Reject Modernity: Embrace Tradition

[Zombra]

When those "options" are mostly just Fighting Man or Magic User with a gimmick, then it's not really complicated. It's just bloat.

It's all just hit points and DPS. Why have classes at all? Come to think of it, your so-called "RPGs" are modernist schlock to begin with. Play Go instead you liberal heathen.

 

[FriendlyMerchant]

When those "options" are mostly just Fighting Man or Magic User with a gimmick, then it's not really complicated. It's just bloat.

It's all just hit points and DPS.

So all rpgs are jrpgs?

Why have classes at all? Come to think of it, your so-called "RPGs" are modernist schlock to begin with. Play Go instead you liberal heathen.

Go is probably a more complex game than many modern rpgs.

 

[FriendlyMerchant]

It's why a Thief is ultimately more satisfying in a PNP setting since many CRPGs hardly take into account their tools

In crpgs, usually things you could do in tabletop like being able to avoid a party of enemies or flee from them and then have appropriate consequences is also not accounted for. It's usually just; party of enemies sits there waiting for you to approach them and they don't start until you walk up to them or perhaps make a sneak attack to start the fight. Then the fight goes on until you win, lose, or reload. They're there forever until you kill them.

 

[Geckabor]

So which existing RPG becomes better when following this philosophy?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

So which existing RPG becomes better when following this philosophy?

wotr

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Both agree and disagree here.

Fighter, for example, is too wide a categorization, there are too many types of warriors, with too varied and often contradicting skill sets depending on geography, culture and history. I always like to see more fighter classes and they never feel redudant.

For wizards you dont need much, can easily build the identity around the spell selection and nothing else.

Thief could probably use more variety, a spy and an assassin are very different, and probably dont or shouldnt belong in the same class. And the tools of the trade change with the times, and whats available.

True but try telling the nerds who design rpgs all this.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Wizards were the original "button awesome."

 

[Don Salieri]

At the end of the day all these classes are nothing but Fighting-Mans, Magic Users, and Clerics with a few extras gimmicks and we don't need them. They truly add nothing to any game. Anyone who disagrees is only admitting they're wrong.

As always the yid goes frothing at the mouth and his eyes glaze over with his fuming hatred as he tries to convince the people he parasite off to liquidate the classes he feels are a threat to his power. I could defend the bourgeoisie classes but instead it's wiser to turn this (((gnome))) logic on its head. The entire concept of the wizard class is based around the false kike idea that you need to be severely degenerated and just as dysgenic as they are in order to have a high intelligence and wisdom, what's next, you have to mutilate and suck baby dicks to gain magical powers? Bathing and showering removes your magic potential? Having to sacrifice Christian children and drink the blood of innocents to have a good INT stat?

Among these last three classes the wizard is superfluous, there is no good reason to keep them around. The warrior could easily use scrolls or items imbued with magic powers, making these things much more important and a good way to make players spend their gold, as well as being more in line with real world myths and legends. The clergy does the rest that a wizard would do without being a subvertnik power fantasy, and without being skinnyfat rabbi child molesters that hide their lack of jaws under their nasty beards. Wizards are the parasite class.

 

[Cryomancer]

Wizards were the original "button awesome."

Yep.

I throw a javelin = not awesome button
I throw a magical javelin = not awesome button
I cast "ice javelin" = Awesome button

 

[perfectslumbers]

Pathfinder certainly has a lot of superfluous classes when it comes to "class as archetype." But the systems goal is to encourage and enable extreme hyperautism and it satisfies that goal very well.

 

[FriendlyMerchant]

At the end of the day all these classes are nothing but Fighting-Mans, Magic Users, and Clerics with a few extras gimmicks and we don't need them. They truly add nothing to any game. Anyone who disagrees is only admitting they're wrong.

