Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 18, 2022, 11:19:52 AM
I think there are two camps that value classes:

1. Classes as shortcut to archetypes
2. Classes as niche protection

Naturally, some people like both.  There's also a drive for classes as simplification system, but you can get that with "templates" in a game without classes.  So I don't count that one.  (It's a valuable goal for some people, but not restricted to classes.)

To add my $0.02, there is a third camp that I haven't seen mentioned:

3. Gating of complexity.

A new class/level system is MUCH easier to get into than a point-buy system with any significant crunch.

With classes you can (hopefully) assume that they're somewhat balanced, so you just need to pick a class that you like the vibe of and only learn their level 1 abilities before starting a session.

With a pure point-buy system you basically need to read all of the game's rules before you can make an informed decision at character creation. If it's a super light game that's fine, but if the system is at all crunchy that's a lot of work to learn a system you may end up not liking.

I like both of your first options, especially #2, but IMO #3 is the big one. (Though I do like class/level systems which mix in some point-buy elements. They can retain most class/level advantages and gain some of point-buy's thunder.)

Quote from: tenbones on July 20, 2022, 05:04:04 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on July 20, 2022, 03:12:27 PM
This helps clarify some things, and I suppose I've been working under the baseline assumption of "action adventure" settings for most of what I said (and my design decisions in general). But if you're defining "setting" in such broad terms that pretty much only leaves out comedic or light-hearted games like the one you mentioned as an example here. Almost every major RPG falls under some variation of "action adventure", so knowing that alone should be enough to establish "setting" as you're defining it here for purposes of starting to work on system. And the OP was even more specific than that in specifying that we're talking about "D&D fantasy" specifically.

So that still leaves me wondering about the usefulness of highlighting the importance of defining "setting" before we start working on system, when setting in the broad terms you describe here has already been established in the thread's title.

Let me jump in here - before I do a big super-post with charts and numbers to hopefully not cause everyone's eyes to glaze over, or think this is "just another dumb class-debate thread". If we were all on a Discord this would probably be a lot easier heh. Pundit should start an RPGSite Discord).

Okay so there is a balance of purpose to a system. You can make a system be specific to the type of setting or game you want to run. Or you can make a system generic to try and encompass multiple modes of play.

General consensus has **GENERALLY** been the following: Generic Systems are often too generic and implode upon themselves trying to cover all bases, and Specific Systems are **GENERALLY** good at doing the one type of game they were designed for.

The Corollary of this claim is the following:

a) Fans of a Generic System will exaggerate the efficacy of that system because in varying degrees of difference of subjective need between players won't be fully satisfied, plus the inertia of fandom cannot be underestimated amongst the untried. i.e. most players like what they like, and don't like trying new things even if they don't know why. GURPS, Savage Worlds, FATE, etc. all make these claims with varying levels of buy-in. But all are, and should, be met with skepticism towards these claims.

b) Specific System fans will often exaggerate the greatness of that system and try to force it to bend from its original design and genre specialization into other genres and depending on its fanbase, the inertia effect will carry those attempts forward. d20 circa 3e is a *classic* example of this. As is Pathfinder now (Star Finder), d6 (which by now in the gaming public's eye is now a full blown universal system).

So the purpose of this thread is: DnD Fantasy is the genre. The claim: Classes are not necessary to run DnD fantasy, and in fact, the further claim is that by retweaking the constraints of the d20 system (regardless of edition) and grinding everything down to the basic task resolution mechanic of (Stat Bonus + d20 + Modifiers) we could have a much lighter system capable of much more flexibility (campaign constraints within your setting can change on a dime - your Dungeoncrawling game could become a Pirate game and your PC's would not be so pigeonholed into their class roles they would be rendered 'less optimal'), and scalability - your PC's could be grimdark scrabbly nobodies at the start that could by the higher-end of the game be fantasy-superheroes, doing Legolas Bowfire Hailstorms etc. IF the GM wanted).

I'm not even saying Classes are the *cause* of the problem. They just seem to be a thing that hits a lot of the friction points of d20 (more so with 3e and later editions/variants) but I submit if we merely addressed this one things, the reshaping of the sub-systems below it would make better results. And for what it's worth - I think we could do it and keep the word "Class" to everyone's satisfaction.

WHY do I think these things? Because I'm playing Savage Worlds Pathfinder - where it's actually being done. I'm *not* trying to convert people to play Savage Worlds - I'm probably the most vocal person on this forum championing that system, and I feel I do it sufficiently in other threads. No, I'm a system's nerd. I love tinkering with systems. And while people might mistake my distaste for DnD for loathing the system - I feel in fairness to myself, I would be much more specific. I do *not* hate d20. I would like to bring the sensibilities of what I'm doing right now - playing DnD Fantasy, and doing it easier under another system to the d20 system currently. I have nothing but love for DnD before 3e, and I think while people are satisfied with 5e, it could have been done better.

I will also submit the OSR sensibilities should have been paid more attention to, but I think the fundamental issues I have with modern DnD are slightly deeper than that.

