There are a full dozen classes in the D&D5 player book. While I do appreciate having options for customization, I think there are too many classes now and most of them don't need to be distinct classes.
For example, the sorcerer was only added in 3rd edition because of the way wizards cast spells. Wizards (as well as clerics and druids) had to prepare all their spells/slots in advance, whereas sorcerers could cast any spell known with any compatible spell slot. As of 5e, wizards (and clerics and druids) now effectively cast spells like sorcerers do but can swap out their spells known/prepared. Without the original mechanical distinction there's really no reason for sorcerers to exist beyond tradition (and to be a dumping ground for spontaneous casters converted from prior editions, like the favored soul being adapted to the divine soul sorcerous origin). I get that "inherent gift magicians" are a concept that people will want to play, but does it really need its own class and all these forced supplements for it?
The various subclasses scrape the bottom of the barrel very quickly when it comes to concepts, especially for any class beyond Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. I really think the metaclass framework from 2e (basically those four classes I just named (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasyCharacterClasses)) would've been very useful here. Or maybe something like Spheres of Power & Might (http://spheres5e.wikidot.com/).
What do you think?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 03, 2022, 07:46:09 PM
There are a full dozen classes in the D&D5 player book. While I do appreciate having options for customization, I think there are too many classes now and most of them don't need to be distinct classes.
For example, the sorcerer was only added in 3rd edition because of the way wizards cast spells. Wizards (as well as clerics and druids) had to prepare all their spells/slots in advance, whereas sorcerers could cast any spell known with any compatible spell slot. As of 5e, wizards (and clerics and druids) now effectively cast spells like sorcerers do but can swap out their spells known/prepared. Without the original mechanical distinction there's really no reason for sorcerers to exist beyond tradition (and to be a dumping ground for spontaneous casters converted from prior editions, like the favored soul being adapted to the divine soul sorcerous origin). I get that "inherent gift magicians" are a concept that people will want to play, but does it really need its own class and all these forced supplements for it?
...
What do you think?
Holy shit - I'm in complete agreement with BoxCrayonTales. RPG's truly bring people together.
Your right: Sorcerer's are supposed to be using powers given to them by their 'patron' but mechanically there's little difference because they still use the same spells list as wizards.
Clerics and "Divine Magic" is another false front. Same universal spell list. Yeah, yeah, this or that spell restriction, but who cares; its all fluff...
IF D&D was really gonna give distinct magic classes:
Wizards - would work largely as is.
Sorcery - would work like sorcery in the old d20 Conan game, or summoning in Lion and Dragon.
Clerics - would work the way they do in Lion and Dragon with Miracles, or miraculous abilities defined as 'feats/foci' they way they are emulated in Worlds without Number.
There should be 3 distinct and separate ways magic/sorcery/miracles are done. We could easily do a 4th if we really want to break down how druids should work...
None of the mechanical differences I mentioned are anything new - it has all been done before by other games.
What does WotC do? One big spell list - kinda parceled out by class, but with plenty of crossover so no one type of "magic" user feels that they are less than any other magic class. i.e. Bland city.
"Official" D&D should be a better
as a game than it is.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 03, 2022, 07:46:09 PM
There are a full dozen classes in the D&D5 player book. While I do appreciate having options for customization, I think there are too many classes now and most of them don't need to be distinct classes.
For example, the sorcerer was only added in 3rd edition because of the way wizards cast spells. Wizards (as well as clerics and druids) had to prepare all their spells/slots in advance, whereas sorcerers could cast any spell known with any compatible spell slot. As of 5e, wizards (and clerics and druids) now effectively cast spells like sorcerers do but can swap out their spells known/prepared. Without the original mechanical distinction there's really no reason for sorcerers to exist beyond tradition (and to be a dumping ground for spontaneous casters converted from prior editions, like the favored soul being adapted to the divine soul sorcerous origin). I get that "inherent gift magicians" are a concept that people will want to play, but does it really need its own class and all these forced supplements for it?
The various subclasses scrape the bottom of the barrel very quickly when it comes to concepts, especially for any class beyond Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. I really think the metaclass framework from 2e (basically those four classes I just named (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasyCharacterClasses)) would've been very useful here. Or maybe something like Spheres of Power & Might (http://spheres5e.wikidot.com/).
What do you think?
You already know what I think since we talked this on Guilded, but for the rest:
YES, totally agree, if you're going to add a class it needs to be mechanically different enough form the existing ones.
Like the different types of "magic" that Jaeger mentioned and that him and I already talked about on Discord.
Barbarian is a background for the Fighter, not it's own class.
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.
The game I play has 6 classes: Berserker, Knight, Mystic, Rogue, Warrior, Wizard. With these six classes we can build the equivalent of any 3rd or 5th edition class or prestige class. The big thing for D&D is that lots of classes have access to a small amount of magic (like the Paladin). Building generic access to magic for ANY class (like a Rogue that wants to learn invisibility) is the best way to make sure that a small number of classes can cover the widest variety of 'archetypes'.
For us, each of those classes approaches combat in a unique way - the Berserker gets extra damage when Raging, while the Rogue gets extra damage by Sneaking or taking advantage of someone that is engaged by 2+ other people (Sneak Attack) - and we give class abilities that are specific and helpful in that role. Any other abilities outside of the class are selectable. If you want to be a Ranger, you probably take Rogue or Warrior, then take an Animal Companion. If you want to be a Paladin, you take Knight, and you take 'knows some spells' instead of (or in addition to) Animal Companion (if you really want a mount).
So yes, I think ultimately, a small number of flexible classes is better. But then how can you sell more books?
Stars/Worlds without number has a better multiclass framework for this.
But yeah, I agree, I prefer minimalnumber, but customizable classes.
I personally think that in OSR games a lot of what other classes are trying to do would be better handled as in-game stuff instead of dedicated classes. Instead of making a class like Paladin or Warlock themed around an oath or pact... just have your character take the oath or pact and get benefits as long as you do what's required.
Proliferation of classes relates to both the quality of the playerbase and the complexity of the rule system.
- If you have a playerbase that is passive, or not-knowledgeable about the rules, or wants to treat a TTRPG as a CRPG, then you'll see a greater proliferation of classes
- If you have a design mentality that's intended to simplify, remove choices, or otherwise leans into homogenization of play options (such as excessive "balancing") then you'll see a greater proliferation of classes
5E/WOTC fall into both of these. I don't expect it to end because the bottom line is this is kind of a grognard issue.
Quote from: deadDMwalking on September 03, 2022, 10:04:16 PM
The game I play has 6 classes: Berserker, Knight, Mystic, Rogue, Warrior, Wizard. With these six classes we can build the equivalent of any 3rd or 5th edition class or prestige class. The big thing for D&D is that lots of classes have access to a small amount of magic (like the Paladin). Building generic access to magic for ANY class (like a Rogue that wants to learn invisibility) is the best way to make sure that a small number of classes can cover the widest variety of 'archetypes'.
For us, each of those classes approaches combat in a unique way - the Berserker gets extra damage when Raging, while the Rogue gets extra damage by Sneaking or taking advantage of someone that is engaged by 2+ other people (Sneak Attack) - and we give class abilities that are specific and helpful in that role. Any other abilities outside of the class are selectable. If you want to be a Ranger, you probably take Rogue or Warrior, then take an Animal Companion. If you want to be a Paladin, you take Knight, and you take 'knows some spells' instead of (or in addition to) Animal Companion (if you really want a mount).
So yes, I think ultimately, a small number of flexible classes is better. But then how can you sell more books?
Berserker & Knight are subclasses of Warrior, just like Barbarian is a background for Warrior/Fighter.
I take it that Mystic is the Cleric for edgy Atheists, while the Wizard is the Wizard.
So that system already has two Classes too many.
As for selling more books... Make good settings.
I've mentioned this a bunch of times every time that the subject even remotely comes up, and BoxCrayonTales already covered much of it, so I'm not gonna repeat everything, but YES! There are WAY too many classes, and Sorcerers are the most redundant class in 5e.
If it were up to me there'd only be three classes: Warrior, Specialist and Mystic. I'd do away with the artificial Arcane/Divine distinction, and ALL customization would be done through Feats (yes, FEATS), and maybe Subclasses (which would probably grant Feats you can pick individually anyways, but they get more immediate access to them). Differences between different types of casters would be handled with traditions, similar to Shadowrun Hermetic Mages and Totemic Shamans, which grant bonuses to magic related to their traditions, but all basically have access to the same magic.
