Is there really a point to using classes anymore? They're

>>52138325
>Is there really a point to using classes anymore?
Do you want to play D&D or don't play games at all?

>>52138375
What

>>52138325
>Is there really a point to using classes anymore?
Yes: fun.

You don't enjoy them, though. So you should play games that don't use them.

Trying to convince others that your version of fun is objectively superior, though, is objectively lame.

File: 1456952350598.jpg (59KB, 736x817px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 736x817px

>>52138325
>Is there really a point to using classes anymore?
Yes, because a system works best if it emulates the real-world precedence it is supposed to be based on. D&D uses a class-type system because the social stratification of pre-industrial European societies makes it convenient to do so.

The fact that it is narrow is INTENTIONAL. Now, that being said, it's very much the case that class-based systems do poorly when representing relatively modern settings (see: D20 Modern, for example), and systems that represent more liberalized societies, such as WoD, typically tend towards classless, individualized statistics. Just as d20 Modern is shithouse, applying 'modern' mores and philosophy to a non-modern period (with obvious fantasy caveats, of course), just removes it so far from the precedent that it bears no resemblance to it at all.

tl;dr:
Setting fidelity >>>> "balance" or "fun"

>>52138325
To roleplay.

>>52138426
>Yes: fun.
Can you provide an actual reason though?
>>52138465
>To roleplay.
Yes, because playing generic Fighter #3652 is much different than playing generic Fighter #4167.

>>52138457
D&D doesn't even have a setting, just a bunch of loosely connected planes that might not even be related to one another.

Even then, none of the settings that we see are anything like real-world medieval Europe, based simply upon the fact that a) this is a system where reality warping mages are a base class and b) this is a setting where monsters exist.

It's about as related to IRL Europe as DBZ is related to IRL Japan.

>>52138496
>Can you provide an actual reason though?
Plenty.

But that's not the question you're asking. You're asking:
>Can you provide an actual reason that will satisfy me, personally?

And I dunno, man. We've never met. I can tell you what I find fun. But you're just looking to argue about why other people don't find the things fun that they claim to, as you demonstrated in:
>Yes, because playing generic Fighter #3652 is much different than playing generic Fighter #4167.

So no: I cannot provide reasons that will personally satisfy you.

Because your question is a request that we all haul out our opinions then throw fits about why the fun X anon enjoys is more legitimate than the fun Y enjoys.

And that's dumb. And you're dumb.

>>52138560
>Plenty.
If they did exist then you would've said it already rather than going on about "fun" and trying desperately to sidestep the actual question.
>But that's not the question you're asking.
Obviously it is the question that I'm asking you, you're just inventing subtext where there is none because you know that there isn't really a point to using classes anymore.
>But you're just looking to argue about why other people don't find the things fun that they claim to, as you demonstrated in:
So because I challenged his asinine premise, that means that I'm automatically a troll looking to start an argument? Would you have felt more at home if I used greentext and posted a smug anime girl while calling him a faggot for spouting the wrong opinion?

If you have a problem with what I said then please, tell me how does classes help stimulate roleplay?

>>52138629
>desperately to sidestep the actual question
Hit a little close to home, did I?

Sorry anon: your opinions aren't valuable to others.

The only value in engaging with you, that I can see, is the entertainment I find in putting stupid people down for spewing stupid things.

It's petty, but I'm bored.

Ofcourse its useful, ya ever tried writing a background for an individual jack of all trades every single campaign? Besides, a class is a job or sometimes just a wavy shallow description.

>>52138496
>can you provide an actual reason though
Yes. Fun.

File: 1485973414084.jpg (10KB, 480x271px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x271px

>>52138645
So you admit that you had nothing to add and you're just wasting my time, gotcha.

>>52138714
Anon, you're wasting all of our time. You are asking us to present "arguments" about what we find enjoyable.

This is maybe a topic for neurologists. But has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of class systems in RPGs.

>>52138668
So no actually reason, gotcha.

>>52138655
Just because a system doesn't use classes doesn't mean that everyone is a jack-of-all-trades.

>>52138325
It's great for people who are new to the game. Remember, modern D&D is often used as a training wheels game for people who are new to the hobby. Classes make it easier to learn. Have you ever tried teaching ShadowRun to someone who has never played a TTRPG before?

>>52138325
Ideally, it would make it easier to balance, not harder, and to make a character. Balance because you know what a given character will be capable of and don't have to look at as many permutations, and character-building because you pick a class, choose a few numbers that go well with the class, and go. Whether these goals are accomplished by most class-based systems is a different discussion.

>>52138723
Nigga, if you think he's shitposting, then don't argue. All it does is make them more inclined to shitpost for the sweet, sweet (you)s.

Classes give you limits to what your character can do. It's pretty well known limits and obstacles are wellsprings of creativity. My level 5 Fighter is mechanically identical to your level 5 Fighter, forcing me to do something to distinguish them through roleplay

>>52138325
5e does remove some of the fluff pidgeonholing, but overall it's still a game for people who like noble paladins and clever wizards.

>>52138325
>They're hard to balance properly, they force you into very narrow range of specializations, a lot of the fluff pigeonholds you into specific archtypes like the grizzled war veteran or the pious paladin,

All that is the result of class proliferation. More and more classes means that each individual class ends up being narrower and narrower, and more often built not on a broad archetype that you can fit a lot of different characters under, but rather on a mechanical gimmick that the creator thought was neat.

>and more often than not there isn't really a point to having two characters that are the same class because they're going to play exactly the same as one another.

This is the cause of the first problem. Everyone wanting their character to "play different" and have its own mechanics leads to the class proliferation problem.


The solution, IMO, is first to ensure that every class is an archetype, not a job description. I had started to hate classes over the years as well, until I played Apocalypse World and saw classes that were strongly archetypal, simple, and yet very flexible. (It reminded me of why I enjoyed the classes of early D&D, and made me understand why I disliked the classes of modern D&D.)

Secondly, you have to change people's mindset and accept that two characters can be very different people, even if they have similar mechanics. Sir Galahad and Sir Bedevere might both be the same class, but they're clearly not the same guy.

>>52138723
If you find something enjoyable than you should be able to provide a reason why you enjoy it anon. You were the one who claimed to have "plenty of reasons" why using classes has a point but now we're stuck on the default "I like fun things because they're fun" tautology that explains nothing about whatever merits classes bring to the table.

From personal experience, people who can only say "it's fun" in response to "why do you like it?" are usually people who have been told to like a thing and have no idea why they're supposed to like it beyond everyone else claiming that they like it.

I don't necessarily want to believe that of you anon but you're not exactly giving me much confidence to the contrary.

>>52138325
To which systems specifically do you owe your bad experiences with classes?

>>52138325
>Is there really a point to using classes anymore?
No.

There is no point in playing D&D or its countless derivatives.

>>52138496
What wrong with wanting to play fighter #3652 and fighter #4167? #3652 have a gaint axe and #4167 can breath ice.

>>52138325
There really isn't.
Point buy systems are pretty much objectively superior. It's a lot easier to balance concrete skills and powers against each other, than power sets+skill sets.

It also makes it easier to play characters that don't fit distinctly into one "class" or another. And it makes the crunch follow your fluff, instead of picking for mechanical advantage and having to justify why you're playing a dragon-touched halfminotaur ooze, or whatever.

Not to say that you can't have fun playing DnD or other class based systems. But you can have fun playing Simon says or cops and robbers too, which doesn't make Cops and Robbers a good role-playing system.

>>52138798
>Nigga, if you think he's shitposting, then don't argue. All it does is make them more inclined to shitpost for the sweet, sweet (you)s.
I don't think he's shitposting. I think he's legitimately dumb enough that he can't tell the difference between proclaiming an opinion and calling it "right" if no one else convinces him otherwise, and having a discussion.

And shaming that kinda idiot is enjoyable. Particularly because they're too stupid to understand why their behavior is shameful.

>>52138827
>If you find something enjoyable than you should be able to provide a reason why you enjoy it anon.
Except you're not asking me to provide a reason why. You're asking me to provide a reason why to you. Your entitlement is mostly what is wrong with your ability to think.

>>52138766
No but that's because ShadowRun is difficult to learn even if you've played it a while, or at least 5e was due to how awful its formatting was.

Honestly, there are better games out there that could serve as an introduction to tabletop such as Apocalypse World, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, Call of Cthulhu, Paranoia, etc. but D&D gets priority because it's popular.

>>52138871
All RPGs are derivative of D&D. D&D invented RPGs.

>>52138325
If it's not your style, there are plenty of systems that don't have classes. There is more out there than just dnd. I pretty much just play classless systems, because I'm not a fan either.

>>52138898
>powergaming only happens in class-based systems

>>52138898
Classes invoke a pre-built sense of character and design that point-Buy systems are forever unable to emulate properly without being a think skin over a generic blob.

>>52138862
The worst I've dealt with it was 3.PF honestly. You'd think that having so many classes would mean that it'd be easier to create practically anything but it seemed as though every character I wanted to play required a shitload of different combinations of classes, feats, etc. that it just burned me out on classes for a while.

Then I tried playing 5e and every class was so bland and uninteresting that I ended up using like one class ability over and over again because there was no longer any weird combinations of abilities that could let me make a character that I wanted.

Nowadays I mostly play WoD and I've never looked back, though I wish the community for vampire didn't give us a bad rep amongst the general tabletop community.

File: whatisanowl.jpg (119KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 800x800px

>>52138827
Because classless systems are just the same, they merely expect you to put the work of making a class together.

Shadowrun still runs off the concept of having various party roles - Street sam, Adept, Mage, Face, Hacker, Rigger, etc. - And you must build in order to be good at whatever thing you're doing. You don's max out Magic then fill yourself up with the killiest augs.

Can you"multi-class"? Yes, but you're weakening both of your pursuits in order to do so. Just like with a class-based system.

The problem is that the most obvious example of a class-based system is Pathfinder, which is a garbage system and you shouldn't be surprised that it, therefore, has garbage in it. Looking at other class-based systems such as Fantasycraft, which redefines and re-uses the concepts in d20 to make broader character classes that can support a much wider variety of archetypes, or D&D 4e, which allowed for a wide variety of builds in each class - Some were better than others, but the point is you could run your Fighter as a raging barbarian, a defensive sword+board knight, or an axe-wielding maniac, and each of the different build types had different class features (Axes did more damage and could often gain the fighter temporary HP's, shield-fighting gave AC and had more accurate attacks).

Even D&D 2e or 5e's more restrictive classes have fun to them. 2e gave very generic but hyper-specialized characters all over the place, from the Fighting Man who was touch and succeeded in combat as well as was the most skilled and proficient party class or the Mage who could change the rules entirely given EXP and a minute to cast a spell or the Rogue who could competely bypass traps and doors with a lucky roll. In 5e, they added the Archetype idea that would let you customize a class without needing to multiclass - Fighters learning magic or becoming better swordsmen, Rogues becoming better skill users or becoming assassins, etc.

TL:DR it's not as different as you'd like.

>>52138938
Only about as much as pong invented video games.

>>52138999
So your only experiences with classes are two RPGs that utterly fail at making any sort of productive use of classes.
And, based on two RPGs misusing classes alone, you conclude that classes are useless. Did I understand that correctly?

>>52138766
>Classes make it easier to learn.
That does seem like the best argument I've heard in favor.
I'm not sure home much better it is than just having pre-generated characters for the first game or two.

>>52138810
That seems to be a bit of a fallacy. There's no reason you couldn't distinguish your character in role-playing and also be mechanically different.

The logical extension of your argument would be a mono-class system. Where everyone is mechanically the same, to stimulate maximum role-playing.

>>52138961
It's certainly where you'll find the worse of it.
>>52138979
Honestly, you find more generic blobs in systems like D&D than anywhere else.

>>52139073
>The logical extension of your argument would be a mono-class system. Where everyone is mechanically the same, to stimulate maximum role-playing.
So a classless system?

>>52138961
I'm not saying it doesn't. But in any system the GM gets to approve characters. If you spent 195 or your 200pts on a single ability to try an powergame, it's pretty easy to read.

>>52138979
>Point based characters invoke a sense of character and design that class based systems are forever unable to emulate properly without being a thing skin over a generic job-based blob.

>>52139091
>>52139119

Classless systems eventually just have you devolving around into either Mary Sue characters or just recreating your class idea anyway.

There is literally zero argument for a Class-less system in a PnP over a good class system.

>>52139067
I never said that classes were worthless, I just said that they were flawed and asked if there was any point to using them anymore.

Besides, most systems nowadays use point-buy or skills to determine what your character can do and most new systems that still use classes are trying to emulate OD&D's style of play where classes actually had a point to them.

>>52139112
Sorta. Point based systems make it unlikely that any two characters will have mechanical similarities.

File: 1442098804748.jpg (23KB, 254x334px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 254x334px

>>52139134
>devolving around into either Mary Sue
>or just recreating your class idea anyway

Having a set number of classes makes the game simpler, thus easier to find people to play with.

>>52139145
You either end up making a class archtype in a point buy system, or you just end up with a "Does everything" character.

See: Skyrim.

>>52139052
Not really. RPGs still follow the same basic conventions and systems that D&D laid the groundwork for, to one extent or another. Attributes, skills, special powers, spells, equipment make up virtually every character in virtually every game, except those games that define themselves by lacking one or more of those systems.

