How Can Anyone Stand Classes?

Remove all ads!

Come on C'Jakob, I just know you want to get into another D&D debate

How can anyone stand the classes system? Its so damn restricting. There are much better ways of gaining skills and abilities than having a set of laws that you must abide by and that often offer little freedom.
I got on this line of thinking when trying to plan a 2E game, and I'm seriously starting to hate the classes and (possibly) the magic system, though that may be easier to work around.

Classless systems are the way of the future, much more flexible and easily manipulated to suit your needs instead of having to create a class or kit whenever you want to have a non-standard character.

 

Then don't play. Simple as that. Find another game that is classless. I liked Chill alot, and that was classless. I don't know about any current games though, I prefer to stick with just a few games, and they are all classed.

 

Well, let's see what you have in mind, Aikanaro. And if it makes D&D less fun, or more complicated, but perhaps more realistic, then it won't work.

Anyways, let me give a few reasons why classes do work.

a) No identity crisis, with the possible exception of the Ranger (3E).

b) Diversity. A few classes, each with different abilities, can work together to accomplish things that they cannot do themselves. Classless systems are likely to tone cooperation down.

c) Diversification. Yes, it actually exists with the concept fo classes. Yes, this actually only works well with 3E, as the 2E multiclassing system seems odd. Can't have a high-level Fighter who's dabbled a bit in magic. And yes, this is reason #523 to update to 3E.

d) Coolness. With classes, you get to be Aragorn! He was a Ranger, right? You get to be Conan! He was a Barbarian, right? You get to be Elminster! He was a Wizard/Cleric/Rogue/Fighter/Archmage/Epic, right? With classless systems, you're just some guy.

The class system hardly imposes barriers. With 3E (reason #75), you can have a Barbarian who knows how to pick locks. You can have a Sorcerer who's great at smashing the enemies' swords. And so on.

[ April 05, 2003, 20:31: Message edited by: C'Jakob ]

 

The worst disadvantage of a classless system is that you can't be a paladin

What about classes based on abilities instead of the opposite? Like in HoMM4...

For example Nobility + Life Magic = Cardinal, Fighting + Tactics = General, any three magic schools = Archmage, Life Magic + Chaos Magic = Heretic, Fighting + Order Magic = Battle Mage etc.

All of those receive some nice class-based bonuses once the class is assigned (you lose them if the class changes).

Something close to that was the Dungeon Siege System - although some class names seem to be chosen at random.

 

a. Whats wrong with identity crisises?

b. I beg to differ. A few normal people with different skills can work together just as well

c. Probably works better with classless systems than in 3E. Just speculating though.

d. If you want in a classless system you can run around calling yourself a ranger. You just do so without the restrictions. Your just some guy, true, but just some guy can turn into someone amazingly interesting.

You can do the same with classless.

Also, in classless systems there is usulay an exp buy system and no levels. Which I think works better than all of a sudden leaping up in great amounts of power after you cross a certain invisible line

 

simplicity is the most important factor for a class based system. Since d&d for instance started with classes, it requires less work to improve it with the classes than revolutionize it to a system of no classes.

A class-less system could easily be just as good, I think the problem is it's easier to create something entirely new than majorly edit something older.

Classes or non-classes isn't the most important to me. Being a class just give you some skills IMO, not something that binds you to a certain identity lock-down that cannot be changed.

 

I think the main problem people are focusing on here are restrictions. In 3E, there are little restrictions. For the most part, it is just divine classes (Clerics, Paladins, etc.) who have to keep vows. That's just about it.

Show me a classless system, and chances there will be traces of classes or whatnot.

One problem I think may ensue from the classless system is game rule rape. Powergamers will take skill X until it's good enough. Then take powers Y to complement/augment X. Then do something with feat Z. And so on.

I do agree that a few classes can hinder character concept. I have this idea for a half-orc monk, but stuff like Empty Body or Perfect Self don't fit with him. Just tweak the classes in that case. But most of them don't really need many changes. The monk is only the best example because of so many specialized abilities. Same for Druid and Rogue.

Okay, the last paragraph kinda contradcited the first one. Eh, so sue me.

[ April 06, 2003, 18:05: Message edited by: C'Jakob ]

 

Rule rape can happen anywhere, classless or not. My favourite system (Pathwanderer for those who haven't figured it out yet) only allows you to gain exp and sup's when doing the thing you want to go up in, simulating the practise makes perfect idiology. You only go up in that specific thing though and defeating monsters won't make your brewing skill go up or anything like that.

A trace of classes, not realy. Instead it has working experience which just starts you off. The more of this you've had gives you more in the skills that the job your character was in prior to the game. Thats just a starting point and I don't think it realy has anything to do with classes. Otherwise there is nothing that could remotly resemble them.

I may have just ranted on a bit then and may have screwed up what I was trying to say, ah well

 

My two cents:

Dungeons and Dragons has always been about the heroic archetypes (altough not as much in the latest incarnation as its predecessors) of fantasy, hence the class-based system. If you don't want them in your game, use another system is what I always say.

IMO, the system doesn't make the game, so I like the arbitrary way in which D&D handles characters, and realism be damned! This allows the players to concentrate more on roleplaying and generally enjoying the game, than speculating on what skill to put their latest experience points into. They might have to do a fair bit of speculation on what class to go into next, though...

I have yet to see a simple skill based system for heroic fantasy the D&D way (although I have to admit, there are a lot of rpg systems I have not seen).

Heck, I even think 3E is overly complicated, with all its skillpoints and such, so you guys probably shouldn't listen to me anyway

 

Aikanaro: Why not describe this "classless" system to us, and we'll judge it from there?

Frankly, I think that D&D is just a game. Nothing more, nothing less. Go ahead and give reality a few kicks in the shin, for goodness' sake. It may be disconcerting, but games are supposed to be fun, not realistic. No one ever argued about chess being unrealistic, what with queens and rooks and bishops being able to leap across battlefields.