How Many Classes Works 4 You

[Jamfke]

I'm working on a fantasy project that is essentially bare bare bones with a sandbox-ish style. I currently have the four basic classes you find in every other setting, but I'm wondering what everyone else's preference is when it comes to how many is enough, or too much, or just right for baby bear? If you do prefer more than 4 (C what I did there?), what are your faves? Let me know in the comments below.

Hey, I made a rhyme in that last line...

Did it again. Sorry. It's late and I'm old and...what did I come in here for?

Thanks!

 

[PolarBlues]

I don't think this is the right question. I feel the number , or even the choice of having classes at all, should flow from the rest of the game design. All things being equal, I guess it's nice if there are at least as many classes that each player in the party can play something different, but really, this is not something that can be discussed in isolation. If four classes is what flows naturally from your system design, it is probably the right answer.

 

[TJS]

It really depends on the setting.

D&D has always suffered badly from the fact that the Cleric is conceptually nonsensical and leads to all kinds of poor setting implications. I wouldn't recommend including it in anything not D&D.

Really for fantasy purposes there isn't really all that much necessity to go beyond Arneson's original division of wizard and warrior (or whatever he called them). It's about what kind of basis you want for different setting archetypes. If a skilled character who is not a warrior is actually desirable then something like a thief makes sense.

 

[VisionStorm]

TL;DR: 3 classes (Warrior, Specialist and Mystic) plus subclasses/“Kits”.

Ideally, I tend to prefer skill-based/freeform development over class-based. But when working with classes think 3 is the best: Warrior, Specialist and Mystic. Supplement by “subclasses or “kits” (like in AD&D 2e). Which is what I’ve been using in d20 game I’ve been working on recently (though, been getting sidetracked lately).

The idea is to start off with bare bones classes dealing with the most basic archetypal roles to define your basic progression and focus, then add a “subclass” as an extra layer of benefits to define more specific roles and provide a starting package of abilities . That way the core class structure remains simple while allowing a significant range of customizability. All abilities in my system are also treated as Feats or Powers, and subclasses basically just grant you a number of these abilities during creation, but you can get more through leveling.

I picked three classes because I always hated the arcane/divine magic split in D&D, since it’s mostly arbitrary and largely an invention of D&D. So I merged magic classes into a single “Mystic” class. More specific types of mystic are covered by “subclasses”, like magus, shamans, enchanters, etc. Subclasses are not class-specific, however, so you can mix and match them to get “warrior shamans” or “mystic paladins”. Magic can basically be learned as a power (which can be granted by some subclasses), and all classes get power points and power use potential (there are also non-magic powers), but mystics get more points and higher magic power levels.

 

[zanshin]

That trinity works well - a lot of games use it; T&T with Warrior, Wizard & Rogue, Numenera with Glaive, Nano & Jack (fancy names for Warrior, Wizard & Rogue).

If you want more I think it's either because you are trying to provide a particular flavour with the class - so 13th Age Glorantha creates particular mechanics for classes which are based on a cult focus - Orlanthi warrior, Troll Berserker, Humakt Swordthane, Storm Priest. Shadowrun has decker and rigger because they are particular spheres of power to it's world.

So the number of classes should definitely flow from the setting and system. Are classes loose and broad with other ways of distinguishing the character or tight? Are there particular mechanics that you want to tie to a class? Are there things that could be done as background options or purchasable perks?

Personally if the system is well designed I can go with 1 (classless), 3 or 20+.

I appreciate that is not necessarily super helpful to you, but does say that whatever decision you make I could be in the market for your game

 

[TristramEvans]

For D&D, 2: Fighter and Magic-User.

Everything else is superfluous.

Thief? That's a fighter with thieving non-weapon proficiencies
Cleric? That's a magic-user with religious tendencies
etc, etc.

 

[Vidgrip]

Classes should flow from the setting you design, not what players have enjoyed in other settings.

With that out of the way, the best systems in my opinion use three classes: Fighter, Wizard, and a skill monkey that some call Expert. I'd ditch the D&D cleric for sure. Your Expert can specialize in religious devotion or in healing.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

The best four classes are still Warrior, Wizard, Rogue and Warrior-Wizard.

