What are the advantages of classes?

[Winterwind]

That's an issue I have been wondering about for quite a while.

For starters, I am not a D&D player. I have played a few other RPGs which implemented the concept of classes though, and I have played others, where such a concept was absent. In such systems, the question of who a character is is usually answered by the character's skills - if the character has high values in skills such as Armed Combat, Toughness and Initiative, the character is a warrior, otherwise, the character is not. If the character has high values in skills like Stealth and Pickpocket, the character is a thief. Otherwise, (s)he's not. And so on.

I found that the skill-based systems allowed for a lot more freedom in creating the character one wishes to play. Pretty much any concept is possible for which there are enough skill points available, and one can balance the character's respective abilities exactly as one wishes to. Also, there is no distinction between skills and something like class abilities - everyone can learn anything as they see fit, and there is one mechanic for pretty much everything. Also, there are per definition no balance issues between the classes.

On the other hand, I don't really see what the advantages of classes would be. And yet, the most popular RPG in the world uses them.

Note, I am not trying to make an argument that skill-based systems are inherently superior to class-based ones. Rather, I am genuinely curious as to what people find attractive about a class-based system.

So, enlighten me. What are the advantages of classes?

[martyboy74]

Tradition.

Really, I don't think that there's much else. D&D is the granddaddy of most RPGs nowadays, and they just stole the concept.

[bosssmiley]

Put simply? Modularity. Each classed character has a pre-defined role and purpose in the world, represented by their class. Fighters fight. Wizards do magic. Druids protect nature. Paladins are white knights. Barbs go berserk.

This can definitely be a handy 'in' to the game for new players, who can (IMXP) often feel totally overwhelmed by the complexities and breadth of choices inherent in point-buy systems. It's also useful for the more casual player who doesn't either have time to - or even *want to* - spend hours lovingly crafting a unique and special snowflake whenever they want to beat up bad guys.

All IMO, YCMV.

[Starbuck_II]

That's an issue I have been wondering about for quite a while.

For starters, I am not a D&D player. I have played a few other RPGs which implemented the concept of classes though, and I have played others, where such a concept was absent. In such systems, the question of who a character is is usually answered by the character's skills - if the character has high values in skills such as Armed Combat, Toughness and Initiative, the character is a warrior, otherwise, the character is not. If the character has high values in skills like Stealth and Pickpocket, the character is a thief. Otherwise, (s)he's not. And so on.

I found that the skill-based systems allowed for a lot more freedom in creating the character one wishes to play. Pretty much any concept is possible for which there are enough skill points available, and one can balance the character's respective abilities exactly as one wishes to. Also, there is no distinction between skills and something like class abilities - everyone can learn anything as they see fit, and there is one mechanic for pretty much everything. Also, there are per definition no balance issues between the classes.

On the other hand, I don't really see what the advantages of classes would be. And yet, the most popular RPG in the world uses them.

Note, I am not trying to make an argument that skill-based systems are inherently superior to class-based ones. Rather, I am genuinely curious as to what people find attractive about a class-based system.

So, enlighten me. What are the advantages of classes?

Classes have a more focused set of abilities.
I think it is due to the ease of use.

With your explaination of the skill system; it sounds like one must findthe correct variety of skills to make a decent warrior.
While at low levels in a class based system: take a few warrior type classes does same function.

At higher levels, every past class level will have mattered , but at the beggining it is easy to just have a full bab clas if want to make a good warrior type characer.


Now, one with good knowledge of skill combinations could make a great characer no doubt, but learning this can be hard (not that it isn't just as hard to make a good Fighter).

But as I have no exp with Skill systems I can only assume this.

[Lemur]

Initially, classes provided a simple way to make a character- skill based creation methods are generally more complex and require more time understanding the system and making characters. A simpler system is probably more attractive to people who don't want to spend a lot of time understanding the rules, or who don't want to spend a lot of time building a character.

In other words, more freedom isn't necessarily a good thing for everyone. Some people like it, but it's a hindrance to others.

However, in 3.X, with much more free prestige and multiclassing, this simplicity begins to break down, and the advantages of classes vs. freely assigning skills isn't so clear anymore.

[Lord Tataraus]

For a number of reasons actually.
1) Its easy. Yes you can argue that a skill system takes less time, but a class structure is something a beginner can pick up and "get" quickly, most of the stuff is already done.

