How Many Classes Works 4 You

[raniE]

I like the TFT approach (already mentioned) of Hero or Wizard, with Wizard's paying more to learn skills (apart from Literacy and a few others like alchemy) and Heroes paying more to learn spells. I also like the Lamentations of the Flame Princess playtest rules that have Fighters, Magic Users and Specialists, where Fighters are the only ones that get better at fighting, Magic Users are the only ones who get magic, and Specialists are the only ones who improve at skills. Including Clerics or Priests immediately moves the game away from most fantasy influence in films or books and definitely away from being any sort of generic offering.

 

[Jamfke]

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

View attachment 30490
Instead of
View attachment 30491

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.



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.



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.

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.

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.

Excellent work here. Thank you for your generosity with the coupon. I went ahead and ordered a print copy as well.

 

[ffilz]

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.

My direction with Cold Iron fits that pretty good. While everyone can fight, non-casters can fight better than casters, with Clerics straddling the casting and fighting. Everyone will also be able to have some amount of additional skills.

 

[robertsconley]

Excellent work here. Thank you for your generosity with the coupon. I went ahead and ordered a print copy as well.

Glad you enjoyed it and appreciate the business.

 

[VisionStorm]

*Looks at Conan or Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser*

Never read them and only saw the Conan films, but I'm not sure how examples of multifarious characters with a broad range of skills means that everyone who isn't a mage is automatically a combat expert (assuming that's what you're hinting at). There are plenty of characters in literature and film/TV that are scholars, craftsmen, entertainers, charlatans or even tricksters/thieves who aren't that good in combat, specially not when compared to a dedicated warrior. So reducing everything to just warriors and mages eliminates other archetypes or skill focuses.

Multifarious characters are more an example of how classes don't handle deep character emulation as well as skill-based systems, than how everyone who isn't a mage is a warrior.

 

[Silverlion]

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.

Is that its weight? That's a might bit over-weighted a Viking ax is only like 2lbs. (Single bit). If it is the price in pounds, I'm not sure.

 

[TristramEvans]

Never read them and only saw the Conan films, but I'm not sure how examples of multifarious characters with a broad range of skills means that everyone who isn't a mage is automatically a combat expert

I think that's why there's levels...

 

[raniE]

Never read them and only saw the Conan films, but I'm not sure how examples of multifarious characters with a broad range of skills means that everyone who isn't a mage is automatically a combat expert (assuming that's what you're hinting at). There are plenty of characters in literature and film/TV that are scholars, craftsmen, entertainers, charlatans or even tricksters/thieves who aren't that good in combat, specially not when compared to a dedicated warrior. So reducing everything to just warriors and mages eliminates other archetypes or skill focuses.

Multifarious characters are more an example of how classes don't handle deep character emulation as well as skill-based systems, than how everyone who isn't a mage is a warrior.

TFT is kind of both, and I do think the general distinction it has of "Wizards" and "Heroes, i.e. everyone else" holds up in most fantasy fiction. You have some characters who are wizards or sorcerers or what not, and then that tends to be what they do. And then you have other people, who can be good at a variety of things. And if you want to be a wizard who knows how to use a sword, you can do that, but it'll be more difficult than it is for a hero. Similarly, your hero might know a couple of spells, but they're never going to have the breadth, or depth, of magical knowledge that a wizard has.

 

[VisionStorm]

TFT is kind of both, and I do think the general distinction it has of "Wizards" and "Heroes, i.e. everyone else" holds up in most fantasy fiction. You have some characters who are wizards or sorcerers or what not, and then that tends to be what they do. And then you have other people, who can be good at a variety of things. And if you want to be a wizard who knows how to use a sword, you can do that, but it'll be more difficult than it is for a hero. Similarly, your hero might know a couple of spells, but they're never going to have the breadth, or depth, of magical knowledge that a wizard has.

But that applies to pretty much EVERYONE stepping out of their field. People who are academic or socially inclined also have a harder time developing combat skills than someone who's already a warrior or physically oriented. There are also examples in fiction of mystical characters who are also warriors, or non-mystics who are not good in combat either. At that point the Hero (or Fighter)/Wizard distinction becomes meaningless because you're not really defining roles. So you're essentially entering into a skill-based system, where you're better off dropping all pretense of classes and letting everyone learn whatever.

