Recognizable vs Unrecognizable class design

[Serus]

In Wizardy 7 or 8 You couldn't make the thief "better at non-combat roles". This this the part you seem not to grasp. There are no non-combat roles that are important enough in those games. You'd have to redesign whole series of games to that create them. Again, whether You or I think it would result in better games or not is irrelevant. Wizardries are extremely combat oriented (that and exploration), and this is simply and undeniable a fact. I might add that people who like(ed) them, usually like(ed) them as they are.

Funny that you say that, given that THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THIEVES WERE LIKE IN THE FIRST FIVE (well except 4) WIZARDRIES - they sucked at combat and were pretty much dead weight there (too squishy and inferior to fighters for front row, literally unable to do anything from back row until bows were introduced in five). However thieves were still extremely useful because trapped chests were just as dangerous as monster encounters, and not having a thief greatly increased the chances of getting your party turned to stone or worse.
As you see, making a useful utility class is neither forbidden eldritch knowledge nor rocket science, since it was implemented pretty damn well in a pure dungeon crawler from 1981.

I didn't play Wizardries 1 to 5. but the chests were very dangerous in Wizardy 7 as well, the traps were very often outright deadly. The difference (if i understand correctly what you are saying about early wizardries) was that the thief wasn't the only class with the ability do disarm them, bard and ninja could do it as well. But unlike thief, bard and ninja were useful in combat too. That and the ability to multiclass but let's not go there.
So yes, you are of curse right, it's not rocket science. You only have to create deadly traps (or any other crucial mechanic) and, at the same time, create only one class that can deal with them effectively. Then that class doesn't have to be good at combat. But why should clerics/priest/whatever be? By the same logic, they don't have to. And go even more absurd. It works pretty damn well just as you said, and i'm not saying it ironically. Well, you can't have unrestricted multiclassing as well because otherwise you will have a thief like in Wizardry 7. For about 1% of the game time. But otherwise that can work if you wan't a game with just a couple, very specialised classes. That and the game must not be shy at restricting player's options. Whether it's the optimum design? I'm not saying no. Let's say it is a possibility.

 

[Lacrymas]

The question ignores the biggest problem of unknown RPG systems - we don't know what will be useful beforehand. It really doesn't matter what the classes or spells are called, even super familiar ones seem arbitrary when we don't have the context in which to put them. PoE is a perfect example, you can't get any more D&D than that but I still picked whatever sounded good on paper at first, but then it inevitably ended up shit due to encounter design, spell synergy, or companion pool.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

A class by any other name would suck as bad. ~ Shakespeare

If there is no lore and mechanically driven reason depart from the familiar, then you shouldn't. In other contexts, semantic salad is considered detrimental. "I'm sorry, Sir. We don't have any motor oil, but we do have combustion engine lubricant. It's on aisle 5."

 

[nobre]

Recognizable class design with familiar names and spells is superior and it's not even close. Classes should fit within ancient archetypes of Warrior, Wizard, Cleric and Rogue. Of course specializations, prestige classes and hybrids are OK. So a Paladin would be a warrior with some abilities of the Cleric, while a Bishop is simply a very powerful cleric but should have some weaknesses (more Cleric than Cleric, if you know what I mean) and a Druid, while also a Cleric, has completely specialized himself into everything related to nature.

Recognizable class design also ties in with attributes and equipment. No one wants muscle wizards, or spell power defined by a very powerful axe. It is always better to design from a clearly defined rule set, than just completely make up your own bullshit. Game designers in the current year simply cannot, and should not, try to reinvent the wheel because they're never going to succeed at that.

 

[Lance Treiber]

we don't know what will be useful beforehand.

PoE is a perfect example, you can't get any more D&D than that but I still picked whatever sounded good on paper at first, but then it inevitably ended up shit due to encounter design, spell synergy, or companion pool.

I used to play a MUD back in '99 where you rolled a character with random stats, and you didn't even know what your stats were. Until leveling for a couple of days, at which point you could buy a scroll of identification and cast it on yourself. If you didn't like those stats, tough luck.

So it was like the PoE situation, but in reverse: maybe you knew what would be useful, but you had no say in what your character was going to be.

Similar result (little control over chargen), but reversed presentation. Everyone liked it, there was something deeply RPGish and adventurous about it. But PoE does it in way that feels like a let down: it sort of promises complete control, but fails to deliver, unless you're replaying the game for Nth time.

Since you've got some soul stuff going on in POE, you should be able to manipulate and reshape your soul once at level 10 to completely reroll stats and abilities. That would've fixed the issue. That what I'll do.

 

[Bester]

No one wants muscle wizards

There's no white without black, no pleasure without pain, no good chars without bad chars.
Fallout allowed "strong snipers", and that's just fine.