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 03, 2022, 10:50:50 PM
ALL customization would be done through Feats (yes, FEATS),
Counterpoint: if I wanted to play GURPS, I'd play GURPS.
More seriously, I view character customization through feats, advantages, subclasses or similar as highly overrated. I'm not saying it can't be done well, or that it's wrongfun to like those kinds of games, but I reject what I see as the widespread assumption that it
has to be done at all.
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 03, 2022, 10:50:50 PM
I've mentioned this a bunch of times every time that the subject even remotely comes up, and BoxCrayonTales already covered much of it, so I'm not gonna repeat everything, but YES! There are WAY too many classes, and Sorcerers are the most redundant class in 5e.
If it were up to me there'd only be three classes: Warrior, Specialist and Mystic. I'd do away with the artificial Arcane/Divine distinction, and ALL customization would be done through Feats (yes, FEATS), and maybe Subclasses (which would probably grant Feats you can pick individually anyways, but they get more immediate access to them). Differences between different types of casters would be handled with traditions, similar to Shadowrun Hermetic Mages and Totemic Shamans, which grant bonuses to magic related to their traditions, but all basically have access to the same magic.
It only feels artificial because it's the exact same mechanic.
I disagree, Warrior, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard is perfectly fine.
I do agree that customization should be handled by subclasses, Backgrounds (skills) AND FEATS, YES! FEATS!
Just ask Jaeger.
Just not the, ALSO bloated, mess of Skills and Feats 3.0 and 5e have.
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on September 03, 2022, 10:53:47 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 03, 2022, 10:50:50 PM
ALL customization would be done through Feats (yes, FEATS),
Counterpoint: if I wanted to play GURPS, I'd play GURPS.
GURPS has no classes that I know of, and Advantages have variable cost if I recall correctly (never played it, only skimmed the rules ages ago). The beauty of Feats is that they all cost the same, so you don't have to waste time calculating costs, or money pinching with BS Disadvantages to cover your costs. Also, Subclasses could be made to cover most of your feat selections (like a preselected deal, and maybe they could include a suggested progression path), then a "blank" subclass could be included for people who want full blown customization. So people who don't want to bother with feats could just pick a subclass.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 03, 2022, 11:05:48 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 03, 2022, 10:50:50 PM
I've mentioned this a bunch of times every time that the subject even remotely comes up, and BoxCrayonTales already covered much of it, so I'm not gonna repeat everything, but YES! There are WAY too many classes, and Sorcerers are the most redundant class in 5e.
If it were up to me there'd only be three classes: Warrior, Specialist and Mystic. I'd do away with the artificial Arcane/Divine distinction, and ALL customization would be done through Feats (yes, FEATS), and maybe Subclasses (which would probably grant Feats you can pick individually anyways, but they get more immediate access to them). Differences between different types of casters would be handled with traditions, similar to Shadowrun Hermetic Mages and Totemic Shamans, which grant bonuses to magic related to their traditions, but all basically have access to the same magic.
It only feels artificial because it's the exact same mechanic.
I disagree, Warrior, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard is perfectly fine.
I do agree that customization should be handled by subclasses, Backgrounds (skills) AND FEATS, YES! FEATS!
Just ask Jaeger.
Just not the, ALSO bloated, mess of Skills and Feats 3.0 and 5e have.
I don't like dealing with different mechanics for magic/super power type stuff. They needlessly complicate things, and are ultimately about making artificial distinctions between different magic approaches, with the exception of stuff like Spellcasting vs Ritual Casting. Plus the Arcana/Divine distinction was pretty much made up by D&D. Real life mystical traditions don't make a hard distinction between the two, and invariably acknowledge some type of divine presence, even if they're "wizard" traditions, like Hermetic types.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 03, 2022, 07:46:09 PM
While I do appreciate having options for customization, I think there are too many classes now and most of them don't need to be distinct classes.
I disagree completely- I want even more classes, in pretty much every game I run. Pathfinder in particular I was able to use all but a few classes (the ones in the Advanced Class Guide all were too hybrid for my tastes, and should have been spinoffs of existing classes). 5ed and PF2 both seem like a huge step backwards from Pathfinder 1.0 and to a lesser degree 3.5.
There are basically two schools of thought when it comes to classes. One of them makes the points that only the really big differences that are insurmountable need to be classes- fighter, wizard, cleric, for instance. Later philosophies add rogue to that. The other tries to map a unique mechanical set to every fantasy. In the design philosophy you are discussing, a character you envision describe as a well trained assassin who works for a divine order that has several sacred places it defends near oceans could be any of a fighter or cleric, or definitely a rogue if you have it, and if the chracater in question is supposed to have some divine spells and be well trained in sneaking places you might try a dual class solution to map to that. The resultant character may not actually be that effective if you go this path, or you may simply try to built him optimally and simply use the background as fluff. On the other hand, I would advocate for a special class, subclass, or prestige class that implements all the things that character would entail- possibly a ranger-esque terrain set to beaches with some bonuses there, some proficiency with sneaking around but not as much as a full rogue, and some types of granted spells.
So I want more classes, and I want them to get more and more specific. In some cases, players and DMs will change the intention of a class (a character trying to make a magical girl might in 3.X might end up with Incarnum or with Nine Swords), but I would not want that "refluffing" to occur. I would want the character class developed to match the design.
Here's a test to see how far you are on this axis:
1- You don't need a rogue because everyone should be able to sneak around. A nonmagical rogue should be built as a fighter in a system with fighting-man, magic-user, and cleric.
2- You don't need a paladin because you have a cleric, who is a holy warrior.
3- You don't need a paladin because you can multiclass fighter and cleric.
4- You don't need a druid because you have a cleric.
5- You don't need a ninja because you have a rogue.
I disagree with all of these strongly. Others will disagree with some and defend everything below a certain point. Your specific one- about not needing a sorcerer because you have a wizard- probably falls around (4). The druid does have more pedigree than the sorcerer, however.
In the specific sorc/wiz thing you bring up, I'm going to fight you on the idea that they are particularly good matches for each other. It's true that the spontaneous thing in 3.X is not relevant in 5ed, with the classes being divided into "you can change from a list every morning" and "you can never change your list" (and the wizard getting access only to the arcane spells he has in his book, versus the cleric and druid having access to all of them each morning). But this is a unique detail of 5ed, and I doubt we will actually see all future versions of mainstream RPGs abandon Vancian traditional casting as thoroughly as 5ed did. Pathfinder 2, for instance, still has Vancian wizards and Final Fantasy 1 style sorcs (the original final fantasy gave you the equivalent of spell slots based on your level- that was how they implemented D&D's Vancian system on an 8 bit NES). But even if you forget about that, the character fantasy has become very rich, with wizards in 5ed having the ability to specialize in a school, and sorcerers in 5ed having a choice of bloodlines that power them. Pathfinder 1.0 also had this choice with the types of wizards, assigning for the first time a set of unique powers to enchanters, evokers, etc. And both Pathfinder editions do a WONDERFUL job with sorcerers, having a variety of interesting and diverse blood powers.
I would never give up any of that to go back to just the AD&D wizard, with roleplaying expected to fill that giant chasm. Oh, yea, my guy gets his magic from a dragon, but there's zero mechanical impacts from that. He has to study his book just like the Harry Potter ripoff in the corner over there. I guess I specialized in evocation so I get a +1 to my save DC on fireball!
For my preference; we had enough classes after the 3 LBB's, and Greyhawk. If that isn't enough for someone to roleplay out, let them Multi class / Dual class. A creative person can turn those few classes into almost anything.
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 03, 2022, 11:21:53 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 03, 2022, 11:05:48 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 03, 2022, 10:50:50 PM
I've mentioned this a bunch of times every time that the subject even remotely comes up, and BoxCrayonTales already covered much of it, so I'm not gonna repeat everything, but YES! There are WAY too many classes, and Sorcerers are the most redundant class in 5e.
If it were up to me there'd only be three classes: Warrior, Specialist and Mystic. I'd do away with the artificial Arcane/Divine distinction, and ALL customization would be done through Feats (yes, FEATS), and maybe Subclasses (which would probably grant Feats you can pick individually anyways, but they get more immediate access to them). Differences between different types of casters would be handled with traditions, similar to Shadowrun Hermetic Mages and Totemic Shamans, which grant bonuses to magic related to their traditions, but all basically have access to the same magic.