Pong actually relied solely on electronic hardware, rather than computer programming. It wasn't an electronic game, rather than a video game. More akin to those magnetized, football fields where you put the pieces down and they vibrate than, say, space invaders.

>>52139134
>Classless systems eventually just have you devolving around into either Mary Sue characters or just recreating your class idea anyway.
I find that kinda shit happening more in class based systems than classless systems simply because one class is going to inevitably be better than everyone else for one reason or another.

For fucks sake, "linear warriors, quadratic wizards" was borne from class based systems but you're going to claim that classless is where you'll find Mary Sue characters?

>>52139165
Not unless you're some kinda retard. I guess that explains why you think that way though.

>>52139134
I've never really seen that in the point based system I've played in.

I guess it's true if you define "mary sue characters" as anyone who doesn't fit into a classic DnD style class.

>>52139187
>>52139194

>I haven't seen that in any point buy system

Yes, you have. You're just being willfully deluded in thinking people don't draw to archtypes or try to meta-game unless it has a class.

Point buy systems attract the same kind of stupid autism to character design as forum freeform roleplay.

Not a single Point buy system is worth using, it's simply a tool for people who want to pretend they're creating something.

>>52139165
>"Does everything" character.
Point based systems punish this sort of thing. If you want to do everything. You can do everything, poorly.

Unless for some reason the character has absurd amounts of points. But even then they'd be worse than an equivalent point level character who didn't decide to be a jack of all trades.

>>52139165
Skyrim is a video game anon, and a pretty shitty one to boot. I hope you can tell the difference but I mentioned that just to be sure.

>>52139224
I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.

>>52139137
>most new systems that still use classes are trying to emulate OD&D's style of play where classes actually had a point to them
Such as?

>>52139224
What in the actual fuck are you even going on about? Are you really saying that point buy systems promote autism when /pfg/ exists?

File: 1462393754420.png (1MB, 1025x1324px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1025x1324px

>>52139177
>linear wizards, quadratic wizards was born from class-based systems
>GURPS is point-based
>Shadowrun is point based

Your argument defeats itself.

>>52139271
>>52139241

>I can't understand your argument because I am a fucking mongoloid.

How funny for Point buy faggots to be so fucking stupid, here, I will spell it out easily for you.

Points buy either promotes huge meta-faggotry because the points buy system allows too many options. Or like >>52139231
Says and the system limits you to your options so you just pick the most cost-efficent ones and you're basically playing a class archtype.

I mean let's go for one second and assume you people are not addled with Down's syndrome and you can form a decent argument that it's "I don't understand"

What is the point of a Class-less system, in a genre that defines itself by Archtypes. One shitty class system doesn't mean all class systems are invalid, I have never seen a good points buy system.

>>52139224
>Point buy systems attract the same kind of stupid autism to character design as forum freeform roleplay.

I'm not sure what your argument even is. Point buy systems tend to be significantly more simulationist than class based systems.

Are you saying that more choices leads to an autistic player base?

>it's simply a tool for people who want to pretend they're creating something.
Isn't this a good thing?
Why would you want tools that don't let you even have the illusion creativity.

>>52139318
Shadowrun's pretty good.

>>52139318
You're saying things but they're so wrong that I don't even know how to explain to you why they're wrong. This is all completely baseless.

>>52139258
One game I can recall off the top of my head was called something like "Lamentations of the Flame Princess" or some shit like that.

I'm sure there's more but I can't be arsed to remember them honestly but I hear them being talked about on /tg/ alot if you're into old-school D&D type shit.

>>52139311
That was supposed to be an argument? I just thought you were shitposting and posting smug girls from shitty anime or something.

>>52139340
>Shadowrun
>"Classless"

Shadowrun pretends it has no classes, yet you can easily sum people up as "Street Samurai" and "Decker"

>>52139353
>>52139337

>I don't know what your argument is
>I am literally that retarded I cannot comprehend your simple argument.

I see I am dealing with literal retards, time to sum it up for 12 year olds.

Point-buy systems are a failure in all parts, Either you have less choice than a class system due to constraints, It's broken due to lack of constraints, or it's just a Quasi-Class system like Shadowrun.

People create characters from archtypes, this is reflected in EVERY PnP system, from GURPS to D&D.

Point buy systems are a useless facade for people who think they're too smart to play Class systems.

>>52139318
>Point Buy promotes autism
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
You're not really doing yourself any favors famalam.

File: 1470748023662.png (14KB, 203x209px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 203x209px

>>52139399

>>52139399
>Shadowrun pretends it has no classes, yet you can easily sum people up as "Street Samurai" and "Decker"
So because people can name an archtype...that means that it has classes? I can make a back-alley doctor in GURPS but that doesn't mean that there's an actual "doctor" class in it just because I know how to perform surgery.

>>52139406
>>52139410
>Points buy retards cannot form counterarguments so they resort to shitposting

And these are the kind of people who make Points buy systems pointless.

>>52139425
And what skills would you choose as a back-alley doctor and why wouldn't they simple fit under a Rogueish class? Hell, go ahead, throw me your amazing Gurps ideas, I bet I can make them in 5e just as easily.

File: 1470975832466.gif (140KB, 379x440px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 379x440px

There is some genuine autism going on in this thread.

>>52139434
>posts smug anime girl and screeches autistically
>Claims that others are shitposting
K senpai

>>52139467
>Thinks I am the guy who posted smug anime girl.

Let's break this down shall we.

What about the Points buy system in GURPS means Fighters are not just as useless as Wizards in that system?

>>52139318
>>52139318
>Points buy either promotes huge meta-faggotry because the points buy system allows too many options.
How is this different then combing a hundred different splat books for that single optimized choice.
>>52139318
>Says and the system limits you to your options so you just pick the most cost-efficent ones and you're basically playing a class archtype.
Wot?
Just because you take a penalty for trying to do everything doesn't mean that there aren't meaningful choices.

>>52139318
>Archtypes
Archtypes aren't the same as classes.
If you're playing a super hero game, the standard achetypes are Brick, Energy Projector, Mentalist, Martial Artist, or Gadgeteer.

But you can play a Brick who's tough and strong because of his Gadgets, ala Iron man. Or a Martial Artist that uses misdirection and hypnosis.

Look at Worm for example. Just because someone fits in the "Controller" archetype doesn't mean the character has any real similarities to another controller.

>>52138457
>D&D
>emulating the medieval world

The only thing D&D emulates is goddamn fantasy-America.

>If you're playing a super hero game, the standard achetypes are Brick, Energy Projector, Mentalist, Martial Artist, or Gadgeteer.

>But you can play a Brick who's tough and strong because of his Gadgets, ala Iron man. Or a Martial Artist that uses misdirection and hypnosis.

I don't see how Points buy and classless makes this situation any better? Oh other than

>I want to be X archtype, but also Y archtype at the same time.

You basically level the argument of "Muh Splatbooks" yet your Points buy system is the same shit, different name. I've never played a Superhero game, but really, it sounds like that can be solved by

>Power source
>Character class

In a system. So again, Points buy is a useless illusion.

>>52139517
>fantasy-America.
I could see american fantasy.

But fantasy America, is a hard concept to wrap my brain around. Settings based on American Folklore? Or fantasy with American values?

Although seeing republican dwarves and elven democrats duke it out in some sort of senatorial Thunder Dome, sounds awesome.

>>52139495
For one, a Fighter in GURPS will actually be able to do more besides (full) attacking until something dies.

That and depending on which supplements you're allowed to use and how many points the GM gives you for character creaction, you can easily build a Fighter whose strong enough to rip trees out of the ground and wield them like an oversized club or jump high enough to cross several miles in a single bound.

That and what weapon you use, where you hit an opponent, and what sorts of maneuvers you have actually matter besides just being fluff to explain how much damage you did to an enemy, which also works because combat is appropriately deadly.

Comparing a Fighter from D&D to one made in GURPS is no fucking contest, it's like comparing a level 1 character to a level 20 as far as the options that you have overall.

>>52138325
I think Earthdawn had it right with classes: classes as mythical professions. as an identity not just a skill set.

Obviously it doesnt fit into every setting.

>>52138919
I'm going to have to disagree with Apocalypse World and Paranoia. I'd add World of Darkness, the system, instead.

>>52139453
How about we just start off with a back alley doctor who performs medical tasks for people who can't afford to see a proper doctor either because of the law or because of a lack of funds?

>>52139561
>"Muh Splatbooks"
One of the distinct advantages of a good point buy system is that you don't need splat books. So it'd be cheaper to play.

>Points buy is a useless illusion.
I still don't understand what it is you're trying to say. That more options is just the illusion of more choices?

>>Power source
>>Character class
Basically the argument on the point buy side is that as classes become boarder to accept more concepts, the number of distinct classes drops. As the become more narrow, to fit more specific concepts you need more classes.
And at both ends of the spectrum, 1 class that fits anything and an infinite number of classes that fit any possible permutations you basically have a classless system.

>>52139800
Apocalypse World is great for teaching newbies to do more with less, Paranoia is good to teach players that death isn't always supposed to be tragic.

>>52139399
Sit down and play GURPS with a good group. You'll see the power of a good classless system. Yes, I'm building off of archetypes, but I'm not forced by my class to get powers I don't want/need, or choose between class options when neither of them apply.

Example: I ran a short campaign taking place in 1760 continental Europe. The party was a group of "deniable assets"
(read: murder hobos) working for the French to find and destroy an Ottoman superweapon before they could sell it to the Prussians Here's what the party built:
>A master swordsman who learned secret Kung-Fu techniques in his travels in the Orient
>An Austrian mad scientists who had extensive knowledge of all things mad and sciencey. Also, he had guns
>A doctor was actually a really nice person, and was only murder hoboing to pay an old family debt. She was VERY dangerous with those scalpels, though

In a class system, the swordsman would have to multiclass or pay a feat tax to get both the "high-level fighter" and "low-level monk" skill sets. Instead, he just built a pretty standard agile fighter, and spent some of his extra points on a few Kung-Fu tricks. The investment was actually really minor in terms of Character Points spent (maybe 10-15%?), but added a LOT of flavor to the character.

In a class system, the mad scientist might have an abysmal shooting skill. He would have to multiclass or pay a feat tax to be useful with it. Instead, he spent 4 out of his 150 CP on Guns (Pistol) and now had a respectable shooting skill

Same with the doctor and her knives. And agile knife-wielding character is usually the "rogue" or "assassin" class, and the "doctor" class is either a non-combat class entirely, or is a combat-medic. She was basically a non-combatant, except the 8 points put in knifing people, and the rest of the points were doctory skills

>>52139453
Not gurps but another point based system.
>Character is in a Space Super hero setting.
>He's a magic user that uses bargain based magic while off earth because only earth has a steady source of mana.
>His skill set, largely reflects his time as an investigator hunting down cults to dark gods
>While on earth he has access to traditional magic, and shuns pact magic because of the dangers and chances of corruption.
>Additionally he's a mildly competent in melee due to significant amounts of cybernetic augmentation
>Main combat attack comes not from cybernetics or magic but an absurdly high caliber gun

>>52139906
>Example: I ran a short campaign taking place in 1760 continental Europe. The party was a group of "deniable assets"
>(read: murder hobos) working for the French to find and destroy an Ottoman superweapon before they could sell it to the Prussians Here's what the party built:
Sounds pretty boss to me.
I think being governmental agents seems like a good reason to have structure in a steam-punky game.

>>52138882
Scorpion and Sub-Zero?

>>52139906
That's actually pretty cool and that's a great example of why I favor classless systems so much.

>>52139462
It's mostly one guy getting triggered by badwrongfun again.

>>52138325

Class-based systems are entirely superior and make for more interesting characters and gameplay.

>>they force you into very narrow range of specializations,

This is a good and eminently useful thing. People become more inventive when they work with limitations and have to play the hand they're dealt. Compare the elegant, efficient code of a programmer from the 80s when he had to fight for every bit, compared to the gigabytes upon gigabytes of bloated trash in a modern unlimited system.

>>a lot of the fluff pigeonholds you into specific archtypes like the grizzled war veteran or the pious paladin

Did you not think that a Role Playing Game would call you to, y'know... Play a Role?

>>52143689
>People become more inventive when they work with limitations
This meme needs to leave.

>>52143689
>Class-based systems are entirely superior and make for more interesting characters and gameplay.
Elaborate.
>People become more inventive when they work with limitations and have to play the hand they're dealt.
That only works when the game promotes the player's ability to go outside the lines without punishing them for trying to go beyond their niche. A Fighter will only ever be good at fighting, they'll never be as good as diplomacy as a Bard, or as smart as a Wizard, or as nimble as a Rogue, hit quite as hard w/o a weapon as a Monk, so on and so forth. Then to make things worse, he's only good at the most straight-forward and boring type of combat there is to boot.
>Did you not think that a Role Playing Game would call you to, y'know... Play a Role?
I can more effectively play a role in a classless system due to the fact that my ability stems from which skills I chose to specialize in, rather than which class I decided to take at level 1.

>>52143813
>I can more effectively play a role in a classless system due to the fact that my ability stems from which skills I chose to specialize in,

The skills you chose to specialise in = the class you decided to take at level 1. There is literally no functional difference. Your exact same gripes about the poor utility of multiclassing apply if you spread all your skill points over the tree without dumping them into what you wanted your character to do.