2) Effective talent trees. If you break it down, classes are just a form of talent trees that expand to incorporate other aspects of the character (such as the number of skills he gets). Talents trees are something that I find just don't work very well in more freeform systems and a class system usually has more unique abilities.

3) Easy design. This is for the game designers. It is normally easier to balance classes than lists of abilities with point costs.

4) More balanced characters. A class system carries less of a risk of screwing yourself by forgetting about a certain skill set or focusing too much on one skill. Of course with advanced players this is not a problem, but for beginners it is a real issue (I've had experience with this).

5) Archetypes are more apparent. Yes, I know you can say you are a warrior if all your skills are in those aspects, but you could also have a mishmash of skills and you can't answer the question: what archetype are you? Again this is not so much a problem for advanced players.

6) People are stubborn and don't want to change. While not exactly an "advantage" but one reason class-based system exists is because everyone* started with a class-based system and they don't want to learn a completely new style.

I'm sure there are more advantages.

* - by everyone, I mean most people.

Edit: wow, major ninja action!

[Orzel]

The main advantage is that classes define a character. You can do everything your class says it can do (most of the time). Your strengths and weaknesses are well noted and known. When you make a magic user, it's hard to no be able to use magic if you have basically knowledge of the game.

The second advantage is that classes are less work for the game's master. It's harder for players to screw up or overpower their characters with their build. It's also harder to sneak abuses pass the GM/DM/ST because they know what you can do based on your class.

The third advantage is the ease of balancing. Designers and GMs can fix problems by adjusting classes and not the characters or abilities directly. In skill systems, a character can be stronger or weaker than other by choosing the wrong/right skills basing on each skill's overall strength. But chumping skills together, one can balance weak skills with stronger ones by placing them together.

[horseboy]

The main advantage is that classes define a character. You can do everything your class says it can do (most of the time). Your strengths and weaknesses are well noted and known. When you make a magic user, it's hard to no be able to use magic if you have basically knowledge of the game.

The second advantage is that classes are less work for the game's master. It's harder for players to screw up or overpower their characters with their build. It's also harder to sneak abuses pass the GM/DM/ST because they know what you can do based on your class.

The third advantage is the ease of balancing. Designers and GMs can fix problems by adjusting classes and not the characters or abilities directly. In skill systems, a character can be stronger or weaker than other by choosing the wrong/right skills basing on each skill's overall strength. But chumping skills together, one can balance weak skills with stronger ones by placing them together.

Then why doesn't D&D work?

[Dode]

What's the advantage of buying a car at the dealership over just buying a sack of parts from the local mechanic?

[Solo]

Then why doesn't D&D work?

DnD doesn't work?

I never noticed.

Sure you can break the game and there are flaws, but its never been anything fatal.

[Dausuul]

Well, the first thing to remember is that D&D originated as a wargame. In a wargame, you're not so much interested in the details of an individual soldier; you just want to be able to lump him into one of several categories. Is he a Spearman, an Archer, a Swordsman, or a Knight? Or, once magic and such starts getting tossed into the mix--a Fighter, a Magic-User, a Cleric, or a Thief?

That was the starting point, and D&D retained those concepts as it made the transition from fantasy wargame to primitive RPG. Other RPGs followed the D&D model at first. Eventually classless systems began to appear, and nowadays they pretty much dominate the non-d20 market due to their greater versatility.

The class system does have its advantages. The biggest is probably that it provides a simple template for the beginner, ensuring that you have the basic abilities necessary to do whatever it is your class is supposed to do. Furthermore, in theory, limiting the player's ability to mix-and-match abilities cuts down on the likelihood of "broken" combinations... although, in practice, you need so many classes to accommodate all the possible character concepts that you often end up with more broken combos than you would have with a simpler, skill-based system.

Class systems also help prevent overspecialization. Classless systems sometimes suffer from the tendency of players to pick one thing and dump huge amounts of points (or whatever the character creation resource may be) into it, resulting in a "glass cannon" who is incredibly good at one thing and abysmal at everything else. A class system can force players to diversify somewhat, although there are ways of doing that with a classless system too.

Overall, I prefer classless systems, for much the same reasons you do. But I am willing to put up with classes for the other advantages D&D offers--particularly, being able to find players. I've noticed that every edition of the system has brought greater flexibility to the classes, and more options to mix-and-match. I dream of the day when D&D finally jettisons the whole concept, but I think that day is yet far off. Not 4E, probably not 5E, but maybe 6E... if I'm still around to see it.

