My answer to this would be the class I'm working on that "summons" terrain.

Blue mages are often also difficult to implement, depending on the system. Summoner-types are another issue, and can be on par with blue mages unless you rein them in somehow.

Shapeshifters are another pain point, but it's at least a grade easier than blue mages since you can just say "screw it" and use personalized stat blocks rather than stuff from team monster.

Mimics are also kind of a PITA, with factotum-types being a close second.

Limiting gadget-type classes is quite simple: technology needs to be maintained to function. A gadgeteer can only maintain so many inventions at a time. Doesn't matter that you've built fifty things that go boom -- you can only keep three in functioning condition at any given time.

The answer to fighters is similarly simple: fighters shouldn't exist. It's far more sensible to create a set of combat-oriented classes but with interesting gimmicks. Monk is a good example of what kind of fighter should exist: you need concept hooks or cool stuff for the "fighter," to let them keep up with the casters.

Quote from: Mishihari on November 25, 2024, 11:33:42 PMArtificer, and I know this from having created several classes / sets of mechanics myself.  If, frex, an alchemist can make 1000 explodey potions in the month before the adventure and carry them all in a bag of holding, how do you balance this against a wizard who has x fireballs per day with doing something arbitrary and lacking in-setting explanation?  It can be done, and I've done it, but it's a heck of a lot more work than any other type of class to get it right.

Easy answer here go whole hog on a mana system and they can only carry so much of there mana in ready achemical objects that are ready to go. This isn't an all fixed answer but as i was working it seemed like the obvious answer.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 26, 2024, 12:25:38 PMDo you allow races and factions to be discussed too? Non-D&D-derived games?

Give it ago the game I'm working on come originally from d&d dna but its so far off that it won't matter much. besides you have experience in non d&d systems that gives you a cool opinion out side of other frames of view.

Mentalists, telepaths. They have always been a very difficult thing to handle in superhero games and elsewhere. They present untold problems for a GM.

The Assassin Class, and their one shot ability.

Any Race, that has Wings.

Any race, that has Darkvision.

Quote from: Man at Arms on November 26, 2024, 10:48:13 PMThe Assassin Class, and their one shot ability.

Any Race, that has Wings.

Any race, that has Darkvision.

Be right back. Need to make a flying assassin with goggles of the night (or whatever is the setting equivalent item)

Quote from: Darrin Kelley on November 26, 2024, 06:39:59 PMMentalists, telepaths. They have always been a very difficult thing to handle in superhero games and elsewhere. They present untold problems for a GM.

Don't forget object reading and divinations in general.

There was one game I remember where the latest edition removed all the divination powers because they broke the paranoia and dishonesty that the game was supposedly built on.

The way I fix it is to just make all the mysteries unsolvable without using divinations.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 27, 2024, 11:46:09 AMDon't forget object reading and divinations in general.

There was one game I remember where the latest edition removed all the divination powers because they broke the paranoia and dishonesty that the game was supposedly built on.

The way I fix it is to just make all the mysteries unsolvable without using divinations.

Divinations and object reading are not supposed to be win buttons. They are supposed to deliver murky clues at the most.They are not supposed to be mystery busters, Also, a simple set of gloves being worn by the perp pretty much nullifies object reading.

Telepaths are a bigger issue.

Mind reading the meany forms of future sight and other similar or close ability's aren't hard necessarily from a game maker stand point but do put more work in to the hands of the game runner. This is because they give very very powerful info tools to the players that the game master has to answer for.

The problem with artificer type characters is that most of the people who play that kind of character are forever trying to create this or that gadget to give the character an ever expanding list of free new abilities.  My clockwork thing can fly and gunpowder exists so I want to make a bunch of bomb drones.  I want to make a things that blows flour to reveal invisible enemies.  The only way to really deal with this is to draw a hard line and say, "No".  If it's a class based system, you can do what the class description says you can do.  If it's a points based system, you can do that if you spend the points to get that ability.  Otherwise, no.  No ever expanding list of free abilities through tinkering.  If there's a generic tinker ability that lets the character create undefined gadgets to do...stuff then I just don't allow it at all.  That sort of thing is just a constant headache and waste of time.