 

[VisionStorm]

I think that's why there's levels...

Or skill points in a proper skill system.

 

[raniE]

But that applies to pretty much EVERYONE stepping out of their field. People who are academic or socially inclined also have a harder time developing combat skills than someone who's already a warrior or physically oriented. There are also examples in fiction of mystical characters who are also warriors, or non-mystics who are not good in combat either. At that point the Hero (or Fighter)/Wizard distinction becomes meaningless because you're not really defining roles. So you're essentially entering into a skill-based system, where you're better off dropping all pretense of classes and letting everyone learn whatever.

And in TFT your Heroes don’t have to be good at fighting. Picking up combat skills leaves you with less points to spend on other skills. But there is a clear divide in much fantasy fiction between primary magic users and others, which I think TFT captures pretty well. The only thing your class determines in TFT is “do you pay more points for skills or for spells.”

 

[Paragon]

And OD&D

Only if you ignore the cleric or lump it in with the magic-user.

 

[Paragon]

Personally, even though I'm not as adamant about it as I was about three decades ago, I'm not convinced classes per se, are either necessary or desirable (though there's plenty of modern games where glasses are flexible enough that they function pretty well as templates, but I still think I'd rather just go with a point or skill distribution model with templates. I'm not convinced in a properly designed system the niche protection function of classes is necessary).

 

[TristramEvans]

Only if you ignore the cleric or lump it in with the magic-user.

I'd quote myself, but this thread only has two pages

 

[raniE]

I'm gonna put together a "dunk on the cleric" thread, then we can take all those discussions over there.

 

[Ladybird]

I'd quote myself, but this thread only has two pages

You'll go blind.

 

[VisionStorm]

And in TFT your Heroes don’t have to be good at fighting. Picking up combat skills leaves you with less points to spend on other skills. But there is a clear divide in much fantasy fiction between primary magic users and others, which I think TFT captures pretty well. The only thing your class determines in TFT is “do you pay more points for skills or for spells.”

That sounds like a skill-based system with extra steps. I don't think the Magic/Non-Magic distinction is necessary if you're not defining proper roles or at least broad archetypes. Just gimmie the points and fixed universal costs, I'll spend them how I wish.

Only if you ignore the cleric or lump it in with the magic-user.

Lumping the cleric with the magic-user is the way it should be, IMO. That being said, the very first, original printing of D&D didn't have clerics. Or thieves.

Saved you a back-page click.

 

[raniE]

That sounds like a skill-based system with extra steps. I don't think the Magic/Non-Magic distinction is necessary if you're not defining proper roles or at least broad archetypes. Just gimmie the points and fixed universal costs, I'll spend them how I wish.

The extra step is specifically there to prohibit that though, which I find matches fantasy stories and adventure stories much closer.

 

[robertsconley]

Is that its weight? That's a might bit over-weighted a Viking ax is only like 2lbs. (Single bit). If it is the price in pounds, I'm not sure.

Thanks for the heads up I will have to look into that. The price is in d's or denarius or 1 silver penny or 1 silver piece. I use a silver based economy for my stuff.

 

[raniE]

So, Bash the Cleric thread posted here.

 

[ffilz]

That sounds like a skill-based system with extra steps. I don't think the Magic/Non-Magic distinction is necessary if you're not defining proper roles or at least broad archetypes. Just gimmie the points and fixed universal costs, I'll spend them how I wish.

In some systems, it helps to make some abilities like magic sort of all or nothing, or at least in big steps. Also, class levels sometimes work better than each thing advancing separately. D&D-like spell levels are an example. I like that effect.

The way I have done Cold Iron though, the classes are purchased with a point buy... I typically give 4 points. Fighting 1 costs 0, Fighting 2 costs 2, and Fighting 3 costs 4. Magic 1 costs 2, Magic 2 costs 4. Passive Magic costs 0, 2, 4. There are some clerics that are lesser power that cost 1, 2, 4. Ok, actually the points are in 1000s... And that's also the XP necessary to level up... :-) But it works well to set of starting characters.

 

[ffilz]

Oh, and in some systems, I like Magic User and Cleric as differentiated even though they may operate more or less the same.

And heck, in the Bushido games I'm running and playing in, the strict differentiation between classes seems to fit the source material.