 

[Silverlion]

I like Warrior, Wizard, Rogue, and Priest myself. (Though I don't need a definitive answer like how do Priests get their powers) but I do enjoy ways to make them flavorful and different. I also like Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling if you're doing D&D-style fantasy. If you do compress, Warrior, Specialist (skills person), and Adept (Magic of any flavor are also good.) Though my favorite fantast game Talislanta has tons of Race-class comboes

 

[Ladybird]

Enough. Each class should have a thing of their own which hits a certain play fantasy and lets players feel strong in a certain situation; it's fine for there to be overlap with broad meta concepts ("Spell casters") as long as each type of spell caster has their own thing (Wizards have a spell for every situation, Sorcerors can manipulate their spells to fit the situation, Warlocks have a spell for every situation and it's called Eldritch Blast, etc). I really like the way that 5e does it's classes, with broad groupings and then drills into each one with subclasses.

 

[zanshin]

The best four classes are still Warrior, Wizard, Rogue and Warrior-Wizard.

T&T got it right , all other RPGs are just trying to make themselves special

 

[K_Peterson]

0 classes is juuuuuuust right!

Yeah, that's not a helpful answer. But you asked.

 

[Caesar Slaad]

I came here to say "less than 15", but I see this is not a "how many" but a "how few" thread.

To me, one of the main driving roles of classes is fitting the players to the activity at hand. So what is your activity? If it's just dungeon crawling, 3-5 is probably enough. If stuff like court intrigue, city adventures, etc., play a major role in your activities, I could easily justify 1-2 more classes for each of those activities.

 

[Rogerdee]

I mean what irritates me about DnD 5e is that they shoehorn all the same classes in every.single.setting.

PF 1e didn't do that, having classes relevant to each setting. But then adding prestige classes on top of that becomes too much. Palladium is the same in that regard.

FFG Star Wars has a class, with sub-classes (kind of prestige classes I guess), which I don't mind as they are relevant to each main class.

Personally I am a fan of Savage Worlds do it, each occupation is an edge, some relevant to a setting, others not.

So I think that it all depends on the setting to be honest.

 

[robertsconley]

I'm working on a fantasy project that is essentially bare bare bones with a sandbox-ish style. I currently have the four basic classes you find in every other setting, but I'm wondering what everyone else's preference is when it comes to how many is enough, or too much, or just right for baby bear? If you do prefer more than 4 (C what I did there?), what are your faves? Let me know in the comments below.

Hey, I made a rhyme in that last line...

Did it again. Sorry. It's late and I'm old and...what did I come in here for?

Thanks!

I view classes in the same way templates are used in points based systems. A package of abilities and skills related to a profession that part of a setting. Sometimes a bunch of professions are closely related enough to be handled by a single class with the variations handled by subclasses (like 5e's archetypes) or feats.

For my own Majestic Fantasy RPG based on the classic editions I opted to define the follow. This is list from what character played and I used from using my setting with multiple systems like AD&D 1e, Fantasy Hero, GURPS, D&D 3e, etc.

Cleric (with options tailored to each of the ten major religions.)

Fighters (a common warrior)
Berserker (a holy warrior for Viking style Gods)
Soldier (focused on teamwork in combat)
Paladin of Delaquain (a holy warrior for the Goddess of Honor and Justice) (think Lawful Good)
Myrmidon of Sarrath ( a holy warrior for the God of War and Order) (think Lawful Evil)
Knight (focused on mounted combat)

Magic-Users (lone practitioner of magic)
Mage (member of the Order of Thoth the largest order of magic users)
Artificer (a practitioner of an older ritual only system of magic. Has to use scrolls or magic item to use spells in combat)
Theurgist (as above but able to link up to allow spell be cast with greater effect)
Runecaster (as per Artificer but able to use Runes in lieu of scrolls)

Burglar (better at Thieving skills like stealth, legerdemain than any other class)
Thug (has some thieving kills but specialize in hurting people, doesn't fight as well as a fighter but able to do more damage).
Merchant Adventurer (better at various skills related to trade and commerce)
Claw of Kalis (Assassin)
Montebank (a magic-user that lives on the street or fringes of city).