 

[nobre]

No one wants muscle wizards

There's no white without black, no pleasure without pain, no good chars without bad chars.
Fallout allowed "strong snipers", and that's just fine.

Yes of course you should be able to make bad characters, or a wizard who can also carry a lot of stuff, or a wizard-warrior hybrid. But increasing strength shouldn't make your wizard powers stronger since things like casting spells very much belongs in the realm of the mental, not the physical.

 

[MpuMngwana]

I didn't play Wizardries 1 to 5. but the chests were very dangerous in Wizardy 7 as well, the traps were very often outright deadly. The difference (if i understand correctly what you are saying about early wizardries) was that the thief wasn't the only class with the ability do disarm them, bard and ninja could do it as well. But unlike thief, bard and ninja were useful in combat too. That and the ability to multiclass but let's not go there.

Kinda, there is multiclassing in early Wizardries but it's not nearly as powerful as in Bradley titles. There are also ninjas, but they're pretty much impossible to roll naturally and are more of a prestige class (and I think it's a bit worse than thief when it comes to trap disarming, but don't quote me on that). But for most of the game, yes, the thief is the only option to deal with traps (a cleric spell can detect them but disarming them is another matter).

So yes, you are of curse right, it's not rocket science. You only have to create deadly traps (or any other crucial mechanic) and, at the same time, create only one class that can deal with them effectively. Then that class doesn't have to be good at combat. But why should clerics/priest/whatever be? By the same logic, they don't have to. And go even more absurd. It works pretty damn well just as you said, and i'm not saying it ironically. Well, you can't have unrestricted multiclassing as well because otherwise you will have a thief like in Wizardry 7. For about 1% of the game time. But otherwise that can work if you wan't a game with just a couple, very specialised classes. That and the game must not be shy at restricting player's options. Whether it's the optimum design? I'm not saying no. Let's say it is a possibility.

I guess we more or less agree? I do think that the default support class doesn't need much in the way of offensive options, and, yes, utility classes don't quite work with Bradley Wizardry-style classes+skills+multiclassing systems, but it can be effective in most others. I don't think there is one optimum design for an RPG character system, but I believe that having to choose between more damage output and more non-combat options can be viable. The only thing the game needs then is a sufficient number of non-combat challenges, but that's a question of implementation.

 

[mondblut]

TL;DR: Bilbo would suck as a character in a typical crpg.

Thieves always suck in CRPGs. One-trick utility pony that wastes a party slot in every circumstance that does not involve disarming traps (there are always alternatives to stealing stuff and picking locks).

 

[mondblut]

Some interesting ideas, i like the gold mage, your Thanatonaut might be interesting too but it seems most of the gameplay would have to revolve around him.

Yup. Dark Sun wanted to have magic by lore powered via sucking lifeforce out of plants and soil. It had "defilers" who used it without restriction and "preservers" who were careful to only take a little. Guess what, in Dark Sun CRPGs the preservers work exactly like every other magic-user in every other D&D game, and defilers are unplayable (and as hostile NPCs, they also work exactly like every other magic-user in every other D&D game). So much for "inventive" classes

 

[thesecret1]

(there are always alternatives to stealing stuff and picking locks)

If only. I've played enough cRPGs where alternatives either didn't exist or very simply not viable, meaning rogue was a mandatory part of party (unless you wanted to skip out on shitloads of content hidden behind locked doors, in locked chests, etc.). They're always useless skill monkeys and if the game comes with "companions with personality" you can bet the rogue is going to be the most insufferable cunt of them all.

 

[Lance Treiber]

Dark Sun wanted to have magic by lore powered via sucking lifeforce out of plants and soil.

By the way, if you know of any systems with new takes on classes or just original gameplay ideas, please post them. I never had friends to play tabletop with as a kid, so it feels like maybe I've missed out on a lot of stuff.

 

[Dramart]

Your new classes sound really good if you can make the gameplay into something interesting and fun maybe it will be GOTY bro good luck

 

[J1M]

If every class is 'unique' I will just assume the design is shit. The designers that have come before you have never succeeded with this approach, so blame them for the audience's assumptions.

Surround your best few ideas with your flavor of the classics and they will stand out more.

Remember: successful class design is about realizing a theme more so than anything to do with mechanics. There are people still playing WoW retribution paladins because they like the crusader archetype, even though the class has mechanically been a rogue with yellow particle effects for 10 years.

 

[Cael]

we don't know what will be useful beforehand.

PoE is a perfect example, you can't get any more D&D than that but I still picked whatever sounded good on paper at first, but then it inevitably ended up shit due to encounter design, spell synergy, or companion pool.

