Quote from: oggsmash on September 06, 2022, 11:28:46 AM

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on September 03, 2022, 09:48:24 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 03, 2022, 08:49:54 PM
Barbarian is a background for the Fighter, not it's own class.

I actually think Barbarian is somewhat difficult to do right without making it a (sub)class or at least a class variant. The iconic barbarian runs out half-naked, hide armor at most, and tanks damage by sheer girth and force of will. I don't recall Conan ever wearing anything heavier than chainmail, and that only occasionally. But in most systems there's very little reason for a fighter to wear anything less than full platemail if he or she can afford it. You get some extra movement (provided you're not carrying a bunch of other equipment), which is nice, but not usually worth the lower AC.

   Might want to read more REH then, anytime Conan had access to armor he wore it, including Plate.  He was usually without armor due to climate and situation (like fleeing a route), selling it to the pawn shop for money to drink, or an adventure took him by happenstance and he just didnt have it on.  Howard often has scenes or incidents where Conan's armor is what saves him from death.

Not only that, but Conan is only a "true" (i.e., D&D-like single-classed) Barbarian at the very start of his career. Early on, he would have added some Fighter and Rogue levels and become a multi-classed mutt to make any 3e min-maxer proud.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 05, 2022, 07:58:38 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 05, 2022, 06:41:08 PM
Yes, there are.

Well, one could say that no classes are needed. But in a D&Dish game, I think AT THE VERY LEAST you need combat, spells and skills (assuming you have to be able to create appendix-N charachters). 5e illustrates this by having, basically, warrior, spellcaster and expert - which are very similar, often redundant.

And you need no more than that. There is nothing in a knight, monk or paladin that wouldn't fit in a fighter plus some minor skills and spells.

Is the cleric needed? I dont think so (it has some combat and some spells, and one "skill"- turn undead), but I add it to my games anyway for nostalgia reasons. If I were to invent a fourth class I'd definetely replace the cleric for a leader-type.

I'm very pleased in how my Old School Feats turned out. I'm using 4 classes, with two to five feats each, and I can create a good ranger, paladin, knight, warlord etc. using (pre-built) packages.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/407233/Old-School-Feats-OSR?src=fp_u5

Does using feats add complexity to the game? I dont think so. The supplement has only 20 pages and adds all the character options from AD&D and the RC that I would want in a B/X game (but much simpler than the RC or AD&D). Also, no feats until level 2, so character creation is unchanged.

I'm a couple of steps away from creating my favorite version of B/X. My goal is to keep the same page count, add tons of new options, maybe fix a thing or two, and decrease complexity even further (getting rid of XP tables, race-as-class, and vancian casting, and unifying thief skills with everything else). Four classes, four races, and anything you want to add on top of that.

Our favourite B/X version (jaeger and mine) is a bit different but we do coincide on a lot, especially in unifying thief skills with everything else. But we're not getting rid of XP tables.

OSR 3.0 if you will.

Yeah, it seems we are on the same page here. One game that looks great is B&T 2e. I checks ALMOST all of my preferences. Very OSR 3.0.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 06, 2022, 07:31:26 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 05, 2022, 07:58:38 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 05, 2022, 06:41:08 PM
Yes, there are.

Well, one could say that no classes are needed. But in a D&Dish game, I think AT THE VERY LEAST you need combat, spells and skills (assuming you have to be able to create appendix-N charachters). 5e illustrates this by having, basically, warrior, spellcaster and expert - which are very similar, often redundant.

And you need no more than that. There is nothing in a knight, monk or paladin that wouldn't fit in a fighter plus some minor skills and spells.

Is the cleric needed? I dont think so (it has some combat and some spells, and one "skill"- turn undead), but I add it to my games anyway for nostalgia reasons. If I were to invent a fourth class I'd definetely replace the cleric for a leader-type.

I'm very pleased in how my Old School Feats turned out. I'm using 4 classes, with two to five feats each, and I can create a good ranger, paladin, knight, warlord etc. using (pre-built) packages.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/407233/Old-School-Feats-OSR?src=fp_u5

Does using feats add complexity to the game? I dont think so. The supplement has only 20 pages and adds all the character options from AD&D and the RC that I would want in a B/X game (but much simpler than the RC or AD&D). Also, no feats until level 2, so character creation is unchanged.

I'm a couple of steps away from creating my favorite version of B/X. My goal is to keep the same page count, add tons of new options, maybe fix a thing or two, and decrease complexity even further (getting rid of XP tables, race-as-class, and vancian casting, and unifying thief skills with everything else). Four classes, four races, and anything you want to add on top of that.

Our favourite B/X version (jaeger and mine) is a bit different but we do coincide on a lot, especially in unifying thief skills with everything else. But we're not getting rid of XP tables.

