What Are Classes?

[Anonymouswizard]

Does anyone know of a game that has classes but not levels?

From what I've seen most playbook-style systems (Powered by the Apocalypse, Forged in the Dark, some I've never heard of our don't know enough about) might qualify, White Wolf stuff blurs the line between 'race' and 'class', and later FFG 40k stuff might qualify. As might pre-4e Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, it all depends on your definition.

[Morty]

As always, it really depends on what you mean by "class". Many systems use some kind of categorization for player characters, but few if any make those categories as defining as D&D does. PbtA games are probably the most notable example - ironically enough, given how otherwise different they are.

[MoiMagnus]

Does anyone know of a game that has classes but not levels?

If I remember correctly, Star Wars (from FFG) had classes that gave access to some skill tree (XP-based progression), but no level.

If your question is "a game that has classes but no progression system linked to it", then I don't know.

[Telonius]

As always, it really depends on what you mean by "class". Many systems use some kind of categorization for player characters, but few if any make those categories as defining as D&D does. PbtA games are probably the most notable example - ironically enough, given how otherwise different they are.

Yeah, Masks: A New Generation has defined class roles. They have some progression of powers, but you'd have to squint pretty hard to call them levels.

EDIT: As to the OP - I'd say that classes ought to be (or at least, support or enable) a general approach to problem-solving. So, for what the 3.5 PHB classes are trying to do:

Fighter: Shove a sharp bit of metal at the problem.
Paladin: Shove a sharp bit of metal at the problem in a Lawful and Good manner.
Barbarian: Get very angry and shove a sharp bit of metal at the problem.
Ranger: Stalk the problem through miles of wilderness, then shove a sharp bit of metal at it.
Rogue: Sneak around the problem and/or steal the problem's pants.
Sorcerer: Nuke the problem from orbit.
Wizard: Magically arrange things so the problem is not a problem.
Bard: Seduce and/or convince the problem to not be a problem.
Cleric: Protect your friends as they're solving the problem.
Druid: Turn into a bear and eat the problem.
Monk: Throw crazy kung-fu at the problem.

[Democratus]

Classes are narrative tools, explaining what archetype a given character adheres to.

The classes are what a storyteller would use as shorthand to describe what a character is.

Want to be a hero? Try fighter! "Hero" was once literally the title of a 4th level fighter.

How about a mysterious Conjurer? 3rd level magic-user.

Sneaky cutpurse? 5th level thief.

[Saint-Just]

Does anyone know of a game that has classes but not levels?

To add to what people above has said (White Wolf traditions/kits/clans are kinda race-classy and FFG Wh40k has strict classes but levels do nothing but unlock new things to be bought point-buy style) - surprisingly some GURPS products are like that. System is an unrestricted point-buy, but a lot of attention in some products is spent on templates - which are nothing but a pre-packaged set of what is normally available (some customization allowed, usually in format of "spend N points on anything from the following list" but other variations are possible like "add skill X or spend the points on any skill you already have"). It's especially notable in the Dungeon Fantasy series (and it's standalone adaptation DFRPG), but other products do it too (though Dungeon Fantasy tend to assume that further advancement is confined to a restricted list, some others may allow unrestricted advancement after the character creation(within the bounds of setting and situation - no magic or psi powers in a normal historical setting; no picking up foreign languages if you have no one to teach you).

[AntiAuthority]

Well, they were (going off of what I can find) supposed to be archetypes of what you'd find in stories/mythologies. Issue with that is that some classes are overly broad (Wizard, Sorcerer, etc.) and others are overly narrow (Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian).

For example, what's a Wizard in fantasy? Uh, yeah, good luck with that. It's real broad, and you'll get a ton of different answers as to what that means. Of note, in AD&D, the Wizard is described: "The wizard group encompasses all spellcasters working in the various fields of magic-- both those who specialize in specific schools of magic and those who study a broad range of magical theories." This is pretty broad.