All skill-based systems are class systems in denial.

>>52143813
>That only works when the game promotes the player's ability to go outside the lines without punishing them for trying to go beyond their niche. A Fighter will only ever be good at fighting, they'll never be as good as diplomacy as a Bard, or as smart as a Wizard, or as nimble as a Rogue, hit quite as hard w/o a weapon as a Monk, so on and so forth. Then to make things worse, he's only good at the most straight-forward and boring type of combat there is to boot.

Okay, so you're some AD&D grognard still bent out of shape at the wizards getting all the attention from the spoddy nerds who wrote the game, gotcha.

>>52143883
>The skills you chose to specialise in = the class you decided to take at level 1.
Not even close. In a class based system, the only skills you're good at are the skills that the designers believe that the class should be good at. If you want to be good at anything outside of that niche, you practically have to break your own arm to get it and even then you'll be shit at it in comparison to someone whose class spec'd in being good at that niche.
>There is literally no functional difference.
Except for the fact that so long as I don't go over my resource, I can choose to spec in vastly different abilities that would otherwise be locked behind a specific class.
>Your exact same gripes about the poor utility of multiclassing apply if you spread all your skill points over the tree without dumping them into what you wanted your character to do.
Poor utility occurs because you can only really benefit from 1-2 different stats and your class needs at least 2 to survive.

>>52143900
Wow, a shitposter on /tg/ who only reads a portion of the post and completely misses the point, oh how could I have avoided this little debacle.

It might surprise you to know, but people can actually be good at multiple things without necessarily being pigeon-holed into a blatant stereotype. There's no real reason why, say, a Fighter can't be good at talking to people, or a Wizard can't use their magic to augment their unarmed fighting capabilities and having a class's abilities be this narrowly focused only really promotes stagnation as people get comfortable spamming the same moves over and over again because each class only gets a handful of options that are worth using every turn of combat, which also tends to make the game itself a helluva lot more boring in the long run.

>>52138325
Not every player has the enthusiasm or desire to construct a customized character ground-up and would rather follow a roadmap of character construction. This is not a bad thing, you're just a cunt about it.

>>52144219
In most classless system, each skill will be grouped under the stat that governs it. So if you're a character that has high STR (or its equivalent), you're going to look at the skills that will utilize your STR, whether it's athleticism skills, weaponry skills, unarmed skills.

Also, all you really need to build a character in a classless system is a concept, which the player will most likely already have an idea for either before they sit down at the table or once they've had a chance to look through the list of skills and find the skills that strike their fancy.

Classes are a band-aid for indecisiveness and won't work if the player has a detailed concept for the character that they wanted to play. Looking at this fella right here >>52139906 for example, if his group tried to make their characters in a system like D&D, they'd have to make several compromises and will end up with a character that looks and plays nothing like what they imagined.

>>52144340
Congratulations, you didn't read my post.
Not every player has the enthusiasm or desire to "look at [all] the skills that will utilize your STR" or "find the skills that strike their fancy" and would rather have a roadmap that tells them what to invest in.
This is not a bad thing, you're just a cunt about it.

>>52144340
>Also, all you really need to build a character in a classless system is a concept, which the player will most likely already have an idea for either before they sit down at the table or once they've had a chance to look through the list of skills and find the skills that strike their fancy.
That is rarely the case, in my experience.
Personally speaking, a list of unrelated skills does nothing to spark my creativity. In any point-based system I've read so far, the vast majority, if not all of the skills were of the "I guess I want to be kind of good at this? But it's not really important to me" sort.

Addtionally, point-based systems tend to not communicate their expectations or any sort of suggestion, leaving new players to create a character from scratch without any idea of what works and what doesn't.

>>52144461
>Not every player has the enthusiasm or desire to "look at [all] the skills that will utilize your STR" or "find the skills that strike their fancy" and would rather have a roadmap that tells them what to invest in.
If your player doesn't want to put in the bare minimum of effort to make a character that they supposedly want to play as in your campaign then chances are, they're not all that interested in playing in your campaign in the first place.

>>52144594
>That is rarely the case, in my experience.
In other words, based purely upon anecdotal evidence that has nothing to do with this discussion, gotcha.

>>52144635
As opposed to your experience based purely upon anecdotal evidence that has nothing to do with this discussion?

>>52144610
>I define the bare minimum! You have to abide by my standards to have fun, REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
You know you're really not changing my position that you're a cunt about this.

>>52144663
Your personal indecisiveness as a player is only really relevant to YOUR personal experience, not in regards to the general tabletop community as a whole. Once you stop projecting, then we can talk about about this seriously.

>>52138325
Ok, look, OP, in all fairness, the class is just a mechanic. In the end, if a player is clever enough, it will stay at that position. I've seen people play silver dragonborns as paladins of Tiamat without a problem, tech priest who were the party's cook, fighters who loved doing acts and plays, and commisars who were helpful.

In the end, the class is a mechanic, something that determines your combat capability and some areas of knowledge. Outside of that, roleplay can create massive variety, and any person who sticks to the classe's "archetype" is not doing it right.

Branch out. You'll swiftly discover the class is just a name.

>>52144683
If your player couldn't be arsed to read through a page of information that might pertain to their concept then it stands to reason that they'd be unable or unwilling to put in similar effort in figuring how their classes abilities actually work before play starts.

Call me a cunt all you want but you know that I'm right.

>>52144717
My experience includes all the people I've GMed for so far.
As much as I would like to talk about this seriously, you seem very determined to declare any opinion that does not support your own irrelevant and to generally be a cunt about it.

>>52144733
Eh, some games are easier to branch out from than others.

>>52144760
Ah yes, because all games store all their character construction options conveniently only on a single page of information, and not hundreds.

>>52144775
Those examples came from two games. Two were from D&D 5th ed (yup) and the other two were Only War.

Just spread out OP. Classes were designed as mechanics which revolve around your story, not the other way around.

>>52139073

Very few people like playing pregenerated characters even if they are new.

One of the selling points of tabletop rpgs is that you get to make Your Dude, and once you take that out most people lose interest even if they make an identical character themselves.

>>52144769
>My experience includes all the people I've GMed for so far.
If you admit to having trouble deciding upon something from a list of options as a player, is it really that difficult to see how your indecisiveness could also impact your group as well? At the end of the day, the common denominator in this equation is still you.

>>52144789
Most games do include a list of which skills are related to what stats on a chart that will usually take up less than half a page and the description for each skill will usually only be about a paragraph or two.

If we were talking about every skill as a whole then maybe you'd be correct, but as it stands, your statement is purely hyperbole.

>>52144826
What if I want to be a Fighter who fights using his intelligence rather than through brute force or finesse?

>>52144846
>is it really that difficult to see how your indecisiveness could also impact your group as well?
Yes? My character creation habits have zero impact on whether a player comes to the table with a concept or not.

>>52144938
Well if the player comes to you for help in bringing his concept to life, do you feel as though you'd be able to say "oh, this option and that option seem the most appropriate based upon what you've told me so far" or something to that effect? Because being the GM requires more than just running the game, it also requires you to have knowledge on the system so that if a player comes to you for help, you'd actually be able to help them.

>>52144983
Of course. But that still has nothing to do with the lack of a concept.

>>52145081
If you're indecisive in what you want your character to do, how are you supposed to help other people in deciding what they'd want their character to do?

If it's only an issue when you're playing in a classless system and not when you're running one, or vice-versa, then what exactly is there that prevents you deciding upon something when you're on the other side of the GM screen?

I'm also suspicious that none of your players had even a basic concept to built upon once they sat down to actually play a game. Most people love making a character that they loved from a movie/anime/show/book/etc. and most classless systems will give enough options for you to generally recreate most concepts without any major issues.

>>52138457
>D&D uses a class-type system because the social stratification of pre-industrial European societies makes it convenient to do so.
This is not at all true. Not even a little.
RPG classes have nothing with societal classes. witch is completely obvious the instant you look at them. They are fictional archetypes.

and OP is also completely wrong. Classes are not harder to balance than no classes. Again, this is obvious to see by merely looking at games and seeing the complete lack of any correlation, let alone causation.

And classes do not force you into narrow specialisations. Again this is obvious. Classes are generally very broad archetypes, and in fact many system include ways, like feats and archetypes, to narrow your specialisation, because the class alone is so broad.
As to character of the same class being similar, that's again wrong. Classes are so broad that they allow variation within them.
And of course multi-classing is mostly bad, it's a horrible kludge that goes against the very point of classes in the first place. It can work, but it's presence is completely unnecessary.

You are a halfwit who confuses their own preferences with universal fact. Neither class based or classless system are superior to the other, they are merely different ways of doing things.

And it's interesting that you refer to Shadowrun, because that's a game that should probably have classes, since it's very clearly built around fictional archetypes, and every character always fits into some genre stereotype of decker or street sam or whatever.

>>52145605
Modern D&D classes are imbalanced as a consequence of having some characters having access to over 100 diferent spells that can do over 100 unique effects and having classes that...don't have access to these 100 unique effects. You'll also notice that the more classes that are added to a game, the more likely it'll be that there will be some overlap between different classes, like how the Fighter is supposed to be the best Fighter...while literally every martial class in the game, save for Rogue and Monk, is just straight up better than them in terms of attack, defense, and utility.

In a classless system, it's much easier to balance one branch of skill against another because anyone can have access to that skill whenever they want, which also creates situations where different skills can have synergy between other skills to create different combinations that reward experimentation.

The only reason we still use classes is because of legacy mechanics.

>>52145802
>Modern D&D
>shit from 3.5

>>52146624
In 4e, every class is meant to be slotted into one of four archtypes that all play relatively the same as one another, with the only difference coming from the weak descriptions that they add that somehow has less fluff than a MtG card.

Meanwhile in 5e, every class in the game lacks options once you've exhausted their limited actions to make combat go by a little bit quicker so you'll end up just defaulting to either basic attacks as a martial or cantrips as a mage.

This is an issue with modern D&D as a whole, it's just that the exact problem changes slightly depending on which edition you're talking about.

>>52146805
I have to fight against this: The differences between the 4 class types is way deeper than descriptive text. A Bard does not heal like a Cleric does not heal like a Warlord. A Warlock does not strike like a Ranger does not strike like an Avenger.

They packed a LOT of nuance into those classes, lots of them play nothing alike one another despite sharing party roles - Artificers are control, like wizards and druids, but they get almost no AoE spells and instead focus on having bunches of their artefacts doing shenanigans on the battlefield.

Even in the same class you could change how someone fights pretty drastically - Two fighters could never touch the same power set and could have totally different base mechanics if you pulled from the right books.

>>52150406
Don't bother, anyone looking at Fighter and Swordmage and going "these are the same" isn't going to be swayed by mere facts.

>>52145802
3.5 is basically a very chunky point buy. The way you describe talent trees makes them basically equivalent to 3.5 classes with multiclassing. It fixes nothing, but I guess it has a more honest label.

File: palettes.png (724KB, 1280x989px) Image search: [Google]

724KB, 1280x989px

>>52138325
I use a class system in GURPS. It's fantastic fun and emulates FFT a lot. Classes are cool when you play with the mechanics outside of rote D&D.

>>52144917
In olden D&D, stats don't matter. They give you like a paltry +/- 1-2 most of the time, so you can go ahead and freely make a high-INT average stats fighter.

In wotc D&Ds, I think only 5e doesn't have support for that (yet), and even there you can pull it off okay with battlemaster/rogue multiclass.

File: 1454204052171.png (3MB, 3154x2493px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3154x2493px

Admit it, /tg/. Admit which class you love the most, whatever it is, wherever it's from.

>>52150696
>In olden D&D, stats don't matter.
If they don't matter then what was the point of having investing in them?

>>52152162
Eh, they matter very little in-combat, because the bonuses are small. They matter a lot more for skills, because the skill system was rolling under your stats with a d20. They also matter for stat requirements and some classes get bonus XP for having their favored stat high (because if you roll 18STR for your fighter, it makes sense that you also get to advance 10% faster than everyone else, right?).

So, in the context of "making an intelligent fighter who fights with smarts" they don't matter much, in the context of characters in general, they matter some.

>>52150986
Reyvateil!

>>52152196
>So, in the context of "making an intelligent fighter who fights with smarts" they don't matter much, in the context of characters in general, they matter some.
So you're saying that it isn't possible to make a Fighter who fights using his intelligence rather than brute force or finesse but you still think that it's possible to branch out from your class's niche?

Hell, you admitted that the game rewards you more for staying within your niche than branching out for an experimental build.

>>52152162
There really wasn't much point to it, especially since increasing stats was HARD. You didn't get stat gains from leveling up, and required multiple castings of Wish to increase them even by a point.

>>52152257
OD&D doesn't have builds. And it's not "my game".

The question was "What if I want to be a Fighter who fights using his intelligence rather than through brute force or finesse?"

You put your highest stat into INT. Done. You can roll all kind of INT based skills to do stuff (as DM permits). You'll still be attacking with STR.

>>52152285
>OD&D doesn't have builds.
Semantics
>You put your highest stat into INT.
But why would I do that if it serves no purpose?
>You can roll all kind of INT based skills to do stuff (as DM permits).
But none of them would allow me to be a Fighter who is just as dangerous as a Fighter who decided to invest into STR?
>You'll still be attacking with STR.
Okay, thanks for answering my question. No matter how you build your Fighter, you're still going to be dependent upon your character's STR, even if you want to be someone who fights using their brains instead of their brawn.