OSR 3.0 if you will.

Yeah, it seems we are on the same page here. One game that looks great is B&T 2e. I checks ALMOST all of my preferences. Very OSR 3.0.

B&T2e?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 06, 2022, 07:57:58 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 06, 2022, 07:31:26 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 05, 2022, 07:58:38 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 05, 2022, 06:41:08 PM
Yes, there are.

Well, one could say that no classes are needed. But in a D&Dish game, I think AT THE VERY LEAST you need combat, spells and skills (assuming you have to be able to create appendix-N charachters). 5e illustrates this by having, basically, warrior, spellcaster and expert - which are very similar, often redundant.

And you need no more than that. There is nothing in a knight, monk or paladin that wouldn't fit in a fighter plus some minor skills and spells.

Is the cleric needed? I dont think so (it has some combat and some spells, and one "skill"- turn undead), but I add it to my games anyway for nostalgia reasons. If I were to invent a fourth class I'd definetely replace the cleric for a leader-type.

I'm very pleased in how my Old School Feats turned out. I'm using 4 classes, with two to five feats each, and I can create a good ranger, paladin, knight, warlord etc. using (pre-built) packages.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/407233/Old-School-Feats-OSR?src=fp_u5

Does using feats add complexity to the game? I dont think so. The supplement has only 20 pages and adds all the character options from AD&D and the RC that I would want in a B/X game (but much simpler than the RC or AD&D). Also, no feats until level 2, so character creation is unchanged.

I'm a couple of steps away from creating my favorite version of B/X. My goal is to keep the same page count, add tons of new options, maybe fix a thing or two, and decrease complexity even further (getting rid of XP tables, race-as-class, and vancian casting, and unifying thief skills with everything else). Four classes, four races, and anything you want to add on top of that.

Our favourite B/X version (jaeger and mine) is a bit different but we do coincide on a lot, especially in unifying thief skills with everything else. But we're not getting rid of XP tables.

OSR 3.0 if you will.

Yeah, it seems we are on the same page here. One game that looks great is B&T 2e. I checks ALMOST all of my preferences. Very OSR 3.0.

B&T2e?

Blood & Treasure 2nd Edition

Quote from: Jam The MF on September 06, 2022, 08:18:40 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 06, 2022, 07:57:58 PM


B&T2e?

Blood & Treasure 2nd Edition

Thanks! Sounds familiar I might own the first edition I think. Did it change much?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 06, 2022, 08:30:40 PM

Quote from: Jam The MF on September 06, 2022, 08:18:40 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 06, 2022, 07:57:58 PM


B&T2e?

Blood & Treasure 2nd Edition

Thanks! Sounds familiar I might own the first edition I think. Did it change much?

I was just familiar with the Acronym.....  Perhaps someone else will chime in?

I'm more familiar with B&T 1e too, but 2e apparently made some improvements that I liked (single save intead of fort/reflx/will, for example). It's been a while, I should make a deeper dive some day.

(doesnt fix the "too many classes" issue, however, but it DOES have lots of customization with not that much complexity; also, keeps different XP tables).

It occurs to me to ask, is a game with one class a 'classless system?'

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 06, 2022, 10:30:15 PM
I'm more familiar with B&T 1e too, but 2e apparently made some improvements that I liked (single save intead of fort/reflx/will, for example). It's been a while, I should make a deeper dive some day.

(doesnt fix the "too many classes" issue, however, but it DOES have lots of customization with not that much complexity; also, keeps different XP tables).

Nice, another RPG I need to buy... What history should I tell the wife this time?

I consider classes to be a bundle of learned skills. There must be teachers for these skills. Fighters learn their trade in an army or a militia. Thieves have a thieves guild and the hard scrabble life of the streets. Clerics have temples. Magic-users have colleges or guilds.

As we get into the AD&D 1e classes, the justifications get thinner, but still supportable. Druids have an organization. Rangers are trained how to protect the frontiers of human society from predatory humanoid monsters. Paladins are a holy order of knights. Assassins have an assassins' guild. Bards pick up a hodgepodge of skills from everywhere (and in 1e must first multiclass). Illusionists have their own magic school. Monks have Buddhist-style monasteries.

The new classes of 1e Unearthed Arcana are starting to stretch it. Does a barbarian go to barbarian school? Thief-acrobats take up adventuring as a sideline from their circus jobs?

But now, where would a young person who wants to grow up to be a rune knight or bladesinger go to find a mentor?

The unlimited new classes have become a self-indulgent wish fulfillment story that is dull for most of us.

I think classes are generally the better design option for an RPG. Typically, players don't want 5,000 possible PCs that could be created. They want to choose between some smaller number. Personally, I think four is enough as it captures the basics.

