hearty bump

I feel like this was asked earlier today, but I don't see it, so let's take a swing anyway.

For what it's worth, I dislike class systems, personally. I feel like D&D-style classes are far too constricting. You're shoehorned into "fighter swings sword really good, ranger shoots arrow really good (and light magic), paladin smites evil really good, bard fucks you're waifu really good," et cetera. There's some variance within those- 5e has made strides in the right direction, from what I've seen- but they're still restrictive.

I'd like to plug how Shadowrun did it here. Shadowrun doesn't have traditional classes. Instead, it's a classless system with archetypes. I'll give a few examples.

You want to go hack the planet? Either you pick up Resonance abilities as a technomancer (the only real "class" in the game out of the various archetypes), or you buy a cyberdeck, neural interface, and programs, and you start hacking. Anyone can do it to a degree through decking, but dedicated deckers are better.

You like magic? Great, even this isn't classed out really! There's full mages and aspected mages, depending on the value you give to magic at character creation. Full mages can summon, do alchemy, and do spells; aspected can only do one of the above, usually spells or alchemy. There's also physical magic in the form of adepts, certain investments in which can give you bits of aspected mages as well.

Now, how does magic not reinforce a class system? After all, I just pointed out where it's a class system still; aspected mages, full mages, physical adepts, and mystic adepts. The difference is that any of those can be used to meet the character you're looking for, generally, and they DON'T preclude any other archetype. For example, I have a physad character whose "skill" is decking. Non-invasive neural link, augmented reality hacking, using magical control over her own body to boost her reflexes and her skills. But that's a "magic" character in a technological role. (cont)

>>44437120
I've also got an NPC who's a chromed-up street samurai, all "metal and machine guns", but has a few points' worth of being an aspected mage left over. He's able to toss in a fireball on occasion instead of a grenade. Being a wizard doesn't mean you're ONLY a wizard.

Any archetype can overlap, you don't have to fully fit within one. Social face/rigger? Sure! Mage/samurai? Sure! Purely within whatever you want- say, a dedicated hacker? Not a problem. Gives you the flexibility to create a character with the skill set you want, rather than a predetermined, class-based one.

I guess that's the crux of it; classless systems work best because they give enough choice to fit your character. Maybe you're a paladin who favors a crossbow as your weapon of choice. Maybe your sorceror doesn't shy away from putting on some heavy armor for protection. (It's been a very long time since I've played D&D, and I know 5e has at least changed the latter. Please, bear with me; it's a general view across all RPGs, where that distinction is still very solid in some.) You can make your character however you want without classes. The physical adept decker I mentioned before would be impossible in a class-based system; one would preclude the other.

Does that make sense?

>>44436039
I have seen classes done very well in Unhallowed Metropolis' "Callings" system. Callings are essentially professions mixed with classes, and all of them are tied to the setting. Some, like Undertakers, are a little narrow: they're professional monster hunters. Some, like Doctors, have a little more flexibility: they're always basically a medical doctor, but they tend to have speciAlizations, such as alchemy or galvanics. And then some Callings, like Criminals, are very versatile: a Criminal could be a gambler, or a professional legbreaker, or a master thief, or a conman, or any number of related ideas.

It's actually a pretty nice system.

>>44436039
I run games where abilities usually aren't a thing, and classes, while available at the start, generally just gives starting stats and gear. I like to think of it the way Dark Souls and its ilk did classes

>>44436039

I like classes that define a rough specialization, but still allow you plenty of freedom in how to apply that. The Souls games are a bit too loose in that area. I like how 5e's classes have lots of options built in, and even give guidelines on how to make more. 3.5 was only good because there were so many prestige classes you could probably find one that suits how you want to play no matter how weird it was.

Generally I it when classes give meaningful specialization, instead of being so general that anyone can do everything if you take the right options. I don't really care too much about inter-class balance unless it starts to interfere with every party. I can usually talk down a munchkin or cater to sub-optimal builds if those situations don't come up every single session/campaign

>>44436039
I feel that the first problem we're facing with classes is mostly to define what a class is. Most anons will define a class purely related to its mechanical properties, forgetting completely its idea of lore, archetypes and (yes I'm going there) setting, thus stripping it of its flavor and leaving there a husk rather than what a class should be, a form of forms, a way in which a character can be made manifest into the gaming world. You have parted from the same assumption, and although it isn't exactly off or even bad, it will affect the answer you're going to receive.

