very high if you go overboard with them. Sure, Shadowrun, Eclipse Phase, Anima Beyond Fantasy and others all give you flexibility of concept, but they also go overboard in front-loading everything at Character creation by making it so that you have to allocate so many points everywhere properly and such. one of the reasons why Dungeons and Dragons has worked for so long is that it actually has a low Character Creation Barrier: sure, its a clunky cumbersome system and such, I'm not arguing that, but on the surface to the average player the choices are much simpler: just choose your class and race and your pretty much got most of your concept right there.

if you must do a classless system, you MUST make sure that your not going super-point crazy with it at character creation, because once you have like 600-1000 points to allocate around, it can get very complicated to someone who isn't specialized in math: suddenly you have lots of options. problem is, those options are not as simple as class and race, because you often have to decided how many points to put in, and in what skills to put them in! and if your not careful about where to put them, you could end up with an unworkable concept. a skill point system is infinitely more complex than a class-based one, because you have to build everything you want from the ground up, which is good if you know how to build it right, bad if you don't. this and the fact that some people could get overwhelmed by all the options and all the crunch for those options, can give the game a high Character Creation Barrier to entry even if the rest of the game is relatively simple by comparison. heck, I love Eclipse Phase but I know that I'd rather use the package system to make my characters from the Transhuman book rather than the usual 1000 point nightmare its default system has, and I like the Shadowrun world, I'd HATE to play SR's actual system, same goes for Anima Beyond Fantasy: I don't want to play that game because of the system, I want to play it in spite of it. and those are the ones I like.

if your going classless....make sure you do it right and that its at least something more like Mutants and Masterminds, than something like Gurps. I can't stress this enough.

[Cluedrew]

Ranged Combatant (Anything from Archers to Wizards, to blasting elementals, anything that could possibly damage things from range)

The others too but this point in general I like because it helps cut down the "magic over mandarin" problem than many games (especially 3.X) have.

However, for the way D&D uses classes I would actually say most or all of them. Even if some of the classes aren't as good as the others, having more options is almost always better. The exception is when there are classes unconditionally more powerful (which does not mean better) than others. When things start braking into tiers there are problems.

Other than that though I say pass all of them. Even if they are bad it is nothing but a choice you can not pick.

[Knaight]

This seems like an area to go classless. The entire point of classes is defined archetypes, and that works much better when you've got a more tightly defined setting with actual established walks of life that would sensibly grant powers. So if there's actually an established setting particular magical system? Bring on the mage classes. Are there actual setting established warriors paths (e.g. styles taught by temples in wuxia)? Bring on those classes. Something like Fighter? I think not.

[Chaotic Neutral]

Artisan, Bartender, Blacksmith, Butcher, Carver, Charlatan, Cooper, Fisher, Fletcher, Laborer, and Merchant. I can fill any character backstory with these roles.

[Morty]

If we're using classes as a supplement to a classless system in order to smooth the road for new players, you'd want one class for every kind of thing that it's possible to reasonably focus on. Think of Shadowrun: there's a class concept (even if not a set of mechanical limits) for each of the broad approaches a player can build mechanically. Melee-class, ranged-class (unless there aren't large mechanical gaps between those, in which case you'd have one combat-class), magic-class (unless you have multiple mechanically distinct kinds of magic, in which case you;d want a class for each), hacking-class, stealth-class, social-class... You don't need a "rigorously-ethical two-weapon combatant" or "nature-themed Mac-hacking class," just one per mechanical interaction system.

If the system is specifically built around classes, then each class should be mechanically distinct to the point that hybridization would be difficult. Ideally, all of each class' mechanical abilities would be unique, and most would interact with each other in a way that made them inseparable from the class. Think of the Apocalypse World/Dungeon World approach, where each class has a set of unique actions on top of a handful of generic actions that any character may make, plus abilities that are based on those unique actions. It's limiting, but it does allow for adding custom classes - and I don't see the point of using a class system if you're not looking for limitations on your character build/concept.

My personal tendency is towards a classless system all the way too, but those are the two frameworks in which I can see classes or "classes" Working Well.

Personally, I find myself leaning more towards... something like White Wolf/Onyx Path's "sub-splats" - vampire clans, Exalted castes/aspects and such - except heavier. As in, they inform what you find easier to use and learn, and give you one big thing that sets you apart and defines you.