All of this reflect something within my setting or have been played by my players even when given the flexibility of a system like GURPS.

 

[under_score]

26.

 

[robertsconley]

I mean what irritates me about DnD 5e is that they shoehorn all the same classes in every.single.setting.

If you have the chance check out Adventures in Middle Earth.
Also recently in the last two years there are more and more variant 5e systems out there. For example the upcoming Stargate SG-1 RPG is 5e based.

 

[Rogerdee]

If you have the chance check out Adventures in Middle Earth.
Also recently in the last two years there are more and more variant 5e systems out there. For example the upcoming Stargate SG-1 RPG is 5e based.

I will check out the Middle Earth one, and yeah I did hear about 5e Stargate.

Don't get me wrong, I love some of the D20 settings - they have a bit too much info as I cannot retain it all, but I can just keep what I need. And for that they are amazing, Theros, Odyssey of Dragonlords being two amazing settings. Alessia is another.

 

[SavAce]

I'm maybe a poor respondent, as I'm not a fan of class/level, but for me the order goes something like this:

0 Classes - Just have a reasonable list of things characters could, in theory, be capable of and use a character generation whereby they are capable of some subset of those things. Whether it is random, life-path, point buy, gated point buy, or just modeling (player and GM just work out together what a character's stats will be).

1 Class - This is kinda a cheeky way of saying no classes again, but the one class is "Adventurer", and PCs have it, and it differentiates them mechanically in some way from NPCs.

2 Classes - In a fantasy context, my next favorite number of classes is 2: Warrior & Wizard, ala The Fantasy Trip. Really, the Warrior is everything that is not a Wizard, and the game is point buy, with the class mostly effecting the costs of things. At least in TFTs case, it allows for a wide range of concepts to be satisfyingly defined using a reasonably small number of parts.

3 Classes - Here I go to the Kevin Crawford "Warrior, Expert, Powers" type split (and even like his "multi-classing"). As you can see, if classes are required at all, I prefer they be broadly defined and capable of handling many concepts.

More Classes - As the number of classes goes up, at least in a system intended to cover a whole genre rather than being setting specific, I tend to find that more classes with more specific differentiating abilities tend to build in things that make me unhappy with them. Features like, "I'm a Barbarian, and my power comes from how many 'Rages' I have, and there are different kinds of rages and abilities they grant" or "I wanna play a nature priestess, so I'll play a Druid, so I guess that also means I'll be able to turn into a bear and maul people... not exactly what I imagined, but..." or "I'm a roguish guy, sneak around, have double crossed some people, I'll be a rogue, which also inevitably means over time I will get better at murdering people by stabbing them in the back." The more idiosyncratic these classes are, the more they shape & define the setting, which is why D&D editions with more classes I think are worse for being generically "Fantasy" and become "D&D Fantasy".

Everything is a Class - Kinda implied, if the intent is to use classes to define a specific setting, an abundance of classes is not a weakness in the way I considered above. Here I'm thinking Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and even more so, Talislanta. Here, classes don't feel like they necessarily describe every possible character type, but are almost like... "Pick up and Play" example characters that have setting flavor baked into them. Like, there is a Thrall Warrior, so why can't I be an Aeriad Warrior? Well, because the game has a specific setting with cultures and gives you a few "classes" per culture to convey the setting feel, so pick one that resonates with you.

 

[robertsconley]

I'm maybe a poor respondent, as I'm not a fan of class/level, but for me the order goes something like this:

When it came to fantasy roleplaying I used GURPS exclusively for campaigns for over 20 years from 1988 to 2010. It wasn't a case that D&D was bad but GURPS was better for what I do. So when I returned to using D&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry I wasn't relishing the whole class thing. But it was not a big deal anymore either.

Why? Because mainly due to two thing. One was the increase in the use of character templates in GURPS over those 20 years. When well done it helped a lot with fleshing out the feel of a setting. So I started it using it for the most narrow profession like this one for the Myrmidon of Set.

