How do you prefer classes, /tg/?
A small amount of classes with a very wide scope? A long list of specializations that give you different and very precise bonuses? Freeform stat dump with archetypes like shadowrun?
Or maybe completely classless?
>>44723925
Well I prefer my serfs not to act like they are part of my illustrious heritage, and thus not deserving of what I possess.
Tch, filthy peasants.
>Freeform stat dump with archetypes like shadowrun?
Given that I'm currently running Shadowrun, this is probably what I'd go with. I don't like systems with classes (my favorites are GURPS and Shadowrun, go figure) in the slightest. They're inevitably overly restricting.
I like Pathfinder's system just fine, with a bunch of base classes, and like a thousand different archetypes that define entirely different designs, functions, and niches for those classes.
Of course, the fact that they're not all mechanically useful is a problem, but I don't mind that part.
>>44723925
Classless with Backgrounds/Specialization with a lot of room for improvement, but not so much that starting character cannot function.
Basically, something like RuneQuest 6 where a starting player can still add to an experienced team.
I like the general idea of classes because it lets you tell at a glance what a character is good at, and it's hard to screw up unless the class you took was designed badly.
But lately I've come to the conclusion that the standard way of doing it, where multiclass characters are a minority, is outdated and overly restrictive. I think mixing and matching should be encouraged, without abandoning the idea of packages of abilities altogether.
The perfect class system would use half-classes, where everyone picks two things to be good at, none of which are just "magic" but rather KINDS of magic.
People already accept that a paladin is a combination of a fighter and a priest. In a half-class system, a pure fighter would take Melee Weapons and Ranged Weapons, while a pure priest would take Healing Magic and another kind of magic depending on religion.
It seems like a practical compromise between feature-swapping within a class (which can spread your options through a dozen books) and total point-buy.
>>44724125
how does dungeon world manage classes exactlyi mean i'm gonna pirate a pdf right away and skim through it but a quick explanation could be cool
>>44723925
Either
>Freeform stat dump with archetypes like shadowrun
or
>A small amount of classes with a very wide scope
like in Dungeon Crawl Classic. All other variants aren't that good for me.
I like having classes with high degrees of customization the best. that way everyone can play exactly who they want to be, yet still function in the setting.
>>44723925
I use a classless system, and designed classes in them as sort of flavor power pack add ons for characters, in addition to whatever their usual concept is. It creates some neat characters, pleases a lot of the players, and makes it so no two people of the same class are much alike since they have an entire other skillset and flavor on top of whatever their class is.
>>44723925
classes suck
>>44724178
You don't need to pirate Dungeon World when the SRD is free.
http://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/ (the www is important, removing it lands at a different site).
--
I like all my classes to be mechanically different, and so I can layer whatever fluff I want on top of them. I don't play Strike RPG, but I like the way it does classes.
Classless, though I am not sure where you see the difference between Shadowrun and a completely classless system. A classless character does always fall into a certain archetypes even though it's sometimes hard to pinpoint (but that's possible in SR too, so...)
>>44727384
Y-you too
If doing a game with a class system, I prefer clear, concise classes. It gets silly when there are five different classes that basically boild down to "I smack shit around, but with slight variations" or "I'm sneaky and do X a bit differently" or somesuch. Hell, slap three basic classes in there and give them some variations and options, and that's enough for me.
I prefer classless games, though. It's likely not a problem for many, but I find that classes tend to kill my roleplaying. They turn my characters into, well, classes, and it requires a lot more to get into the mindset of playing a character instead of playing a class. More organic characters feel easier, for me. Like I said, it's probably not a problem for most, but it has been for me, and some people I've played with.
Then again, sometimes playing archetypal characters is good and fun.
I reply don't get why people think Shadow run is somehow different from other freeform character creation systems just because it has in-universe terms for 'fighty character', 'social butterfly', etc
>>44727491
Well, they either fall into archetypes, or they suck at everything. Or excel at everything, if the game's like that (which is generally not a good thing).
I guess codifying archetypes into the game somewhat helps people who are newer to the game to actually have an idea of what they're doing. I've seen games which fall flat because a system offers a lot of choice and gives no input as to what a player should maybe choose, which results in all the characters being terrible at everything and nobody having fun.
Fuck, I remember playing Ars Magica, and since the game makes you point buy your various different magical disciplines and other things, all of our completely new group ended up making completely ineffectual characters who could do a bit of every magic, and literally struggled to cast basic spells.
Except for me, who took a premade character from the book. He was hideously overpowered compared to the rest, since he was the only one who could do anything competently.
>>44727537
Well I guess that makes some sense. Still Shadowrun imo isn't different from other freeforms I've played. People still go, "well I'm going for a fighter", " I'm doing a healer/mage", etc. But maybe I'm just blessed with a save group.
>>44727344
I like this approach.
>>44727550
Well, ideally that happens. Unideally, players flounder and start heaping on a bit of everything. It's quite common to see a problem like this in pretty much anything with a lot of freedom when it comes to character building, both in tabletop and video games. A lot of things might be cool, and if the game isn't suggesting anything when you start, you might want to try a lot of things.
The more freedom of choice and unguided optiosn there are, the easier it is to flounder if you don't know what you're doing. Of course, a lot of games realize this and do include some type of input as to what the usual character types are. Shadowrun does it, but there's plenty of other games that do it as well, so I don't think Shadowrun is that special either.
>>44723925
I play GURPS, so the last option.
>>44727537
>
Fuck, I remember playing Ars Magica, and since the game makes you point buy your various different magical disciplines and other things, all of our completely new group ended up making completely ineffectual characters who could do a bit of every magic, and literally struggled to cast basic spells.
That's just being a new magus. Generalists are very strong in Ars Magica, but you need to hit the books for a few years before you can do more than cast the handful of spells you learned by rote.