 

[Paragon]

You can do the business of having magic use distinct in a non-classed system just by making the buy-in relatively high--a trait called "Magical Aptitude" say.

Of course that's one of those things where you pretty much have to decide right out on the design whether dabbling is possible or not, or even combining specialized magic with other things. Personally, I don't think the trend toward "mage focused or not at all" is a strong as some people do, especially if you exclude post-80s fantasy that's clearly heavily D&D influenced.

 

[ffilz]

Oh, and for number of classes, how about RuneQuest with Cults of Prax etc... Lots of classes :-) Each cult sort of works as a class, built out of a common skill list (with a handful of special skills) a common spirit magic spell list (with a few more special spells) and a common rune spell list (with even more special spells).

 

[robertsconley]

Oh, and for number of classes, how about RuneQuest with Cults of Prax etc... Lots of classes :-) Each cult sort of works as a class, built out of a common skill list (with a handful of special skills) a common spirit magic spell list (with a few more special spells) and a common rune spell list (with even more special spells).

The thing about Runequest Cults is that they flow out of how the setting works. They are what they are because that what one would observe if you were able to actually visit. The same with the stuff in Other Skills like the Alchemist Guild and Thieves Associations. They are not character generation options but rather what happens in Glorantha written up partially as game mechanics and partially as flavor text.

In Rob's original RPGs this would be my preference. Sure I would have a chart of skills and skill cost but along side that I would have my own take on alchemist, sages, thieves, cults, etc.

Heck this is what my GURPS campaign was evolving too.

Applying some Runequest to GURPS
GURPS, Time, and Experience

What worked out was as follows

• Like Runequest if you use a skill in a situation with consequences and succeeded you placed a tick mark.
• You can convert the tick mark to a roll for XP with a day rest. If you roll a over your skill you get a character point. If you rolled a 17 or 18, (18 if you skill is 17 or higher) you get 2 points.
• If you rolled a critical success during the game you get 1 xp in that skill.
• You get 1 xp for every 45 days as "On The Job" training.
• You get 1 free cp at the end of every session and another for achieve a significant goal (personal or party).

Over all it worked out better than the flat award every session.

What I did for the 1xp per 45 days of "On the Job Training" is assume that the characters while living their life (i.e. adventuring) are "On the Job" for 16 hours out of 24 hours. This equates to 4 hours of learning per day. This meant 200 hours would occur every 50 days 4 hours of on the job. I also assume that a small number of hours per week would be spent training. When multiplied out over a number of days resulted in the final figure of 45 days per 1 xp award.

If I would continue to developed the templates I had into something akin to the descriptions in Runequest's Other Skills and Cults packages along with costs and training times.

And a player was free to ignore all this in favor of spending point how they like. Most of these template resulted from players playing these types of characters so generally address players concerns and issues.

 

[Trippy]

12.

 

[Chris Brady]

There are three literary archetypes, which D&D mostly cribs from.

There's the Fighter: This is the type of character that handles challenges head on and goes through them, they tend to be straight forward and direct in thought and action.

The Wizard: This one is more cerebral type, tends to handle problems almost exclusively through thought and outside the box thinking. They also tend to be highly intelligent and learned. And sometimes they even have magic.

The Rogue: This one tends to be the cunning problem solver and is almost outside the box as the Wizard, but whereas the Wizard is cerebral, the Rogue is sneaky, sometimes even underhanded. They're also the most relatable, as most of their skill set are things we pick up as kids.

The other classes are variations and combinations of these three. The Cleric is Fighter/Wizard with Religious overtones, the Ranger is a Fighter/Rogue that doesn't really need Magic, but often has it. The Paladin is more Fighter than Mage, but still fits close to the Cleric. So on and so forth.

 

[zanshin]

There are three literary archetypes, which D&D mostly cribs from.

There's the Fighter: This is the type of character that handles challenges head one and goes through them, they tend to be straight forward and direct in thought and action.

The Wizard: This one is more cerebral type, tends to handle problems almost exclusively through thought and outside the box thinking. They also tend to be highly intelligent and learned. And sometimes they even have magic.