Second is what the players actually do over multiple campaigns when faced with list of skills, abilities, and advantages. They specialize and then tweak slightly on average. They rarely spread their points among multiple abilities and thus be a jack of all trades and master of none. The few who did that quickly regretted not being exceptional at anything especially compared to how good some of the more focused characters were.

In one sense a point towards a skill in GURPS represent X hours of learning or experience. So it made sense that like in life there only so much time one has and thus only so much one can focus on to be good at something.

Also I found that players gravitated towards similar specializations as D&D namely fighter, thieves, and magic-users. Where were clerics you ask? Well in GURSP being a priest requires duties and vows towards a religion. The made the character an agent of another not the master of their own fate. While technically this is true even in OD&D, folks can muddle and ignore this aspect of the class. But in GURPS it is drawn with a bright line and clear example. So most players will opt for choices that left as free agents. Especially since in GURPS magic-users can learn and use traditional clerical spells like healing.

So back to Classes.

I started using Swords & Wizardry again because I wasn't really in it for the rules but for making sandbox setting and adventures. And the most effective way I could do that is with the D20 Open content in the form of Swords & Wizardry. It made the material more accessible to more people if I shared it. And of course there was the option to take the next step, which I did, and sell it with a nice layout and art.

So how to reconcile what I did with GURPS with Swords & Wizardry? Treat classes as GURPS style templates representing common adventuring professions. What classes made the cut? Well the one that my player opted to play time and time again with a few that I used as a referee sprinkled in.

 

[under_score]

From AS&SH...

Fighter: a swordsman, bowman, or other warrior type
Barbarian: an outland warrior possessed of feral instincts
Berserker: a rampaging shock trooper renowned for unbridled battle rage
Cataphract: an armoured horseman and warrior elite
Huntsman: a wilderness warrior who glories in the hunt
Paladin: a champion who crusades for justice and Law
Ranger: a borderland fighter, frontiersman, and defender
Warlock: a spell-weaving fighter who wields steel and sorcery interchangeably

Magician: a sorcerer who memorizes arcane formulae and casts spells
Cryomancer: a sorcerer who commands the elemental power of ice
Illusionist: a sorcerer who evokes phantasms and manipulates shadows and light
Necromancer: a sorcerer who practices black magic and communications with the dead
Pyromancer: a sorcerer who commands the elemental power of fire
Witch: a sorcerer who brews potions, divines portents, and lays curses

Cleric: an armed and armoured mystic sorcerer
Druid: a mystic sorcerer empowered by ancestral, elemental, and animistic spirits
Monk: a warrior-priest who strives for physical and mental mastery
Priest: a chaplain mystic of prodigious spell-casting capacity
Runegraver: a mystic warrior who carves runic spells on bone, metal, stone, and wood
Shaman: a primal sorcerer who confers with ancestral and totem spirits

Thief: a nimble swordsman possessed of numerous specialized skills
Assassin: a thief who specializes in murder and intrigue
Skald: a warrior, scholar, and weaver of enchanted lyrics and/or music
Legerdemainist: an adept thief who also commands the power of sorcery
Purloiner: a religious thief who also practices the esoteric mysticism of a cleric
Scout: a lightly armed explorer, intelligence gatherer, and stealth master

I pretty much agree with robertsconley regarding classes as templates. If it makes sense to have a class for some niche in the setting, go for it. You don't need a particular count, and I'm happy to play with strictly Fighting Man/Magic-User/Cleric, but well made classes that support the setting are fun.

Tell you what I hate though is multi-classing. And most fantasy races, and goofy race/class combinations that don't feel at all tied to the setting material.

 

[xanther]

Zero.
Don't care for pre-made classes, rather prefer a system that rewards character creation along role/niche lines and "classes" in that sense arise from it.

Classes as a defining concept for what people can do in a setting are anathema to me, as NPCs and inspirational sources never fit (unless it is a licensed RPG and even then). Classes + levels as a means of step progression also not a fan, especially if the XP charts differ for different classes...my suggestion instead of adjusting XP just adjust what power increase you give at each level to get whatever "balance" you are seeking.