[Orzel]

Then why doesn't D&D work?

lazy designers

[Green Bean]

DnD doesn't work?

I never noticed.

Sure you can break the game and there are flaws, but its never been anything fatal.

Well, there was that one time the DM divided by zero...

[Ralfarius]

What's the advantage of buying a car at the dealership over just buying a sack of parts from the local mechanic?

I would equate class archetype and open point-buy as something more akin to either ordering things by combos/meals, or ordering a la carte.

With the three-course meal, you don't get much choice (chicken, beef, or fish?), but it also makes things quick, easy, and consistent. Every time you roll up a fighter, you will always have his base set of abilities (barring variant classes). It's very spoon-fed, but it's a good stepping stone for people who are new to the genre, and it gives people a more concrete idea of what a character is supposed to accomplish in a group.

Ordering a la carte lets you pick and choose almost exactly what you want. However, it sometimes takes longer and you usually can't get as great a variety of features without sacrificing competency. However, because you always start with a blank slate, it's a lot less cut-and-dry than the class archetype systems.

I personally lean more towards open-ended systems. For instance, I like nWoD for ease of calculation and consistency of character generation. This way, I can write up a character's backstory, and from there decide exactly which attributes, skills, etc would best portray such a history. However, D&D's character building will always hold a special place in my heart, just like a first lover.

[bosssmiley]

Well, there was that one time the DM divided by zero...

Yeah, but Rule x/Zero covers that (appropriately enough).

[Fhaolan]

The advantages to classes that I run into on a regular basis really revolves around speed.

Creating and advancing the character tends to be faster, especially for novice players.

Mind you, I'm comparing D&D vs GURPs, which may not be a fair comparison. With D&D most of the novice players I deal with tend to avoid the various splatbooks and supplements and stick with as core as they can get away with. While those exact same players will try to pull in as much info as they can from every GURPs book ever printed. It's odd, and I've not quite figured out why.

[Anxe]

I love skillbased systems and think they work a lot better than D&D. They're more heroic and more realistic at the same time. The reason so many people use the D&D class system is because it's simple, wellmarketed, and has a established fanbase. The reason D&D uses classes is because they are easier to learn and it has been using them for 30 years.

[Kantolin]

Interestingly, the D&D system encourages mild versatility over a lot of free-form system.

For example, several non-class-based systems let you buy skills/abilities directly. The end result, usually, is that if you do not absolutely maximize something you may as well not bother with it, thus resulting in even less balance than D&D.

The 3.5 D&D skill system is actually somewhat similar to a lot of non-class-based systems, and has a lot of similar effects: If you do not have maximum ranks in spot, you can then see anything unless it's actually skilled at being hidden, which makes it surprisingly irrelevant in a normal game (Especially when balance exists assuming someone has maximum spot).

[Kompera]

I'd say that Lord Tataraus got it almost completely right, with a few minor nits and a few additions.

1) Its easy. Yes you can argue that a skill system takes less time, but a class structure is something a beginner can pick up and "get" quickly, most of the stuff is already done.

I've played GURPS extensively. That skill system at least is not at all able to be argued as taking less time. It can literally take several hours to create a character, and if your GM is nice he'll allow you a few adventures to tweak it by swapping some points around after you learn how the character plays, further adding to the character creation time total.

Adds:

Ease of use for the GM. There are far fewer surprises for the GM with a class based system. GM: "What kind of characters have you guys made?" Players: "Rogue, Rogue, Barbarian, Sorcerer, Cleric". It is far easier to take that last sentence and design a fun and challenging run than it is to pour over 5 skill based character sheets and try to get a grasp of how this group will work and play together.

Rapid identification with literary figures. You're a RE Howard fan, and you want to play a Conan clone. Looking over the PHB, you see a class titled "Barbarian". Seems like a no-brainer. Compare that with: You're a RE Howard fan, and you want to play a Barbarian. Looking over the skills list in whatever skill based system, you try to extract those skills that Conan exhibited throughout the literature. The problem here is that Conan exhibited a huge array of skills and unless you've got a massive amount of points to spend you'll never be able to do it justice. A class based system lets you do the job with a single decision of class.

[Lord Tataraus]

I've played GURPS extensively. That skill system at least is not at all able to be argued as taking less time. It can literally take several hours to create a character, and if your GM is nice he'll allow you a few adventures to tweak it by swapping some points around after you learn how the character plays, further adding to the character creation time total.