As always the yid goes frothing at the mouth and his eyes glaze over with his fuming hatred as he tries to convince the people he parasite off to liquidate the classes he feels are a threat to his power. I could defend the bourgeoisie classes but instead it's wiser to turn this (((gnome))) logic on its head. The entire concept of the wizard class is based around the false kike idea that you need to be severely degenerated and just as dysgenic as they are in order to have a high intelligence and wisdom, what's next, you have to mutilate and suck baby dicks to gain magical powers? Bathing and showering removes your magic potential? Having to sacrifice Christian children and drink the blood of innocents to have a good INT stat?

Among these last three classes the wizard is superfluous, there is no good reason to keep them around. The warrior could easily use scrolls or items imbued with magic powers, making these things much more important and a good way to make players spend their gold, as well as being more in line with real world myths and legends. The clergy does the rest that a wizard would do without being a subvertnik power fantasy, and without being skinnyfat rabbi child molesters that hide their lack of jaws under their nasty beards. Wizards are the parasite class.

Cool it with the antisemitic remarks.

 

[Alex]

Just about everyone has an idea of what classes should be. Some people prefer them to be very wide and far reaching, with as few classes as possible but perhaps lots of sub-classes, kits or whatever you have in your game to differentiate members of the classes. Others want to have as many classes as you have different roles in the game world; "cleric" could be a class, but so could be "priest", "shaman", "monastic" and what have you. Personally, I think these aren't necessarily opposed actually.

One idea I've toyed with, but didn't really finish was a derivative game out of DCC RPG. In that system, characters would choose one of three possible, very generic classes. Each of these classes would represent one of the important gameplay aspects out of this kind of game; a "fighter" class would be focused on combat (in all the forms it might take in the game, such as one on one, group combat, mass combat, etc), a "magic user" class that would focus on... well, magic, and an "explorer" or "thief" class that would focus on the exploration aspect of the game. Note that these three are particularly geared to the kind of game D&D is. Games with focus on different activities could have different classes as well. In particular, a game like Shadowrun would justify there being a "face" class, that would focus in social interaction and manipulation. A game like CoC would justify an investigator class, since gathering clues is a very important activity in those, etc.

The point here is that these classes aren't concrete parts of the setting. They are abstract aspects of the gameplay the game and the DM has in mind. Which is why they are given rather generic names. Their implementation is likewise, abstract. Having a class and levels in it wouldn't, in this system, actually give you any kind of concrete ability. You don't get sword proficiency for being a level 6 fighter, for instance. Nor do you get access to new spells for levelling up as a magic-user, neither does your explorer class give you access to a disarm traps skill. Rather, these classes would give you bonuses and safety nets for doing abilities that are within their domain. A level 4 fighter might, for instance, re-roll a failed attack roll twice a day. While a level 5 magic user might be able to avoid a critical failure for casting a level 3 spell once per day.

The concrete abilities, however, would be given by something likewise more concrete. I don't much like the name "life-path" for this, but I don't know a better one. A fighter could have a gladiatorial life-path, learning how to use nets, tridents, the gladius and the shield. Or he could have a knight life-path and have abilities with mounted combat and the lance. A magic-user could be a cleric of a deity, getting spells appropriate from it and having access to lore skills related to his religion. Or he could be an apothecary, learning to use the schools of transmutation, enchantment some alchemical skill and having the means to learn how to make various kinds of potions. And so on. However, the thing about life-paths is that anyone, not only those with the appropriate class (or any class) can learn them. A illusionist magic-user, for instance, could spend a few months or maybe even a year or two as a member of a thief's guild, learning their trade to complement his abilities. Unlike an explorer, he won't have the safety net and bonuses that belonging to that class would provide to these skills. But he would still be able to become a competent thief.

