Isn't it about how you view classes?

I see classes as quite broad. Really I only want 3. Within those classes there is a lot of room for archetypes/kits/templates/background call them what you will.

So the way I see it at a primitive design level there is a Skills class a combat class and a magic caster class.

the templates just show you how to create certain character types within those broad classes.

So a thief created with the skills class will have lockpicking, climbing, etc a lot of skills to use in that space. The combat version has less skills but is tougher more of a mugger than a pickpocket, more of a thug than a conman, more Mr Blonde than Mr Orange. A caster thief uses magic to achieve the same goals. This would be the character than can literally melt into shadows, or walk through walls or turn invisible.

Now in D&D the classes can't be so pure and the magic stuff is at the top end of the power /level curve so you need to create a balance between the 3 elements for each class but the templates can play with that.

So the Ranger > Scout > Hedge Mage arte all wlderness characters but the ranger is an expert with the bow, the Scout can disappear into a clump of bushes or whatever but really has the flexibility of more skills, and the Hedge Mage can survive in the wilds but is perhaps not as adept at tracking and hiding.

Personally I would run the 3 core classes based on

Warrior - d10HD THACO +1/level  Skill points 3 + 1/2 levels
Rogue   - d8HD THACO  +1/2 levels Skill points 6 + 1/level
Caster - d6HD THACO +1/4 levels Skill points 3 +1/3 levels


I think the Class and Level paradigm is key to D&D and is one of its advantages over say Runequest. But I think that it needs to be broader and far more 2e than 1e or 3e where the desire for mulitple classes each with its own mechnical exceptions and special stuff became so cumbersome nad leads to teh reliance on system mastery we have been discussing of late.

Quote from: jibbajibba;593894Personally I would run the 3 core classes based on

Warrior
Rogue   
Caster

If you are saying there should only be 3 classes, then that is my view as well, but the current D&D game designers would never go for it because of tradition and 'sacred cows'.  Even though, for example, you could easily create a 'Paladin type' character by simply choosing the Fighter class and picking the appropriate backround/specialites, so many people will cry foul  they will end up with a dedicated Paladin class which then just blurs the lines of what the hell the difference really is between a paladin themed Fighter and the actual Paladin class.

With the proper ability score allocation, backround, specialty, and whatever other widgets 5E includes ( not to mention multi-classing too ), you should easily be able to create any charater concept with just those 3 classes.  They will, however, over complicate things and end up including all the sacred cow classes to appease the D&D purists.

Using the 3 classes only method, the 'Rogues' schtick should be being opportunistic, a jack of all trades, lucky, and emphisize maneuverabilty in combat ( NOT damage ).

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;593905If you are saying there should only be 3 classes, then that is my view as well, but the current D&D game designers would never go for it because of tradition and 'sacred cows'.  Even though, for example, you could easily create a 'Paladin type' character by simply choosing the Fighter class and picking the appropriate backround/specialites, so many people will cry foul  they will end up with a dedicated Paladin class which then just blurs the lines of what the hell the difference really is between a paladin themed Fighter and the actual Paladin class.

With the proper ability score allocation, backround, specialty, and whatever other widgets 5E includes ( not to mention multi-classing too ), you should easily be able to create any charater concept with just those 3 classes.  They will, however, over complicate things and end up including all the sacred cow classes to appease the D&D purists.

Using the 3 classes only method, the 'Rogues' schtick should be being opportunistic, a jack of all trades, lucky, and emphisize maneuverabilty in combat ( NOT damage ).

Exactly my point and I agree entirely with the addition that they won't do it becuase of profit more classes with their own mechnaics allows them to sell more books. How many 3e classes were there ?

I think regardless of the design merits or flaws of three classes, it can't happen. Too many D&D customers expect at least a solid number of core classes. If they reduce the number to three, no matter how good the game, i expect you would see a 4E level backlash from players.