I used to play a MUD back in '99 where you rolled a character with random stats, and you didn't even know what your stats were. Until leveling for a couple of days, at which point you could buy a scroll of identification and cast it on yourself. If you didn't like those stats, tough luck.

So it was like the PoE situation, but in reverse: maybe you knew what would be useful, but you had no say in what your character was going to be.

Similar result (little control over chargen), but reversed presentation. Everyone liked it, there was something deeply RPGish and adventurous about it. But PoE does it in way that feels like a let down: it sort of promises complete control, but fails to deliver, unless you're replaying the game for Nth time.

Since you've got some soul stuff going on in POE, you should be able to manipulate and reshape your soul once at level 10 to completely reroll stats and abilities. That would've fixed the issue. That what I'll do.

Sounds like a DikuMUD. Not Shadowdale, by any chance?

 

[Ranarama]

Same kind of dilemma with races.

I'm of the exact opposite opinion.

So just play games in a language you don't speak.

 

[Van-d-all]

From general to specific. Let the player choose 1-2 recognizable "classes" named after the role they serve. Classes named like Shadowbringer and what not might be cool, but wondering if it's a mage or a kind of thief is not. Then allow customization within that class so a Mage can go Arcane or Gold covering whatever creative classes you have in store. Or even let them be customize down to specific abilities/feats/spells making a semi-classless system which only gives a rough character design so they don't end up in Skyrim syndrome where everyone is a stealthy fighter with magic. That way you end up with mix and match of all the best features of every system IMO.

 

[mondblut]

(there are always alternatives to stealing stuff and picking locks)

If only. I've played enough cRPGs where alternatives either didn't exist or very simply not viable, meaning rogue was a mandatory part of party (unless you wanted to skip out on shitloads of content hidden behind locked doors, in locked chests, etc.).

When it comes to locks, there is usually a knock spell, there is bashing, and there is doing that stupid sidequest or puzzle that gets it unlocked. Usually picking a lock just lets you skip some content that you'd need to do to open it.

As for pickpocketing, well, any class can pickpocket a corpse

 

[Lilura]

Thieves always suck in CRPGs.

Thieves/Rogues from Renaissance RPGs don't suck, though. So I guess maybe you mean almost always. Or something similar.

One-trick utility pony that wastes a party slot in every circumstance that does not involve disarming traps (there are always alternatives to stealing stuff and picking locks).

Not really true in Renaissance RPGs. Thief builds in Fallout are solid in terms of martial aptitude (Mega Power Fist/ Big Frigger + stealth + Slayer). 3.x RPGs like ToEE and NWN offer good martial builds (even if pure Rogue). Can dual-wield, go thug with greataxe or snipe as archer (all with Sneak Attack).

When it comes to locks, there is usually a knock spell, there is bashing, and there is doing that stupid sidequest or puzzle that gets it unlocked.

To a large degree, arcane /divine spellcasting can substitute for thief/rogue utility, but not always. And they cost Vancian magic slots whose parallel thieves/rogues can perform without limit and at no cost.

It is true that thief/rogue utility skills are devalued in most RPGs by arcane/divine spellcasting. But that's usually due to lack of rest restrictions/EZ mode design, and I don't think thieves/rogues are always fifth wheels due to backstab/sneak attack/other perks.

I think the ability to insta-gib is an underrated aspect of even AD&D 2nd Edition thieves, since in many cases it allows them to take out the biggest troublemaker before combat begins, thereby saving lots of hassle.

As for pickpocketing, well, any class can pickpocket a corpse

If RPG offers some kind of stealth-slay and doesn't flag area-wide hostilities for aggroing an innocent, yes. I can't think of too many that don't rely on glitches/exploits or get player into annoying trouble, though.

 

[JarlFrank]

No original classes because it's bound to end up being gimmicky bullshit that's just there to "be different". I have zero faith in that whoever attempted something like revision mage wouldn't either make a completely broken class or nerfed his powers so much that he may as well be a regular wizard with a couple special spells. Feel free to name your classes however you want though, as muh lore demands it, but take it as "I can name shit differently if I need to" rather than "I HAVE TO name this fucking fighter something like 'Master of the swirling shadowrazor'".

You're not a fan of the Crushmaster then, I take it?

 

[Tacgnol]

Calling a fighter (or warrior) something like a "blade bound" or "armsmaster" seems very purple prose to me.

Save fancy class names for prestige, archetype and subclasses.

A class name ideally should tell you almost everything about what they are capable of.

 

[Cael]

Calling a fighter (or warrior) something like a "blade bound" or "armsmaster" seems very purple prose to me.

Save fancy class names for prestige, archetype and subclasses.

A class name ideally should tell you almost everything about what they are capable of.