 
     

I think "thief" type classes are difficult to do things for, because many of the specialties they have had over the years are things that people might think any character could do.  Kinda like fighter in a way.
I also think cleric/healer is just an oddball kinda class too, like it feels more like its filling a role that seemed like it was needed rather than coming from an archetype.

I would say that class bloat combined with niche protection makes it harder to design class features without becoming anal retentive about it. A lot of the D&D classes arose as game conventions rather than being modeled after well defined literary archetypes. So their concepts get increasingly anal retentive and self-referential to justify their existence, when a good world builder would nix most of them.

For example, the sorcerer was added in third edition to introduce the new spontaneous casting rules. As of 5e, the preparation and spontaneous casting mechanics are barely distinguished, so the sorcerer doesn't have much reason to exist as a separate class anymore.

4e's introduction of roles and power sources is a better way to handle things and avoid redundancy. So naturally it was thrown out with the bathwater.

Going from a strictly Dungeons and Dragons and the typical classes (Which means No Artificers/Gadgteers) I think making real interesting variations of "Rangers" is probably challenging.

Ranger already comes off as a specialized Fighter... but if you veer in certain directions with it you'll start stepping on the toes of Barbarians and Druids in the "I'm a guy who likes wild places too."

The only obvious things that come to mind when doing specializations for them is really honing in on one type of enemy like "I'm an Undead Hunter" or "I'm a Giant Hunter" but if your Ranger can't do that out of the box, then what's the point of even having a favored enemy to begin with?

Quote from: kosmos1214 on November 26, 2024, 06:19:30 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on November 25, 2024, 11:33:42 PMArtificer, and I know this from having created several classes / sets of mechanics myself.  If, frex, an alchemist can make 1000 explodey potions in the month before the adventure and carry them all in a bag of holding, how do you balance this against a wizard who has x fireballs per day with doing something arbitrary and lacking in-setting explanation?  It can be done, and I've done it, but it's a heck of a lot more work than any other type of class to get it right.

Easy answer here go whole hog on a mana system and they can only carry so much of there mana in ready achemical objects that are ready to go. This isn't an all fixed answer but as i was working it seemed like the obvious answer.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 26, 2024, 12:25:38 PMDo you allow races and factions to be discussed too? Non-D&D-derived games?

Give it ago the game I'm working on come originally from d&d dna but its so far off that it won't matter much. besides you have experience in non d&d systems that gives you a cool opinion out side of other frames of view.

The mana limitation would make sense for active devices, but I wanted an alchemist class and I also wanted potions that could be found as treasure, so they couldn't rely on personal mana because the treasure ones aren't attached to anyone.

For my current project what I did was put an expiration time on potions.  The daily potions expire at sunrise.  Crafting time and mana limit the number that can be made while adventuring.  Monthly potions expire at the next new moon.  They must be made on the day of the new moon and again crafting time and mana limit the number that can be made.  Permanent ones must be made on a solstice or equinox and only a few because they take more time and mana to make.

I'm pretty happy with the end result.  The alchemist plays very differently than the sorcerer.  Alchemists are for a player that wants to do resource management.  He needs to be concerned with maintaining his arsenal, finding fresh reagents in the field (some of them have to be fresh), and working with the calendar requirements.  The alchemist can't change his abilities on the fly like a sorcerer, but if he has chosen the right ones he can be more effective.  And The effects are also mostly different than the sorcerer's. 

Ultimately, all classes can be boiled down into anal retentive variations of fighter, thief, mage and priest.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on December 02, 2024, 01:57:15 PMUltimately, all classes can be boiled down into anal retentive variations of fighter, thief, mage and priest.

You could argue, and I do, that there are only two classes: fighting-men and magic-users. Everything else is just variants of these.