The same is true for Fighters, but also not... It's weird. It states Fighters are: "The fighter is a warrior, an expert in weapons and, if he is clever, tactics and strategy." But AD&D lists Hercules, Cu Chulainn and Siegfried as Fighters, but Hercules would probably be a Fighter-Barbarian (due to his homicidal rages), Cu Chulainn would be a Fighter-Barbarian-Wizard (because of the fact he went into berserker rages and apparently knew a spell to become invisible) while Siegfried would be a Fighter-Ranger (he knew how to talk to birds).

As the games and its derivatives go on, classes become more varied (then less varied).

Conan the Barbarian is clearly a Barbarian, it's in the name! ... Except Conan the Barbarian would probably best be represented as a Barbarian-Fighter-Ranger and has quite impressive Will Saves based on how he can No Sell psychic attacks/spells meant to break his mind.

But overall, it's a little weird as the classes don't really emulate what the archetypes that inspired them are capable of. You either have classes who are so broad that almost any character from any story can qualify or they're so overly specific in archetype that they essentially represent only one part of an archetype.

But you also asked what I think they should be...I would say "Get rid of the overly narrow classes." Maybe merge them into one class, such as combining Fighter and Barbarian. Adrenaline boosts are a thing and I think the Rage feature would cover a Fighter getting an adrenaline boost...

Or just expand their concepts and archetypes. So, keeping with Conan the Barbarian, the 3.PF/5E Barbarian isn't just someone who flies into homicidal rages, they also have understanding of other cultures, understand how to lead others (such as being a chieftain, or Conan being a king), can negotiate with others beyond threatening impending violence, may or may not dabble in creating medicines/drugs, and probably are capable of sneaking around (unless they hunt via noisily moving through the environment and alerting everything to their presence long before they're seen.) All baked into the class features, they can be Conan and you can be very specific by picking an archetype/subclass of it.

[JoeJ]

Well, they were (going off of what I can find) supposed to be archetypes of what you'd find in stories/mythologies. Issue with that is that some classes are overly broad (Wizard, Sorcerer, etc.) and others are overly narrow (Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian).

For example, what's a Wizard in fantasy? Uh, yeah, good luck with that. It's real broad, and you'll get a ton of different answers as to what that means. Of note, in AD&D, the Wizard is described: "The wizard group encompasses all spellcasters working in the various fields of magic-- both those who specialize in specific schools of magic and those who study a broad range of magical theories." This is pretty broad.

The same is true for Fighters, but also not... It's weird. It states Fighters are: "The fighter is a warrior, an expert in weapons and, if he is clever, tactics and strategy." But AD&D lists Hercules, Cu Chulainn and Siegfried as Fighters, but Hercules would probably be a Fighter-Barbarian (due to his homicidal rages), Cu Chulainn would be a Fighter-Barbarian-Wizard (because of the fact he went into berserker rages and apparently knew a spell to become invisible) while Siegfried would be a Fighter-Ranger (he knew how to talk to birds).

As the games and its derivatives go on, classes become more varied (then less varied).

Conan the Barbarian is clearly a Barbarian, it's in the name! ... Except Conan the Barbarian would probably best be represented as a Barbarian-Fighter-Ranger and has quite impressive Will Saves based on how he can No Sell psychic attacks/spells meant to break his mind.

But overall, it's a little weird as the classes don't really emulate what the archetypes that inspired them are capable of. You either have classes who are so broad that almost any character from any story can qualify or they're so overly specific in archetype that they essentially represent only one part of an archetype.

But you also asked what I think they should be...I would say "Get rid of the overly narrow classes." Maybe merge them into one class, such as combining Fighter and Barbarian. Adrenaline boosts are a thing and I think the Rage feature would cover a Fighter getting an adrenaline boost...