They could pull it off by building a Paladin and other classes, but showing how they did it - ie, make the 'class builder' a major feature of the game.  If you can use 'blocks' to make a 'rogue' or a 'paladin' and they give you those as examples (along with some 'new' classes') people could really go for that.  Some people (especially those who like customization) would use the blocks to make unique classes; some people would only allow the 'example classes' that WotC released.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;593910They could pull it off by building a Paladin and other classes, but showing how they did it - ie, make the 'class builder' a major feature of the game.  If you can use 'blocks' to make a 'rogue' or a 'paladin' and they give you those as examples (along with some 'new' classes') people could really go for that.  Some people (especially those who like customization) would use the blocks to make unique classes; some people would only allow the 'example classes' that WotC released.

Exactly what I do in my heartbreaker and I show how you can can have 3 different 'pirate charcters' each built from a different class and you can call them Buccaneer, Corsair and Reaver if it makes you feel better
 but rather like my Monster builder and my race builder they are not financially viable because if you give a man a fish he keeps on buying fish but if you teach a man to fish your fish shop goes out of business quite quickly.
Doesn't matter to me but as a financial concern I can see if might.

Oh the key in my system of course is that only the GM gets to create classes. Ther setting demonstrates simply how each tool set can be used to generate a setting specific iteration of the rules. If you allow PCs to create their own classes then you 3x optimisers will have a field day

If thief is a sub-category of fighter, couldn't Cleric be a sub-category of Magic-User?  Those Magic-User sub-categories quickly become new sources of magic anyway (illusion, shadow, etc.), and it's only sacred cows that made "divine" magic somehow different from "arcane" magic.  

And then you get three base classes: Fighting-Man, Magic-User, and Fighter/Mage combo.  And then all others can sub-branch off all those.

Quote from: Mistwell;593919If thief is a sub-category of fighter, couldn't Cleric be a sub-category of Magic-User?  Those Magic-User sub-categories quickly become new sources of magic anyway (illusion, shadow, etc.), and it's only sacred cows that made "divine" magic somehow different from "arcane" magic.  

And then you get three base classes: Fighting-Man, Magic-User, and Fighter/Mage combo.  And then all others can sub-branch off all those.

Pretty much.  If they treat specialties as a sub class, and make them a bit more robust, they could very easily do this.  They won't.  Sacred cows and all that.  But they could.

What people like about a class-system is presumably that it gives you fleshed-out characters ready-built. It's like a package holiday. Instant gratification.


Either no classes, or lots of classes, that's my advice.

Quote from: Omnifray;593922What people like about a class-system is presumably that it gives you fleshed-out characters ready-built. It's like a package holiday. Instant gratification.


Either no classes, or lots of classes, that's my advice.

See a class builder lets the GM decide. They get get a seeting and it feels unique because it has half trolls and Gangerswipes and Dungeoneers and Sweepers. Or they can build their own using the toolkits or use the 10 default Rogue templates, 10 default Caster templates and 10 default warrior templates in the main book.

In answer to mistwell Clerics are just a flavour of caster but a fighter /caster is just a tailored caster or a tailored fighter. The 3 classes are skill, fight, magic called Rogue, Warrior, Caster for ease.

The problem with lots of classes, and 2e started to fix this but got scared and stoped because of all those hindu phantasmagoria, is you get unique mechanics and they make no sense. So you have a ranger with a tracking skill that is nothing like the thief's skill for climbing walls or picking pockets, the acrobats jump skill is different to the Barbarians jump skill and every class gets a unique set of 'feats' on a badly distributed non customisable basis. So druids get animal polymorph, fighters can build a stronghold, Assasins can learn any weapon like a fighter and paladins can cure wounds. The net result is too many rules competing for space and a complex and confused system.
If you have 3 classes and a set way skills work and a set number of class abilities that can be bought by the GM to become active at certain levels so the Beast man can ploymorph liek a druid , the cleric of a healing god can lay on hands like a paladin, the charasmatic preacher can charm crowds like a bard etc etc ....
Now Skills and powers tried to do this but .... they wanted you to be able to make the old classes from the pool of points and so Clerics had 200 points and fighters had 12 they didn't have the courage to strip it back to the core and provide a more coherent system.

the risk is optimisation and lack of flavour. But that is why you have GMs and you stress that class builders and race builders are tools for GMs to build their worlds. The worlds you then publish use the same tools and the same systems.