It only feels artificial because it's the exact same mechanic.
I disagree, Warrior, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard is perfectly fine.
I do agree that customization should be handled by subclasses, Backgrounds (skills) AND FEATS, YES! FEATS!
Just ask Jaeger.
Just not the, ALSO bloated, mess of Skills and Feats 3.0 and 5e have.
I don't like dealing with different mechanics for magic/super power type stuff. They needlessly complicate things, and are ultimately about making artificial distinctions between different magic approaches, with the exception of stuff like Spellcasting vs Ritual Casting. Plus the Arcana/Divine distinction was pretty much made up by D&D. Real life mystical traditions don't make a hard distinction between the two, and invariably acknowledge some type of divine presence, even if they're "wizard" traditions, like Hermetic types.
"Thou shalt not allow the witch to live"
No, not all real life mystical traditions conflate the divine with the arcane.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 04, 2022, 12:06:47 AM
No, not all real life mystical traditions conflate the divine with the arcane.
I'm pretty sure Divine/Arcane distinction did not originate in D&D. My imperfect understanding of a lot of cultures that believed in gods and in magic does not assume they are one and the same. I think our understanding of Norse mythology has the gods doing magic in some cases, but not necessarily because they are gods. With Egypt, which is better preserved, it definitely sounds like they thought of magic as something underlying things.
I guess I could be wrong here- these are old things and subject to modern interpretation. But the idea that the divine/arcane split was originated by D&D, or is even all that new, I think is the claim that would need a lot of backup. If you have a society that believes magic is a thing that gods and men can do, and that gods can also cause things to happen, then I think it's reasonable to claim that divine and arcane are different, even if the society kind of believed in only one magical "substance"- the very fact that they also acknowlege gods helping their people sort of means that that divide between those ideas is present.
Many of the other concepts do come from trying to have stuff that explains a bigger world. For instance if you design a system for a low magic Hellenistic society based reasonably closely on ancient Greece, you could take more liberties with everything that the Greeks believed and did during that period. If you also have to incorporate all of everything that the Chinese believed around that time, you would need a system that is more generic.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 04, 2022, 12:06:47 AM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 03, 2022, 11:21:53 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 03, 2022, 11:05:48 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 03, 2022, 10:50:50 PM
I've mentioned this a bunch of times every time that the subject even remotely comes up, and BoxCrayonTales already covered much of it, so I'm not gonna repeat everything, but YES! There are WAY too many classes, and Sorcerers are the most redundant class in 5e.
If it were up to me there'd only be three classes: Warrior, Specialist and Mystic. I'd do away with the artificial Arcane/Divine distinction, and ALL customization would be done through Feats (yes, FEATS), and maybe Subclasses (which would probably grant Feats you can pick individually anyways, but they get more immediate access to them). Differences between different types of casters would be handled with traditions, similar to Shadowrun Hermetic Mages and Totemic Shamans, which grant bonuses to magic related to their traditions, but all basically have access to the same magic.
It only feels artificial because it's the exact same mechanic.
I disagree, Warrior, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard is perfectly fine.
I do agree that customization should be handled by subclasses, Backgrounds (skills) AND FEATS, YES! FEATS!
Just ask Jaeger.
Just not the, ALSO bloated, mess of Skills and Feats 3.0 and 5e have.
I don't like dealing with different mechanics for magic/super power type stuff. They needlessly complicate things, and are ultimately about making artificial distinctions between different magic approaches, with the exception of stuff like Spellcasting vs Ritual Casting. Plus the Arcana/Divine distinction was pretty much made up by D&D. Real life mystical traditions don't make a hard distinction between the two, and invariably acknowledge some type of divine presence, even if they're "wizard" traditions, like Hermetic types.
"Thou shalt not allow the witch to live"
No, not all real life mystical traditions conflate the divine with the arcane.
That's a religious precept, not a mystical tradition. And Christianity can be extremely anti-mystical sometimes, even persecuting their own mystics occasionally and declaring people heretics left and right. Christian mysticism is also related to Hermeticism, which is where most modern notions of "wizards" come from. There's a difference between a particular religion being overly concerned about people's spiritual practices and driven to persecution, and "arcane" and "divine" elements within mysticism being fundamentally separate at the core.
Most of that is just RP from a game PoV anyways. The real question mechanically is what sort of magic you have access to, in terms of "schools" or "spheres" of magic, or different types of magical skills (healing magic, combat magic, mind control, etc.). And in terms of your character's "magical affinity", that could be handled as bonuses to specific types of magic, or in specific situations (under the full moon, at a church/temple, sacred grove, etc.) similar to Shadowrun traditions, like I mentioned earlier.
QuoteThat's a religious precept, not a mystical tradition. And Christianity can be extremely anti-mystical sometimes, even persecuting their own mystics occasionally and declaring people heretics left and right.
If I'm reading that correctly, that was the point- that certainly those cultures had the idea of thing that god is doing versus things that are magical in nature. Even today you will literally find actual people in America that believe that magic is real, and that you can get it from making deals with demons or whatever. This is even the position of some churches I think, and that definitely means that you have stuff God does, and stuff not done by God, and that's a pretty solid dividing line.
You point out that Hermeticism does have some links to God, as at least the versions of it that we have today assume the existence of a version of God that would probably be accepted in most (perhaps all) Christian churches, and add a couple semi-official archangels and such. And that's fine, but there's plenty of evidence that the same people who believed in Christianity also believed that there were people in distant lands who performed magic, and in many cases paid for astrologers to make predictions. Or what of geomancy and aeromancy? The same people who banned divination did so
because they believed it to be magic, and definitely not a miracle from God. They believed it to be real, and different to, for instance, a priest who healed the sick.
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 04, 2022, 12:42:53 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 04, 2022, 12:06:47 AM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 03, 2022, 11:21:53 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 03, 2022, 11:05:48 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 03, 2022, 10:50:50 PM
I've mentioned this a bunch of times every time that the subject even remotely comes up, and BoxCrayonTales already covered much of it, so I'm not gonna repeat everything, but YES! There are WAY too many classes, and Sorcerers are the most redundant class in 5e.
If it were up to me there'd only be three classes: Warrior, Specialist and Mystic. I'd do away with the artificial Arcane/Divine distinction, and ALL customization would be done through Feats (yes, FEATS), and maybe Subclasses (which would probably grant Feats you can pick individually anyways, but they get more immediate access to them). Differences between different types of casters would be handled with traditions, similar to Shadowrun Hermetic Mages and Totemic Shamans, which grant bonuses to magic related to their traditions, but all basically have access to the same magic.
It only feels artificial because it's the exact same mechanic.
I disagree, Warrior, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard is perfectly fine.
I do agree that customization should be handled by subclasses, Backgrounds (skills) AND FEATS, YES! FEATS!
Just ask Jaeger.
Just not the, ALSO bloated, mess of Skills and Feats 3.0 and 5e have.
I don't like dealing with different mechanics for magic/super power type stuff. They needlessly complicate things, and are ultimately about making artificial distinctions between different magic approaches, with the exception of stuff like Spellcasting vs Ritual Casting. Plus the Arcana/Divine distinction was pretty much made up by D&D. Real life mystical traditions don't make a hard distinction between the two, and invariably acknowledge some type of divine presence, even if they're "wizard" traditions, like Hermetic types.
"Thou shalt not allow the witch to live"
No, not all real life mystical traditions conflate the divine with the arcane.
That's a religious precept, not a mystical tradition. And Christianity can be extremely anti-mystical sometimes, even persecuting their own mystics occasionally and declaring people heretics left and right. Christian mysticism is also related to Hermeticism, which is where most modern notions of "wizards" come from. There's a difference between a particular religion being overly concerned about people's spiritual practices and driven to persecution, and "arcane" and "divine" elements within mysticism being fundamentally separate at the core.
Most of that is just RP from a game PoV anyways. The real question mechanically is what sort of magic you have access to, in terms of "schools" or "spheres" of magic, or different types of magical skills (healing magic, combat magic, mind control, etc.). And in terms of your character's "magical affinity", that could be handled as bonuses to specific types of magic, or in specific situations (under the full moon, at a church/temple, sacred grove, etc.) similar to Shadowrun traditions, like I mentioned earlier.
Definition of mysticism
1 : the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality reported by mystics. 2 : the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (such as intuition or insight)
So, you might be operating under a different definition than I.