Are you starting to see where this whole "just branch out bro" mentality kinda falls flat?

>>52152383
EVERYONE is going to fight with STR, unless they cast spells. That's how OD&D works.

Your intelligent fighter will instead, have the chance to actually fight intelligently; that is, use skill rolls to do stuff like set up traps, cause cave-ins, and use items in creative ways in general. It will make you better at things other than fighting.

Since having a lower STR will only make a 1-2 point difference it's not like this is a huge investment.

>Are you starting to see where this whole "just branch out bro" mentality kinda falls flat?

Yeah, autists just can't seem to grasp this simple concept.

>>52152455
>Your intelligent fighter will instead, have the chance to actually fight intelligently; that is, use skill rolls to do stuff like set up traps, cause cave-ins, and use items in creative ways in general.
You forgot to add
>(as DM permits)
to the end of your sentence chief.

From what you're basically saying, if I want to be guaranteed useful in combat against anything in my weight class, I should just sit down, shut up, and invest in my STR score like a good little Fighter and if I want to be dodgy as fuck as far as my effectiveness goes, I should waste my time being a Fighter who has high INT rather than high STR.
>Since having a lower STR will only make a 1-2 point difference it's not like this is a huge investment.
Considering how hard it is to raise your stats it's a pretty big fucking investment.
>Yeah, autists just can't seem to grasp this simple concept.
I understand the concept quite well, I also understand that you're rewarded more for staying within the lines.

So what is the optimal number of classes? Three classical archetypes come to mind - Fighting-Man, Sage, and Trickster - but in mythology both sages and warriors were as often tricksters as not. Thus, two classes is what anyone needs, Fighting-Man covering Swords and Magic User covering Sorcery. Every single conceivable character idea fits within one of those those two archetypes, making more than those two classes redundant.

>>52152522
>From what you're basically saying, if I want to be guaranteed useful in combat against anything in my weight class, I should just sit down, shut up, and invest in my STR score like a good little Fighter and if I want to be dodgy as fuck as far as my effectiveness goes, I should waste my time being a Fighter who has high INT rather than high STR.

Then you can't fucking read.

An OD&D fighter will be a good fighter on account of being a fighter. To be the BEST fighting fighter you'd have to have high STR. But to be a GOOD fighting fighter, you just need to be a fighter and keep getting levels.

The class is more important than your stats, which lets your stats be just about anything and still work.

>I also understand that you're rewarded more for staying within the lines.

Yes, but that doesn't mean it's the only viable option. Things don't have to be perfectly equal, they just need to be viable.

I don't like OD&D, I think it's archaic, and I massively prefer more crunchy mechanics (including ones where stat substitutions like the one you are pining for exists), but your inability to understand this is fucking baffling.

>>52152548
>So what is the optimal number of classes?
None. You have archtypes that refer to a broad concept but you never try to shove what someone can do into one class.

Like you can have archtypes like "Fighting-Man, Sage, and Trickster" but there shouldn't be anything preventing someone from wanting to be a Fighting-Man who is also a Trickster like Sun Wukong.

>>52152616
So 3 with multiclassing, gotcha.

>>52152589
>An OD&D fighter will be a good fighter on account of being a fighter. To be the BEST fighting fighter you'd have to have high STR
In other words, never branch out from being a brute force Fighter and stay within the lines like a good little boy, gotcha.
>Yes, but that doesn't mean it's the only viable option.
From your own mouth, a Fighter with high STR is the BEST fighting fighter, who also gets 10% more EXP than the Fighter who decided to have his best stat be INT like a nerd. It may not be the "only way" to play a Fighter but that's like saying that you could drive a car with your feet, it's certainly possible but it's also not recommended for optimum control.
>your inability to understand this is fucking baffling.
I understand the concept of branching out but if the game itself punishes you for trying a more exotic character then why the fuck would I ever branch out from my party's niche?

>>52152626
No, because if you allow multi-classing anyways then what's the point of sectioning abilities off into their own classes? Like if you end each game being a gestalt of Fighting-Man, Trickster, and Sage then why both separating them at all, rather than having their abilities be skills that the player can buy at their leisure?

Not to mention, what would I do if I wanted to play an archtype outside of those three?

>>52152667
>but that's like saying that you could drive a car with your feet, it's certainly possible but it's also not recommended for optimum control.

Not really, driving with your feet is obviously stupid and risks crashing your car. Putting INT primary is more like driving a comfy car instead of a sports car. The sports car is faster and more "car", but you opt to get less speed more comfort instead.

>I understand the concept of branching out but if the game itself punishes you for trying a more exotic character then why the fuck would I ever branch out from my party's niche?

Because you feel like it.

Because even with the 10% xp difference it's a very minor difference between the two.

>>52152709

>No, because if you allow multi-classing anyways then what's the point of sectioning abilities off into their own classes?

There's more than one type of multiclassing. The obvious benefit of classes is the sectioning off of mechanics that build on each-other or that need to be "exclusive" because they act as multipliers. As long s your multiclass rules respect that, you should be fine.

>Not to mention, what would I do if I wanted to play an archtype outside of those three?

What archetypes exist outside of the combinations of those three? They are wide as fuck.

>>52152548
What is the game about? What elements do you want to stress? What to you want the players to interact with? What sort of intra-party balance do you want between character usefulness? Without answering those questions, we don1t even know if you need classes at all.

>>52152822
>The sports car is faster and more "car", but you opt to get less speed more comfort instead.
If I'm buying a car with the intention of driving to where I need to go, the car that's faster is the one that will allow me to fulfill that purpose more effectively. You also say "comfort" as if most commercial cars aren't designed to be comfortable to drive in for most people.
>Because you feel like it.
What kinda cop out is that?
>>52152822
>The obvious benefit of classes is the sectioning off of mechanics that build on each-other or that need to be "exclusive" because they act as multipliers.
You'd still find that in classless systems though. In fact, it'd be a lot easier since you wouldn't need to take on a bunch of useless shit just to get the one ability that ties your whole character together.
>What archetypes exist outside of the combinations of those three?
Where would an artificer belong? Or a cook? or a back alley doctor?

>>52152887
>In fact, it'd be a lot easier since you wouldn't need to take on a bunch of useless shit just to get the one ability that ties your whole character together.

A class system doesn't have to hide that behind bars, so to say.

A class system can have abilities that are far stronger/more exotic than a classless system, unless the classless system adds restrictions that effectively make it a weird class system anyway (or accepts that everyone's going to be going for broken combos).

>Where would an artificer belong? Or a cook? or a back alley doctor?

All three fit both sage and trickster, so some combination of those, depending on preference. Or possibly they fall outside of the purview of the game; since classes don't often deal with cooking, it's just a job anyone can have. Since being an artificier may require in some worlds long amounts of downtime, a shop, specialized tools and resources, etc. (things that may or may not be something you want to deal with in a game) it may as well be a secondary job.

Put it in another way: if you are playing D&D and bitch about not having a farmer class who has +3 to farming, then you are missing the point; D&D is not a game about characters settling down to farm, or even wizards spending months or years to create golems; at least not for the PCs.

>>52152981
>A class system can have abilities that are far stronger/more exotic than a classless system,
How so?
>All three fit both sage and trickster, so some combination of those, depending on preference.
If you're going to have classes be this fucking broad then why even have classes in the first place? A guy who tinkers in a shop somewhere is in no way similar to a dude who performs black market surgeries to make cash off of criminals and mercenaries. At this point, you've basically made a classless system masquerading as a class system for all intents and purposes.

>>52153040
>How so?

Lets take a shitty example:

- Warrior has cyclone-attack that attacks everyone in reach and can use reach weapons
- Thief has an ability that makes him crit on attacks against foes that can't see him.
- Sage has spell that turns him invisible

In a class based system this is okay. These abilities won't combine to act as multipliers towards each other. In a class-less system (or a class system with easy/"strong" multiclassing), you can easily combine them, and now the character has abilities that are far greater than the sum of their parts.

>If you're going to have classes be this fucking broad then why even have classes in the first place?

Because you want to group abilities based on how the expected archetypes in your game interact with its systems.

>A guy who tinkers in a shop somewhere is in no way similar to a dude who performs black market surgeries to make cash off of criminals and mercenaries.

It depends on the fucking system, mate. Maybe these actually are covered in part or fully different classes. Maybe these are a single skill each. Maybe it's just fluff, and it's up to the GM and the player to make up how they are handled when it comes up in play (if at all). Expecting a specific answer for such a broad fucking question is really stupid.

>>52153317
>These abilities won't combine to act as multipliers towards each other.
The fuck are you talking about? The fact that the Thief's ability allows him to auto-crit with an attack than an opponent doesn't see coming easily multiplies the effectiveness of the Warrior and Sage's abilities.

If you're invisible that means every attack that you make is auto-critting since an opponent won't be able to see you. If you have the proper setup, you could create a situation where the Warrior's cyclone-attack auto-crits, in addition to hitting every opponent in the room as well.

I mean, turning invisible and cyclone-attacking is great on their own, but adding in an ability that allows you to auto-crit with sneak attacks will make both of this abilities stronger than they would've been on their own.

In a classless system, all three of these abilities would be expensive enough so that you couldn't just buy them at character creation.

1/2

>>52153317
>Because you want to group abilities based on how the expected archetypes in your game interact with its systems.
From what you just described, a Trickster/Sage can be anything from a doctor to a artificer to a cook to anything in between. Having broad classes is all well and good but there also needs to be some sort of focus to them as well so people recognize that "oh, I want to X and Y" whenever they sit down to make characters.
>Maybe these actually are covered in part or fully different classes. Maybe these are a single skill each. Maybe it's just fluff, and it's up to the GM and the player to make up how they are handled when it comes up in play (if at all).
So it basically comes down to it being a classless system under the guise of being a class based system, as I suspected all along. If you can't justify why your classes are distinct from one another then they aren't actually classes.

A fighter literally has no use for the INT stat unless he intends to spend the remaining 19 levels multiclassing into wizard.

>>52150986
Red Mage

File: 1371854068858.png (3KB, 128x128px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 128x128px

>>52155555
Quints confirm!

>>52155281
>The fuck are you talking about?
Classes. The Thief can't get the Warrior and Sage abilities. The Warrior can't get the Thief and Sage abilities. The Sage can't get the Thief and Warrior abilities.

The classless system does not account for the abilities in combination being far more powerful than each one on its own.

Have we switched the goalposts from "classed and classless systems are just as varied" all the way to "classed systems are more balanced"?

>>52155958
Dunno. I skipped reading most of the thread.

>>52155912
>Classes. The Thief can't get the Warrior and Sage abilities. The Warrior can't get the Thief and Sage abilities. The Sage can't get the Thief and Warrior abilities.
Why? What prevents me from getting a level in Sage, Warrior, and Thief? What prevents me from finding someone within the world who is ready and willing to teach me how to fight, use magic, or steal shit?

File: 1480721792372.jpg (56KB, 634x900px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 634x900px

>>52150986
The fighter is the quintessential hero to any story and the archetype with the most potential for exploring literary themes.

A fighter is simply one who fights, with skill and strength. All classes force you into specific character types when roleplaying, but the fighter has the most flexibility due to its honest and simple premise.

>>52155990
Not every game has fucking level-by-level multiclassing with classes retaining 10% effectiveness. In fact, the ones that have dilute the strengths of class based systems massively.

>>52156033
*100% I mean

>>52155990
>What prevents me from getting a level in Sage, Warrior, and Thief?
A proper class system that doesn't have anything as stupid and self-defeating as multiclassing.

>What prevents me from finding someone within the world who is ready and willing to teach me how to fight, use magic, or steal shit?
The years you need to devote to training your new skills and the inevitable decay of your old skills.

>>52144219
This is a pretty good point.
Like someone else pointed out, class based systems are pretty good as "training wheels"

They give you structure, when you don't really understand the more advanced concepts of RPGs and character building.

Some players reject the class based systems as they grow in understanding and want to push boundaries and introduce new concepts.

Others like them because they are comfy and cozy.

>>52155912
>The classless system does not account for the abilities in combination being far more powerful than each one on its own.
They usually do. That's why every ability has a point cost.

>>52156118
A fixed point cost, which does not take into account what other abilities you have already acquired, thus not accounting for the abilities in combination being far more powerful than each one on its own.

>>52156033
I understand but that's not what I'm asking you. What prevents me, a Warrior, from walking into a Sage's apothecary and saying "hey, I'd like to learn magic to help me remain an effective part of my team" or something to that effect?

There's nothing to prevent me from being, say, a police officer, a chef, and a programmer so...what would prevent me from being a Warrior, Sage, and Thief at some point during the campaign.
>>52156056
>The years you need to devote to training your new skills and the inevitable decay of your old skills.
Why exactly would my old skills decay just because I decided to learn new skills? There's 24 hours in a day mate, that's plenty of time to practice basic drills while also studying for magic, and that's if my character doesn't already have the stats to be equally good at both.

>>52155281
>The fuck are you talking about? The fact that the Thief's ability allows him to auto-crit with an attack than an opponent doesn't see coming easily multiplies the effectiveness of the Warrior and Sage's abilities.

Yes.

But in a class based system this is, or can be made EXCLUSIVE TO THE CLASS.