Quote from: jibbajibba;593894Personally I would run the 3 core classes based on

Warrior - d10HD THACO +1/level  Skill points 3 + 1/2 levels
Rogue   - d8HD THACO  +1/2 levels Skill points 6 + 1/level
Caster - d6HD THACO +1/4 levels Skill points 3 +1/3 levels

That is tricky to balance for two reasons, both related to the magic system.

The caster gets better at combat/hit points and skill (a measurable fraction of the skills of the Rogue).  But neither the Warrior nor the Rogue get magic as a class ability (or, if they do, it isn't mentioned).  So magic needs to actually be weaker than skills or combat ability.  

Skills are highly linear (+1 per level).  So unless high levels of skills allow for amazing results then, once again, exponential magic is problem.  Now you may be discarding the traditional D&D magic system, but it is rather the core of the problem if it remains.  

Consider yout 10th level Rogue versus a 10th level caster.  She appears to have 10 hit points (45 vs 35), 10 skill points (16 versus 6) and +3 THAC0 (+5 versus +2).  These are not huge margins unless magic is really unimpressive.  Cirica 3.5E a caster could easily be preparing spells like: Mage Armor, Magic Missle, Detect Secret Doors, Expeditious Retreat, Mirror Image, Spider Climb, Knock, Fireball, Improved invisibiltiy, Fly, Polymorph, and Teleport.

That is a lot to balance with such small differences in combat and skills, unless you balance magic some other way.  

That really seems to be the key here.  It's clear how to make a high level fighter competitive (aka Pathfinder) -- have them hit so hard that things tend to die immediately around them and they are much more reliably lethal than spells.  The trick to doing this with skills is to make the skills better than the magic, more reliable than the magic, or uniformly useful at a scale that spells cannot mimic.

This is totally doable (see Savage Worlds for an excellent example).  But the real redesign is in the magic system.

Quote from: jibbajibba;593894Personally I would run the 3 core classes based on

Warrior - d10HD THACO +1/level  Skill points 3 + 1/2 levels
Rogue   - d8HD THACO  +1/2 levels Skill points 6 + 1/level
Caster - d6HD THACO +1/4 levels Skill points 3 +1/3 levels

Why should Rogue, as skill monkey, be one of the three core classes?  It wasn't even in the 3 original D&D books.  If you really want to break this down to a basic set of classes and figure out each one's niche, why not look at how they map to the core attributes:

Strength - Fighter
Dexterity - Rogue
Constitution - ?
Intelligence - Mage
Wisdom - Cleric
Charisma - ? (Bard?)

A Rogue or Thief is about Dexterity more than lots of skill points.  Why not flesh out the skill list so that all classes could serve a secondary out-of-combat role, be it sneaking around, knowing lore, finding and disarming traps, picking locks, climbing, making and fixing things, carousing, etc. and that makes it all the easier to make it optional, as in a group that doesn't care about that stuff can just leave it out.  Is finding and removing traps through skill rolls really that interesting that it's a critical core part of the D&D experience for people?

Again, as a real world example of what's wrong with making Rogues skill monkeys is that when I played in a D&D 3.5 campaign, I was looking at taking levels of Rogue not because my character had any interest in being quiet, picking locks, or disarming traps but because I wanted to take other skills and it was the only way, other than taking a level or two of the lame "Expert" NPC class, to get skill points to make a well rounded character.

What exactly do people mean when they state Rogues are 'skill monkeys'?  Are they refering the fact Rogues have a large number of skills or are they refering to the fact they can be better at their skills via their skill mastery ability ( and in D&D Next by have other bonuses ) ?

If it's just about the number of skills, I'm not sure why so many people hate the concept so much about Rogues being a 'skill monkey' class.  The whole reason they are the skill monkey class is because all of the abilities a Rogue should be good at ( aka the 'thief abilities' of old school D&D ) were converted into 'skills', so they simply have 'alot of skills' so they can mimic the capabilities of the old school Thief class.  