I have no problem with classes as a general concept, as in here is one way you can design your PC if you want to be a "fighter" or a "thief" etc. TFT is a great old school example of that and give you various builds to replicate a whole bunch of "classes". In one sense you could say TFT has two "classes:" Wizard and Warrior, the only difference being the point buy cost for magic vs non-magic talents.

So to try to answer the question: 2 classes based on the magic vs non-magic path. If psionics are involved, 3 classes based on the psionic vs magic vs non-magic path. When a game has more classes than GURPS has skills, then you really have a design problem in my book

As to setting specific careers, life paths etc. of examples of typical PC/NPC design whatever makes sense and the more the merrier as these are just examples of the game mechanics applied to a setting and not locking in world definition or character advancement to them.

 

[ffilz]

I'm working through how I want to handle classes in Cold Iron. It's an interesting system in that the classes really are large skill/ability bundles but they mostly act like classes. Everyone has a rating in Fighting Skill or simply Fighter. Everyone has some kind of magical skill rating, Passive Magic (affects saves only), Magic User, and/or Cleric. So your typical warrior is a Fighter with Passive Magic. Most characters have experience in only a single magic skill, but you COULD be a Cleric/Magic User, and it's possible for a magic user to gain experience in Passive Magic (and in fact, if you have experience in more than one magic class, it is all summed up to determine your Passive Magic level).

Now where I'm fiddling is how to handle the rest of the skill list. I'm adding an "Expertise" class that gives you skill points to spend on other skills. I haven't decided all of the details yet.

 

[ReluctantGM]

I'm working on a fantasy project that is essentially bare bare bones with a sandbox-ish style. I currently have the four basic classes you find in every other setting, but I'm wondering what everyone else's preference is when it comes to how many is enough, or too much, or just right for baby bear? If you do prefer more than 4 (C what I did there?), what are your faves? Let me know in the comments below.

Hey, I made a rhyme in that last line...

Did it again. Sorry. It's late and I'm old and...what did I come in here for?

Thanks!

I really like how Beyond The Wall and World With Number simulate classes. You basically have each class be some flavor or blend of Warrior, Spellcaster, and Rogue/Expert.

When my print edition of the new Worlds Without Number arrives I'm gonna give it a whirl to see how it actually plays.

 

[xanther]

......Second is what the players actually do over multiple campaigns when faced with list of skills, abilities, and advantages. They specialize and then tweak slightly on average. They rarely spread their points among multiple abilities and thus be a jack of all trades and master of none. The few who did that quickly regretted not being exceptional at anything especially compared to how good some of the more focused characters were......

My experience as well, but the systems liked the most allowed you to pick the focus and usually you could focus on 2-3 things. Will say though, there are some players who seem to have a splattering of talents but it works if the GM has a range of encounters/adventures, not just dungeons or hack-n-slash.

That is where my problem with most games classes comes in, the designers decision of what 2 or 3 things are combined is the key and limitation. More things in heaven and hell I say to the class designer.

My experience is more with TFT than GURPS, but figure it is close enough. For example, everyone in our groups bought Silent Movement or Stealth talent so we could have a stealth team on day one. Something have never seen possible in D&D or other class systems. And multi-classing doesn't fix it, don't need all the other abilities of a "thief" when I just want to sneak. That is just one example, but a glaring one to me.

There is also the old "combat medic / tank" build from the Dragon, armored dude with Pole Weapon (i.e. spear), Shield, Shield Expertise, Toughness and Physicker...so a "fighter" that can barely hit due to adjusted DX (has a spear though for reach) but can takes hits and can heal the party after. Has points to buy Silent Movement still. Can't think of anything really like it in a class system let alone D&D, no spells like a cleric, far from the martial/hard to qualify for powerhouse of the Paladin.

Also I found that players gravitated towards similar specializations as D&D namely fighter, thieves, and magic-users. .... Especially since in GURPS magic-users can learn and use traditional clerical spells like healing.....

I've found that players gravitate to D&D tropes when they view D&D as defining fantasy, at least for their first characters. After that still a few focus areas, but creativity reigns.

When first started using a more TFT approach D&D did not have that genre definition power, so people designed many hybrids not possible with D&D, like a Wizard but can use a Crossbow, the Silent Movement example above, and other combinations to replicate characters from literature.