A class that is well defined on its role, traits and abilities, but also on its lore and other subtle factors will work better even if its build is somewhat strict (for those of you that remember when the elf and dwarf were classes, the point is that it doesn't seem that illogical of a choice, since the image of those characters is pretty much a convention these days.), while a purely mechanical approach will often divert from its own class system at some point in favor of either mixing skills or branching its trees.

TL:DR. The more solid and meaningful a class is, the more tight you can make it without fucking it up (Paladin). The more meaningless a class is, then the more it should open, and the sooner it should start doing so.

Not confusing classes with archetypes either, as those have their own very complex rules and deal with a ton of deep psychological themes, just stating that the definition of class IMO should be observed as an intersection between the archetypes that you imagine and the mechanics of you want them to do. This is the reason why even in the same system some classes are more eccentric than others, because "class" is more an effect than a thing.

I personally prefer a wide tree approach, in fact, incredibly wide that takes many small things to make something like a "character profile" if you will (cont.).

>>44440632
The point were a sword wielder becomes a fighter should be blurry, but at some point the whole table should be able to say if a character has crossed such a threshold or not. This would make it so that the traits defined the class that you belong to, and not the other way around. It would also solve the question of the custom classes for the same reason (because at some point a unique combination of skills allows to form your own class), and would make every character different, changing entirely the dynamics of interaction in and out of combat.. DM could give bonuses based on groups of choices in the same area to appeal to the greater archetypes or conventional systems.

Those are my current thoughts. Sorry if they seem out of place, it's very late here and I need to sleep.

Would like to monitor this thread if it's here in the morning.

>>44436039
I've always felt the differentiation between warrior and any other type of professional warrior is fucking retarded. The only possible difference you could say that lies between a warrior and a barbarian or knight is degrees of experience.

this turned out to be an interesting thread
one last bump for prosperity

I like classes because they're concise enough that mechanically they're distinct from other classes, you understand the kind of role you want to play if you're a Bard for example.

The context however of that class, where it fits into your world, is left vague so it can be anything you life. What it means to be a bard can be entirely different in your campaign from another.

With classes you sacrifice total flexibility for a good character focus.

I enjoy classes. However, there's one big problem -- about 75% of classes are essentially just costumes. The game is not harmed if the same character can act as a rogue one adventure (with toolkits, fingerless gloves, leather armor, daggers, etc.) and a doppelsoldier the next (with heavy armor and a two handed sword) or whatever. Class features and skills dependent on gear level are largely unnecessary, they could just as easily be worked into the gear.

The second fuckup D&D ever had, was separating fighters and thieves.

I think that a system which functions in the same way as Skyrim's leveling and skill system would certainly be interesting. One where you're not limited to classes by any means, and instead choosing the abilities as you want. By the time you hit high levels, your character can be a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none, or some crazy powerful sorcerer who can't swing a sword for the life of him. I don't know if something like that exists already in medieval fantasy PnP, but I think it's an interesting way of tackling character progression.

>>44442676
Someone in /hbg/ is doing something along those lines of progression, you should ask there.
I can't remember which one it was though, but i'm almost sure it was either skyresh or hard:suit, if you want something to start with.

>>44436039
I play classless systems, so I don't care about classes at all.

>>44436039
I'm for an all-or-nothing approach. Classes are IMO an intrinsic part of a certain style of RPGs, and work perfectly well for that - as long as they DO something, i.e. they are well-defined and differentiated. It's not realistic, but it fits in certain narratives (just think of all the genres that work on precise archetypal characters), and they have the additional benefit of being easy to pickup for new games.
OTOH different games, rooted in a more real-world aesthetic, don't work well with classes. In those cases a skill allocation system is better.
What I can't stand are those wishy-washy middle of the ground systems where you have classes with a thousand different variants that render the whole concept of archetypes moot.

>>44436039
No classes, just backgrounds/current jobs that give you a certain base skillset. But you're completely free to muck around with whatever you want after that.

Something akin to how RuneQuest does it, just less everyone-is-a-dirty-peasant. The base system I use is heavily homebrewed RQ though.

>>44442842
>What I can't stand are those wishy-washy middle of the ground systems where you have classes with a thousand different variants that render the whole concept of archetypes moot.

Truth

>>44436039
First of all, I play Pathfinder. I prefer to think of classes as of ability sets, which you can mix and match howewer you like. Some synergize well, some not very well. There is a lot of archetypes for customization. And everything can be refluffed, so almost any concept is possible.

>Chromed up Street Sam with a little magic
That is a terrible idea, do your fireballs ever do damage? Let alone actually hit anything.