The idea here would be that having a class and levels makes you a "hero", someone who is in some way bigger than life. Perhaps they have a destiny, or something like that, but in game terms, it means that they are able to do things that otherwise would have little chances of success. A fighter that wants to study necromancy would be able to raise a zombie just as well as a magic-user. But, for some weird reason, the zombie made by the magic-user very rarely turns on him and tries to eat his brain and despite having done that a hundred times, the magic-user's flesh hasn't even began to rot and peel off unlike what happened to those who didn't have access to the class. A scout without the explorer class may well be a very competent one. But he is much more at the mercy of his environment. Whereas an explorer failing climb check seems to be able to fall on a body of water or a few soft bushes, or perhaps near a tree he can use to slow his descent, the scout without class might just die with his body smashed against pointy rocks the very first time he fails.]

Anyway, sorry for going off on a tangent, but I thought this might help explain the different ways "classes" can be designed in these games.

 

[smaug]

The main problem is that most CRPGS are boring or have very limited design, and so most of the classes are to by extension.

 

[Zombra]

Oh wait. Dude is exalting the "holy trinity" of tank, healer, DPS. He's a fucking MMO player.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

At the end of the day all these classes are nothing but Fighting-Mans, Magic Users, and Clerics with a few extras gimmicks and we don't need them. They truly add nothing to any game. Anyone who disagrees is only admitting they're wrong.

As always the yid goes frothing at the mouth and his eyes glaze over with his fuming hatred as he tries to convince the people he parasite off to liquidate the classes he feels are a threat to his power. I could defend the bourgeoisie classes but instead it's wiser to turn this (((gnome))) logic on its head. The entire concept of the wizard class is based around the false kike idea that you need to be severely degenerated and just as dysgenic as they are in order to have a high intelligence and wisdom, what's next, you have to mutilate and suck baby dicks to gain magical powers? Bathing and showering removes your magic potential? Having to sacrifice Christian children and drink the blood of innocents to have a good INT stat?

Among these last three classes the wizard is superfluous, there is no good reason to keep them around. The warrior could easily use scrolls or items imbued with magic powers, making these things much more important and a good way to make players spend their gold, as well as being more in line with real world myths and legends. The clergy does the rest that a wizard would do without being a subvertnik power fantasy, and without being skinnyfat rabbi child molesters that hide their lack of jaws under their nasty beards. Wizards are the parasite class.

Cool it with the antisemitic remarks.

No

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Wizards were the original "button awesome."

Yep.

I throw a javelin = not awesome button
I throw a magical javelin = not awesome button
I cast "ice javelin" = Awesome button

I try to his this guy = not awesome button
I try to pick this lock = not awesome button
I snap my fingers and make everything in this room explode = button awesome

 

[Morroweird]

The concrete abilities, however, would be given by something likewise more concrete. I don't much like the name "life-path" for this, but I don't know a better one. A fighter could have a gladiatorial life-path, learning how to use nets, tridents, the gladius and the shield. Or he could have a knight life-path and have abilities with mounted combat and the lance. A magic-user could be a cleric of a deity, getting spells appropriate from it and having access to lore skills related to his religion. Or he could be an apothecary, learning to use the schools of transmutation, enchantment some alchemical skill and having the means to learn how to make various kinds of potions. And so on. However, the thing about life-paths is that anyone, not only those with the appropriate class (or any class) can learn them. A illusionist magic-user, for instance, could spend a few months or maybe even a year or two as a member of a thief's guild, learning their trade to complement his abilities. Unlike an explorer, he won't have the safety net and bonuses that belonging to that class would provide to these skills. But he would still be able to become a competent thief.

I'd also opt for some variation of this system. In fact, I wish there was an RPG which attempted the WHFRP approach, where you choose a profession - almost any job or social station in a given populace, each with its own equipment and perks.

It could work great in an narrative CRPG like Disco Elysium. Hell, even old ADOM had a variety of normal "jobs", like farmer, weaponsmith or merchant.

 

[FriendlyMerchant]

It could work great in an narrative CRPG like Disco Elysium. Hell, even old ADOM had a variety of normal "jobs", like farmer, weaponsmith or merchant.