Except possibly for fighter types (and even then they might grab Sex Appeal and Silent Movement) all the TFT characters people created would never fit into a class system or multi-class, although TFT allows you to replicate what a class system could give you. And that is just to start, TFT allows you to grow in ways a class system does not. Want to be Gandalf and wield a sword as well, it's a pricey Talent (so maybe stick with a staff) but at some point worth the cost and not crippling to

 

[Ladybird]

I mean what irritates me about DnD 5e is that they shoehorn all the same classes in every.single.setting.

The thing about a well-designed class system is that there's something for everyone there; taking classes out without providing something else for the players that like those concepts offsets that, by removing them and their effects from the game's class balance, and also by (Effectively) saying to fans of that class "this setting isn't for you". 5e's classes are extensive enough that putting out a full replacement set (Which is the AIME approach, frex) isn't really an option for many books, so cutting classes just makes it feel like something is missing rather than that the rules are being fully tailored for the setting.

The "but they're not a fit for this setting" argument makes total sense, but it's the players that turn up to the session and should be provided for (In reasonable circumstances, natch), and if that means bending the setting or rationalising a way to get something in then so be it.

 

[VisionStorm]

For D&D, 2: Fighter and Magic-User.

Everything else is superfluous.

Thief? That's a fighter with thieving non-weapon proficiencies
Cleric? That's a magic-user with religious tendencies
etc, etc.

IDK, I agree about Clerics, but not about Thieves. Fighters more properly portray dedicated warriors focused on mastering combat. Not everyone who's not a magic user is automatically a martial arts expert. That's why I thrown "Thieves", "skill monkeys" and odd character types into the "Specialist/Expert" category.

Granted, you could say that combat is just a skill amongst many that characters could focus on, but that leads either to a skill-based system or to a 2-class system where the actual classes are properly Specialist and Magic User.

 

[TristramEvans]

IDK, I agree about Clerics, but not about Thieves. Fighters more properly portray dedicated warriors focused on mastering combat.

*Looks at Conan or Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser*

 

[xanther]

I'm working through how I want to handle classes in Cold Iron. It's an interesting system in that the classes really are large skill/ability bundles but they mostly act like classes. Everyone has a rating in Fighting Skill or simply Fighter. Everyone has some kind of magical skill rating, Passive Magic (affects saves only), Magic User, and/or Cleric. So your typical warrior is a Fighter with Passive Magic. Most characters have experience in only a single magic skill, but you COULD be a Cleric/Magic User, and it's possible for a magic user to gain experience in Passive Magic (and in fact, if you have experience in more than one magic class, it is all summed up to determine your Passive Magic level).

Now where I'm fiddling is how to handle the rest of the skill list. I'm adding an "Expertise" class that gives you skill points to spend on other skills. I haven't decided all of the details yet.

Have you looked at Dragon Warriors? Everyone has passive and active skills in the fighting, magic, sneaking areas. Although if you are not a spell caster your active magic skill is zero. One thing like about Dragon Warrior classes is the combat Attack and Defense skills are separate, so have classes that trade one for the other.

 

[xanther]

For D&D, 2: Fighter and Magic-User....

You've just described TFT

 

[TristramEvans]

You've just described TFT

And OD&D

 

[xanther]

And OD&D

OD&D had the cleric though...and at least in TFT you could make a warrior that can fight, and sneak and climb....like Conan

 

[ffilz]

Have you looked at Dragon Warriors? Everyone has passive and active skills in the fighting, magic, sneaking areas. Although if you are not a spell caster your active magic skill is zero. One thing like about Dragon Warrior classes is the combat Attack and Defense skills are separate, so have classes that trade one for the other.

Never seen Dragon Warriors... Cold Iron, or at least the way I do combat skills in it, does separate offense from defense, though I've rarely seen anyone other than a Mage not take both a full level offensive skill and a full level defensive skill. Mages enough combat skill points from their Fighter level for 3 full rank skills, Clerics 4, and non-casters 5. Mages for certain want Dodge and Shield Parry. They then have to toss between Grappling and a Weapon skill.