IIRC, people in Africa believe that witches exist and that they do magic by pacts with demons. They also believe in God/gods. This isn't new due to Christianity or Islam either.
Many tribes in the Americas believed something very similar well before the arrival of the Europeans.
Same is true all over the world if not in all the different cultures.
So, again, under the definition of mysticism I'm operating, not all mystic traditions conflated the divine and the arcane.
To decide how many classes a game should have, you must first decide what classes are supposed to be and do. Are they purely mechanical silos? Are they purely archetypes? Some combination of both? Restrictions into select groups? And so on. Depending on your answers, you'll get a very different list. The only thing for sure is that no matter how you answer, WotC will screw the pooch, probably by both having classes that aren't needed and leaving out a class or two that would have been obvious had the dregs been cut.
I prefer my class-based systems to use classes that are primarily mechanical. Archetypes supported will be very broad, almost to the point of the class not being an archetype at all. Mainly because I do like some niche protection built into the system, for ease of building up a party of characters and helping players avoid the jack of all trades, master of none problem. I see a lot of casual players that will shoot themselves in the same foot, repeatedly, given something like GURPS to play with. I'm tired of having to explain to them why they made a character that they thinks sucks. YMMV, but mine most assuredly does not on this point.
For a D&D-style class game, given the above, what typically works well for me is a set of minimal classes and then the "half" classes that fill in the gaps. If you start with Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, then I don't mind the Ranger and Druid, for example, though already the mix is not ideal. I'd like the Paladin better if the basic Cleric was replaced with a mostly unarmored Priest, but then it does start to blend into the Wizard quite a bit (depending on how magic is divided up, if at all, naturally). Plus, I like Fighters a little more skilled by default, instead of uber combat monkey with nothing else attached, which starts to eat into the Ranger's main use.
Naming them would be a lot of fun (Narrator voice: It was not fun) given the traditions, but conceptually you could do worse in D&D than a set of classes that basically boiled down to:
- Mostly fighting guy
- Mostly sneaking guy
- Mostly magic guy
- Adequate fighting and adequate magic guy that can do magic in armor
- Adequate fighting and adequate sneaking guy
- Adequate sneaking and adequate magic guy
If you don't make the first three All fighting, all sneaking, and all magic--and nothing else--it leaves some design space to work. Likewise on tying certain combos arbitrarily to races. Of course, to do that, you have to start at the foundations of the game.
Quote from: Venka on September 04, 2022, 12:32:59 AMI'm pretty sure Divine/Arcane distinction did not originate in D&D.
If it did not originate with D&D then where are all the historical and literary sources that make an explicit distinction between the two, beyond just religious prejudice or rivalries?
Shamans (where all religion/spirituality originates from) are often referred to as "magicians" outside of D&D—and not just in a fictional context, but by religious scholars and such. Jesus himself has been referred to as a magician (https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Magician-Renowned-Historian-Reveals/dp/157174715X). Odin was a magician as well. Magical rituals often involve invoking gods or calling on them or other spiritual entities to witness your work. Pretty much every mystical tradition around the world involves spiritual components to it because magic is inherently spiritual in nature and involves command over otherworldly forces.
And before anyone brings it up, the idea that "spirituality" and "religion" are different things is largely a modern concept that arouse out of the need for some people to distance themselves from religious institutions. But the word "religion" itself comes from the Latin word "religare" meaning "to tie, to bind" or connect with something (presumably the divine or spiritual). You can't be "spiritual" without technically being "religious", even if you don't identify with any specific religious tradition or institution.
That "religiosity" or "spirituality" can take many forms or interpretations, particularly once you throw specific religious traditions (with their own teachings and prescriptions) into the mix, but they're all part of the same religious/spiritual and ultimately mystical, otherworldly or "magical" continuum.
It's only once we get to RPGs (which have been influenced by D&D since the early days) or literary works derived from them or influenced by them that the distinction between arcane ("magician") and divine begins to be made.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 04, 2022, 01:13:17 AM
Definition of mysticism
1 : the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality reported by mystics. 2 : the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (such as intuition or insight)
So, you might be operating under a different definition than I.
IIRC, people in Africa believe that witches exist and that they do magic by pacts with demons. They also believe in God/gods. This isn't new due to Christianity or Islam either.
Many tribes in the Americas believed something very similar well before the arrival of the Europeans.
Same is true all over the world if not in all the different cultures.
So, again, under the definition of mysticism I'm operating, not all mystic traditions conflated the divine and the arcane.
The word "mystic" and it's variants can extend to include a variety of mystical, esoteric, or occult practices, and otherworldly powers, etc., beyond just union with God specifically (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mystic). "Mystical" is basically synonymous with "magical" or supernatural.
And the reason that witches were persecuted in various parts of the world, even before Christianity, wasn't based on the belief that there's some sort of Arcane/Divine split in the practice of magic, but that they practiced magic that was harmful to people and consorted with evil entities (which from a D&D PoV could be interpreted as evil gods and the like). Yet non-witch "magician" also existed in many of those same cultures, but they didn't face the same type of persecution because they weren't perceived as evil.
We could eliminate the need for different classes if the mechanics simply allowed you to pick a suite of abilities at each level without limitation as a function of skill levels. That is, instead of "at level x, the fighter gets these abilities and the ranger gets those abilities," instead you go "I'm throwing 3 skill points into melee combat which gets me second wind and I'm putting 3 points into ranged combat which gets me archery and I'm putting 4 points into druidic magic so I can cast 2nd level druidic spells." Bingo - you now have the skills of a ranger and a fighter without being rigidly defined as either.
It also would be interesting if successful use of skills have you the ability to automatically advance them when you level up (maybe an 2 uses at 1st level, 4 at 2nd, 8 at 3rd, etc." Without having to spend skill points buying them.
Quote from: 3catcircus on September 04, 2022, 10:10:23 AM
We could eliminate the need for different classes if the mechanics simply allowed you to pick a suite of abilities at each level without limitation as a function of skill levels. That is, instead of "at level x, the fighter gets these abilities and the ranger gets those abilities," instead you go "I'm throwing 3 skill points into melee combat which gets me second wind and I'm putting 3 points into ranged combat which gets me archery and I'm putting 4 points into druidic magic so I can cast 2nd level druidic spells." Bingo - you now have the skills of a ranger and a fighter without being rigidly defined as either.
It also would be interesting if successful use of skills have you the ability to automatically advance them when you level up (maybe an 2 uses at 1st level, 4 at 2nd, 8 at 3rd, etc." Without having to spend skill points buying them.
Mythras Classic Fantasy is a skill-based d100 OSR game. It doesn't have levels, but it treats all the various class abilities as skills. Classes are presented as pre-selected skill packages.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 04, 2022, 09:52:20 AM
To decide how many classes a game should have, you must first decide what classes are supposed to be and do. Are they purely mechanical silos? Are they purely archetypes? Some combination of both? Restrictions into select groups? And so on. Depending on your answers, you'll get a very different list. The only thing for sure is that no matter how you answer, WotC will screw the pooch, probably by both having classes that aren't needed and leaving out a class or two that would have been obvious had the dregs been cut.
I prefer my class-based systems to use classes that are primarily mechanical. Archetypes supported will be very broad, almost to the point of the class not being an archetype at all. Mainly because I do like some niche protection built into the system, for ease of building up a party of characters and helping players avoid the jack of all trades, master of none problem. I see a lot of casual players that will shoot themselves in the same foot, repeatedly, given something like GURPS to play with. I'm tired of having to explain to them why they made a character that they thinks sucks. YMMV, but mine most assuredly does not on this point.
For a D&D-style class game, given the above, what typically works well for me is a set of minimal classes and then the "half" classes that fill in the gaps. If you start with Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, then I don't mind the Ranger and Druid, for example, though already the mix is not ideal. I'd like the Paladin better if the basic Cleric was replaced with a mostly unarmored Priest, but then it does start to blend into the Wizard quite a bit (depending on how magic is divided up, if at all, naturally). Plus, I like Fighters a little more skilled by default, instead of uber combat monkey with nothing else attached, which starts to eat into the Ranger's main use.