Currently in Savage Pathfinder they added "Class Edges" which are frameworks that represent "Classes", for newcomers from DnD/Pathfinder it's great. They love it. But for people that have been playing SW, there is no real mechanical difference from what already existed except of a couple of tiny shifts that are for Character Generation purposes. That's the illusion they cleverly crafted to make DnD players new to Savage Worlds feel "happy". But it's mostly an illusion. And further, despite the fact it's largely (not entirely) an illusion, the same issues that plague DnD-style Class design is starting to creep in at the edges of a system that has *never* used classes. Fortunately because the system is so flexible, the fix is easy, just remove Class Edges and let people just buy their abilities normally.

Because this is a fundamental design assumption of Savage Worlds, this is the revelation that, possibly, if we could simply unmoor the Class design assumptions of DnD *within* d20, we could rebuild the system to hit the ease of use, the agility and scalability of Savage Worlds. It would be easier on new and veteran GM's, it would give the proper weight of design to OSR style game design, but it would also change a few fundamental assumptions about d20.

We *COULD* do this and keep Classes. And in fact, like in Savage Pathfinder I'd recommend it just to soothe people holding on to Sacred Cow. But it could be done an option. The goal would be to create a streamlined version of d20, which is not setting-specific, but have all the core rules laid out. But give GM's options to fine-tune it TO their settings. Give them levers and buttons to raise/lower the emphasis as desired for their specific setting, and even make it work across genres *with fidelity*. Rather than re-skinning the Fighter and calling it "Space Marine" and handing him a gun.

To a certain extent this is what I've been trying to do with my own system, though I went of on a wild tangent working on it and ultimately removed all (or at least most) vestiges of D&D from it, triming down the attributes to just four and basing a lot of stuff around my own sensibilities and personal conceits instead of trying to make it look like D&D. Part of it started out as a somewhat simplified Tri-Class (Warrior, Specialist and Mystic) and feat-based version of the d20 system I worked on around two or three (maybe four?) years ago, but ultimately I decided to strip out the classes and most of the strictly D&D elements, renamed Feats to Perks (and had to rework them completely), and just use the core Feat (now Perk)-based progression system as a classless system and fused it with an older system I had been working on before (where I got the attribute-skill layout).

I ended up complicating it a little more over time, but the original premise of the progression system is basically you have a base number of HP (18 currently), +2 HP and +1 Perk per level, starting since level 1 (you also get fixed extra HP based on your Fitness level, which is the system equivalent to "Constitution"). And level progression is potentially open ended (limits up to the GM).

Every ability in the system (including stuff that in D&D would be a class feature) is a Perk, ability improvements (including attributes, skills, extra HP and more) are handled through perks, and everyone starts out with a Race, Profession and Background, where professions and backgrounds are ability packages made out of perks, and custom professions and backgrounds are a possibility (GM's discretion).

One possible complication I ended up including is that "skills" in my system are actually broken down into Disciplines, plus supplementary Skills and Know-Hows. Disciplines are broad skills, like Fighting (melee), Marksman (ranged) and Lore (knowledge). Skills are essentially specialties under each Discipline and Know-Hows deal with specialized knowledge that requires specific training to attempt, such as Languages. (More below on why I'm mentioning this).

Quote

Quote from: VisionStorm on July 20, 2022, 03:12:27 PM
Hmm, this clarifies more about my concerns mentioned above. I suppose the disconnect is that I tend to view these elements more as "system" components rather than "setting" elements, so maybe that's where the confusion is coming from. Since a lot of these system components could work in different ways when applied to the same setting, whether specific or "setting" in broad terms like "action adventure". For example, I could choose to go with general skills like "fighting" (for melee combat in general) and "marksman" (for ranged combat in general) when working on a skill-based system, or I could go with weapon groups instead (swords, polearms, firearms, archery, etc.) or even specific weapons (long swords, short sword, automatic rifles, etc.). But I tend to view that as system decisions rather than setting decisions, since they could all apply to any "action adventure" or more specific setting.

The decision is really more a matter of stylistic preference or what I'm trying to accomplish from a system standpoint. And my concern when designing these elements tends to be more about player experience (how cumbersome it would be for them to track this stuff, for example, what impact it would have on game play, etc.) and customization (are there enough options or too many, is the added complexity worth it, etc.), than about what aspects of setting I trying to represent.

Still, it would be useful to know what tenbones is looking for in these areas for purposes of this discussion. I could go on about stuff that I've thought about doing regarding some of these game elements--like different progression systems (classless systems that still use levels for progression, for example)--but I'd be wasting my time if I don't know what specific avenues of design we're exploring here, and how closely we're trying to match things to actual D&D mechanics vs going off into completely different system approaches. What parts of D&D are we even keeping, if any (HP, Levels, 5e style "Proficiency" bonuses vs older THAC0/Attack Bonuses, etc.)?

That's the rub, right? How close can we make it *feel* like DnD without creating an alien system...