 

[Jamfke]

OD&D had the cleric though...and at least in TFT you could make a warrior that can fight, and sneak and climb....like Conan

So far I’m keeping things fairly open to where all skills may be picked up by anyone to be able to do what they want. The classes are more or less there for “genre” or setting appeal and to help folks get started quickly and easily, or bring their focus to a certain zone of characteristics. Characters receive skill points at creation to raise and purchase other skills. I might include some templates for different “subclasses” based on the main four at the back of the book, like paladin, sorcerer, assassin, etc. Here’s the warrior class as I currently have it. Tossed in lock picking to let player’s know they’re not confined strictly to a set style of character.

 

[TristramEvans]

OD&D had the cleric though...

true, though the way they are set up, you could easily see that as essential the first dual-class. So Fighter, Wizard, and Fighter-Wizard.

But the Cleric was always a very odd class. It's origins in Blackmoor as a direct counterpoint to SirFang were anything but archetypal and it's inclusion in OD&D I thought was a mis-step.

But I guess that's a rant for a different thread...

 

[TristramEvans]

So far I’m keeping things fairly open to where all skills may be picked up by anyone to be able to do what they want. The classes are more or less there for “genre” or setting appeal and to help folks get started quickly and easily, or bring their focus to a certain zone of characteristics. Characters receive skill points at creation to raise and purchase other skills. I might include some templates for different “subclasses” based on the main four at the back of the book, like paladin, sorcerer, assassin, etc. Here’s the warrior class as I currently have it. Tossed in lock picking to let player’s know they’re not confined strictly to a set style of character.
View attachment 30489

Is this based on 4C?

 

[Jamfke]

Is this based on 4C?

Yes it is.

 

[TristramEvans]

Yes it is.

Interesting, I'm working on a FASERIP classic D&D tribute, but it's based primarily on the Dungeons & Dragons animated series.

 

[Jamfke]

Interesting, I'm working on a FASERIP classic D&D tribute, but it's based primarily on the Dungeons & Dragons animated series.

That will be Excellent! Can't wait to see it.

 

[robertsconley]

My experience is more with TFT than GURPS, but figure it is close enough. For example, everyone in our groups bought Silent Movement or Stealth talent so we could have a stealth team on day one. Something have never seen possible in D&D or other class systems. And multi-classing doesn't fix it, don't need all the other abilities of a "thief" when I just want to sneak. That is just one example, but a glaring one to me.

The way I handle it that I started with an edition that doesn't specify much of what a character can do outside of combat and spellcasting. For me that turned out to be OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry. I then created an ability system to handle things that character can do and be better at outside of combat and spellcasting. Unlike most RPGs, any character can use any ability, just some are better at certain abilities than other.

You can read it for yourself with my free download of the Basic Rules for the Majestic Fantasy RPG. I have a version of this for sale that cleaned up and adds monsters and other referee stuff.

Considering the topic of the thread. Here is a free coupon for for the thread. I only have four classes in this version. In the next book for the series I will have all the classes I mentioned earlier. The PDF coupon is good for the next 14 days.

Basic Rules for the Majestic Fantasy RPG.

Every class has abilities, some fixed in certain abilities but also having a pool of free ability bonuses. So with my Majestic Fantasy rules everybody being decent at Stealth is quite possible. Since the release of the basic rules, I went with another round of feedback from my playtesters and we agreed on raising the free ability bonuses a bit. This will be reflected in my upcoming Tome of the Majestic Fantasy RPG.

For example Fighters will be


Instead of


There no reason why other editions couldn't do this but they didn't and opted for "if you don't have the skill, you can't use the skill" approach.

There is also the old "combat medic / tank" build from the Dragon, armored dude with Pole Weapon (i.e. spear), Shield, Shield Expertise, Toughness and Physicker...so a "fighter" that can barely hit due to adjusted DX (has a spear though for reach) but can takes hits and can heal the party after. Has points to buy Silent Movement still. Can't think of anything really like it in a class system let alone D&D, no spells like a cleric, far from the martial/hard to qualify for powerhouse of the Paladin.