Naming them would be a lot of fun (Narrator voice: It was not fun) given the traditions, but conceptually you could do worse in D&D than a set of classes that basically boiled down to:
- Mostly fighting guy
- Mostly sneaking guy
- Mostly magic guy
- Adequate fighting and adequate magic guy that can do magic in armor
- Adequate fighting and adequate sneaking guy
- Adequate sneaking and adequate magic guy
If you don't make the first three All fighting, all sneaking, and all magic--and nothing else--it leaves some design space to work. Likewise on tying certain combos arbitrarily to races. Of course, to do that, you have to start at the foundations of the game.
I like those character options. Warrior, Rogue, Mage.
Yes, there are too many classes. I even kicked out the cleric from the core four in my most recent OD&D. There are other ways to bring that element to the table.
I kind of vary. One the one hand I sometimes like playing specialized or niche classes, but on the whole I also like the idea of just a few core ones. I think you can pretty much get by with the core four, though I hate the name rogue for a class, so I'd just call it a thief, or maybe scout. One thing you can do is offer variations of skills based on cultures/settings. I also really like the idea of variant spell lists for different types of casters, including priest spells by deity/pantheon, though that's a fair amount of work. For example, Hyperborea has different lists for witches, pyromancers, cryomancers, and necromancers. The way Warhammer 2e did magic was cool, too. Everyone has access to a few basic spells, but then it's determined by specialty.
And I think it can vary a bit by setting or tone. Certain classes & sub-classes obviously fit certain settings. The forthcoming Swords & Chaos rpg has just 7 classes to fit its Swords & Sorcery vibe. These are assassin, barbarian, fighter, knight, ranger, rogue, and sorcerer, which is good in terms of limiting choices, but the choices themselves seem a bit strange to me. The rogue and assassin could be rolled into a single thief classes with certain abilities by background/homeland, a feature that is already built into the game. The ranger seems too Tolkienian for S&S. Why not a warder, or frontiersman or something? And I know they have knights in Conan, but that class also seems off, being "too medieval" in my opinion. And though they don't have a cleric, I'd been fine with something like a Cultist, certainly as a villain. The barbarian seems less attractive than the fighter, judging from the preview, at least in terms of abilities. We haven't seen the final version of the rules yet so I'll be curious to see exactly how the rules work and integrate the setting into them.
This is a long-winded way of arguing for fewer classes with more setting/roleplaying details to customize them.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 03, 2022, 10:46:33 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking on September 03, 2022, 10:04:16 PM
The game I play has 6 classes: Berserker, Knight, Mystic, Rogue, Warrior, Wizard. With these six classes we can build the equivalent of any 3rd or 5th edition class or prestige class. The big thing for D&D is that lots of classes have access to a small amount of magic (like the Paladin). Building generic access to magic for ANY class (like a Rogue that wants to learn invisibility) is the best way to make sure that a small number of classes can cover the widest variety of 'archetypes'.
For us, each of those classes approaches combat in a unique way - the Berserker gets extra damage when Raging, while the Rogue gets extra damage by Sneaking or taking advantage of someone that is engaged by 2+ other people (Sneak Attack) - and we give class abilities that are specific and helpful in that role. Any other abilities outside of the class are selectable. If you want to be a Ranger, you probably take Rogue or Warrior, then take an Animal Companion. If you want to be a Paladin, you take Knight, and you take 'knows some spells' instead of (or in addition to) Animal Companion (if you really want a mount).
So yes, I think ultimately, a small number of flexible classes is better. But then how can you sell more books?
Berserker & Knight are subclasses of Warrior, just like Barbarian is a background for Warrior/Fighter.
I take it that Mystic is the Cleric for edgy Atheists, while the Wizard is the Wizard.
So that system already has two Classes too many.
As for selling more books... Make good settings.
No. That's basically completely wrong. The berserker gets rage while the knight gets Designate, and the Warrior gets special abilities that work when making attacks like Disarm and Trip. The reason they're different classes is that we have very different mechanics that make them
feel different when you play.
A Mystic is not at all like a cleric. They're more like a Binder. Clerics are just wizards that take healing spells. Mystics have bound spirits that cast spells foe them. They're a different class because they have different mechanics that make them
feel different.
If we could make fewer classes and maintain their uniqueness, we would have. The best way to make sure that people can't select abilities like Sneak Attack
and Rage is to make them mutually exclusive. By making it part of the class, you can't double up.
For me the issues is not the number of classes but the expectation that any and all classes can be used in campaign. It makes the setting feel spread to thin when every class could and does exists. I take no issue with the big book of classes, so long as the playable list is reduced to a manageable choices. 6 options is good from a human factors perspective.
Quote from: deadDMwalking on September 04, 2022, 09:01:50 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 03, 2022, 10:46:33 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking on September 03, 2022, 10:04:16 PM
The game I play has 6 classes: Berserker, Knight, Mystic, Rogue, Warrior, Wizard. With these six classes we can build the equivalent of any 3rd or 5th edition class or prestige class. The big thing for D&D is that lots of classes have access to a small amount of magic (like the Paladin). Building generic access to magic for ANY class (like a Rogue that wants to learn invisibility) is the best way to make sure that a small number of classes can cover the widest variety of 'archetypes'.
For us, each of those classes approaches combat in a unique way - the Berserker gets extra damage when Raging, while the Rogue gets extra damage by Sneaking or taking advantage of someone that is engaged by 2+ other people (Sneak Attack) - and we give class abilities that are specific and helpful in that role. Any other abilities outside of the class are selectable. If you want to be a Ranger, you probably take Rogue or Warrior, then take an Animal Companion. If you want to be a Paladin, you take Knight, and you take 'knows some spells' instead of (or in addition to) Animal Companion (if you really want a mount).
So yes, I think ultimately, a small number of flexible classes is better. But then how can you sell more books?
Berserker & Knight are subclasses of Warrior, just like Barbarian is a background for Warrior/Fighter.
I take it that Mystic is the Cleric for edgy Atheists, while the Wizard is the Wizard.
So that system already has two Classes too many.
As for selling more books... Make good settings.
No. That's basically completely wrong. The berserker gets rage while the knight gets Designate, and the Warrior gets special abilities that work when making attacks like Disarm and Trip. The reason they're different classes is that we have very different mechanics that make them feel different when you play.
A Mystic is not at all like a cleric. They're more like a Binder. Clerics are just wizards that take healing spells. Mystics have bound spirits that cast spells foe them. They're a different class because they have different mechanics that make them feel different.
If we could make fewer classes and maintain their uniqueness, we would have. The best way to make sure that people can't select abilities like Sneak Attack and Rage is to make them mutually exclusive. By making it part of the class, you can't double up.
Except you can double up. There are plenty of examples of cherry-picking levels to get specific abilities, in specific sequences, to give stackable effects that very likely were never imagined during pre-pub play tests. This seems ridiculous as well as diluting the flavor of each class.
For example, explain to me how it makes any in-game sense to build a character with the following progression: Fighter (tower shield specialist) -> alchemist (vivisectionist) -> monk -> fighter (4 levels) -> rogue (thug) -> stalwart defender -> rogue (2 levels) -> fighter (4 levels) -> alchemist (2 levels) -> fighter (2 levels). This build was designed for a single goal: turning you into a wall of steel.
That's like saying "I'm an engineer doctor lawyer truck driver barista pro athlete." Even Buckaroo Banzai only had 4 professions - and he had to be a polymath to do it - and it wasn't for a singular goal.
Find a way to prevent dipping of the toe to get specific abilities, and you might not need to worry about all of the classes.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 03, 2022, 07:46:09 PM
There are a full dozen classes in the D&D5 player book. While I do appreciate having options for customization, I think there are too many classes now and most of them don't need to be distinct classes.
For example, the sorcerer was only added in 3rd edition because of the way wizards cast spells. Wizards (as well as clerics and druids) had to prepare all their spells/slots in advance, whereas sorcerers could cast any spell known with any compatible spell slot. As of 5e, wizards (and clerics and druids) now effectively cast spells like sorcerers do but can swap out their spells known/prepared. Without the original mechanical distinction there's really no reason for sorcerers to exist beyond tradition (and to be a dumping ground for spontaneous casters converted from prior editions, like the favored soul being adapted to the divine soul sorcerous origin). I get that "inherent gift magicians" are a concept that people will want to play, but does it really need its own class and all these forced supplements for it?
The various subclasses scrape the bottom of the barrel very quickly when it comes to concepts, especially for any class beyond Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. I really think the metaclass framework from 2e (basically those four classes I just named (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasyCharacterClasses)) would've been very useful here. Or maybe something like Spheres of Power & Might (http://spheres5e.wikidot.com/).
What do you think?