Or just expand their concepts and archetypes. So, keeping with Conan the Barbarian, the 3.PF/5E Barbarian isn't just someone who flies into homicidal rages, they also have understanding of other cultures, understand how to lead others (such as being a chieftain, or Conan being a king), can negotiate with others beyond threatening impending violence, may or may not dabble in creating medicines/drugs, and probably are capable of sneaking around (unless they hunt via noisily moving through the environment and alerting everything to their presence long before they're seen.) All baked into the class features, they can be Conan and you can be very specific by picking an archetype/subclass of it.

Barbarian wasn't an official class in AD&D until Unearthed Arcana came out in 1985, although it had appeared before then in Dragon magazine (I played the Dragon version, and it was a blast). At that time rage did not exist as a class ability. Instead, they had wilderness skills and some abilities to counter magic, and were very restricted in their ability to use magic items. The class was originally much more like Conan than it became in later editions.

[AntiAuthority]

Barbarian wasn't an official class in AD&D until Unearthed Arcana came out in 1985, although it had appeared before then in Dragon magazine (I played the Dragon version, and it was a blast). At that time rage did not exist as a class ability. Instead, they had wilderness skills and some abilities to counter magic, and were very restricted in their ability to use magic items. The class was originally much more like Conan than it became in later editions.

Sorry, I see how my point might have gotten lost. I know the classes back then were Fighter, Paladin and Ranger for the Warrior classes (along with, IIRC, Barbarians going out of their way to destroy magic items in AD&D).

While I was using AD&D's examples of what a Fighter was (master of weapons and tactics), I was doing so to say how that character's archetype and the examples listed... Got divided up into what would be separate classes in later editions, despite both being interpretations of the same character. Essentially, Hercules would be a Fighter in AD&D, but his character classes in 3.5E were Fighter/Barbarian. Rounding back to it's sort of hard to understand what a Fighter archetype is because it's "someone trained with weapons." Which is strangely narrow and broad at the same time... As Barbarians are also trained to use martial weapons, and Paladins, and the archetype as a whole has no real identity beyond, "I use weapons." There are so many characters (even NPCs like the Warrior from 3.PF) that share the same archetype space as a Fighter, with their defining feature being "weapon master" but the archetype isn't capable of doing such things the archetype does in stories such as attacking vital points (that's the Rogue's class feature), being able to scout (that's a Ranger's class feature) or getting a burst of adrenaline (Barbarian's class feature).

[Mechalich]

EDIT: As to the OP - I'd say that classes ought to be (or at least, support or enable) a general approach to problem-solving.

One of the things classes are intended to accomplish is to restrict character build options to ones that will function within the gameplay mode mandated by the game. Ideally they should prevent the creation of characters who can't contribute or are wholly unsuited to way the game is to be played. For instance, if your game is about military commandos you'd have classes associated with the different members of a special forces unit, but you wouldn't have 'bureaucrat' or 'drug dealer' as options for PCs because they wouldn't fit the game - even though you might very well have NPC mechanical packages to represent such character types in world.

D&D really succeed at this, for a variety of reasons that differ from one edition to the next, in part because the game can't really decide which types of challenges beyond combat are important - ex. stealth, which many classes fall flat when attempting even though it's pretty important for most 'dungeon crawl' type experiences. By contrast, classes work exceedingly well in many video and board game RPGs because for the most part there is only combat and literally everything else is fiat-based narratives.

A class-based system is therefore most appropriate to a game system that tells a specific type of story that operates using very distinct character archetypes. Basically if the character is part of a specific story because it's their job - the shows about cops, doctors, and lawyers that dominate network TV are all built this way - then classes make sense.

[erikun]

What are classes?

Classes are a holdover from a system which used Fighter/Thief/Mage/Elf as a way to determine character abilities, added some optional modified versions of those in magazines for specific character ideas, then expanded those into official classes in later editions. This is how you get "a bunch of sneaky skills and stab people in the back" Rogue classes alongside "made a pact with an ancient intelligence from the stars and now throw around magic balls of endless energy plus a few magic talents" Warlock classes right next to each other.

What should they be?

I have found classes to have two very useful purposes.