In a non-class based system you couldn't make the abilities available at low levels as you could in a class based system because they'd combine into what you describe. In a class based system, you could have auto critting thief / cleaving fighter / invisible sage prance around right at level 1.

>>52155365
>From what you just described, a Trickster/Sage can be anything from a doctor to a artificer to a cook to anything in between.

Yes, because classes describe how you do things, not what you do. Is your doctor a magical doctor using spells to heal? Sage. Is your guy really good with anatomy and medical skill shit, using his skills to make healing salves and patch up wounds? Trickster.

Same for artificer. Is it a clock maker using skill and ingenuity to create traps? Trickster. Is he a golem maker giving life to otherwise inanimate facsimiles of life? Sage. Fuck, a guy who puts part of his soul in the weapons/jewelry he smiths because he's just so skilled may as well be a fighter.

>So it basically comes down to it being a classless system under the guise of being a class based system, as I suspected all along.

You are denser than a neutrino golem.

I'll try to explain in simple terms.

Classes, in a well designed game, only have to care about the game's focus. Everything else can be covered by secondary systems, like skills, stats, feats, etc.

Spending months creating artifacts is not part of D&D's focus. So the classes don't have to cover it. Being a back alley doctor can be covered by having a medical skill. You don't need dedicated class related mechanics for them.

This does not somehow make them classless systems, and this is getting really dumb.

>>52156178
>What prevents me, a Warrior, from walking into a Sage's apothecary and saying "hey, I'd like to learn magic to help me remain an effective part of my team" or something to that effect?

You can. Roll up another character so we can continue playing while the fighter spends the next 5-10 years learning the basics of magic, to get halfway where a 1st level sage is.

>>52156149
>A fixed point cost, which does not take into account what other abilities you have already acquired, thus not accounting for the abilities in combination being far more powerful than each one on its own.
In most classless systems, the point cost for especially powerful abilities may be fixed but they're also usually high enough to where you won't gain those abilities until several weeks into the campaign unless the GM is lenient with the point distribution.

Compare to most class based systems where the designers just make busted ass abilities and justifies their power by saying "well, you can't combine them together" or "eh, it's a high level ability" and then when the player manages to get the requisite levels to utilize those powers, the game's balance ends up going out the fucking window.

If you tell a player that he can attain infinite power at the cost of chopping off his arm, they'll gladly do so because players love working towards their god-mode powers.

>>52156178
>There's 24 hours in a day mate, that's plenty of time to practice basic drills while also studying for magic, and that's if my character doesn't already have the stats to be equally good at both.
Except you can't use all 24 hours, magic requires the dedication of all your waking hours and potential has nothing to do with experience.
Barring all that, start rolling up a new character, because the rest of the group won't wait a couple of years for your current one to complete his tutelage.

>>52156295
Okay, so each ability, which in absence of the other two is far less useful, still has a prohibitively high cost not representative of its actual usefulness. How is that any better?

>>52156295
Yes, because classless point buy systems like M&M are pinnacles of balance.

File: 1476319248136.jpg (26KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 450x450px

>>52156284
>>52156299
>well in MYYY setting...

>>52156284
>You can. Roll up another character so we can continue playing while the fighter spends the next 5-10 years learning the basics of magic, to get halfway where a 1st level sage is.
What if my Warrior already has the stats to be a natural Sage? Surely my high INT would allow me to progress through the process much faster than a novice who only has average INT or something.
>>52156299
>Except you can't use all 24 hours, magic requires the dedication of all your waking hours and potential has nothing to do with experience.
Where exactly does it say that? Also, why exactly isn't it as easy as just saying "welp, I'm gonna put the EXP that I got into my first Sage level" or something to that effect?

>>52156275
>But in a class based system this is, or can be made EXCLUSIVE TO THE CLASS.
There'd still be nothing to prevent me from gaining the requisite levels in thief and Warrior/Sage though.
>In a non-class based system you couldn't make the abilities available at low levels as you could in a class based system because they'd combine into what you describe.
So wait, these are all level 1 abilities? Christ sakes man, that's hilariously broken. At least in a classless system they'd be appropriately expensive to own, rather than just being shit you'd buy right out the gate.

>>52156342
>What if my Warrior already has the stats to be a natural Sage?

What if the game isn't using stats? What if I tell you that the sage had the stats and then spent like 10-20 years learning to be a fucking sage, just like your warrior had to train and learn to fight with weapons?

> Also, why exactly isn't it as easy as just saying "welp, I'm gonna put the EXP that I got into my first Sage level" or something to that effect?
>>52156376


Because a system like that would destroy the benefit of being a class system in the first place and would become a chunky point-buy system like 3.PF and 5e.

Holy shit mate, you have been arguing against the shittiest version of class based systems this entire time, thinking that that's all there is to it.

How does it feel to be this retarded?

File: 1469102049371.png (3MB, 2392x2256px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2392x2256px

>>52156342
>Also, why exactly isn't it as easy as just saying "welp, I'm gonna put the EXP that I got into my first Sage level" or something to that effect?
>letting your players choose something, and I mean anything, ever over the course of your game
You're new to this whole thing, aren't you? Back in my day we barely had any rules to work with and were grateful with what we had. You should do the same, fucking millenial. I bet you're not even 40.

>>52156336
Setting and mechanics are tied together.
If you use a class-based system, it had better have a setting in which a class-based system makes sense.
If magic is trivial to learn, it's not worth having a class for.

>>52156342
>What if my Warrior already has the stats to be a natural Sage? Surely my high INT would allow me to progress through the process much faster than a novice who only has average INT or something.
Oh, definitely. You just take five instead of ten years. New character, please.

>Where exactly does it say that?
In the mechanics.
>Also, why exactly isn't it as easy as just saying "welp, I'm gonna put the EXP that I got into my first Sage level" or something to that effect?
Because the system does not allow that.

>>52138325
You really think Shadowrun is a good example of a good system that doesn't pigeonhole players into party roles? Maybe you've just read it and never played it, so let me explain how Shadowrun works in paractice. Everyone specializes in one thing (combat, hacking, social skills, astral combat, vehicles.) A little bit of doubling-up on specialties is common (the rigger is usually also the decker, the face is often also the adept, everyone can shoot guns a little bit,) sometimes there's more than one way to be a specialist (you can be an SS or a physical adept, you can be a decker or a cybermancer,) but gameplay consists entirely of players taking their turns to practice their specialties alone, while every player who isn't specialized in the task at hand sits on their asses and waits. Shadowrun forces you into a narrow range of specializations much, MUCH more than D&D does, because everyone in a D&D party can participate in combat just about equally well, and anybody can effectively speak up when exploring or socializing without the need for constant ability checks.

>>52156275
>Yes, because classes describe how you do things, not what you do.
Actually, classes should be able to do both, at least in any decently designed class based game.
>Classes, in a well designed game, only have to care about the game's focus.
How are they able to worry about the game's focus when they themselves are not focused? A lot of players are going to end up confused if you come up to them with a doctor and an artificer and get told that they'd effectively be the same class as one another.

>>52156484
>How are they able to worry about the game's focus when they themselves are not focused? A lot of players are going to end up confused if you come up to them with a doctor and an artificer and get told that they'd effectively be the same class as one another.

No they won't, because they are not retarded and can understand that your job is not your class?

>>52138999
>you hated 3.PF because characters were too complicated
>you hate 5e because characters aren't complicated enough

Ok, so there's no pleasing you.

>>52156330
Because abilities like "attack anyone within reach of your weapon in one attack," "be invisible," and "auto-crit anyone who doesn't see you" are all still pretty powerful abilities on their own, it's just that combining them together multiplies their power exponentially.

It's like how bleach and ammonia on their own are pretty mundane cleaning products until you combine them together and produce a gas that can kill you in a few moments.
>>52156333
Actually yes, mainly because a) each ability has a cost that must be paid before you can use it and b) the game is particularly upfront in telling you which powers are game-breakingly powerful and which ones are not.

Which is generally how most classless systems get around power creep btw.

>>52156388
>What if the game isn't using stats?
What game doesn't use stats?
>What if I tell you that the sage had the stats and then spent like 10-20 years learning to be a fucking sage, just like your warrior had to train and learn to fight with weapons?
So what you're saying is, I should start off as a Sage and learn how to be a Thief or a Warrior later on?
>>52156388
>Because a system like that would destroy the benefit of being a class system in the first place and would become a chunky point-buy system like 3.PF and 5e.
3.PF and 5e aren't point buy systems though, they're clearly class based systems that allow for multi-classing.

Please calm yourself.

File: 1442575031852.png (17KB, 120x91px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 120x91px

I still have no fucking idea what the class-fags are on about. Classes are not inherently more balanced nor are they more versatile than a classless system, how the fuck do you even think that?

>>52156398
Going on about "what we did in my day" is a pretty bad excuse for continuing to do shit wrong.

Okay, you got me. You can stop now. I'm actually furious. My jimmies are rustled. My butt is hurting. All I can taste is salt.

You win, I'm out.

>>52156408
>Oh, definitely. You just take five instead of ten years. New character, please.
>In the mechanics.
>Because the system does not allow that.
What rules are you actually using though? You can't say "muh rules" without at least explaining what the rules actually are.

Also, what if we're starting off as level 3 characters? Surely my 40-50 year old adventurer would've been able to master his first level in Warrior, Thief, and Sage by the time we actually start the adventure, right?

>>52156411
At the same time though, there's nothing necessarily stopping you from being a rigger who also knows how to use a sword or Shaman who can attack shit in the physical world as well as the astral, or at least in 5e.

Hell, you can even be a mage who uses cyberware if you're okay with taking a slight hit to your total essence pool until you can initiate.

>>52156510
>No they won't, because they are not retarded and can understand that your job is not your class?
Actually they would, because when people think of a class, they think of a character who is highly specialized into performing something better than the other classes. If you told two people with two different concepts that they'd technically be the same class, they'd look at you and ask "seriously?" because it'd fly in the face of their expectation of what a class is supposed to do.

Like 4e functioned off of a similar premise and people still shat on it for classes being too similar, even when the classes themselves played radically different even though they were in the same niche.

>>52156519
Like I said, I found my niche in WoD, mainly because building a character in WoD is comparatively easier than it was in 3.PF but you also get a lot more options in what your character can do, in comparison to something like 5e.

There are much better games outside of D&D man, it may be popular but it certainly isn't the only game on the market.

>>52138898
>It's a lot easier to balance concrete skills and powers against each other, than power sets+skill sets.
Balancing individual powers and skills against each other is just seeing the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter whether individual powers are balanced against each other. What matters is whether different COMBINATIONS of powers are balanced against each other. A class system allows you to limit the available combinations, therefore making the task merely hard instead of impossible.

>>52156826
As seen ITT, there isn't really a credible way to prevent cross classing without just going "FUCK YOU, YOU CAN'T TAKE MORE THAN ONE CLASS, MUNCHKINNING PIECE OF SHIT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

>>52156550
>it's just that combining them together multiplies their power exponentially
Yes, and the costs do not multiply exponentially.

>>52156550
>Which is generally how most classless systems get around power creep btw.

You are not getting around powercreep. You are just admitting it exists and ask people to not abuse it.

You may as well extend this to shitty 3.PF style multiclassing and suddenly it's just as "balanced".

>>52156149
>not accounting for the abilities in combination being far more powerful than each one on its own.
I don't know what to say, other than play a better point buy system.

>>52156951
>Not using a logarithmic based point buy system
Pleb.

>>52156995
>You are not getting around powercreep. You are just admitting it exists and ask people to not abuse it.
Yes, because that's the only way that you're ever going to get around power creep, acknowledging "hey, this ability is pretty broken" and warning GM's that this particular option WILL break your game's balance if they don't use the appropriate discretion in allowing its inclusion.
>You may as well extend this to shitty 3.PF style multiclassing and suddenly it's just as "balanced".
What are tiers?

>>52156682
>What rules are you actually using though?
Any non-self-defeating class system.

>Also, what if we're starting off as level 3 characters?
Then your character probably still has three to four years of his second tutelage ahead of him.

>>52156610
>they're clearly class based systems that allow for multi-classing
Level-by-level multiclassing defeats the entire purpose of classes, making the system effectively point buy.

Pointbuy systems usually have prerequisites for abilities, the stronger the ability the higher the requirements. So it does get more expensive the stronger you get.

>>52157090
>Yes, because that's the only way that you're ever going to get around power creep, acknowledging "hey, this ability is pretty broken" and warning GM's that this particular option WILL break your game's balance if they don't use the appropriate discretion in allowing its inclusion.

Or by, you know, restricting ability combinations by, for example, tying them to a class.

>What are tiers?

A tool to help DMs cope with the unintended side-effect of 3.PF having fucking terrible class balance.... sooo, sorta my point?

It's also a fan-made thing, while M&M just out and says that some abilities are broken.

>>52156951
>Yes, and the costs do not multiply exponentially.
They don't need to increase exponentially because the GM is the one who determines how many points you'll receive each night to buy those abilities.

If you only get 1 pt. each week you show up and turning invisible costs 50 pts. to own, you'll only earn that power if you put the time into showing up for almost a year, which is fine because once you have that power, it's yours to do with as you please.

Not to mention, if every ability exponentially increases the abilities of every other ability, the game will actually become balanced because one set of abilities won't be any more or less powerful than another set of abilities.