I didn't say ALL skill-based systems have fast character creation, in fact, I implied that very few have fast character creation and a class based system is normally faster. But there are examples of skill-based systems that take a lot less time. Cyberpunk 2020 for example, I can make a character in 10 minutes, backstory and all, ready to play, maybe faster if I really knew what I wanted before hand.

I knew I forgot some stuff, the ease of GMing is a big one. I remember the first Mutants and Masterminds 2e game I ran, that party was crap and my villains stomped them flat.

[averagejoe]

DnD doesn't work?

I never noticed.

Sure you can break the game and there are flaws, but its never been anything fatal.

Yowch. Let's be careful with the F word, eh? Polite company and all that.

[Behold_the_Void]

Progression also seems to work a lot easier in class-and-level based systems, where there are set rules and a definite increase in personal power as you progress. It's been my (albeit somewhat limited) experience with point-based systems that your progression is fairly slow, which can be annoying. For example, my girlfriend has me going to a vampire larp with her every Sunday, and I'm getting somewhere between 2 and 3 experience points a week to pay for masses of abilities my character more or less needs to fit his concept with any level of proficiency, each of which cost 5 points if I'm LUCKY, but will likely run me twice to three times that amount. Or even four to five times the amount. And it was absolutely impossible under the game's system for my character to have used his creation points to get to the level he should be at.

And also on that subject is the relative frailty of your character. Now, I have no problem with realism in certain games, and I like games where you need to be afraid of getting surrounded by mooks no matter how awesome you are. However, when I play D&D, I come in knowing that eventually, my character can have ten arrows sticking out of him and still be charging down his foes screaming promises of death and have the full capability of following through on those threats. I've seen "more realistic" bandied around a lot, but when I'm playing D&D I don't WANT it to be realistic. I'm going after massive lizards that breath fire and am telling the laws of physics to sit down and shut up. Take your petty little reality elsewhere, thank you.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Character creation is better in point based games. Balance is however a lot harder to enforce.

[Dode]

I didn't say ALL skill-based systems have fast character creation, in fact, I implied that very few have fast character creation and a class based system is normally faster. But there are examples of skill-based systems that take a lot less time. Cyberpunk 2020 for example, I can make a character in 10 minutes, backstory and all, ready to play, maybe faster if I really knew what I wanted before hand.

Cyberpunk 2020 had mandatory "Roles" the player picked with "Special Abilities" that came with them. Muuuuch different then a class-based system.

[Kurald Galain]

I found that the skill-based systems allowed for a lot more freedom in creating the character one wishes to play. Pretty much any concept is possible for which there are enough skill points available,

That is correct. The problem with (in particular) D&D is not that the abilities aren't there, but that all feats/skilltricks/presclasses/etc have a convoluted system of prerequisites. Frequently, you're only allowed to learn X if you've learned a mostly unrelated thing Y first, or you're only allowed to learn A if you also simultaneously learn a mostly unrelated thing B.
Aside from that, the rules make it difficult to create a fighter with decent stealth skills, because the "fighter" class doesn't have those on his class list. Likewise, D&D is to my knowledge the only system where it is considered problematic for casters to wear armor.

On the other hand, I don't really see what the advantages of classes would be. And yet, the most popular RPG in the world uses them.

The oldest RPG in the world started out with them. Simplicity of character creation is an issue, although this is not really the case in 3E any more (since it encourages many players to plan levels ahead to qualify for presclasses).

So, enlighten me. What are the advantages of classes?

There is one major disadvantage of classes (other than not allowing for certain combinations very well), and that is when the perception of a class does not match up with the mechanic of a class. The perennial example being that a fighter really isn't all that effective at fighting, except at low levels.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Um.

Uh.

Character creation is easier?

Frankly, I agree with the sentiment of the topic, that we'd all be better off converting to, say, Mutants & Masterminds (Point-based classless semi-levelless d20? Sign me the hell up, I don't care what silly setting it was originally built for.)

Hey, the end of 3.5 is nigh. Convert to M&M, and ye shall be saved!

[Morty]

I like class based systems more than point buys mostly because with class, my character is defined as something more than just strange combination of skills and attributes that completely don't match each other. Besides, I don't like magic being just one of the skills. Magic is supposed to be unique talent, dammit, not something you can learn as easy as everything else. Though the latter applies only to fantasy worlds.