For one, they help with character creation. It is much, much easier to tell somebody to pick a class and a few skills than it is to drop a GURPS book on them and ask them to piece together a functional character. Even if they have no clue about how the system works, "Level 5 Wizard" still gives them the HP and defenses and attack stats which they'd need to operate in the game, even if the player might not understand how all that works yet. This helps a lot in getting people into the game and getting them start playing; system proficiency can be picked up over time. It's also a bit more helpful in generating NPC characters, or at least establishing a baseline of what a bunch of town guards would look like.

For two, classes help to generate ideas. There have been a lot of times I've been interested in playing a particular character, not because I thought up a neat concept from scratch, but because I saw a particular class/race combination or a feat with class ability that I thought would be fun to play. Druid/Wizard Arcane Hierophant? Gnome Paladin with Bard multiclassing thanks to the +2 INT/CHA from D&D4e? Cleric/Thief in AD&D2e for healing and sneaking? These aren't necessarily character ideas that I came up with myself, but by looking through class options, they turned out to be interesting class combinations and so generated character ideas as a result. And they certainly generated more interesting concepts than simply "well singing is CHA and holy aura is CHA, how about a CHA character with holy singing?" would result in.

[Quertus]

One of the things classes are intended to accomplish is to restrict character build options to ones that will function within the gameplay mode mandated by the game. Ideally they should prevent the creation of characters who can't contribute or are wholly unsuited to way the game is to be played. For instance, if your game is about military commandos you'd have classes associated with the different members of a special forces unit, but you wouldn't have 'bureaucrat' or 'drug dealer' as options for PCs because they wouldn't fit the game - even though you might very well have NPC mechanical packages to represent such character types in world.

D&D really succeed at this, for a variety of reasons that differ from one edition to the next, in part because the game can't really decide which types of challenges beyond combat are important - ex. stealth, which many classes fall flat when attempting even though it's pretty important for most 'dungeon crawl' type experiences. By contrast, classes work exceedingly well in many video and board game RPGs because for the most part there is only combat and literally everything else is fiat-based narratives.

A class-based system is therefore most appropriate to a game system that tells a specific type of story that operates using very distinct character archetypes. Basically if the character is part of a specific story because it's their job - the shows about cops, doctors, and lawyers that dominate network TV are all built this way - then classes make sense.

Aw, c'mon, the "Sentient Potted Plant" class is perfectly cromulent - why the hate?

"I wasn't always a preacher, Mal."

I think that "drug dealer" and "bureaucrat" would be perfectly valid classes for a military game - in fact, Edge of Tomorrow follows just such a character.

I'd go one step further, and suggest that military games that lack that connection to the greater world would be… lacking.

Still, representing that background with a *class* may well be suboptimal - especially for a more focused game.

Which circles back to my initial madness-inspired train of thought: there's so many things that *could* be represented by class… but which ones *should*? And *how* should those other factors be represented?

Certainly, giving the players limited options (ie, classes), *all* of which are guaranteed to be capable of some acceptable threshold / minimal level of participation, sounds like a good use for classes.

Of course, careful analytics of "shine / participate / twiddle thumbs" spotlight sharing is likely to be done - and done well - by… 0 game companies?

I think that a related thing that classes could attempt to accomplish is to ensure that modules / expected scenarios / etc are solvable.

If I've got a party of a Jedi, an awakened tree, an Earth bender, and Hypnotoad, what does a valid challenge for them look like? Can classes make that easier to answer? *Should* classes make that easier to answer?

[MoiMagnus]

If I've got a party of a Jedi, an awakened tree, an Earth bender, and Hypnotoad, what does a valid challenge for them look like? Can classes make that easier to answer? *Should* classes make that easier to answer?

IMO, while the set of available classes within the RPG should make this answer easier, the specific classes chosen by the players should not significantly affect this answer. If the class choice have too much influence on that, you significantly increase the probability of having a character not fit at all with the remaining of the team. Or the team be vastly unfit to the module/campaign chosen by the GM.