Really, I think levels contribute to D&D's suffocating restrictiveness as much as classes do, or more. Because you need to be level X to do it, no ifs and no buts.

[Tvtyrant]

Probably melee damage+CC single target, ranged single target damage +CC, area CC no damage, area damage no CC, single target damage + 1 ally buff, 1 buff +1 CC, area buffs. CC=crowd control.

[Lord Raziere]

Personally, I find myself leaning more towards... something like White Wolf/Onyx Path's "sub-splats" - vampire clans, Exalted castes/aspects and such - except heavier. As in, they inform what you find easier to use and learn, and give you one big thing that sets you apart and defines you.

Yeah, but they have problems of their own: Solar Smart guys need to be different from Sidereal smart guys, which need to be different from Infernal smart guys, all of which need to be different from sneaky guys of any splat and so on and so forth until you tie yourself into knots trying to make sure none of them overlap, because eventually? they will overlap. the very nature of that sort of design is exception-based which can complicate things pretty quickly. and once you make an exception for one thing, you can't make that exception anywhere else! you can make a Solar super-inventor....but you can't make a Sidereal one. which can actually cut down on more character concepts than it allows through.

[Cluedrew]

Umm... Is the idea of the class system self on- or off-topic for this thread. To me it sounds like something that would be its own thread. The thing is I'm completely biased because I've been planning to make such a thread for weeks, have part of the opening post writing and would still like to. But if that is to much in line with this thread then I won't.

[BayardSPSR]

Yeah, but a tendency I noticed in skill based or power point building systems, is that while its more flexible, it also raises what I call the Character Creation Barrier very high if you go overboard with them. Sure, Shadowrun, Eclipse Phase, Anima Beyond Fantasy and others all give you flexibility of concept, but they also go overboard in front-loading everything at Character creation by making it so that you have to allocate so many points everywhere properly and such. one of the reasons why Dungeons and Dragons has worked for so long is that it actually has a low Character Creation Barrier: sure, its a clunky cumbersome system and such, I'm not arguing that, but on the surface to the average player the choices are much simpler: just choose your class and race and your pretty much got most of your concept right there.

Doesn't D&D also get point-buy-itis too as soon as you hit skill points and money? With added complexity due to the fact that your skill points are a number derived from two other numbers, and money is random AND different depending on which class you pick? That seems like the worst of both worlds to me.

Really, I think levels contribute to D&D's suffocating restrictiveness as much as classes do, or more. Because you need to be level X to do it, no ifs and no buts.

I concur. Plus the fact that it's a number that has the primary purpose of generating other numbers, which is apparently a bugbear of mine. Like the whole "roll to get your stat, the point of which is to determine a totally different bonus to things..."

(In the case of INT, it's worse: "roll to get your stat! Of course, you don't actually use that in-game; you use it to get your bonus! And you add that to your skill points! And you apply those to your skills! Which you then apply to your roll when you do those things! Plus another bonus depending on which skill it is!" So many degrees of separation between the number you start with and the one you use in gameplay...)

Umm... Is the idea of the class system self on- or off-topic for this thread. To me it sounds like something that would be its own thread. The thing is I'm completely biased because I've been planning to make such a thread for weeks, have part of the opening post writing and would still like to. But if that is to much in line with this thread then I won't.

Depends on your OP, and whether you want this thread to become that discussion. Up to you.

[Lord Raziere]

Doesn't D&D also get point-buy-itis too as soon as you hit skill points and money? With added complexity due to the fact that your skill points are a number derived from two other numbers, and money is random AND different depending on which class you pick? That seems like the worst of both worlds to me.

Haha nope.

You only have to deal with like what? less than one hundred points for both? AND you've already chosen your class? which limits the amount of skills you can take AND the skills that are viable for you to take? that and equipment that is pretty much obvious given how what equipment you can take is limited by class and race? Class/race practically makes all the choices for those for you, or at least narrows them down to the point where its pretty easy.

practically a cake walk compared to point buy systems.

[Sindeloke]

Hmn. If we're going as vague as "standard medieval fantasy," I'm going to go:

The Juggernaut: a character with minimal mobility, but high durability.
The Skirmisher: a character with low durability but high mobility.
The Fop: a character with low durability and damage, but high utility.