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 05, 2022, 08:05:02 PM
Is a class just a predetermined but fixed advancement scheme? If so, then I favor having many of them. Essentially, the more fixed the advancement is by class--and the fewer options that can be taken within a class--the more I appreciate having many classes. If the classes are more open with several options within them, then fewer classes are fine. To take D&D 5e as the example, I do feel that fewer classes would be fine if there were more subclass options for each class.

Yeah, I hate fixed advancement with no/few options, but if that's all I'm getting I definitely want more than the base four classes. My preference for more classes is proportional to the amount of options I got. But few classes moar options is my main preference, and more effective than having a bunch of separate and disjointed classes that are mostly variants of each other.

5e specialized classes, like rangers, paladins, sorcerers and warlocks should just be subclasses of their respective core classes (warriors and mages). More specific variants of those classes could also be their own subclasses as well, but even more focused in whatever they do, like full blown Beast Masters with decent pets and animal control abilities, or Draconic Mages with greater emphasis on developing draconic features.

Quote from: David Johansen on September 06, 2022, 10:46:31 PM
It occurs to me to ask, is a game with one class a 'classless system?'

My guess would be yes. Specially if the "class" is just "pick X options per level", which is how I would handle such a system. It would basically just be a level-based freeform system.

But let's say that class is "Hero" 1d8 hp / level, +1 to hit per level and outside of attributes rolled on 3d6, that's it?

Is that a classless system?  The way some people talk that's what they'd like from OD&D.  No clerics, not thieves, no magic-users.

Magic might only come from magic items or creatures with spell-like powers.  Even sorcerers might be limited to summoning creatures through ancient tomes and rituals with success being based on intelligence and perhaps lack of wisdom.  Somehow I can't imagine summoning demons doesn't ring a few alarm bells if your wisdom is over 10.

Would attributes in some way qualify as a class if they allow and disallow activities?  So Hero 18, 10, 15, 11, 12, 8 and Hero 16, 4, 14, 18, 6, 18 would wind up playing very differently.

Quote from: David Johansen on September 07, 2022, 12:49:44 AM
But let's say that class is "Hero" 1d8 hp / level, +1 to hit per level and outside of attributes rolled on 3d6, that's it?

Is that a classless system?  The way some people talk that's what they'd like from OD&D.  No clerics, not thieves, no magic-users.

Magic might only come from magic items or creatures with spell-like powers.  Even sorcerers might be limited to summoning creatures through ancient tomes and rituals with success being based on intelligence and perhaps lack of wisdom.  Somehow I can't imagine summoning demons doesn't ring a few alarm bells if your wisdom is over 10.

Would attributes in some way qualify as a class if they allow and disallow activities?  So Hero 18, 10, 15, 11, 12, 8 and Hero 16, 4, 14, 18, 6, 18 would wind up playing very differently.

Not enough options for me. But I'm still not sure that would be class-based. Distinctions based on attributes alone don't really imply classes, but more like broad skills.

Quote from: David Johansen on September 07, 2022, 12:49:44 AM
But let's say that class is "Hero" 1d8 hp / level, +1 to hit per level and outside of attributes rolled on 3d6, that's it?

Is that a classless system?  The way some people talk that's what they'd like from OD&D.  No clerics, not thieves, no magic-users.

Magic might only come from magic items or creatures with spell-like powers.  Even sorcerers might be limited to summoning creatures through ancient tomes and rituals with success being based on intelligence and perhaps lack of wisdom.  Somehow I can't imagine summoning demons doesn't ring a few alarm bells if your wisdom is over 10.

Would attributes in some way qualify as a class if they allow and disallow activities?  So Hero 18, 10, 15, 11, 12, 8 and Hero 16, 4, 14, 18, 6, 18 would wind up playing very differently.

Such a system would share some features of a class-based system, but it is not really one itself.  For there to be classes, there has to be something to classify, which means to organize and divide it on some meaningful pattern.  Classes are structured, but they aren't the only kind of structure.  I'd call your example a structured, skills-based game. 

Or to put it another way, can you have one silo?  Yes, if you narrow the scope severely enough, with the implication being that there are other silos that aren't important to talk about.  Picture your example, where the "class" represents people who adventure, with the implication being that there are other, unexplained silos representing peasants, nobles, guild crafters, etc. that happen to not have an explicit structure in the rules.  Yeah, that's kind of a class-based system with a lot of pieces left undone, or maybe vestigial pieces of the design, if you prefer.  I'd call it a class-based design that collapsed into a skills-based implementation.  YMMV.

AD&D had about the right amount of classes.  If you need more customization, you should really be using a skill-based system with templates instead.