Disco Elysium is not an rpg.

 

[Lhynn]

Wizards were the original "button awesome."

Yep.

I throw a javelin = not awesome button
I throw a magical javelin = not awesome button
I cast "ice javelin" = Awesome button

No, fuck you.

Nothing more awesome than just a plain old javelin. No fancy shit, just a stick going through the enemy chest as he prepares to give his speech.

 

[Norfleet]

I am sympathetic to this argument.

Rogues are an excellent candidate to be dissolved. Druids are just clerics with nature domains. Clerics and Sorcerers are just sponsored magicians. An Eldritch Knight or any other gish is just a dilettante fighter or mage, however you look at it. Paladin is a sponsored gish. I need not elaborate further.

Well, when you think about it, the 3 basic points of mechanical uniqueness are the Fighter, the Thief, and the Mage. The fighter fights, with his weapons. The thief is a utility class that provides primarily non-combat utility: Scouting, disarming traps, picking locks, etc. The mage provides magical abilities.

Cleric and Paladin are just points on the Fighter-Mage continuum. If you eliminate noncombat activities from your game, 3-axis space collapses into a fighter/mage line and Cleric thus offers your midpoint.

A "Fighting-Woman" breaks my immersion.

As a general, world-based thing? Perhaps. But the typical adventuring party does not represent the world's norm, but rather, a collection of mentally-ill homeless people. When your team includes such characters as the acrobat, the lion tamer, and the fire-thrower, I see no reason Brawnhilda cannot join this circus. Granted, your "female fighter" probably would rightly look more like one of those East German wrestlers...

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Well, when you think about it, the 3 basic points of mechanical uniqueness are the Fighter, the Thief, and the Mage. The fighter fights, with his weapons. The thief is a utility class that provides primarily non-combat utility: Scouting, disarming traps, picking locks, etc. The mage provides magical abilities.

I think a good rule of thumb would be to add a new class only when there's a separate mechanic substantial enough to center an entire class archetype around it. In other cases you can just add option to an existing class. You don't need 10 different mages, just leave the basic wizard class and let them choose between different spellbooks. There is no need to add gladiator, crusader, obliterator, legionaire, berserker etc. Just let fighters choose between different abilities and specializations. On the other hand if you make a game like Arcanum where crafting and developing new technology is both important and works nothing like magic then perhaps adding a gadgeteer/scientist class is a good idea.

 

[Lagole Gon]

Looks like somebody has a WotR-induced trauma.
I have recurring nightmares about somebody creating wizard/thief/Eldritch Scoundrel/Arcane Trickster abomination.

But that's not a reason to go too far in the other direction!

 

[Serus]

This is all crap. The argument that thousand classes added to various rpg systems only to sell more books to the fans are completely unneeded (they are) ergo we need only 3 classes in every crpg - is nonsense. As long as the classes can be different both from mechanical perspective and from lore perspective and the author chooses to make a system this way, they can work. The problem with all those dozens of superficial classes is that they aren't different from each other mechanically or even thematically in any meaningful way.
Of curse if the author of the system wants only 3 classes - this can work too.
Stop being so... codexian.

 

[Lagole Gon]

Fighter - He fights.
Wizard - Casts spells.
Paladin - Remove regular spells. Supernatural charisma-based abilities only. Auras, smites, supernatural inspiration, inquisitor-ish debuffs.
Rogue - Utility and stealth. Positioning. To make work it requires your game not to be a total popamole.

Ranger and barbarian - They can be fighter subclasses...?
Druid - Should be some caster subclass.
Bard - Bard should be just an occupation. Not every singing guy casts spells. Maybe add some kind of skald caster subclass instead.

I have to think about cleric and other casters.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

I much prefer having narrow and deep approach (ie handful of classes that you can specialize later) over starting the opening minute with 50 classes with 500 subclasses each that differ by one mofidier. The latter approach just feeds autism and restartitis.