I agree. Fancy names should be a group of specialists, not generic terms to be bandied about. Use the generic basic terms for the base classes, but you can give them twists. For example, in Ultima 4+ and Dragon Age, the mages are the healers. There are no clerics. Even druids in Ultima 4 use the same "spell list" as wizards.

 

[Cael]

Lance Treiber

Those were the glory days of online gaming. I still get a chuckle out of a bunch of dicks luring the Poison Dusk Giant to the middle of Shadowdale and getting a bunch of newbies killed.

 

[Darkzone]

Mithril is an example (as a concept) of different metals that were believed to exist, like adamantium. (greek: adamas. The sickle of Kronos was made out of adamantium.)

Well gee, why didn't he just call it adamantium then?

Because he intended not use unbreakable (only half as light twice as strong as steel) but as you have already posted he prefered "to glitter" like with the term for Mica (crumb) or Micare (to glitter). The Mica is a silvery glittering layer / vein in layered or heterogeneous rock with colors raging from white to green or brown or even transparent or black. And Mithril is also found as a vein in Moria. The glittering silver aspect is the look of Mythril and Mica has been used for this reason as a color additive like in japanese Kirazuri. Naturally Mithril is a artificial elvisch word invented by Tolkien that plays on this aspect. But it seems to be, that he also intended to play on Titanium, that was only made pure metalic in 1910 and that came only in 1932 out of the laboratries. Titanium is making your tooth paste white and the Titanium sponge (Kroll process) is glittering silver. Titanium's ability is to be as strong as steel and having only around 57% of the weight and this was already known (twice as strong, half the weight) in 1937.

Horse countries existed in reality (from Scythia to the Khanats) and just naming it based upon a imagined language, brings nothing new to the table. Btw.: Fictional countries has been invented and named throughout the literature.

Did you even read the comic or are you arguing just to argue? Because this was precisely what the comic was arguing against. Rest of your post is just a repeat of this so I won't bother quoting it.

So you lack even the understanding of the little simple comics. It is about names the Farmlings (children) and Krytoses (swords only more awsome) which is totaly retarded. The "Elders of FRA' AS" is not a vital part of the joke because it is also not translated in brackets.
Yeah please do not bother, because you would only waste my time in trying to explain very simple things to you, that everyone can understand.

Mtihril coats, like this: Mitril Jacket ?

They're not going to go after obscure companies in non-english speaking countries. You're being disingenuous here and you know it. MEE owns the trademark for Mithril clothing in USA, I'm sure it's a similar situation in the UK.
https://trademarks.justia.com/865/19/mithril-86519909.html
They also own a trademark for mithril coins, mithril figurines, mithril linens, mithril paints,...
https://trademarks.justia.com/search?q=mithril
Nearly everything there is owned by MEE.

Fuck you do not even understand the difference between a Trademark (sign, design or expression that identifies product or services) and intellectual property (intangible creation of the human intellect) or even how the international trademark system works.
Trademarks are intended to making your brand recognisable so that other free riders do not jump on board and use your recognition factor to sell their products. Trademarks are intellectual property, but not all intellectual property is a trademark or can be trademarked, because some of the has to use the copy or patent rights. The trademark system works for all western countries, so to taking this as an example if you make an trademark in germany it is also trademarked in other countries as well. Look up Madrid - international trademark system - WIPO.
Also to add that trademarks are only for different categories of products and that is why MEE had to go after "Frodo's Pizza" by tademarking "Frodo's Pizza" and the same thing they had to do if someone would name his Steakhouse "Gandalfs and Balrogs Barbecue Grill". And in the same matter you could trademark "Royal Elven Mithril Armory" and the only thing MEE could do is try to beat you down with lawsuits that by could not be won by them before a court, but would cost you lawyer costs and time.

MEE has trademarked the names, because they do not own the rights to the names and characters. So if i would make a cRPG and named the characters after the characters from the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings who do you think would send the lawyers after me?

The MEE and Tolkien Estate went together after a pub named Hobbit, because MEE has the trademark "Hobbit" for Restaurants and because Tolkien Estate says that they own the copyrights to "Hobbit" as a name.
While only the Tolkien Estate went of the the scientist that used Hobbit name in his lectures, because there exists no Trademark category for this and because Tolkien Estate that this goes against their copyrights to the characters and their names.
Do you understand it now?
If not than know simply that MEE cannot use the characters in other tales while Tolkien Estate could do this.

Or do you mean i should open a Black Metal band like: Nazgul.

This was addressed specifically in my edit. That is not how trademarks work in USA and UK, you cannot own a word in these countries. Simply using a trademarked word is not enough.

Read the answer above.

Btw. I'm not disingenuous here, but rather you seem not to be versed in trademark systems and intellectual property rights.