Small templates that Start your character off with some specific Stationary bonuses, gear and determine starting sheckles and some rp elements
>>44723925
>Freeform stat dump with archetypes like shadowrun?
I like this, since having pre-built examples is good at giving novice players an idea of what to build.
>A small amount of classes with a very wide scope?
I also like this, and use it in the majority of my homebrews. Every class is a chassis and gives you options of what to take at each level, so two warriors won't be identical.
Classes are crap for P&P. It's something that works in video games. Way too restrictive and unrealistic for real rpg.
>>44727985
>real rpg.
Heh.
>>44723925
Freeform until you get to certain combination of stat/specialization, then you are given the option to prestige class into something more specialized.
>>44723925
I like the "skyrim" approach; You can mix and match as you see fit but you'll see much better rewards if you specialize in one or two things.
It's hard to balance this outside freeform however, and you need both good players and a good DM to freeform.
>>44729329
skyrim's leveling system is actually one of the few things i actually liked about skyrim
but how would you even translate it into tabletop without you dumping stats into stuff? like, doing things and leveling that tree naturally i mean (i.e. picking up a greatsword and leveling two-handed weapons)
wouldn't that really tire the GM or be overly abstract?
>>44723925
Either nonexistant or or a small list with a lot of flexibility within it. For class systems, imagine 5E with just Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard but with the flexibility to make any of the 12 included classes and more with just those four.
>>44729555
He's very good at sorting all out internally in a logical manner; We still have to abide by the rules of the setting, there's just no system for it.
It is mostly just a "What are you guys practicing/learning/buying?" with him judging how good the characters become at it over time, the costs and the risks involved.
Trust is necessary for this kind of thing, and it's very easy for it to fall apart with either bad players or a bad DM.
>>44723925
I find completely classless best.
>>44723925
A job with a list of skills you can learn by spending time and money on learning it from teachers with one basic skill that every member of the class learns.
Itt. Rouges learn how to sneak.
Monks learn how to use ki and punch.
Mages learn how to chanel magic and a few basic spells.
Fighters learn how to use one type of weapon really good.
I like what 5th edition did for DnD, where there are classes but ultimately they're open to a lot of decisions with the variety of choices between race, class, background, and feats if you so desire to use them. So if you wanted to be a warrior with information of the wild you could simply pick the Barbarian class, or instead of going with a Barbarian you can instead grab a fighter class but throw in the outlander background and the Martial Adept feat, and now at level one you have a character who you can fluff anyway you want. Maybe he was a fighter in an army but his government turned corrupt, so he lead a group of rebels using guerrilla warfare to reclaim his kingdom. It has classes but if you're creative enough you can turn them into almost anything you want to play.
>>44732826
That is not new to 5e, nor is it particularly done well in 5e
>>44733019
Out of curiosity what systems do it better? I'm curious because as I said, I like the idea of classes fitting more as archetypes than rigorous "You must do this!"
>>44733449
Look at Strike, where classes are more just mechanical concepts with some attached sample fluff.
Or if you want to go into the d20 past, look at True20.
>>44733726
Will do, much obliged anon.
>>44723925
I feel that pretty much everything outside of the cardinal 4 classes (Fighter, Wizard, Thief, Cleric) is there just a multiclass version of two of them or could be easily just refluff one of the cardinal 4 to fit it
>>44733851
Barbarians...
>>44733851
where would you put a gunslinger/ranger class?
RuneQuest
>>44734013
Fighter.
>>44734687
Thief/Fighter.
>>44733851
>Cleric
>Literally a wizard that gets their power from invisible pink unicorns instead of books
Combat monkey, caster monkey, and skill monkey (Fighter, Mage, Thief) are the only classes that need to exist in a class-based system. Everything is just a variant or subset of one of those.
>>44723925
I've only ever played D&D as far as tabletop goes. Does anyone have any suggestions for something a little more...freeform? Maybe physical combat and magic aren't mutually exclusive or skills aren't restricted to classes?
>>44734977
>Maybe physical combat and magic aren't mutually exclusive
D&D 4E
>>44734927
I'd also like to add that casters aren't necessary outside of fantasy settings, so it basically narrows down to combat vs. skills. And since that's a false dichotomy (combat is based on skills), classless systems are the simplest and best choice.
Quid pro quo, motherfuckers.
>>44734927
there's someone at /gdg/ using a different approach towards things like clerics in his sci-fantasy thing
he's got 5 basic classes that i think were something like warrior, mage, scout, techie and channeler
channeler is basically a mage that uses borrowed power from another source to cast things or perform magical stunts and that alone brings enough difference to warrant its own class, and this basic class includes things like clerics
but after you get one class at the start and get the starting bonuses, you're free to do whatever you want, i think it's something like dark souls classes in a skyrim leveling system and i thought it was pretty sweet because classes only serve as a point A for the player's point B
>>44734927
either this or classless
>>44734927
>>Cleric
>>Literally a wizard that gets their power from invisible pink unicorns instead of books
More like the wizard also gets their power from the unicorns, it's just more of a roundabout fashion by which they do so.
>>44735167
It's just unicorns all the way down. Might as well fuck it and go classless or big-three.
>>44735014
casters can be translated to tech-savvy, scientists, not!casters, etc.
I like the cypher system aproach.
>>44735014
>not having space wizards or psychics
>>44723925
I recently began playing the SW roleplaying game made by fantasy flight and I love the system.
You pick a career and choose a specialization. You can buy skills in that specialization with XP. You can buy another specialization in your career for a certain amount of XP and have access to other skills and you can buy another specialization from a different career for more XP.
It allows you to pick the skills you want and let you build your character how you like it but it's still restrictive enough to put you into a role so you will be good at something usually and beginner won't be lost too much