Fuck, yes.
Beyond the initial four, I can understand having Bard as a Jack-of-all-Trades but Master of none. Otherwise they are just masturbatory mods of the initial four.
Quote from: deadDMwalking on September 04, 2022, 09:01:50 PM
If we could make fewer classes and maintain their uniqueness, we would have. The best way to make sure that people can't select abilities like Sneak Attack and Rage is to make them mutually exclusive. By making it part of the class, you can't double up.
Rage and Sneak Attack are already mutually exclusive by virtue of you not being able to sneak around while foaming at the mouth with Rage. You could go as far as to declare that you can't take any actions that require finesse or concentration while raging, then that pretty much prevents you from sneak attacking flanked enemies while raging.
You also already can't have both abilities if the game doesn't allow you to multiclass, which would be the only way that locking those abilities behind different classes would prevent people from having both, as your post implies. Not that I care personally. As long as you "pay" for them somehow I don't care what abilities your character has. Splitting your levels across different classes would be a way to "pay" for them. Turning those abilities into Feats would be another.
You could also treat different class variants as Subclasses of a core class, which is what a Berserker essentially is to a Warrior, conceptually speaking.
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 05, 2022, 01:32:12 AM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 03, 2022, 07:46:09 PM
There are a full dozen classes in the D&D5 player book. While I do appreciate having options for customization, I think there are too many classes now and most of them don't need to be distinct classes.
For example, the sorcerer was only added in 3rd edition because of the way wizards cast spells. Wizards (as well as clerics and druids) had to prepare all their spells/slots in advance, whereas sorcerers could cast any spell known with any compatible spell slot. As of 5e, wizards (and clerics and druids) now effectively cast spells like sorcerers do but can swap out their spells known/prepared. Without the original mechanical distinction there's really no reason for sorcerers to exist beyond tradition (and to be a dumping ground for spontaneous casters converted from prior editions, like the favored soul being adapted to the divine soul sorcerous origin). I get that "inherent gift magicians" are a concept that people will want to play, but does it really need its own class and all these forced supplements for it?
The various subclasses scrape the bottom of the barrel very quickly when it comes to concepts, especially for any class beyond Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. I really think the metaclass framework from 2e (basically those four classes I just named (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasyCharacterClasses)) would've been very useful here. Or maybe something like Spheres of Power & Might (http://spheres5e.wikidot.com/).
What do you think?
Fuck, yes.
Beyond the initial four, I can understand having Bard as a Jack-of-all-Trades but Master of none. Otherwise they are just masturbatory mods of the initial four.
And the cleric can even be thought of in terms of a combination of the fighter and mage, providing a support role where they're not particularly good at all of those but good enough to provide support (particularly magical healing unique to them). https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FighterMageThief
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 03, 2022, 11:05:48 PM
It only feels artificial because it's the exact same mechanic.
I disagree, Warrior, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard is perfectly fine.
I do agree that customization should be handled by subclasses, Backgrounds (skills) AND FEATS, YES! FEATS!
Just ask Jaeger.
Just not the, ALSO bloated, mess of Skills and Feats 3.0 and 5e have.
I started a 5e campaign/dungeon crawl with only the 4 core classes (Fi,Cl,Ro,Wi)and 4 core races(Hu,Dw,El,1/2) due to the insane creep of both in 5e where you might as well be playing in Zootopia instead of a fantasy realm. The reduction of complexity leads to the expansion of Outside of the Box thinking. Or as some of you shade tree can say "Run with what ya brung"
The players can learn that there is so much you can do with the "basics" instead of having to go off into Tiefling Warlock or a Aaaroka Artificer in order to achieve maximum potential.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 05, 2022, 09:45:05 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 05, 2022, 01:32:12 AM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 03, 2022, 07:46:09 PM
There are a full dozen classes in the D&D5 player book. While I do appreciate having options for customization, I think there are too many classes now and most of them don't need to be distinct classes.
For example, the sorcerer was only added in 3rd edition because of the way wizards cast spells. Wizards (as well as clerics and druids) had to prepare all their spells/slots in advance, whereas sorcerers could cast any spell known with any compatible spell slot. As of 5e, wizards (and clerics and druids) now effectively cast spells like sorcerers do but can swap out their spells known/prepared. Without the original mechanical distinction there's really no reason for sorcerers to exist beyond tradition (and to be a dumping ground for spontaneous casters converted from prior editions, like the favored soul being adapted to the divine soul sorcerous origin). I get that "inherent gift magicians" are a concept that people will want to play, but does it really need its own class and all these forced supplements for it?
The various subclasses scrape the bottom of the barrel very quickly when it comes to concepts, especially for any class beyond Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. I really think the metaclass framework from 2e (basically those four classes I just named (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasyCharacterClasses)) would've been very useful here. Or maybe something like Spheres of Power & Might (http://spheres5e.wikidot.com/).
What do you think?
Fuck, yes.
Beyond the initial four, I can understand having Bard as a Jack-of-all-Trades but Master of none. Otherwise they are just masturbatory mods of the initial four.
And the cleric can even be thought of in terms of a combination of the fighter and mage, providing a support role where they're not particularly good at all of those but good enough to provide support (particularly magical healing unique to them). https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FighterMageThief
The cleric is such a "doesn't really fit into a box" concept. If we are looking at it from the traditional European medieval origin, then it's really 3 different things - you've got your village vicar types trying to keep the people on the straight and narrow while giving them something to look forward to; you've got your noble-born bishops who are likely pious in name only while juggling a hidden family and wheeling & dealing at court or jockeying for position to become a cardinal; and then you have the wandering holy man who can work miracles and become canonized as a saint types. None of them really fit into the standard cleric. The "monk toiling away copying down manuscripts for 3 hots and a cot" doesn't even enter the picture.
And that is the case for pretty much *every* class. Sub classes and kits and prestige classes and archetypes exist in the various iterations of D&D because it is a class-based system.
Break it apart and make *everything* skill-based. Give "packages" if skills at 1st level to represent the cost of entry into the "class." Then give that class a bucket of skill points to pick from a very narrow list at every level after that, with restrictions (no more than x points in any one of these skills). At that point, you really only need worry about how the packages are bought and you don't have to worry about the quantity of classes. I'd eliminate the difference in the number of skills you can be proficient in based upon class.
I'd also eliminate the different hit die by class and make it a function of your STR and CON modified by Athletics. Why can't there be a Wizard triathlete who is in better shape than a beer-swilling barbarian? Or for that matter, recognizing that "barbarian" can be anything from a viking to a pygmy headhunter - and their "abilities" are vastly different.
Quote from: 3catcircus on September 05, 2022, 10:31:12 AM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 05, 2022, 09:45:05 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 05, 2022, 01:32:12 AM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 03, 2022, 07:46:09 PM
There are a full dozen classes in the D&D5 player book. While I do appreciate having options for customization, I think there are too many classes now and most of them don't need to be distinct classes.
For example, the sorcerer was only added in 3rd edition because of the way wizards cast spells. Wizards (as well as clerics and druids) had to prepare all their spells/slots in advance, whereas sorcerers could cast any spell known with any compatible spell slot. As of 5e, wizards (and clerics and druids) now effectively cast spells like sorcerers do but can swap out their spells known/prepared. Without the original mechanical distinction there's really no reason for sorcerers to exist beyond tradition (and to be a dumping ground for spontaneous casters converted from prior editions, like the favored soul being adapted to the divine soul sorcerous origin). I get that "inherent gift magicians" are a concept that people will want to play, but does it really need its own class and all these forced supplements for it?
The various subclasses scrape the bottom of the barrel very quickly when it comes to concepts, especially for any class beyond Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. I really think the metaclass framework from 2e (basically those four classes I just named (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasyCharacterClasses)) would've been very useful here. Or maybe something like Spheres of Power & Might (http://spheres5e.wikidot.com/).
What do you think?
Fuck, yes.
Beyond the initial four, I can understand having Bard as a Jack-of-all-Trades but Master of none. Otherwise they are just masturbatory mods of the initial four.
And the cleric can even be thought of in terms of a combination of the fighter and mage, providing a support role where they're not particularly good at all of those but good enough to provide support (particularly magical healing unique to them). https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FighterMageThief
The cleric is such a "doesn't really fit into a box" concept. If we are looking at it from the traditional European medieval origin, then it's really 3 different things - you've got your village vicar types trying to keep the people on the straight and narrow while giving them something to look forward to; you've got your noble-born bishops who are likely pious in name only while juggling a hidden family and wheeling & dealing at court or jockeying for position to become a cardinal; and then you have the wandering holy man who can work miracles and become canonized as a saint types. None of them really fit into the standard cleric. The "monk toiling away copying down manuscripts for 3 hots and a cot" doesn't even enter the picture.