If combat were converted to skills, Fighters would be 'skill monkeys' too.  If spells were converted into skills, Wizards would be skill monkeys as well.

I guess I'm just seing the problem, other than some non-Rogue classes don't get enough skills in 3E.

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;594161If it's just about the number of skills, I'm not sure why so many people hate the concept so much about Rogues being a 'skill monkey' class.  The whole reason they are the skill monkey class is because all of the abilities a Rogue should be good at ( aka the 'thief abilities' of old school D&D ) were converted into 'skills', so they simply have 'alot of skills' so they can mimic the capabilities of the old school Thief class.

You've summed up my problem with it perfectly. The "skill monkey" Rogue is a class which is capable of being made in to a passable simulacrum of the Thief class. It's also capable of being a million different things.

Personally, I have no interest in there being a "skill monkey" class in D&D, and I do have an interest in there being a Thief. So I'd prefer that the Thief was just there with "Thief skills" being delivered in a class-only way.

Of course, as always with D&D at this point in time, the simplest solution is just to play an edition that already does it the way you want. So I do. From what I've seen in the previews I doubt I'll buy D&D Next, and certainly won't plan to play it.

Quote from: John Morrow;594126Why should Rogue, as skill monkey, be one of the three core classes?  It wasn't even in the 3 original D&D books.  If you really want to break this down to a basic set of classes and figure out each one's niche, why not look at how they map to the core attributes:

Strength - Fighter
Dexterity - Rogue
Constitution - ?
Intelligence - Mage
Wisdom - Cleric
Charisma - ? (Bard?)

A Rogue or Thief is about Dexterity more than lots of skill points.  Why not flesh out the skill list so that all classes could serve a secondary out-of-combat role, be it sneaking around, knowing lore, finding and disarming traps, picking locks, climbing, making and fixing things, carousing, etc. and that makes it all the easier to make it optional, as in a group that doesn't care about that stuff can just leave it out.  Is finding and removing traps through skill rolls really that interesting that it's a critical core part of the D&D experience for people?

Again, as a real world example of what's wrong with making Rogues skill monkeys is that when I played in a D&D 3.5 campaign, I was looking at taking levels of Rogue not because my character had any interest in being quiet, picking locks, or disarming traps but because I wanted to take other skills and it was the only way, other than taking a level or two of the lame "Expert" NPC class, to get skill points to make a well rounded character.

If you read through my posts you will see that I define the whole of the character design space as Skills, Combat and magic. I don't care how D&D used to do it to be honest or what stats they used to use or that thieves came to the game after other classes.
What interests me is what are the core character types in the literature and rogue is a core concept not just of fantasy literature but of myth in general. So if we look at the literature I think there are 3 basic archetypes the warrior , the caster (be they a wizard, priest, or elementalist) and the rogue. I would want a fantasy game to represent that.
Taken with the design space for characters being combat magic and skills it kind of makes sense to match the design space and the archetypes you want to use.
Again I wouldn't allow multiclassing at all. I would allow PCs to buy stuff from other classes for a cost. If you found that you couldn't make a well rounded character then either the system isnlt very good or what you were trying to do was to make a character that was great at combat and you weren't prepared to sacrifice that to make them more rounded. This refers back to the basket weaver thread and how committed are you that your PC is going to be a master weaver I suspect its bit of both if skills includes stuff that is incredibly useful and other stuff with niche or colour use only then its hard to not pick the useful stuff for the sake of characterisation sometimes (but lets not dwell on that).
Now this is not he only paradigm to use there are plenty of others and certainly having thief's skills as the only skills in the game is one solution but even in 1e they were not restricted to theives. Monks and assasins got thieves skills lot sof the races could do basic sneak stuff and the barbarian when he came along was snaking, hiding and climbing with aplomb.

I think if the backgrounds idea does take hold such that anything like a skill use is an ability check with level modifiers based on a list extrapolated from a rought background template then I do think the rogue starts to look very marginalised. By this I mean if your fighter and my rogue can both take the background "thief" such that we can both do the same stuff based on a dex save but I get better combat, weapons , Hit points etc I think the rogue does become redundant.