Let me toss this out there: I'm playing Savage Worlds Pathfinder. You will not find a more alien d20 system trying to do the *exact* thing you're questioning. I'm playing it with new DnD Players that have never played *anything* other than 5e and/or Pathfinder. And not only do they love it, they play with other groups and are converting them over to play. Again, I'm not saying this to try and convert people over to SW - I'm saying that I actually agree with Estar that "system doesn't matter"... but I'm adding that some systems are better than others. DnD mechanics are fine, but a lot of outgrowth from "official" channels have been regressive. The tribalism that has set in, has enveloped a lot of bad design, and the system gets in the way of the game itself.

To the point where I'd argue with 5e (and certainly 4e) the system *is* the game.

There are a lot of factors to that claim: commercialization, generational issues, FOMO, habitual playing, tribalism etc. But the funny thing, especially on this forum, I don't see a lot of people here *only* playing 5e or whatever their brand of DnD is. So clearly there *are* classless systems people enjoy quite a bit, that are extraneous of d20, but it weirds me out that people don't consider what DnD itself could be if it simply changed a few core system-elements.

I have this feeling that it's as much about "fear" of it not being "Authentic", which might be another discussion (I hope not). Because Savage Pathfinder feels better at doing DnD than DnD has for me since 1e/2e, which is why I even posted this thread. If done right, we could slaughter a whole lot of problems that people complain about (and of course we'd surely create some new ones) but I think the net balance would be much better.

To specifically address the progression statement:

Classless Progression is simple: You buy your skills and abilities (magic or otherwise) with XP. If the costs of abilities and skills are mechanically balanced against one another, the XP totals should be pretty balanced enough to know at what amount equals a "tier" (to use modern parlance) of play.

An alternate Class-based progression could be something like - you purchase a Level which nets you specific progressions: 4HP +Con, and whatever else we think denotes "leveling up". But they should be uniform. The specifics of a PC's niche should be voluntary in terms of abilities with the GM's approval of course. This is one for a lot of discussion.

Quote from: VisionStorm on July 20, 2022, 03:12:27 PM
I haven't seen Majestic Fantasy RPG specifically, but from what I've seen in most 3e or older D&D games or derived systems most "warrior" classes tend to share the majority of core components, like HD, Combat & Save Progression, Weapon & Armor Proficiency, etc., with VERY few exceptions (Barbarians get a higher HD type, but no Heavy Armor, and that's practically it). It's only when comes to defining their special quirks that the real differences come into play, and most of that tends to be minor details that I don't think truly necessitates reinventing the wheel and building an entire new class from scratch, when almost all the core components are basically the same. Could you do it? Definitely. If I said you couldn't you'd be able to show me countless (probably HUNDREDS) of examples to the contrary. So I'd be lying if I said it was impossible.

Exactly. How many threads have been dedicated to "who is the better <X>" when it comes to Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers - only to devolve in some history wanking and Gygaxian pontifications? The solution is simple: What are the tropes that define those "Types"? Split "fighting" as a Skill, and you're left with Abilities. Those are the Tropes that should be Feats/Edges/Special Abilities call it whatever you want. Then YOU as the player decide wtf you are. The GM contextualizes your concept at chargen.

You tell me "Tenbones, my character is buying "Berzerker Rage" he's going to have, points in Survival, and Fighting, I think I'm going to wear Medium armor (maybe take a disadvantage for extra chargen points?) because my guy is tribal. I don't *need* to know you're a *Barbarian* or a *Ranger* - you're going to play your character. I'd go back and forth with the details of your background with you, what tribe you're from etc. And. We'd. Just. Play. As you progress, you might pick up some other abilities to reflect yourself civilizing? Sneak Attack. Or maybe the Alchemist player has been teaching your how to make potions on the side - and you ask the GM if enough training has been made to let you learn Magic: Alchemy, while other players are picking up Special Abilities and Magical Abilities of their own + skills.

At the core is the same d20 Task Resolution. But what a "Class" is - is not different than the things you *choose* to buy. If you wanted to be the classical Barbarian, nothing stops you from loading up on whatever skills/Special Abilities/Magical Abilities *YOU* define as appropriate based on your own tastes and the setting the GM is enforcing.

The Class problem is showing it's ugly head in Savage Pathfinder as the Thief Class Edge is *very specific* type of dungeon-crawling Thief. Vs any other Thief concept that has appeared over the many years. Yes you can organically grow out of it - but you're pigeonholed into a specific kind of play at the beginning. This is *for* DnD players that are coming over.

In standard Savage Worlds - your setting might allow for entirely different kinds of Thieves, Mountebanks, Bandits, Swashbucklers (? are they Thieves?) - when the point of being a "Thief" is irrelevant to the deeper point of you making a character that operates within the confines of a setting with abilities appropriate to that setting and they play the way YOU want.