[Kdansky]

I started with DSA (german ripp off of DnD) and played quite a bit of HEROsystem and GURPS, both generic without classes whatsoever. Hero actually goes as far as to declare: "Energy Blast 1d6: 5 pts" which encompasses most spells/abilities/weapons which deal damage. You then have to define a special effect (SE) for it, in example: "Fireball", if you play a wizard, or "Bow", if you play an archer. You can customize it rather freely (focus, ingredients, charges, mana, endurance cost, side effects, aoe, ......).

I like the system a lot since it makes pretty abnormal characters possible (we've had a shape-changing demon (very chaotic evil), a succubus, a robot (very lawful good), a dragon (yes, 100 feet tall, but mostly walking around as a human, naturally lawful evil but forced by the gods to do good) and a child with tremendeous telepathic power in the first party, it was great!).

What it brutally fails at: Game balance is much harder to achieve, since it's just the DM's problem. Depending on what he allows or what he disallows, the game works well or not at all, we had to restat more than one character due to balance problems. Simple example: if 1d6 of damage costs you 5 cp (character points), and you have got a pool of 150, +1 BAB costs you 3 cp and armor is usually damage reduction, what do you do? 60 points into BAB and 90 points into damage, getting you a neat one shot kill everything character.

Also, D20 has good balances against too much synergy (well, sometimes they overlook things, punpun/wish cheese whatever). But there are quite a few things which have ridiculous synergy which are impossible in D20. To be an arcane caster wich can use DMM you have to to quite some lengths for example. Not in a point-based system. I (was playing the chaotic assassin shapechange demon) had no clue how the system worked and just bought these abilites (which easily fit): winged flight, invisibility, shapeshift (demon form - human), strong claws with lots of damage and high speed (for many attacks). I was pretty much broken and invincible, most characters on our powerlevel could not see me, I could take them down in about three hits (and I act twice as much and have surprise, meaning they get at most one shot off against an invisible target). It was just too much synergy from normally not so broken powers, but imagine greater invisibility on a level 6 rogue (who sacrificed 50% of his skill points for it).

Also, as mentioned: Class systems are a lot easier for beginners and they are a lot of fun for people who want to powergame a bit. In pointbased systems you are either rather balanced or very obviously broken, so there is no PG-aspect. It's hard to come up with cool stuff in PP-systems, since you can alsways SEE where you tricked some rules. ("I'm limiting my speed power so I can only use it once per day, makes it 80% cheaper. And then I'm making it last 24h per application, makes it twice as expensive. Hey, look, 60% cheaper without a change")

Likewise, D&D is to my knowledge the only system where it is considered problematic for casters to wear armor.

And to dispell that myth: DSA (Das Schwarze Auge, or The Dark Eye, as the translation is called) prevents casters from wearing armor a lot worse than DnD. You get slightly increased spell failures in non-methal armor, horrible spell failures in methal armor (we're talking 60%+), stop regenerating mana completely and have after effects (like druids in DnD). One of the safest (and most uncomplicated) ways to keep a wizard captured after having him subdued is putting him into a chain armor. The current DSA version 4 does something in between point based and D20. Imagine very classlevel, skill, spell, feat or attribute increase having some exp cost (differing for more or less powerful stuff). That's the current DSA.

[Saph]

From a DM's point of view, it's way easier to balance encounters against characters designed on a level-and-class system.

Say we're playing D&D. I'm DMing for a party of four level 7 characters. I can pretty much pick an entry out of the Monster Manual and send it at them. Now, it might need adjusting based on how optimise-y or newbie-filled the group is, but it won't need all THAT much adjusting - the standard deviation is relatively low.

Now let's say we're playing GURPS, and the party is four 180 point characters. What would be an appropriate challenge? God knows. I'd have to read through every one of their character sheets and look up the details of the umpteen splatbooks they used, because 180 points in GURPS can mean anything from 'awesomely competent' to 'one-hit-wonder'.

It's not a huge thing, but it really does speed up play.

- Saph

[warmachine]

Then why doesn't D&D work?

I have no idea why anyone would think that. What AD&D does suffer from is lack of quality control and some kind of weird policy against errata. No editor (who's awake) would ever let Radiant Servant of Pelor or Nightsticks be released. Not much of a problem as a DM can ban half the supplement books. No problem.