I'm assuming here that "simultaneous gameplay" is the norm (and it is for D&D). You can get away with having a much broader class system if PCs are not expected to all face the same challenge together, but instead take turn at handling vastly different kind of problems (like one is handling politics at the capital, the second is fighting a dragon in a duel, the third is crafting a magical item, etc) building toward the same goal.

[Even in simultaneous gameplay, exceptions still apply. Systems like M&M heavily encourage the GM to significantly interfere with character creation by collaborating with the player and being quite proficient with the ban-hammer, in order to ensure that the team of heroes matches the campaign and are compatible with each others, both in tone and capabilities.]

[Tyndmyr]

Honest Answer? They are Inconsistent. because they are incoherently designed.

Inconsistent, yes. Incoherent, no.

Pretty much the newest person playing D&D understands what sort of character a fighter is, or what sort of character a ranger is.

I don't hold with the GNS style of decreeing things to be incoherent simply because one doesn't like the design style. That is, after all, not really using the word properly.

In addition, it would be demanding uniformity for the sake of uniformity, and for no other reason. It simply does not matter if a fighter encompasses more potential character concept space than a ranger. If one is poorly balanced, well, sure, that's a straightforward mechanical question, but parties are relatively small, the number of class options large, and duplicates are not necessarily a problem. There is no reason why we need to concern ourselves with the scope of class concept.

so it could be that DnD classes are incoherently designed, because its setting isn't defined enough. Wh40k for its all grimdarkness is able to establish clear identities for all its archetypes and detail all their jobs and lives in great detail so that you know what each person does IC and OOC.

Assassin is a far narrower path than guardsman. There is no difference here from the examples of Ranger and Fighter. There are a mere handful of assassins in comparisons, grouped into a mere few orders, with *very* specific imagery and roles. Guardsmen are like grains of sand in the desert. Literally beyond counting, and with so many distinct legions as to encompass almost any idea.

So, even if we embrace the conceit of needing equivalent levels of specificity in classes, we see that other games do the exact same.

And thus we see that "coherency" is a made up term intended to lend some degree of importance to simple preferences.

A more reasonable explanation is that the game started with relatively few class options, and gained more the longer it went on. The later additions were necessarily more specific, and as the process continued, prestige classes in particular began to be used to illustrate particular paths. From a historical standpoint, the trendline seems quite clear. In nearly any sort of design, one works from the broad general idea to the specific, and so it is in D&D. More splatbooks, more detailing of specifics.

[Jay R]

Originally, classes were intended to represent actual social classes. Fighting Men¹ were men who grew up among soldiers; their youth was spent learning to fight. Magic-Users grew up in ivory towers learning magic. You couldn't pick up a new class because your class meant how you grew up.

¹Yeah, yeah. It was the 1970s, and there were no female gamers. The class name was changed to "Fighter" not long afterwards.

Does anyone know of a game that has classes but not levels?

Flashing Blades, by FGU. It's set in Paris in the time of the Musketeers, and the classes are Nobleman², Gentleman², Soldier, and Rogue, and they affect which skills you can buy at what price. A Rogue can buy Cutpurse for one point, Acrobatics for 2 points, but Horsemanship would cost 3 points.

One supplement expanded the class list to include Sailor, Marine, and Pirate.

Each skill starts at the level of its associated characteristic (Dexterity, Intelligence, Endurance, Charm, etc.). You improve your skills only by using the skill. If a Rogue never cuts a purse, he never gets any better at the Cutpurse skill.

Your initial fighting skills depending on how you learned to fight. If you knew the Spanish style, you were better with a slash. If you learned Italian style, you were better with the thrust.

²Yeah, yeah. It was the 1980s, with very few female gamers. I invented the Actor class for a woman in my game, because women who were actors at that time had more freedom than women in most classes.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Dedicated combat roles tend to feel very 'gamey,' meaning they often demand rather extreme bits of suspension of disbelief that can be tolerated in video games (often because they are obscured mechanically), but become rather ridiculous when employed at tabletop. Tanking, in particular, tends to rely on very arbitrary mechanics - 'I shout really loud and now all the enemies who attack anyone other than me suffer a damage penalty' - that don't mesh with any concept of immersive roleplay.