And that is the case for pretty much *every* class. Sub classes and kits and prestige classes and archetypes exist in the various iterations of D&D because it is a class-based system.
Break it apart and make *everything* skill-based. Give "packages" if skills at 1st level to represent the cost of entry into the "class." Then give that class a bucket of skill points to pick from a very narrow list at every level after that, with restrictions (no more than x points in any one of these skills). At that point, you really only need worry about how the packages are bought and you don't have to worry about the quantity of classes. I'd eliminate the difference in the number of skills you can be proficient in based upon class.
I'd also eliminate the different hit die by class and make it a function of your STR and CON modified by Athletics. Why can't there be a Wizard triathlete who is in better shape than a beer-swilling barbarian? Or for that matter, recognizing that "barbarian" can be anything from a viking to a pygmy headhunter - and their "abilities" are vastly different.
Congratsbyou just came up with the idea of a skill based game. They've been around for a long time though and some people prefer the class based games.
Quote from: Slambo on September 05, 2022, 10:59:56 AM
Quote from: 3catcircus on September 05, 2022, 10:31:12 AM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 05, 2022, 09:45:05 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 05, 2022, 01:32:12 AM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 03, 2022, 07:46:09 PM
There are a full dozen classes in the D&D5 player book. While I do appreciate having options for customization, I think there are too many classes now and most of them don't need to be distinct classes.
For example, the sorcerer was only added in 3rd edition because of the way wizards cast spells. Wizards (as well as clerics and druids) had to prepare all their spells/slots in advance, whereas sorcerers could cast any spell known with any compatible spell slot. As of 5e, wizards (and clerics and druids) now effectively cast spells like sorcerers do but can swap out their spells known/prepared. Without the original mechanical distinction there's really no reason for sorcerers to exist beyond tradition (and to be a dumping ground for spontaneous casters converted from prior editions, like the favored soul being adapted to the divine soul sorcerous origin). I get that "inherent gift magicians" are a concept that people will want to play, but does it really need its own class and all these forced supplements for it?
The various subclasses scrape the bottom of the barrel very quickly when it comes to concepts, especially for any class beyond Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. I really think the metaclass framework from 2e (basically those four classes I just named (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasyCharacterClasses)) would've been very useful here. Or maybe something like Spheres of Power & Might (http://spheres5e.wikidot.com/).
What do you think?
Fuck, yes.
Beyond the initial four, I can understand having Bard as a Jack-of-all-Trades but Master of none. Otherwise they are just masturbatory mods of the initial four.
And the cleric can even be thought of in terms of a combination of the fighter and mage, providing a support role where they're not particularly good at all of those but good enough to provide support (particularly magical healing unique to them). https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FighterMageThief
The cleric is such a "doesn't really fit into a box" concept. If we are looking at it from the traditional European medieval origin, then it's really 3 different things - you've got your village vicar types trying to keep the people on the straight and narrow while giving them something to look forward to; you've got your noble-born bishops who are likely pious in name only while juggling a hidden family and wheeling & dealing at court or jockeying for position to become a cardinal; and then you have the wandering holy man who can work miracles and become canonized as a saint types. None of them really fit into the standard cleric. The "monk toiling away copying down manuscripts for 3 hots and a cot" doesn't even enter the picture.
And that is the case for pretty much *every* class. Sub classes and kits and prestige classes and archetypes exist in the various iterations of D&D because it is a class-based system.
Break it apart and make *everything* skill-based. Give "packages" if skills at 1st level to represent the cost of entry into the "class." Then give that class a bucket of skill points to pick from a very narrow list at every level after that, with restrictions (no more than x points in any one of these skills). At that point, you really only need worry about how the packages are bought and you don't have to worry about the quantity of classes. I'd eliminate the difference in the number of skills you can be proficient in based upon class.
I'd also eliminate the different hit die by class and make it a function of your STR and CON modified by Athletics. Why can't there be a Wizard triathlete who is in better shape than a beer-swilling barbarian? Or for that matter, recognizing that "barbarian" can be anything from a viking to a pygmy headhunter - and their "abilities" are vastly different.
Congratsbyou just came up with the idea of a skill based game. They've been around for a long time though and some people prefer the class based games.
I'm not really referring to Rolemaster style skill-based games. I'm referring to making D&D's classes less rigid and more customizable as a means of eliminating the need for more classes.
Quote from: 3catcircus on September 05, 2022, 12:20:23 PM
Quote from: Slambo on September 05, 2022, 10:59:56 AM
Quote from: 3catcircus on September 05, 2022, 10:31:12 AM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 05, 2022, 09:45:05 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 05, 2022, 01:32:12 AM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 03, 2022, 07:46:09 PM
There are a full dozen classes in the D&D5 player book. While I do appreciate having options for customization, I think there are too many classes now and most of them don't need to be distinct classes.
For example, the sorcerer was only added in 3rd edition because of the way wizards cast spells. Wizards (as well as clerics and druids) had to prepare all their spells/slots in advance, whereas sorcerers could cast any spell known with any compatible spell slot. As of 5e, wizards (and clerics and druids) now effectively cast spells like sorcerers do but can swap out their spells known/prepared. Without the original mechanical distinction there's really no reason for sorcerers to exist beyond tradition (and to be a dumping ground for spontaneous casters converted from prior editions, like the favored soul being adapted to the divine soul sorcerous origin). I get that "inherent gift magicians" are a concept that people will want to play, but does it really need its own class and all these forced supplements for it?
The various subclasses scrape the bottom of the barrel very quickly when it comes to concepts, especially for any class beyond Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. I really think the metaclass framework from 2e (basically those four classes I just named (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasyCharacterClasses)) would've been very useful here. Or maybe something like Spheres of Power & Might (http://spheres5e.wikidot.com/).
What do you think?
Fuck, yes.
Beyond the initial four, I can understand having Bard as a Jack-of-all-Trades but Master of none. Otherwise they are just masturbatory mods of the initial four.
And the cleric can even be thought of in terms of a combination of the fighter and mage, providing a support role where they're not particularly good at all of those but good enough to provide support (particularly magical healing unique to them). https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FighterMageThief
The cleric is such a "doesn't really fit into a box" concept. If we are looking at it from the traditional European medieval origin, then it's really 3 different things - you've got your village vicar types trying to keep the people on the straight and narrow while giving them something to look forward to; you've got your noble-born bishops who are likely pious in name only while juggling a hidden family and wheeling & dealing at court or jockeying for position to become a cardinal; and then you have the wandering holy man who can work miracles and become canonized as a saint types. None of them really fit into the standard cleric. The "monk toiling away copying down manuscripts for 3 hots and a cot" doesn't even enter the picture.
And that is the case for pretty much *every* class. Sub classes and kits and prestige classes and archetypes exist in the various iterations of D&D because it is a class-based system.
Break it apart and make *everything* skill-based. Give "packages" if skills at 1st level to represent the cost of entry into the "class." Then give that class a bucket of skill points to pick from a very narrow list at every level after that, with restrictions (no more than x points in any one of these skills). At that point, you really only need worry about how the packages are bought and you don't have to worry about the quantity of classes. I'd eliminate the difference in the number of skills you can be proficient in based upon class.
I'd also eliminate the different hit die by class and make it a function of your STR and CON modified by Athletics. Why can't there be a Wizard triathlete who is in better shape than a beer-swilling barbarian? Or for that matter, recognizing that "barbarian" can be anything from a viking to a pygmy headhunter - and their "abilities" are vastly different.
Congratsbyou just came up with the idea of a skill based game. They've been around for a long time though and some people prefer the class based games.
I'm not really referring to Rolemaster style skill-based games. I'm referring to making D&D's classes less rigid and more customizable as a means of eliminating the need for more classes.
I never played rolemaster, but what you described is actually pretty close to the fantasy flight 40k games, which is, as far as im concerned a skill based game
For a class/level based game, there are really only two options. Anything in-between is sub-optimal from a design perspective or dissatisfying from a philosophical perspective.