>>52156941
Even taking multiclassing into account, a game with classes is easier to balance than a game that doesn't have classes(or other equivalent structure that limits chargen options). With levels, you can just say "class A gains ability X at level 12, class B gains ability Y at level 9, therefore with a (soft) level-cap of 20, we don't have to worry about the two abilities interacting". Without levels, you can still restricts abilities for multiclassed characters - maybe a character can't gain Tier 3 abilities from more than one class, for instance. With a pure point-based system, you can't have these kinds of control mechanisms without implementing classes or class-like structures.

>>52157219
>If you only get 1 pt. each week you show up and turning invisible costs 50 pts. to own, you'll only earn that power if you put the time into showing up for almost a year, which is fine because once you have that power, it's yours to do with as you please.
That's like saying that PF is a fine system, because the GM can just only let you level once a year, thus removing many of the imbalancing abilities casters get.

>>52157126
>Any non-self-defeating class system.
That's incredibly vague and not all too helpful, just like your classes.
>Then your character probably still has three to four years of his second tutelage ahead of him.
Why would he? If we've established that it takes 10 years to learn a level in each skill and my character is around 40-50 years old, it's very possible that he already went through the requisite time to learn how to whirlwind attack, turn invisible, and auto-crit with his sneak attacks.

It'd also mean that he could freely earn his second level in either of them during play since he already went through the basics during his backstory.
>Level-by-level multiclassing defeats the entire purpose of classes, making the system effectively point buy.
Well I'm sorry, but people are going to want to multiclass when they see how much they'd get for it and just saying no isn't going to be enough to dissuade them, especially when they can't multi-class due to arbitrary reasons.

>>52138415
It's simple: has any game really been far even as decided to use even classes want to do look more like?

>>52157153
>Or by, you know, restricting ability combinations by, for example, tying them to a class.
You're not going to restrict anything by tying broken powers to a class, you're just going to encourage more people to multi-class between multiple classes.
>A tool to help DMs cope with the unintended side-effect of 3.PF having fucking terrible class balance.... sooo, sorta my point?
3.PF as a whole is an unbalanced mess but the tier system does actually help in balancing the game by allowing GMs to recognize which classes are underpowered and preventing classes that are too powerful from interacting with the weaker ones.

Which ties into what I said about the easiest way to avoid power creep is to acknowledge it as being a thing and finding ways to work around it.

>>52157299
>That's like saying that PF is a fine system, because the GM can just only let you level once a year, thus removing many of the imbalancing abilities casters get.
Way back in the day, wizards only learned new spells if the GM decided to give them a scroll whenever he was divvying out treasure or had an NPC that knew the spell that he owned.

That system worked out great and 3.PF only became imbalanced once Wizards could learn any two spells they wanted anytime they leveled up.

>>52138325
Classes restrict the players' ability to do cheesy min-maxing by forcing them to accept significant weaknesses that they'd never otherwise pick. For example, if D&D were point-buy you'd never see anyone voluntarily give themselves low HP and no armor proficiency, no matter how many points it gave them. Instead you'd see everyone give themselves at least some armor and relatively high HP, paying for it by taking penalties in things they'll never use.

>>52157263
>Even taking multiclassing into account, a game with classes is easier to balance than a game that doesn't have classes(or other equivalent structure that limits chargen options).
People keep saying this but nobody ITT has really made a definitive system that proves that to be the case.

Classes aren't inherently easier to balance just because you bunched a few broken powers into one class and padded out the list with a few shitty options to round them out.
>With a pure point-based system, you can't have these kinds of control mechanisms without implementing classes or class-like structures.
Yet giving each ability a cost and restricting the amount of points that a player has access to has worked for many different classless systems for years.

You also say this as if the abilities themselves can't have prerequisites to them that prevents certain characters from earning them right out the gate either.

>>52156808
WoD is a mess, though. It wants to be narrative but has almost no rules supporting that kind of play. As far as party roles go, no matter what combination of two splats you go with, everyone's role is pretty much the same and dictated more by which game you're playing than by what choices you make.

>>52157438
>Yet giving each ability a cost and restricting the amount of points that a player has access to has worked for many different classless systems for years.
You mean like GURPS where, IIRC, you can make a wizard capable of destroying the galaxy with less than 100 points?

>>52157303
>That's incredibly vague and not all too helpful, just like your classes.
Okay. Any class system without multiclassing.

>If we've established that it takes 10 years to learn a level in each skill
We have not. It takes a character until the start of the adventure to gain their first level in a class. The ten years are for changing your class.
Putting all of that in your backstory is as acceptable as putting 19 levels' worth of adventures in your backstory to justify starting at level 20.

>Well I'm sorry, but people are going to want to multiclass when they see how much they'd get for it and just saying no isn't going to be enough to dissuade them, especially when they can't multi-class due to arbitrary reasons.
Right. And that is why multiclassing destroys the purpose of class systems.

>>52157404
>Classes restrict the players' ability to do cheesy min-maxing by forcing them to accept significant weaknesses that they'd never otherwise pick.
You say this and then immediately name drop D&D, the Ur example of imbalanced class based systems.
>For example, if D&D were point-buy you'd never see anyone voluntarily give themselves low HP and no armor proficiency, no matter how many points it gave them.
You say this as if D&D doesn't give players the ability to side-step these "weaknesses" by buying the right feats anyways.
>Instead you'd see everyone give themselves at least some armor and relatively high HP, paying for it by taking penalties in things they'll never use.
Y'mean like the Fighter who dumps INT and CHA to improve their STR and CON?

>>52157090
>warning GM's that this particular option WILL break your game's balance if they don't use the appropriate discretion
Reminds me of Hero's "Stop Sign" powers.

>Or by, you know, restricting ability combinations by, for example, tying them to a class.
Or by, you know, restricting ability combinations by, for example, requiring GM approval.

>>52157366
>Way back in the day, wizards only learned new spells if the GM decided to give them a scroll whenever he was divvying out treasure
The good old days.

>>52156725
Sure you can spend points relatively evenly between two or more specialties; you'll just be much worse than a true specialist and the party will be worse than the game's challenges expect it to be. All for the sake of stepping on another player's toes by doing his thing.

>>52157473
>100pts
What level is PunPun?

Just about every system needs GM arbitration.

>>52157456
>As far as party roles go, no matter what combination of two splats you go with, everyone's role is pretty much the same and dictated more by which game you're playing than by what choices you make.
You're making the classic blunder of assuming that just because you draw from the same resource, it means that there's no radical differences between what two characters can be.

In vampire, a Toreador plays much differently than a Brujah who plays much differently than a Gangrel. You can certainly dip into different abilities if you'd like but that doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to beat out a clan that has a natural affinity towards those niches.

>>52157520
>PunPun

Yeah, because 3.x is TOTALLY the universal gold standard for balanced class-based systems.

>>52157366
Actually, there was a test on the PF forums, and a wizard could possibly break the game even if it got 2 random spells/level, and nothing else. And that's a very nasty DM imo, even by old game standards.

>>52157505
>All for the sake of stepping on another player's toes by doing his thing.
That's a big assumption. Is a paladin stepping on a cleric's toes when he lays on hands? Or a Fighter sundering a lock stepping on the thief's toes?

>>52157520
>D&D 3.5 is deeply flawed, especially if you use every single piece of setting-specific rules material that was never intended to be used together
>there fore GURPS is perfect

It doesn't follow.

>>52157551
Gurps is kinda pretty bad for point based balance too.

Irrc, you can have character since all their points into money and have planet sized stockpiles of gold or something else silly.

Classes are far more balanced by nature than a freeform character building system because classes each have their respective roles in the party so no one steps on each others' toes.

>>52157524
None of those niches are necessary or dictated by what sorts of challenges come up in an actual game. Sure you can be a Gangrel and do something that technically nobody else can do, but nobody NEEDS to do that. Every clan gets a particular trick that no party needs and a weakness that usually doesn't come up in any meaningful way. The stuff that matters, the stuff that comes up at the table, is held in common among everyone. Everyone's role is "vampire."

>>52157483
>Okay. Any class system without multiclassing.
Such as?
>We have not.
Ahem
>>52156284
>Roll up another character so we can continue playing while the fighter spends the next 5-10 years learning the basics of magic
So if it takes 5-10 years to change my class, we can just say that prior to the adventure, my character spent 5-10 years being a Warrior, another 5-10 years being a Thief, and another 5-10 years being a Sage.
>The ten years are for changing your class.
Who said anything about changing my class?
>Right. And that is why multiclassing destroys the purpose of class systems.
I hope you realize that the original point of the thread was OP asking if there was still a point in using classes. If classes can be destroyed just by giving the player options, it only really proves how archaic and restrictive class systems actually are.

>>52157581
So what's a GOOD point-based system?

>>52157629
>So if it takes 5-10 years to change my class, we can just say that prior to the adventure, my character spent 5-10 years being a Warrior, another 5-10 years being a Thief, and another 5-10 years being a Sage.

Cause we are starting at level 1.

Why can't you just say your character is 100 years old and has 20 levels in wizard?

Or 2000 power points, or build points, or whatever.

This is stupid for everything, not just class based games.

>>52157619
Are you fucking kidding dude, clan strengths and weaknesses can easily screw you over during play if you don't take time to properly plan around them.
>The stuff that matters, the stuff that comes up at the table, is held in common among everyone. Everyone's role is "vampire."
Confirmed for knowing absolutely nothing about the game. Just because Vampire doesn't use classes doesn't necessarily mean that you can't have a defined role beyond being a vampire. That's like saying that you can't have a role beyond "elf" in a D&D game.

>>52157484
In good systems, the ability to which you can customize your character is confined to compartments. Sure, you can minmax ability scores, but you can't get more points in your favorite ability scores by taking the "can't use magic" flaw if you're in a class that can't use magic anyway. You can't buy more feats by giving up proficiencies in all the weapons you never use and keeping the one weapon you specialize in. In point-buy systems you tend to be able to do all of the above, because point-buy systems consider all forms of value to be interchangeable. Point-buy systems are very stupid.

>>52157560
Didn't mean to imply anything of the sort.
I don't even like Gurps.

Just meant to say that "class based systems are bad because it allows game breaking stuff" can be applied to class based systems too.

>>52157629
>If classes can be destroyed just by giving the player options, it only really proves how archaic and restrictive class systems actually are.

It's a tradeoff. Classes are less flexible for more focused gameplay. Neither is better than the other.

It's like saying Skyrim's "I can put points into whatever I want but will end up with a stealth archer anyway" is better than Mass Effect style "I got a class and it has these abilities".

>>52157737
>"can't use magic" flaw
Please, keep going. This is great entertainment.

>>52157652
My favorite is Hero System.
I'll admit to some rose tinted glasses though. It was my first system and I've been playing for more then two decades now.

>>52157655
You're the one who claimed that it would take 5-10 years for my Warrior to learn how to be a Sage. There's nothing wrong with being a level 3 character who has a level in each class so long as they're appropriately old and I don't go beyond the level limit set by the GM.

To be honest, the more you go on, the more your hypothetical game becomes more restrictive, which is what OP was talking about earlier.

>>52157772
>To be honest, the more you go on, the more your hypothetical game becomes more restrictive, which is what OP was talking about earlier.

It doesn't get more restrictive. It has one restriction: no straight level-by-level multiclassing.

Which isn't even a restriction. It's the default fucking state of things.

>>52157737
Actually, you can easily buy more feats by being a level 1 human Fighter and nothing's really stopping you from dumping INT or CHA when your class focuses on STR and CON anyways.

In fact, taking on flaws like "can't use magic" is pretty fucking serious if we extended this flaw to mean that you don't get the benefits of any magical power whatsoever, even ones that are beneficial or ones that come from an external source like a wand or staff.

>>52157756
>It's a tradeoff. Classes are less flexible for more focused gameplay.
Which isn't guaranteed thing to happen just by looking at the Warrior/Sage/Trickster example from earlier ITT. Also, that inflexibility will only bite you in the ass the moment someone decides to play something that can't be easily slotted into a generic class.

>>52157800
>It has one restriction: no straight level-by-level multiclassing.
I thought it would only take 5-10 years to gain a new class though? If that's the case then you can't really call it a restriction can you?
>It's the default fucking state of things.
Maybe back in the 80's when playing a non-human race counted as a class in and of itself but in the year 2017, players expect to be able to combine different abilities together to see what sorts of crazy bullshit they can make.

Trying to restrict this is a losing battle.

>>52157863
>Which isn't guaranteed thing to happen just by looking at the Warrior/Sage/Trickster example from earlier ITT.

You mean the extremely generic example with no mechanics specified that you keep misinterpreting over and over?

>Also, that inflexibility will only bite you in the ass the moment someone decides to play something that can't be easily slotted into a generic class.

You got other mechanics to cover things that can not be easily slotted into the class IF they are needed. But you are playing a class based system because you want a focused experience. If you brought a politician with no other skills into a D&D basic game, I'd tell you that this concept does not work for this game... because it's not a political game, it's a dungeon delving game. And this is okay. Not every game has to support every concept, and games that do, tend to spread themselves too thin.

Trying to come up with "HAHA! Betcha you can't fit THIS into your generic classes!" gotchas just shows that you keep willfully missing the point.