Quote from: VisionStorm on July 20, 2022, 03:12:27 PM
But now, is it necessary? No. I'd go as far as to say that it's outright impractical--not just from a design PoV, but also from a GMing PoV in terms of keeping track of what "classes" even exist and what their capabilities are (players have an easier time keeping track of their (usually) single character). It'd be far more efficient to just have a single core "Warrior" class that defines all the core components, then handle all the specialized variants as either something like "kits" (maybe a bit more complex than 2e made them), 5e style "subclasses/archetypes", or even freeform Feats/Skills you could pick from a list a la carte. Same for Wizards and Rogues/Skill Monkeys, or even Clerics/Priests (though, my preference would be to fold all dedicated spellcasters into a single "Mystic" class, then treat magic specialties, like "Healing Magic", "Combat Magic", etc. as a type of specialty or "Feat" you have to pick). Granted, this assumes we're even using "classes", which hasn't been established yet in this thread.

Or if you split Fighting off as a Skill, then you can have a whole category under Special Abilities called "Combat Feats" - and sure they could have their own pre-requisites, but they're open to anyone that meets them. The whole distinction between a Barbarian that has Ambidexterity or Fighter is moot. Navigating the generalizations of what we think of as "Classes" has become a tedious chore of trying to make unnecessary distinctions about what a PC does more than is necessary. Yes these distinctions matter, such as a Wizard is not a Ranger, *because* of their abilities and/or skills. The key here is letting you as the player decide as you go to make the exact character you want to make withing the context of the setting.

This was basically how I ended up coming up with Disciplines. Years ago I was trying to come up with a "skill" analog to classes. The idea began while looking at D&D classes and noticing that warriors essentially got +1 to attack per level, which was very similar to a skill, only very broad. So I wanted to figure out a way to mechanically unify all classes to make them work very similarly, while each doing their own thing. So I figured, why not make each class core function (thieving stuff, magic, etc.) work like a Thac0 (this was back in the late 90s/early 2000s shortly before 3e), but turn it into a level/modifier instead? And why not get rid of classes while I'm at it and just turn each of those core functions (and others not implied by D&D classes) into broad skills, then build special abilities (similar to spells, but for non-magic stuff too) around them and use these broad skills as their level?

Eventually I came up with the name "Discipline" for these broad skills, since they were more general than skills in most skill-based systems at the time and I also wanted them to cover other stuff beyond simple skill rolls.

I also had a homebrewed effect-based system at the time I had derived from trying to D&D-fy MSH (I wasn't aware of Champions/HERO at the time), turning Ranks into levels instead, using stuff like 1d6/level for damage (like Fireball) and 10+level (on a d20+Mod scale) as the difficulty number to resist effects, etc. So I figured I could turn every special ability into a "power" (even stuff based on training) and use the Discipline level as the level for any related power. So a "knockdown" ability based on your martial arts talents, for example, would use the Fighting discipline to determine its level.

Work and life in general got in the way and derailed me. But over the years I worked out different attribute-discipline layouts, which ate up a lot of my time trying to come up with one that I liked and fit my criteria. I wanted to make them as "universal" as possible (cuz I was obsessed with generic systems) so I ultimately discarded all pure "magic" disciplines, deciding that all disciplines should potentially fit into any genre, including ones where magic didn't exist.

So rather than have an ESP discipline for divination type magic, for example, I decided to have a universal Perception discipline to cover ALL detective stuff—magic or mundane, sensory or intuitive. And similarly I decided that each discipline should govern ALL tasks or powers even remotely related to its core functionalities. So the Crafting discipline, for example, covers the creation or repair of all non-mechabical/electronic object, whether you build or repair them through training or magic. Tinkering similarly handles all tech stuff (in low-tech worlds Tinkering still handles building or disarming traps or picking locks. So "universal"). If no clear discipline applies when working with magic, the Willpower discipline is used as the default (which also handles resistance to most mental effects, determines Power Points, and covers certain self-buffing trained powers useful even in non-magic worlds). If its an Inborn power, Fitness is used instead.

Quote

Quote from: VisionStorm on July 20, 2022, 03:12:27 PMEven when we get to skill-based or freeform systems warrior-types and other common archetypes tend to share certain characteristics and its only when we get into the weeds of systems with overly specific skill lists that things start to break apart. But even then you could establish that all warrior types have X number of "weapon skills" and Y number of "athletics skills", etc. by default, and maybe establish some baseline attributes based on a Primary/Secondary/Tertiary stat spread, as part of a template package and you just have to pay for extras beyond that. Similar for other character types, like diplomats (X amount of "social skills" Y amount of "knowledge skills), mystics (X amount of "magic skills" Y amount of "knowledge skills), sneaky scouts (X amount of "stealth skills" Y amount of "athletics skills), etc. But again, this depends on "are we even going pure skill based" for purposes of this discussion? Is character creation/progression pure freeform or are there any limits on how many "specialties" or similar stuff you can get, or different skill-caps or costs based on some type of focus you pick? etc. But none of that has been established.

Could we make this in a d20 model?