My view even when working a skilled based system like the Fudge RPG I worked on. I try to stay away from things like Shield Expertise, Toughness, mechanics that work like advantages or feats. I have some but they are a late resort for something that can't be represented by a skill, an attribute, or a equipment detail.

It represent something I called assumed competence. That unless some other element of character creation is in play, I assume that character are competent at what their experience or skill represents.

So you don't need an advantage, talent, or special skill to disarm. You can do it and how well you can do it is a function of your regular weapon skill. That most special maneuvers either have a circumstantial or equipment prerequisite. For example this aspect of wielding a historical axe in my game.

Axe, battle 50d/ea. 8.0/lbs.
Damage: 1-Hand, 1d8
This is a single head axe between 24 to 36 inches long. Like the throwing axe, the bottom of the blade or heel extends out further into a beard shape. At the attacker’s option you can use this extension to pin an opponent’s weapon or shield. After making a successful to hit roll, the opponent needs to make a saving or the weapon or shield is pinned. The attacker can’t use the axe to attack with.

Rob’s Note: the double head axe that commonly found in fantasy art is not typically used in the Majestic Fantasy Realms outside of ceremonies. It typical role is used to depict two opposing attributes like future and past, light and dark, etc.

The ability to pin weapons and shields comes for free with the use of an axe with a beard shape for the blade. I assume a fighter wielding a a Battle Ax to be competent enough to use this attribute of the weapon.

A lot of system have advantages like wealth or disadvantage like cowardice. I handle those in my rules as notes on the character sheet. Either the players wants to roleplay it or they don't. I found systems like GURPS that have you take disadvantages do little to chance the psychology of players in that regard. As for stuff like wealth, if it is a good idea, then fuck balance it goes into the campaign. If the entire party wants to be wealthy Bruce Wayne types then it will be a campaign about wealthy Bruce Waynes having adventures and overcoming challenges.

However there is an issue with approach. With without some fiddly character creation/advancement bits it about more about what you have and how one prepares. Which is a form of player skill. With GURPS, Fantasy Trip, 3.5x, etc. some of that baked into the character option one takes.

I've found that players gravitate to D&D tropes when they view D&D as defining fantasy, at least for their first characters. After that still a few focus areas, but creativity reigns.

My observation is that player want to be a fighter or spellcaster along with other things. And it the other things that varies a lot. Fighter and spellcaster also have option but they are variation on a theme. For example Fighters can be fencers, hack and slash style knights, archers, expert mounted warrior, etc. A wealth of fighting styles to pick from. Likewise depending on the setting there can be a wealth of choices in how magic is practiced by a character. But in the end they amount to fighting and casting spell. The other things is where player can truly customize their approach to the campaign.

When first started using a more TFT approach D&D did not have that genre definition power, so people designed many hybrids not possible with D&D, like a Wizard but can use a Crossbow, the Silent Movement example above, and other combinations to replicate characters from literature.

My opinion after dealing with this for decades is that there the system, and the stuff. The system is one thing, what you need to hit, to jump, to interact with NPCs, how character advance. The stuff that the system uses, the list of spells, monsters, items, equipment, character options, etc are mallable. D&D 5e has a set of lists, when thrown out and replaced a different set of lists becomes Adventure in Middle Earth The system for both is the same.

Except possibly for fighter types (and even then they might grab Sex Appeal and Silent Movement) all the TFT characters people created would never fit into a class system or multi-class, although TFT allows you to replicate what a class system could give you. And that is just to start, TFT allows you to grow in ways a class system does not. Want to be Gandalf and wield a sword as well, it's a pricey Talent (so maybe stick with a staff) but at some point worth the cost and not crippling to

I disagree, if a class system can't do the above then the designer fault for having designed the class system that way. If want to be a Gandalf wielding Glamdring with my rules just use one of your free ability bonus and gain a weapon proficiency with a hand a half sword. If you are talking AD&D 1e, no that option not available unless you dual class which almost nobody does. Or 3.x take a feat or a level of fighter. In any case it is the designer fault not the fact they are using a class system.

I don't have that issue because I treat Class the way I would a GURPS template or Fantasy Hero package. And a good template or package leave enough points for the player to further tweak their character. So I build some options like the free ability bonus to allow players to further customize their character.