>>52157759
The point-buy systems I have the most experience with are Mutants & Masterminds and, to a lesser extent, L5R. In both of these game I routinely saw players wheedling for points by taking the silliest flaws imaginable. Over half the L5R players took a flaw that did nothing but prevent them from buying a kind of merit they never intended to get anyway. Every single one of the M&M players tried to save on points by giving their powers weaknesses that were never going to come up in the kind of campaign we were running, compressing completely unrelated powers into alternate powers, and binding them all to hard-to-lose devices.

>>52157920
>I thought it would only take 5-10 years to gain a new class though? If that's the case then you can't really call it a restriction can you?

For gameplay purposes, it is. You won't be playing that character in this campaign again (unless you decide that he realizes this is bullshit and comes back, or you have a timeskip and he's essentially a reclassed new character I guess).

>Maybe back in the 80's when playing a non-human race counted as a class in and of itself but in the year 2017, players expect to be able to combine different abilities together to see what sorts of crazy bullshit they can make.

Then they will play MtG, or classless systems, or one of the (shitty) class systems that let you freely multiclass.

>Trying to restrict this is a losing battle.

4e did it, and it was fine, despite whatever you are going to reply to this.

>>52157924
>other mechanics cover things that aren't covered by classes
>except for anything that doesn't involve dungeon dwelling or, let me help you out here, [other inflexible concept]
>and this is somehow okay
I think you actually might be retarded.

>>52157318
What

>>52138325
Every character I have ever played have always been pigeonholed into being the same regardless of whether or not the system is class-based, but that might be because my GMs have always been arbitrarily limiting.

>>52157945
How is that any different than a Fighter dumping INT?

>>52158194
because m-muh classes

>>52158020
>For gameplay purposes, it is.
So it's all arbitrary to punish people who try to experiment with different combinations within your game? Sounds like a shitty game desu.
>Then they will play MtG, or classless systems, or one of the (shitty) class systems that let you freely multiclass.
That's not really selling the benefits of playing your game my friend. That's like saying "oh, you don't like how I'm fucking you? Go call up Chad Thundercock then, then you'll be sorry!"

You sound unnaturally angry over criticism my friend.

>>52157924
>You mean the extremely generic example with no mechanics specified that you keep misinterpreting over and over?
So you admit that it's all arbitrary and the classes themselves don't actually mean anything?
>You got other mechanics to cover things that can not be easily slotted into the class IF they are needed.
I thought that classes were supposed to give you mechanical benefits that allow you to be better at a specific task?
> If you brought a politician with no other skills into a D&D basic game, I'd tell you that this concept does not work for this game... because it's not a political game, it's a dungeon delving game.
Wouldn't a politician just be a character that heavily focused on CHA skills though?

>>52158065
>except for anything that doesn't involve dungeon dwelling or, let me help you out here, [other inflexible concept]

Do you even know D&D? It has tables for rolling what kind of lady of negotiable affection you encounter when you go partying. It has support for a huge amount of non dungeon dwelling stuff; it's just not the focus on the games, so they are all optional. None of those have to affect classes though.

>>52158194
Because it's on top of dumping INT.

>>52158228
>So it's all arbitrary to punish people who try to experiment with different combinations within your game? Sounds like a shitty game desu.

It's... not a punishment? It's a restriction.

>That's not really selling the benefits of playing your game my friend. That's like saying "oh, you don't like how I'm fucking you? Go call up Chad Thundercock then, then you'll be sorry!"

It's a statement of fact. If they like those games better, they'll go play those games. This thread is not about popularity, however, but comparing the benefits and downsides of class based and point-buy systems.

>You sound unnaturally angry over criticism my friend.

I have seen no criticism, only the inability to understand what is being said. You are correct however. I have gotten way too invested in what is obviously an exercise in futility. Good night.

>>52158318
>It has support for a huge amount of non dungeon dwelling stuff; it's just not the focus on the games, so they are all optional.
Non-combat related content is incredibly half-baked in D&D. Even the core skill system is a complete afterthought. The fact that the classes are geared with almost nothing but fighting in mind doesn't help the situation one bit. The mechanics provided are barely there, and they're not enjoyable.

>>52158318
>Because it's on top of dumping INT.
You're still sacrificing an aspect of your character that you don't plan on using to augment an aspect of your character that you DO plan on using.
>It's... not a punishment?
You're taking away people's characters just because they wanted to earn a level in another class, which effectively means that you're punishing them by taking their character out of the game for an arbitrary amount of time.
>comparing the benefits and downsides of class based and point-buy systems.
Which you aren't doing a good job of listing in favor of class-based systems over classless systems. All I can tell is class systems are the same as classless systems except they're more restrictive and punish you for trying to experiment outside of their niche.

>>52158318
>I have seen no criticism, only the inability to understand what is being said.
Not him but I've been trying to follow this conversation and I still don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

>>52138325

Current system I'm working on needs classes, because the wound system works slightly differently for martials, rogues and casters, and some classes within those categories use other class categories' wound penalty/bonus systems.

So if you're familiar with the WoD wound system, light wounds are one line in a wound box (/), heavy wounds are 2 (X), and fatal oh shit damage is 3 lines (*), with regular rogue classes, the system is, no penalties for light damage, one penalty to all rolls for each X, 2 for each *.
For casters though, they get penalties for spell casting with light damage, double penalties for X, *s lower their caster level unless they burn willpower points/surges.
Meanwhile, Martials get bonuses for each /, lose bonuses for each X, and only get penalties for *s.

So in theory Monks, who'll use Martial wound systems, would be OP but their spells are all touch based and they're lightly armored so it's neccesary, while a a paladin is gonna lean on their heavy armor to soak damage and try to avoid anything that can cause wounds through the Armor Points system.

>>52157737
>"can't use magic" flaw i

Now I understand why Batman is so OP, he must have gotten tones of points for "Can't Use Flight" and "Can't shoot lasers" and "Can't have invulnerability" . Min maxing fuck.

>>52158663
Why do you need the classes?
Couldn't you just have a class less system where you "buy" a wound progression?

>>52158663
You could honestly just make
>no penalties for light damage, one penalty to all rolls for each X, 2 for each *
The default and have
>they get penalties for spell casting with light damage, double penalties for X, *s lower their caster level unless they burn willpower points/surges.
Be a flaw that you take whenever you decided to be a spell-caster.

I also don't understand this part here
>Martials get bonuses for each /, lose bonuses for each X, and only get penalties for *s.
Like, does this mean that Martials get bonuses for light wounds and only get penalties if they take * wounds? Do they start off with bonuses and you lose them as you take on more and more damage?

Also, how does this work if you're a Martial who gains levels in mage? Would you just take the worst one or would you default to base?

Honestly, this sort of system could easily be converted into a classless system with a handful of tweaks based on what little you wrote about it here.

>>52158663
That's a pretty neat idea, and it does sound like the sort of thing that would benefit from a class system. I'd suggest giving the martial wound classes a way to keep their lightest wounds from being healed in combat, if in-combat healing is available.

>>52138325
Through the thread, I haven't seen this yet, so I'll say this just in case:
Many tabletops are intended to be played as a group/party. You need to specialize into classes, so that everyone has a role/job, and a use to the party. If everyone was a bunch of Jack of all trades, then there'd be no real point to travelling together, since you can do something just as well as anyone else.
There's no thief who's better at picking locks.
No tanky fighter who can soak up damage, while the cleric keeps him and everyone else buffed and alive, so the glass cannon barbarian can get close enough to do some damage, all while the ranger provides a constant source of damage, and helps eliminate minor threats.
Instead, you all have no reason to perform any of those roles, since the cleric would be just as tough as the tank, the glass cannon just as good at healing, the ranger just as high damage, so on and so forth.
Classes, and the roles they provide, ensure that everyone can have a purpose.

>>52159075
>everyone will JoT all the time without classes
Even itt, people were talking about how this isn't always the case, with the example of Shadowrun. Someone was even talking about how it might as well be a class-based system with how often people stick to their roles.

>>52159075
>If everyone was a bunch of Jack of all trades, then there'd be no real point to travelling together, since you can do something just as well as anyone else.
You can't really be a jack-of-all-trades in most classless systems though.
>Instead, you all have no reason to perform any of those roles, since the cleric would be just as tough as the tank, the glass cannon just as good at healing, the ranger just as high damage, so on and so forth.
You say this as if class based systems don't have a problem with certain classes stepping over every other character's niche.

For the record, everything you've said has already been said and debunked earlier ITT.

>>52158840
In M&M (a point buy system for superheroes) Batman would be OP because he is a world-class EVERYTHING. The official statblock is kind of shit for that reason. He's the world's greatest martial artist with peak human physical abilities, he's a supergenius, he's a billionaire with all sorts of tech gadgets, he is the world's greatest detective with obscure connections and areas of expertise. And on top of that he has at least one sidekick.

One of the things his DC Adventures statblock gets right is making him a PL 12 who MASSIVELY overblows his PP to the point he's closer to PL 20 point wise

>>52138325
Go play CoC or some system that doesn't use classes if it bothers you so much, there's plenty of systems that don't do that, or make up a system yourself

>>52150986
Spellsword.

Because anybody who gets through my magic wall will find a magic sword inside their mundane eye socket.

>>52160247
The point of the thread was to ask if classes served a purpose, not to purport some sort of preference as being inherently superior.

Nothing said ITT really gives classes a niche that couldn't easily be filled using a classless system, but if you have anything to say that hasn't already been said in favor of using classes as opposed to classless, I'd love to hear it.

>>52160404
Classless systems are the MOST difficult to balance, not the least. Class systems make it so that there doesn't need to be combat balance because everyone has their own role in the group that the other classes can't impinge upon and make anyone feel like dead weight. Everyone is important in their respective field.
That's why classes exist.

>>52160773
As an addendum, a classless system accomplishes little other than rewarding system mastery and punishing beginners. Someone who has been playing the system for a long time will invariably make an effective character because they know damn well what works and what doesn't. A beginner is likely to unintentionally make a mechanically-ineffective character, especially when compared to the system master.

>>52160773
>Classless systems are the MOST difficult to balance, not the least.
Not according to this thread, in fact, I'd even argue that balancing class options together is the most difficult unless you sacrifice verisimilitude to say no cross-classing.
>Class systems make it so that there doesn't need to be combat balance because everyone has their own role in the group that the other classes can't impinge upon and make anyone feel like dead weight.
Just because you have classes doesn't mean that you're not going to have classes that are just better/shittier than every other class in the game.
>>52160858
>As an addendum, a classless system accomplishes little other than rewarding system mastery and punishing beginners.
You do realize that that's not a thing that's inherently seen in just classless systems right? You do realize that "system mastery" was a thing STARTED by a class based system, right?

>>52160923
>Just because you have classes doesn't mean that you're not going to have classes that are just better/shittier than every other class in the game.
Hence why you don't make a billion classes like PF did with archetypes out the anus, effectively making the system classless all its own.
You really just need a fighter, mage, thief, cleric, and a few specialty classes like bard and paladin.
Everything else is risking eliminating the need for the base classes. Being equal in combat is a meme, since you don't need to be equal in combat. Combat is one mechanism for problem-solving in which the fighter excels. Another means of problem solving could involve stealth and guile, something the thief is capable of but the fighter is not.

>You do realize that "system mastery" was a thing STARTED by a class based system, right?
No, because just because class systems came first doesn't mean they are somehow more guilty of rewarding system mastery and punishing system ignorance at character creation.

>>52161077
>Hence why you don't make a billion classes like PF did with archetypes out the anus, effectively making the system classless all its own.
It was still a class based system though, even if it did go over board with the amount of classes one could choose.
>No, because just because class systems came first doesn't mean they are somehow more guilty of rewarding system mastery and punishing system ignorance at character creation.
At the same time though, it doesn't mean that class based systems are somehow less guilty of rewarding system mastery or punishing system ignorance at character creation either.

>>52162181
>It was still a class based system though, even if it did go over board with the amount of classes one could choose.
Having a fuckton of classes turned it into a de facto classless system. This is why the fighter is on one of the lowest tiers despite being the primary core combat class, and the priest with a war god is top tier and utterly supplants the fighter (and paladin) in the roles they were supposed to be the best in.
>it doesn't mean that class based systems are somehow less guilty of rewarding system mastery or punishing system ignorance at character creation either.
Yes it does, because you're going to get fighters that are more similar to each other in prowess, and no other class can really do a fighter's job (fighting) as good as a fighter does. Likewise, the fighter can't do what a thief, a wizard, or a cleric does. Each class feels like they are necessary to the group in some form or fashion, unlike the party with a fighter and a priest with war god.

>>52162636
>This is why the fighter is on one of the lowest tiers despite being the primary core combat class, and the priest with a war god is top tier and utterly supplants the fighter (and paladin) in the roles they were supposed to be the best in.
This isn't due to adding classes though, it's because core was hilariously imbalanced.
>Yes it does, because you're going to get fighters that are more similar to each other in prowess, and no other class can really do a fighter's job (fighting) as good as a fighter does.
You say this immediately after saying
>the priest with a war god is top tier and utterly supplants the fighter (and paladin) in the roles they were supposed to be the best in.
So obviously, there are classes that can do the Fighter's job better than the Fighter.

Also, martials are only really shit once you gain enough system mastery to know martials are shittier than mages.