I disagree pretty firmly with this.
First off, I don't see why "dedicated combat roles" would necessarily feel gamey. Sure, the gamiest versions feel gamey, but that's hardly necessary. Combatants with distinct roles are common in the real world and even more common in fantasy fiction; the five-man band predates World of Warcraft. (And the genre of fantasy as we know it, for that matter!)

And with regard to tanking, there are absolutely less-gamey ways to make tanking work. For instance, 3.5's attack of opportunity mechanics meant that melee enemies could be forced to attack only the fighter if the fighter got up in the enemy's face properly...or if the fighter was just there in any sufficiently-narrow space.

There's also the issue that, if you want highly engaging MMO-style tactical combat you should just play an MMO. Advances in technology have made computer games simply better at offering certain types of experiences than tabletop can ever be.
[...]
The generalized trend towards rules-lite and narrative TTRPG systems is indicative of this, since they focus on the parts of the tabletop experience that works better around a live table rather than on a game server (even D&D 5e represents a significant simplification in many ways). Of course, such games have less need for a class system because the greatest utility of classes is in simplifying mechanical complexity by pre-selecting options along a progression.

You're not wrong, but there exist options besides "terrible combat but some RP" and "Literally World of Warcraft".

we could've had some much needed utility and a good reason why the PC class isn't just some random fighter dude: they're not just a soldier but someone who can lead others.

My understanding is that fighting-men used to be like that back in the old AD&D days...the problem being that this worked more like 3.5's Leadership feat than 4e's Warlord.

I'd say that classes ought to be (or at least, support or enable) a general approach to problem-solving. So, for what the 3.5 PHB classes are trying to do:

Fighter: Shove a sharp bit of metal at the problem.
Paladin: Shove a sharp bit of metal at the problem in a Lawful and Good manner.
Barbarian: Get very angry and shove a sharp bit of metal at the problem.
Ranger: Stalk the problem through miles of wilderness, then shove a sharp bit of metal at it.
Rogue: Sneak around the problem and/or steal the problem's pants.
Sorcerer: Nuke the problem from orbit.
Wizard: Magically arrange things so the problem is not a problem.
Bard: Seduce and/or convince the problem to not be a problem.
Cleric: Protect your friends as they're solving the problem.
Druid: Turn into a bear and eat the problem.
Monk: Throw crazy kung-fu at the problem.

Not a terrible idea, but the approaches you describe seem too vague and similar to be of any use. A bunch of these classes are about shoving their sharp metal bits at problems; what does that mean, in practical terms? If you need something else to explain these approaches, what use is the shortlist of approaches?

D&D really succeed at this, for a variety of reasons that differ from one edition to the next, in part because the game can't really decide which types of challenges beyond combat are important - ex. stealth, which many classes fall flat when attempting even though it's pretty important for most 'dungeon crawl' type experiences. By contrast, classes work exceedingly well in many video and board game RPGs because for the most part there is only combat and literally everything else is fiat-based narratives.

Which touches on one of my D&D pet peeves. D&D doesn't want to be a pure combat game (which I think is a good thing), but it also doesn't want to commit to providing meaningful support for anything except combat. The messy vagueness of something like 3.5's Diplomacy skill doesn't give DMs any practical advice for how to run the game, just a bunch of abstract numbers. Rich's version of Diplomacy works better, because it is much more specific; it lets the players roll specific checks for specific requests, instead of affecting moods that vaguely affect behavior.
I personally feel like a game which claims combat and social encounters are equally important should have comparable guidelines for combat and conversation, but I understand that the very idea of bringing mechanics into social encounters is seen as tantamount to murdering roleplay in its sleep by certain gamers, so I won't go there today.