This is my Savage Pathfinder PC I'm playing right now. You don't have to know anything about this system other than it could be *any* non-d20 system, but the entirety of that character is 95% of what you'll ever see even on a high-level Savage Pathfinder character, barring more Edges and the stats and skills will be higher die-codes. The point being you don't *need* to be more granular with the skills, you need to be more expansive in what a smaller skill lists *means* in play. And there's lots of ways to make other skills specific to your setting be placed into the skill-list.

I'm contending we can slim d20 down (to OSR levels) but give it more flexibility, and more scalability (well maybe - touching Immortal rules would be fun) than 5e and most modern editions. AND I think it could work for any setting for DnD style fantasy (however you want to define it).

This is more or less along the line of what I've been trying to do with my system. Only I went off the rails doing my own stuff rather than try to make it D&D compatible. Though, it was heavily inspired by D&D (and MSH, which led me to creating my own effect-based system, and Cyberpunk 2020, which is where I got the roll+Mod mechanic originally, before 3e did something near identical, and also took stuff from other systems along the way as well).

EDIT/PS: Sorry for the uber long post. Writing in my phone, where select quoted text to snip is too difficult, and likely to mess it up.

I sadly don't have time to read the whole thread now – hopefully later – so I'll just give my thoughts in response to tenbone's OP.

If you want your game to be "D&D fantasy," I feel that classes are necessary.  It's not D&D without classes.  If what was meant was just a generic fantasy game, then classes can be dispensed with, and I actually prefer games without.  Like anything else, classes have pluses and minuses.  Here's my list

Plus
1)   Easy for beginners
2)   Niche protection
3)   Familiar character types
4)   Simple to use in play
5)   Easier to design a system that doesn't break than skill based systems

Minuses
1)   Inflexible
2)   All of the character in the world of the same class are very similar
3)   Need to create many classes to cover all your bases

In D&D the minuses have been dealt with by giving more options within a class and multi classing.  This works, but it moves the game towards more of a skill based approach and doesn't totally fix the issues.  My preference is to go with a skill based game and try to provide mechanics to replicate the strengths of a class system.  In my current project I'm doing this by providing optional prebuilt started characters conforming to recognizable archetypes, such as tank, archer, fast melee, healer, blaster, etc, etc, and designing the skill systems such that it makes sense to pick skills that are related to each other. 

Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 10:14:52 AM
How important are "classes" to you in DnD fantasy?

To me, class/level is an essential, defining characteristic of "D&D."

If one removes class/level you still have a fantasy RPG, but it moves away from being "D&D." That can still be a fun game, of course. Runequest might be a good example. All just my opinion, of course.

@Estar

I really appreciate your posts, these upthread are no different. We 99.9% on the same page. I'm not interested in making DnD better. I'm interested in making a system that pushes the design of d20 for those willing to do the work in a direction that gets people being proactive on that rather than drinking from the same trough of garbage being served up by WotC and derivatives that ultimately suffer from the same problem(s).

I'm going to take your last couple of posts (which were things I was already considering) and roll them into my spitball outline, which I'm sure we're all punch holes into.

Quote from: tenbones on July 18, 2022, 10:14:52 AM
How important are "classes" to you in DnD fantasy? I'm asking because there have been some examples of classless DnD - and while none of them have ever gone mainstream, I can't help but think of all the countless threads over *decades* on various forums about Classes in general... and I wonder why someone hasn't (to my knowledge) created an setting-free system of skill-based DnD fantasy?

Corollary - why are classes important vs. having a system that lets you make the character you want (contextually with the GM's approval for his game)? Would there be an interest in that? What about an OSR game like that? Does one exist?

I started with non-D&D games and I like being able to build the PC I want, even when playing D&D (the game I play the most at this time).

In my own OSR neoclone, Dark Fantasy Basic*, classes are just collections of feats.

*currently on sale, BTW: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/229046/Dark-Fantasy-Basic--Players-Guide

That said, I actually LIKE having a few classes for worldbuiling purposes ("the captain is a 3rd level fighter with 2 2nd-level bodyguards", etc).

Classes also make PC creation a bit faster.

I wrote about this a few days ago:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/07/worldbuilding-character-builds-and-old.html

EDIT: also, savage pathfinder look s awesome and about the right level of crunch for me - and, since I don't like SW, I'd love to see a d20 version, especially if OSR-compatible.

Quote from: estar on July 20, 2022, 10:03:01 PM
There is no "action adventure" category. There is only what you consider to be "action adventure". In which case, my recommendation is to write a list of what you consider that to be and that is your checklist to design a system to reflect how you think it ought to work. You don't need to come up with specific locales or a world if you want something with general application. Just think of the kinds of worlds, and locales that your vision of "action adventure" encompasses. Set a limit as too much you are going to account for.

For example Star Wars is considered action adventure by many but you may just want to limit yourself to the fantasy genere.

This is more or less how I tend to approach it in practice. I try to think of the types of challenges and common areas of activity that character's are likely to encounter in what I consider to be an "action adventure" world and try to figure out what sort of system components should be present to handle those types of challenges, and work on those.