>>52162636
>Having a fuckton of classes turned it into a de facto classless system. This is why the fighter is on one of the lowest tiers despite being the primary core combat class, and the priest with a war god is top tier and utterly supplants the fighter (and paladin) in the roles they were supposed to be the best in.
I love non sequiturs.

Also, if the party actually communicates and are aware of what sort of campaign they're going into, then people stepping on other people's roles won't happen. It's sort of like having communication for a class-based system so that you don't end up with 3 frontline melee fighters built around taking damage with noone actually trying to deal damage.

>>52162906
>So obviously, there are classes that can do the Fighter's job better than the Fighter.
Yes, and I'm saying this is ridiculous. You're not proving me wrong, since I said a system with a billion different classes is a de facto classless system.
>Also, martials are only really shit once you gain enough system mastery to know martials are shittier than mages.
You just proved my point again. I'm saying this should not happen.

>>52150986
'Ere we go. This determines my class for this week.

>>52163218
>Yes, and I'm saying this is ridiculous. You're not proving me wrong, since I said a system with a billion different classes is a de facto classless system.
You can change the goalposts all you want but it doesn't change the fact that 3.PF is still a class based system, a poorly designed one sure, but a class based system nonetheless.
>You just proved my point again. I'm saying this should not happen.
You're right, it shouldn't, but the reality is that you're capable of finding these types of problems in any poorly designed system, whether it's a class based system or a skill based one.

>>52164612
What is the material difference between a class-based system with a thousand options and a classless system with effectively the exact same number of options?

>>52164811
Class systems are based around career levels. Classless systems are based around skill investments.

Really depends on what gets you off as a matter of character progression. Some people like "level 10 wizard" to speak for itself, other prefer "my character is proficient in grey magic, demonology, and rune casting, with a few points in lockpicking for the occasional locked door."

File: CharacterAlignment.pdf (72KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1x1px

Alignment thread?

>>52164811
Class-based systems are like pre-built PC's, it seems like you're getting a lot of bang for your buck but the second you want to add something new to it, it becomes a hassle because your PC was built to only use these specific parts, regardless of whether or not they'd still be relevant in a few years.

Classless systems are like custom built PC's, they take a lot more effort to make something that works well but once you get the hang of it, you have a powerful machine that's capable of lasting you much longer since you can just as easily swap out individual parts once they start to become obsolete.

TL;DR: Class based systems focus on the package while classless systems focus on the individual parts.

@52166195
No.

>>52152522
You'd be just as fucked in point buy though

Outside of their original context of D&D Basic, no. Classes are just an outdated holdover from the 70's.

>>52161077
>You really just need a fighter, mage, thief, cleric, and a few specialty classes like bard and paladin
Actually you need just two, a physical and a mental class, Fighter and Mage. Thief is just a Fighter who eschews strength in favor of dexterity and combat prowess in favor of skills. Cleric is a mage focusing on healing spells and fluffed to gain his magic from his gods etc.

>>52168046
We're not talking about point buy though, we're talking about whether or not it's possible to branch out from your classes niche without being fucked over for doing so.

>>52168120
The problem with that is that it's so broad that you'd effectively be producing a classless system anyways and if you weren't, people would hate your game because "every character is just a magic knight in the end."

Classes are stuck in a weird spot where they can't be too specific or else you end up with imbalance issues and they can't be too broad or else people will be turned off by how little the actual class means in the grand scheme of things.

>>52168120
Think of the D&D core classes in context.
Fighters aren't just brutes and thugs. They're knights and cavaliers, who were aristocrats- the nobles.
Thieves are almost always outlaws and vagrants at the lowest social class- the peasants.
Mages are the kind of people you'd find in stuffy libraries and whispering into the ear of the king- the scholars.
Clerics are the religious leaders who inspire the masses with their faith and adherence to scripture- the clergy.

All of these have their roles in medieval/renaissance society, and they have their own roles in D&D as well. None of them really can do things to a passable degree that the others can excel in.

>>52168164
The more constraints you have to work with the more it fosters us of imagination. PF is doing it wrong because its 18 or so classes are de facto pseudo classless system. You need instead just a handful of meaningful classes, and two is the minimum you can go with it thus making it the logical optimal starting point. You have to weigh every additional class beyond that if it TRULY brings anything to the table that couldn't be better achieved simply by refluffing an already existing class i.e. the original two.

>>52168306
Mythologically (and historically) there is no distinction between wizards and clerics - learned sages were religious people and vice versa.

Also, there is no reason why your Fighter couldn't be from the lower classes, like a street urchin growing up to a dashing swashbuckler or sneaky pickpocket.

>>52168309
>The more constraints you have to work with the more it fosters us of imagination.
It's not like you inherently have less constraints just because you're using a classless system.
>PF is doing it wrong because its 18 or so classes are de facto pseudo classless system.
Just because you don't like how 3.PF worked doesn't mean that it suddenly becomes a classless system.
>You need instead just a handful of meaningful classes, and two is the minimum you can go with it thus making it the logical optimal starting point.
The thing is though, two options isn't really enough to create anything with a lot of variance to it, it's binary. You can either be a martial, a mage, or both, and any distinction between one martial character and another is purely arbitrary because as far as the player can see, which ruins the whole point of using a class based system in the first place.
>>52168339
Nobody gives a fuck about accuracy, all they care about is that each class in the game distinct.

>>52139140
At the same time they remove the possibility of certain specialised mechanics, which clasesses could be built arround but would end up as a clusterfuck in a points buy since unique interactions with other mechanics

>>52168386
Making your character distinct is upon you as the player, not on game mechanics.

>>52138325
Retarded micrococked brainlets

>>52166946
I like this. Consoles also work as the counterpart to classes; less flexibility, but because you control all the parts you can get more out of them than a PC where you have no control over what parts are used.

>>52168309
Magic/non magic is not a sensible split imo, unless your game is entirely about that dichotomy.

If we look at the history of D&D, wizards are unique because of their resource management mechanics, not because they can do supernatural things; high level fighters are plenty supernatural to begin with.

And resource management mechanics were only important because that was a large part of the genre back then.

Whatever class system you go with, it should fit your game.

OD&D classes work because they filled different mechanical niches in interacting with a dungeon.

4e classes work because they were filling tactical niches, and so each class justified its existence by having unique mechanics.

PbtA classes work (when they work) because each acts as a collection of tropes associated with an archetype that's important to the setting.

They all have to be tied to the goal the game has.

>>52139682
>for one a fighter can do more than full attack
Have you ever tried building a grapple fighter, wrestling giants is for more fun than hitting them with pointy sticks.
Other builds are possible in class systems.

>>52168529
Not to mention that full attacking was in literally one D&D.

Which is also considered the worst one for martials.

>>52143726
Its not a maymay, its a proven fact, though theres more to than more limmitations=more creativity, its more a case of the right limmitations=more creativity

>>52168486
The classes in all the games you mention fall neatly along the magic/nonmagic division. It is a core concept of sword & sorcery genre, and without it fantasy RPGs wouldn't even exist. Thus, it makes sense to divide the classes along this underlying fundamental concept.

>>52168679
>The classes in all the games you mention fall neatly along the magic/nonmagic division.

D&D only does it because legacy. Please remember that when 4e broke the magical choke-hold on limited resources, everyone was upset because "fighters are wizards now". Not to mention all the "gish" classes it has. The distinction is anything but neat.

For PbtA, it depends on the game, but AFAIK, everyone can use Weird in AW, some classes just get unique ways to do so.

>>52138827
Remember anon, some things are fun because we enjoy them. I like to pop bubble wrap, why? because it's fun to pop bubble wrap (for me)

Using the anecdotal evidence of 'personal experience' is actually quite damning (Ex; in my personal experience, people who base things on personal experience only do so when it the experience suits their point of view. There are probably MANY times in your experience where 'they were just told to like it' is untrue. You've based your point of view on a confirmation bias anon). Some people like things for the sake of liking them, it's not your entitlement to know why.

Which is one of biggest issues with the current Culture of The Reductionist. EVERYTHING has to have a reason (i'm not talking physical shit, science does it's job there, talking emotional/experiential only). Basically; WHY THE FUCK DOES IT MATTER THAT I ENJOY THINGS YOU DON'T?

My way of dealing with whatever has prompted you to act hostile towards the anon you quoted? i nod and go 'well shit you enjoy different thing, some people enjoy mustard, the devils diarrhea, but why the fuck do i care? it doesn't change shit'. They like something that's harmless to the general order of things? fuck it that's fine.they like something that has no effect on my life what so ever (arguing that it creates a culture where the things you DO like are threatened is so straw it's a man, man.)? Fuck it, let's do this.

Exceptions to test the rule by; People liking things that hurt other people. As long as you don't act on your enjoyment (i enjoy watching people suffer, but i don't go and start hurting people or even condoning the action, i just take my enjoyment where i can.)

in the end, it's not why you are doing something that matters, it's the thing you are doing, make your means justify your ends, so to speak.

/latetothegamebabble

>>52168948
double posting to be on topic (slightly);
Classes as archetypes are fun, classes like in 4rth ed were fun, classes are fun. as are classless systems.

But that's because i'm a good enough roleplayer to have fun in any system.

>>52138457
http://blogofholding.com/?p=7182

That's fucking wrong though.

In my personal opinion, I like lots and lots of granularity in my character creation and customization. I don't really care whether the system is class-based or not, as long as I can tweak the fine details of my character concept to my heart's content. I've seen it done in 3.5 with it's fuckton of classes, feats, and other miscellany, as well as in point-buy systems like GURPS, with it's multitude of add-ons and modular advantage system. Legend was also really cool with how you could smoosh together ANY three tracks and make a workable character concept out of it. I don't believe class systems are inherently an issue with a game, so long as they don't cause character creation to be overly restrictive.

>>52143689
>Compare the elegant, efficient code of a programmer from the 80s when he had to fight for every bit

There was plenty of garbage too, everyone just forgot about it.
The reason everything seems like garbage today is because it's fresh in your memory, but I don't think anyone will remember no man's sky in 30 to 40 years.

File: rpg_classes_walfas_edition_by_lostinthinking-d5dz02u.png (216KB, 900x346px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 900x346px

>>52168960
In the end that's what RPG should be about, having fun with roleplaying, not minmaxing classes and/or stats to become "powerful".
People that don't like to use classes can just play systems that don't use them, as long as you are able to get an enjoyable game going. The same goes to systems that do have classes.

The way I see it, both types are good.
Systems without Classes give you more freedom and a more organic feel to the way you build your character while system that do have Classes allow you to build a character based on an archetype, playing it straight or subverting a few things in it, it gives a larger base to work on when building your character by using easy to read archtypes.

It all depends on what you want and not on trying to force other people to like the same things you like.

>>52169448
AS the anon you quoted;

I actually find free form systems more resrictive and cumbersome, so i find i have less fun (still have fun) than a class based system.

i also agree with you, 'powerful' characters are not the point of table top imo, it's about the narrative and the fun.

>>52138827
So you're asking why classes are fun?

Simple. Because restrictions, having something that tells you "here is what you can and can't do", spark creativity. Similarly, making a character for a game in a specific setting is much much easier than making a character for a game your GM has told you absolutely nothing about.

>>52138629
Is virt at it again?

>>52138457
>D&D uses a class-type system because the social stratification of pre-industrial European societies makes it convenient to do so.

That's some quality bait.

>>52139584
>But fantasy America, is a hard concept to wrap my brain around.

IRL money from Washington is keeping the Lvl1 commoners alive, in D&D it's Wizards.

>>52169730

Either that or a new generation of autists have found their way here.

>>52168454
>Making your character distinct is upon you as the player, not on game mechanics.
If that's the case then why not just go with a classless system?

File: 1377089708983.jpg (82KB, 700x714px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 700x714px

>>52169730
>>52171011
>Anyone who disagrees with me is virt.

>>52138325
Ideally, I think you should buy your class features with exp, as long there is a structured system to it.

Take 3.5, for instance.

At 1st level, you'd start with x exp points, d4, 2 skills per level from the peasant list, poor bab, poor saves, and no class features. You use your starting points to buy class features/skill groups/weapon & armor proficiencies or improve your class statistics. You "level up" after spending so many exp points (1k, 3k, 6k, etc) and gain a hit die. You have to spend a minimal amount of exp every level to maintain your current class statistics, or else they get worse, and you can buy class features whenever you have enough exp to qualify for one/the next one. Everybody gets ability score increases at the same levels for free, as well as feats (though you can buy bonus feats as a class feature, from certain lists).

This basically let's you build your own class. It also allows for a much greater variety of class features than the PHB has, because the designers don't have to worry about the features having to fit certain archetypes or some of the features being to similar to ones that already exist.

Personally, I would put a greater restriction on spell lists. So like, you can buy the ability to cast arcane spells via preparation keyed to Int, and once you have that, buy cantrips, and once you have those buy access to the 1st level spells from a certain school. If you had enough points, you could buy access to all the schools.

All class features have a minimum level that you must meet in order to get them; can't get 2d6 sneak attack at 1st level; you have to be at least 3rd. A lot of things would have prerequisites as well, like having to have at least 1st level divine spells before taking turn undead, or good base reflex saves (and at least +3) before getting evasion.

>>52172718
You've literally just described a classless system dude.

>>52172769
that was precisely what I intended; why did you think otherwise?

>>52172786
I'm glad we're on the same page, I just assumed that you were one of those classfags in denial.