Each class would have regular intervals at which you can choose between abilities that improve your single-target damage, your AoE damage, your crowd control capability, and your buffing/healing capability. How these abilities manifest would be dependent on your class. A skirmisher who goes down the single-target damage tree would resemble a D&D rogue. A juggernaut who goes down the single-target damage tree would let you emulate a barbarian. The buff trees would let them emulate paladins or warlords. Control trees would give juggernauts tanking abilities, and fops hold person spells. A buff-focused fop could look like a cleric or bard.

Trees could be shared between classes, given different power sources, and added to with splats and supplements over time to put forward almost any normal fantasy archetype. You could be a necromancer by being a fop with a minion tree, or a wild-shaping druid by picking a transformation tree with a juggernaut or skirmisher. You couldn't have generalist batman wizards, but those don't actually exist in fantasy outside of D&D anyway, so no big deal.

[TheCountAlucard]

You only have to deal with like what? less than one hundred points for both?

Except gold pieces break down into silver and copper, and item costs vary across the board; a needle's worth more than its weight in gold, yet chalk costs copper. You're really dealing with thousands of points, and they in turn have to be checked against encumbrance.

which limits the amount of skills you can take AND the skills that are viable for you to take?

Cross-class skills are and continue to be a thing, trapping newbies and confusing them further with half-ranks and max-ranks.

that and equipment that is pretty much obvious given how what equipment you can take is limited by class and race?

It really isn't.

Class/race practically makes all the choices for those for you, or at least narrows them down to the point where its pretty easy.

When's the last time you looked through the 3.5 PHB's equipment section?

[BayardSPSR]

Haha nope.

You only have to deal with like what? less than one hundred points for both? AND you've already chosen your class? which limits the amount of skills you can take AND the skills that are viable for you to take? that and equipment that is pretty much obvious given how what equipment you can take is limited by class and race? Class/race practically makes all the choices for those for you, or at least narrows them down to the point where its pretty easy.

practically a cake walk compared to point buy systems.

Hang on - literally 1000 point-nightmare? I haven't played the games in question; I thought you were exaggerating. By lots.

[Lord Raziere]

Hang on - literally 1000 point-nightmare? I haven't played the games in question; I thought you were exaggerating. By lots.

Yeah, in Eclipse Phase you have to allocate a single pool of 1000 points for skills, equipment, your body, everything. unless you use the Package system in another book, which is far simpler.

for Anima Beyond Fantasy must choose where 600 points go, often deal with how one point in this certain thing actually equals this many points because often in things you don't specialize in, you need to spend 2 or 3 points for every actual 1 skill point you gain.

and Shadowrun is a quagmire of skill points, attribute points, equipment lists with prices in nuyen routinely being in like the few thousand to the tens of thousands range so that pool of money you get is naturally also in the tens of thousands range. you get like, 600 points to allocate starting out for your entire character and every thing costs some measure of points. 400 if you want lower powered, I believe?

@ The CountAlucard:
in DnD I just buy some armor, some clothes and a weapon and then assume everything else is fluff. never really played a game where inventory management and resource stuff was all that important.

[Karl Aegis]

What are we trying to do here? Are we trying to create a new SRS system like Tenra War or Alshard? Just get Catholic Nuns on motorcycles with lances and call it a day.

[BayardSPSR]

Yeah, in Eclipse Phase you have to allocate a single pool of 1000 points for skills, equipment, your body, everything. unless you use the Package system in another book, which is far simpler.

for Anima Beyond Fantasy must choose where 600 points go, often deal with how one point in this certain thing actually equals this many points because often in things you don't specialize in, you need to spend 2 or 3 points for every actual 1 skill point you gain.

and Shadowrun is a quagmire of skill points, attribute points, equipment lists with prices in nuyen routinely being in like the few thousand to the tens of thousands range so that pool of money you get is naturally also in the tens of thousands range. you get like, 600 points to allocate starting out for your entire character and every thing costs some measure of points. 400 if you want lower powered, I believe?

Wow. Okay. Yeah, I was expecting something in the 10-40 range. And as someone who does find the D&D skill points and equipment buying annoying and frustrating (though I'm sure that goes away with system mastery that I don't have), those sound like...

Those sound like there needs to be a thread on how point-buy systems should work.

[HunterOfJello]

Bards and Orcus