Since I tend to look at it in broad, all encompassing terms, I tend to cast a wide net and include stuff like Star Wars or even modern contemporary adventures (like spy stuff, or modern warfare) and Cyberpunk in my considerations as potential candidates for what sort of components I should consider. I even look at superheroes, cuz I like the idea of having dials to encompass a wide range of genres, but at the end of the day I tend to bring down a bit closer to Earth--more street crimefighting types than cosmic level heroes--when I think about that kind of stuff.

Though, a lot of times I tend to fall back into ancient/medievalesque fantasy when it comes to actual game play.

Quote from: estar on July 20, 2022, 10:03:01 PM
For me, that was a fighter type, a knight type, a soldier type, a berserker which is a holy warrior for Thor, a paladin who is a holy warrior for Mitra goddess of Justice and Honor, and Myrmidons a holy warrior for Set god of war and order. All of these were common things that players asked me about when making GURPS characters.

Kinda unrelated, but I love the idea of berserkers being a holy warrior of Thor. Real life berserkers had Odin as a patron god, though, since he's the frenzied god as one of his aspects. But real life berserkers were actually shamanic warriors, so making them holy warriors of a Nordic god seems very appropriate. All of these sound like fine concepts for a medievaleque fantasy game, though.

I always felt that D&D was kinda lacking on a proper "Knight" class, if they were going for specialized classes, like they seemed to focus on in later editions and even 2e around the time I came along. I think that there were supplements that had them, but the focus on most of the stuff I ran into was geared more towards either the fantastical stuff or the three 2e warrior classes, along with Barbarians, which was perhaps the most popular warrior class that they resisted including as a core class till 3e.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on July 18, 2022, 11:45:28 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 18, 2022, 11:28:42 AM
Like, before D&D and video games popularized it, how often did you have D&D bards and paladins in fantasy fiction? Universal archetypes they are not.

  Paladins are an established archetype--Galahad, Percival, Holger Carlsen. Bards and clerics, not so much.

The bardic archetype is definitely a thing but probably the least well depicted and executed in D&D. The story teller, poet and historian who recites great deeds and inspires appears throughout myth and fantasy.  Odysseus could be a Rogue, but I think arguably a Bard would fit as just as well. Samwise Gangee could be played as a Bard. In the Bible King David from the Bible composes much of the Book of Psalms. Dilios from 300.

Basically bards don't have to be tag along minstrels.

Bard is a strange example.  The historical analog blended into fantasy actually works better if most of the D&D attempts are kicked to the curb.  A warrior/druid that happens to use music to influence people would make a better game-derived archetype than the one we got.  Also tracks better as an option for a skald class once you expand beyond the Celtic sources.  Though I suppose due to the baggage around it now, would be better to say that the skald makes a better archetype than the bard.

Quote from: tenbones on July 21, 2022, 10:45:02 AM
@Estar

I really appreciate your posts, these upthread are no different. We 99.9% on the same page. I'm not interested in making DnD better. I'm interested in making a system that pushes the design of d20 for those willing to do the work in a direction that gets people being proactive on that rather than drinking from the same trough of garbage being served up by WotC and derivatives that ultimately suffer from the same problem(s).

I'm going to take your last couple of posts (which were things I was already considering) and roll them into my spitball outline, which I'm sure we're all punch holes into.

Sounds good and glad to be of help. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

Quote from: VisionStorm on July 21, 2022, 02:42:57 PM

Quote from: estar on July 20, 2022, 10:03:01 PM
For me, that was a fighter type, a knight type, a soldier type, a berserker which is a holy warrior for Thor, a paladin who is a holy warrior for Mitra goddess of Justice and Honor, and Myrmidons a holy warrior for Set god of war and order. All of these were common things that players asked me about when making GURPS characters.

Kinda unrelated, but I love the idea of berserkers being a holy warrior of Thor. Real life berserkers had Odin as a patron god, though, since he's the frenzied god as one of his aspects. But real life berserkers were actually shamanic warriors, so making them holy warriors of a Nordic god seems very appropriate. All of these sound like fine concepts for a medievaleque fantasy game, though.

Quote from: VisionStorm on July 21, 2022, 02:42:57 PM
I always felt that D&D was kinda lacking on a proper "Knight" class, if they were going for specialized classes, like they seemed to focus on in later editions and even 2e around the time I came along. I think that there were supplements that had them, but the focus on most of the stuff I ran into was geared more towards either the fantastical stuff or the three 2e warrior classes, along with Barbarians, which was perhaps the most popular warrior class that they resisted including as a core class till 3e.

I looked at the Chainmail mounted combat rules both for the wargame and man-to-man after an excellent analysis on one of the classic edition forums. Then edited it into something more suitable for a RPG. Then made a version of the fighter called the knight that gave some bonuses when they engaged in mounted combat.

That analysis convinced me that Chainmail's take was accurate enough along with being at a level of detail suitable for OD&D rules.