1. All of the classes - no multiclassing, each class satisfies an archetype
2. 3 classes (strong, smart, skill) plus the ability to multi class between them with some sort of feat system to provide differential play experiences
SWN/WWN provides the second, which is why it has become my preferred OSR rpg. D&D 5E really leans in on the first. PF2E tried to thread the middle ground and has not done that all that well. Same problem 4E had
My ideal is Savage Worlds because it dispenses with classes completely and only has a soft level system
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 (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.
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 (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.
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.
Quote from: 3catcircus on September 04, 2022, 10:07:23 PM
Except you can double up. There are plenty of examples of cherry-picking levels to get specific abilities, in specific sequences, to give stackable effects that very likely were never imagined during pre-pub play tests. This seems ridiculous as well as diluting the flavor of each class.
For example, explain to me how it makes any in-game sense to build a character with the following progression: Fighter (tower shield specialist) -> alchemist (vivisectionist) -> monk -> fighter (4 levels) -> rogue (thug) -> stalwart defender -> rogue (2 levels) -> fighter (4 levels) -> alchemist (2 levels) -> fighter (2 levels). This build was designed for a single goal: turning you into a wall of steel.
That's like saying "I'm an engineer doctor lawyer truck driver barista pro athlete." Even Buckaroo Banzai only had 4 professions - and he had to be a polymath to do it - and it wasn't for a singular goal.
I feel you didn't read what you quoted.
Quote from: deadDMwalking
The game I play has 6 classes: Berserker, Knight, Mystic, Rogue, Warrior, Wizard
There's no alchemist, stalwart defender, or monk. Those
concepts exist, and they can be made with the six classes we have. For example, a Warrior with unarmed attacks and/or some minor magic can cover the Mystic Unarmed Warrior (monk) concept well.
It's possible to try to make a nigh-unhittable tank (in fact, that's one of my current characters), but it turns out that being flat-footed (which for us negates shield bonuses to Defense) means that rogues are pretty good against him, but he's pretty good against everything else. For us, a small number of classes that can handle a large number of CONCEPTS is exactly what we're striving for.
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 05, 2022, 09:23:18 AM
Quote from: deadDMwalking on September 04, 2022, 09:01:50 PM
If we could make fewer classes and maintain their uniqueness, we would have. The best way to make sure that people can't select abilities like Sneak Attack and Rage is to make them mutually exclusive. By making it part of the class, you can't double up.
Rage and Sneak Attack are already mutually exclusive by virtue of you not being able to sneak around while foaming at the mouth with Rage. You could go as far as to declare that you can't take any actions that require finesse or concentration while raging, then that pretty much prevents you from sneak attacking flanked enemies while raging.
You also already can't have both abilities if the game doesn't allow you to multiclass, which would be the only way that locking those abilities behind different classes would prevent people from having both, as your post implies. Not that I care personally. As long as you "pay" for them somehow I don't care what abilities your character has. Splitting your levels across different classes would be a way to "pay" for them. Turning those abilities into Feats would be another.
You could also treat different class variants as Subclasses of a core class, which is what a Berserker essentially is to a Warrior, conceptually speaking.
You can be a rogue and a berserker. If you're a rogue, you're going to get Sneak Attack at 1st, 3rd, 5th, etc. If you're a Berserker, you're going to get rage damage at 1st, 3rd, 5th. What we don't want is someone to get Rage + Sneak damage at 1st level; that's too much damage and it breaks the game. We're fine with someone taking Berserker and Rogue, and we're fine with someone getting Sneak Attack while raging - as long as they can't get too much of either. Now, each class has OTHER abilities that are nice, too. So if you take 1st level in multiple classes you COULD be effective, but you wouldn't be any more effective than someone that took all their levels in the same class. Importantly, if you did take all different classes (ie, Berserker 1/Knight 1/Mystic 1/Rogue 1/Warrior 1/Wizard 1) you wouldn't be totally screwed, either. A Level 6 Wizard would have access to 4th level spells; the example character would still be able to get 3rd level spells.
Any prestige class ability or any class ability that you might think of (like 2-weapon fighting for Ranger) is a selectable feat. We don't have pre-requisites for feats, so you don't have to plan your character advancement. We have feats that you can select at 1st-4th; feats that you can select at 5th-8th, and feats you can select at 9th+ - this represents distinct tiers in feat power so a high level class ability (that wasn't just tied to spell-casting or something) might be a 9th level Talent. But if you're 9th level, you can just choose it - you don't have to worry about whether you took Spring Attack at 1st level or anything like that.
Anyways, that's the way we chose to approach the issue. We didn't go with 4 classes because we feel that we couldn't represent the concepts we wanted with 4 classes. But we didn't go with 20 classes because we thought we could represent 20+ classes with six.
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.
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 (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 (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 (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.
Just because I happened to have a list handy... Too many classes? ;-)
Rolemaster Classic Professions (~Classes)
Alchemist
Animist
Archmage
Arcist
Arms Master
Assassin
Astral Traveller
Barbarian
Bashkar
Beastmaster
Bounty Hunter
Burglar
Cavalier
Chaotic Lord
Cleric
Conjurer
Crafter
Craftsman
Crystal Mage
Dancer
Delver
Dervish
Doppleganger
Dream Lord
Druid
Duelist
Elementalist
Enchanter
Farmer
Fighter
Forcemage
Gypsy
Healer
High Warrior Monk
Houri
Illusionist
Lay Healer
Leader
Macabre
Magician
Magus
Maleficant
Mentalist
Montebanc
Moon Mage
Necromancer
Nightblade
No Profession
Noble Warrior
Paladin
Professional
Rogue
Runemaster
Sage
Sailor
Scholar
Seer
Shadow Mage
Shaman
Sleuth
Tarotmage
Thief
Trader
Warlock
Warrior
Warrior Mage
Warrior Monk
Witch
Witch Hunter
Wizard
Rolemaster Standard System tried to scale it back to 20 professions and used Training Packages to change them up. Despite that intent they ended up adding professions in each of the companinons. The structure and creation of the professions is interesting. They made up a list of skill costs and then arranged the professions in the order from best to worst and matched them up. Ah well, if I were in charge of the redesign there'd be no professions, only training packages. That's basically what I did with The Arcane Confabulation.
I already said that YES, there's too many classes/races...
And yet I'm creating new classes/races for some of my games. Sue me.
Quote from: David Johansen on September 07, 2022, 09:07:52 PM
Rolemaster Standard System tried to scale it back to 20 professions and used Training Packages to change them up. Despite that intent they ended up adding professions in each of the companinons. The structure and creation of the professions is interesting. They made up a list of skill costs and then arranged the professions in the order from best to worst and matched them up. Ah well, if I were in charge of the redesign there'd be no professions, only training packages. That's basically what I did with The Arcane Confabulation.
I have been playtesting Rolemaster Unified. They went back to...
Bard
Cleric
Dabbler
Druid
Fighter
Healer
Illusionist
Laborer
Lay Healer
Magent
Magician
Mentalist
Monk
Mystic
No Profession
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Scholar
Sorcerer
Thief
Warrior Monk
What's interesting is they went for some D&D names for core professions.. Fighter, Bard, Sorcerer.
No training packages in the core book so far, but I don't believe I have the latest version.
I found it quite useful in my own system to split up what would be a class in D&D into a combo of class and background.
That let me reduce the number of classes down to six (fighter, mastermind and one for each of the four sources of magic; mechanist, mystic, theurge and wizard) which mixed with the backgrounds provide a full package that are distinct from each other.
So an Aristocrat fighter would be a knight, a Barbarian fighter would be a barbarian or ranger, an Entertainer fighter would be a gladiator, a Military fighter would be a soldier or commander, an Outlaw fighter might be a thief or assassin, and a Religious one would be a paladin.
The Backgrounds I use to combine with the classes are Arcanist, Aristocrat, Artisan, Barbarian, Commoner, Entertainer, Military, Outlaw, Religious and Traveler.
That ends up straddling the difference between too few and too many classes by taking it from one selection from 60 classes to two selections of six and ten respectively.
Quote from: DocJones on September 07, 2022, 09:01:44 PM
Just because I happened to have a list handy... Too many classes? ;-)
Rolemaster Classic Professions (~Classes)
And that's not including the professions from the
Elemental Companion,
Oriental Companion, the Gothic Fantasy and Science-Fantasy professions from
RoCo VI, or the genre books ... :)
Or "Rolemaster Companion C", which I only just discovered
existed a couple of days ago.