If you are interested in the details download this PDF. I also included my take on the Berserker and the regular Fighter for comparison.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UK4TQ3cm0ScJg1QZ0okoCDNbyrYUFzFi/view?usp=sharing

If you want to see more then you can download this summary of my rules from here. As well as an equipment list that has what various weapons can do.
Majestic Fantasy RPG Summary
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Majestic%20Fantasy%20Basic%20RPG%20Rev%2010.pdf

Equipment List
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Equipment%20Rev%202.pdf

Enjoy

Quote from: estar on July 21, 2022, 05:55:16 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on July 21, 2022, 02:42:57 PM

Quote from: estar on July 20, 2022, 10:03:01 PM
For me, that was a fighter type, a knight type, a soldier type, a berserker which is a holy warrior for Thor, a paladin who is a holy warrior for Mitra goddess of Justice and Honor, and Myrmidons a holy warrior for Set god of war and order. All of these were common things that players asked me about when making GURPS characters.

Kinda unrelated, but I love the idea of berserkers being a holy warrior of Thor. Real life berserkers had Odin as a patron god, though, since he's the frenzied god as one of his aspects. But real life berserkers were actually shamanic warriors, so making them holy warriors of a Nordic god seems very appropriate. All of these sound like fine concepts for a medievaleque fantasy game, though.

Quote from: VisionStorm on July 21, 2022, 02:42:57 PM
I always felt that D&D was kinda lacking on a proper "Knight" class, if they were going for specialized classes, like they seemed to focus on in later editions and even 2e around the time I came along. I think that there were supplements that had them, but the focus on most of the stuff I ran into was geared more towards either the fantastical stuff or the three 2e warrior classes, along with Barbarians, which was perhaps the most popular warrior class that they resisted including as a core class till 3e.

I looked at the Chainmail mounted combat rules both for the wargame and man-to-man after an excellent analysis on one of the classic edition forums. Then edited it into something more suitable for a RPG. Then made a version of the fighter called the knight that gave some bonuses when they engaged in mounted combat.

That analysis convinced me that Chainmail's take was accurate enough along with being at a level of detail suitable for OD&D rules.

If you are interested in the details download this PDF. I also included my take on the Berserker and the regular Fighter for comparison.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UK4TQ3cm0ScJg1QZ0okoCDNbyrYUFzFi/view?usp=sharing

If you want to see more then you can download this summary of my rules from here. As well as an equipment list that has what various weapons can do.
Majestic Fantasy RPG Summary
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Majestic%20Fantasy%20Basic%20RPG%20Rev%2010.pdf

Equipment List
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Equipment%20Rev%202.pdf

Enjoy

Interesting stuff! Will take a closer look when I get the chance.

Thanks!

Quote from: Wisithir on July 19, 2022, 10:29:18 PM
Classes are good when they provide unique an exclusive progression paths and bad when they cause pigeonholing or class proliferation and bloat. The good is a class distinction with strong flavor. If I look at Lion & Dragon, I like that a Magister is not a Cleric and the two operate and feel different. Conversely, in 3E land the difference between a prepared divine caster and an arcane spontaneous caster is largely trappings, and there are divine spontaneous casters and arcane prepared casters, so with multiclassing a level might as well be a skill to take when it come expanding character capability. And then there is bloat, because a fighter with code of honor and bonus to attack and damage on the first strike is just not a samurai to some players unless the class is called samurai. Too many class to choose from without a meaningful playstyle difference and nothing but potentially impressive sounding names to go after. Then comes pigeonholing because if a class is not good at something, it is perceived as a waste to do it. The squishy wizard should not bother with sneak because that is the rouge's domain, even if a wizard sniper is an awesome concept, the perceived wisdom is to boos wizardry instead.

Yeah, bloat is definitely a problem. It still is a problem in 3.x mechanics like PF. It's not unusual for 3pp to be big books of classes whose concepts aren't adequately covered by the core classes. I've seen almost a dozen different takes on the D&D warlock in 3pp for PF because PF never included it. The arcane/divine/psionic and prepared/spontaneous distinction especially has led to class bloat: wizard/sorcerer, cleric/favored soul, druid/spirit shaman, psion/wilder, the archivist (basically a divine wizard), hybrid prestige classes like the mystic theurge, etc.

This is why I liked Spheres of Power so much. You can easily replicate the feel of any of those classes with a fraction of the rules, and these casting traditions are easily customizable to suit the flavor of your campaign setting. There's no need to for hybrid classes like the mystic theurge because spells aren't exclusive to any particular class. There's a dedicated gish class called Mageknight which can be flavored as an eldritch knight, psychic warrior, paladin, or whatever depending on what tradition you choose.

5e goes in the direction of lazily concealing the class bloat by folding classes from earlier editions into subclasses for the existing core classes. E.g. the psi warrior and soulknife are now subclasses of fighter and rogue respectively (and they're just psionic flavored versions of the eldritch knight and arcane trickster), the psion is now a psionics-flavored wizard subclass (while the wilder is barely approximated by the psionic soul subclass for sorcerer), the favored soul (spontaneous counterpart of the cleric) is now a sorcerer subclass, etc. This just leads to subclass bloat.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 21, 2022, 05:00:59 PM
Bard is a strange example.  The historical analog blended into fantasy actually works better if most of the D&D attempts are kicked to the curb.  A warrior/druid that happens to use music to influence people would make a better game-derived archetype than the one we got.  Also tracks better as an option for a skald class once you expand beyond the Celtic sources.  Though I suppose due to the baggage around it now, would be better to say that the skald makes a better archetype than the bard.

So a Ranger with a lute.
The Bard book series by Keith Taylor never got enough attention if you ask me.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 22, 2022, 01:19:45 PM

Quote from: Wisithir on July 19, 2022, 10:29:18 PM
Classes are good when they provide unique an exclusive progression paths and bad when they cause pigeonholing or class proliferation and bloat. The good is a class distinction with strong flavor. If I look at Lion & Dragon, I like that a Magister is not a Cleric and the two operate and feel different. Conversely, in 3E land the difference between a prepared divine caster and an arcane spontaneous caster is largely trappings, and there are divine spontaneous casters and arcane prepared casters, so with multiclassing a level might as well be a skill to take when it come expanding character capability. And then there is bloat, because a fighter with code of honor and bonus to attack and damage on the first strike is just not a samurai to some players unless the class is called samurai. Too many class to choose from without a meaningful playstyle difference and nothing but potentially impressive sounding names to go after. Then comes pigeonholing because if a class is not good at something, it is perceived as a waste to do it. The squishy wizard should not bother with sneak because that is the rouge's domain, even if a wizard sniper is an awesome concept, the perceived wisdom is to boos wizardry instead.

Yeah, bloat is definitely a problem. It still is a problem in 3.x mechanics like PF. It's not unusual for 3pp to be big books of classes whose concepts aren't adequately covered by the core classes. I've seen almost a dozen different takes on the D&D warlock in 3pp for PF because PF never included it. The arcane/divine/psionic and prepared/spontaneous distinction especially has led to class bloat: wizard/sorcerer, cleric/favored soul, druid/spirit shaman, psion/wilder, the archivist (basically a divine wizard), hybrid prestige classes like the mystic theurge, etc.

This is why I liked Spheres of Power so much. You can easily replicate the feel of any of those classes with a fraction of the rules, and these casting traditions are easily customizable to suit the flavor of your campaign setting. There's no need to for hybrid classes like the mystic theurge because spells aren't exclusive to any particular class. There's a dedicated gish class called Mageknight which can be flavored as an eldritch knight, psychic warrior, paladin, or whatever depending on what tradition you choose.

5e goes in the direction of lazily concealing the class bloat by folding classes from earlier editions into subclasses for the existing core classes. E.g. the psi warrior and soulknife are now subclasses of fighter and rogue respectively (and they're just psionic flavored versions of the eldritch knight and arcane trickster), the psion is now a psionics-flavored wizard subclass (while the wilder is barely approximated by the psionic soul subclass for sorcerer), the favored soul (spontaneous counterpart of the cleric) is now a sorcerer subclass, etc. This just leads to subclass bloat.

Yeah, class feature bloat for specialized spellcasting classes is even worse than for warrior classes because spell-based magic is an exponentially more complicated component than combat with extensive spell lists that continuously get replicated and extended with every magic style variation or tradition that gets introduced. These you have endless variations of what essentially a combat spell (but for psionic or divine casters) or charm spells (but psionic themed!), etc., which is a bookkeeping nightmare.

I much prefer the Spheres of Magic approach to handling all of this rather than have to deal with vast overly specific spell lists that add nothing truly original. And are simply artificially distinct lists for supposed "flavor" that add nothing in practice, cuz it's not like you're gonna read the spell's flavor text during casting—not that many of them even have flavor text, or that you truly need it, when you can just ROLEPLAY your spellcasting, which is far more fulfilling that reading some text from the book anyways.

Though, when it comes to 5e I actually wish that they'd have done even more when it comes to folding class variants into core classes as just subclasses. They could've folded all these spellcasting variants into a universal spellcasting class (my preference), or even just limited it to folding Wizards, Sorcerers and Warlocks into a single Arcane caster class, if they wanna keep the Arcane/Divine distinction.

But instead they had to introduce two artificially distinct extra arcane classes (which are technically carry overs from earlier editions, I know), one of which (Sorcerers) isn't even necessary anymore now that they've made their original defining feature (Spontaneous Casting) a universal thing EVERYONE does even better than them. Since ALL casters can effectively spontaneously cast now, and also get to "prepare" (instead of memorize) more spells than Sorcerers can even learn. And that's on top of them (Wizards at least) being able to learn an endless amount of spell, while being limited only on which spells they can have prepared. Making sorcerers completely superfluous and vestigial now beyond just wanting to play a Cha-based mage.