The Rogue: This one tends to be the cunning problem solver and is almost outside the box as the Wizard, but whereas the Wizard is cerebral, the Rogue is sneaky, sometimes even underhanded. They're also the most relatable, as most of their skill set are things we pick up as kids.

The other classes are variations and combinations of these three. The Cleric is Fighter/Wizard with Religious overtones, the Ranger is a Fighter/Rogue that doesn't really need Magic, but often has it. The Paladin is more Fighter than Mage, but still fits close to the Cleric. So on and so forth.

I think there is also the leader in much of genre fiction - often with fighting skills, but with the insight and charisma to impel others to greatness.

Appears frequently in the fiction (Aragorn in LOTR, Jon Snow in GOT, Arthur in the Winter King & La Morte d'Arthur, Toranaga in Shogun, Tenaka Khan in the Drenai novels).

Sometimes folded into fighter, but often cunning, manipulative, imaginative and not always direct.

 

[Chris Brady]

I think there is also the leader in much of genre fiction - often with fighting skills, but with the insight and charisma to impel others to greatness.

Appears frequently in the fiction (Aragorn in LOTR, Jon Snow in GOT, Arthur in the Winter King & La Morte d'Arthur, Toranaga in Shogun, Tenaka Khan in the Drenai novels).

Sometimes folded into fighter, but often cunning, manipulative, imaginative and not always direct.

The 'Leader' is not a central archetype, because the Fighter, the Wizard and the Rogue can ALL be Leaders. Armies, Academies and Guilds, all require a different set of political skills, but they're still part and parcel of the three main literary archetypes. Which D&D takes a lot of inspiration from. Depending on the story, the amount of 'Leader' is dependent on what the Hero(ine) is adventuring for.

 

[Trippy]

Of course, in certain more authentically medieval games, the three major social Classes are:

Those who labour (peasants)
Those who fight (nobles)
Those who pray (clergy)

So maybe the Cleric is worthy as a Class after all?

 

[zanshin]

The 'Leader' is not a central archetype, because the Fighter, the Wizard and the Rogue can ALL be Leaders. Armies, Academies and Guilds, all require a different set of political skills, but they're still part and parcel of the three main literary archetypes. Which D&D takes a lot of inspiration from. Depending on the story, the amount of 'Leader' is dependent on what the Hero(ine) is adventuring for.

In your opinion. In much of the genre fiction warriors are front and centre, with leaders being a large group of those, wizards sometimes appear , ditto rogues and charlatans. Yes Wizards can be a leader type but more often are sage counsellor, rogues rarely are leaders except of criminals.

 

[VisionStorm]

There are three literary archetypes, which D&D mostly cribs from.

There's the Fighter: This is the type of character that handles challenges head on and goes through them, they tend to be straight forward and direct in thought and action.

The Wizard: This one is more cerebral type, tends to handle problems almost exclusively through thought and outside the box thinking. They also tend to be highly intelligent and learned. And sometimes they even have magic.

The Rogue: This one tends to be the cunning problem solver and is almost outside the box as the Wizard, but whereas the Wizard is cerebral, the Rogue is sneaky, sometimes even underhanded. They're also the most relatable, as most of their skill set are things we pick up as kids.

The other classes are variations and combinations of these three. The Cleric is Fighter/Wizard with Religious overtones, the Ranger is a Fighter/Rogue that doesn't really need Magic, but often has it. The Paladin is more Fighter than Mage, but still fits close to the Cleric. So on and so forth.

This is pretty much my take on it, which is the reason I think 3 classes, plus maybe subclasses or "Kits", are ideal. Most classes are just variants of the big three (Warriors, Mystics and Rogues/Specialists), so focusing too much on specialized roles when working with classes (as recent editions of D&D have) gets too much into the weeds and overcomplicates things with endless variants of the same three core roles. So it seems more effective to focus on those core roles as the key component that defines your basic focus and progression, then sprinkle details on top through subclasses or AD&D 2e style "Kits", as well as special abilities like skills and feats, for customization purposes.

 

[raniE]

The 'Leader' is not a central archetype, because the Fighter, the Wizard and the Rogue can ALL be Leaders. Armies, Academies and Guilds, all require a different set of political skills, but they're still part and parcel of the three main literary archetypes. Which D&D takes a lot of inspiration from. Depending on the story, the amount of 'Leader' is dependent on what the Hero(ine) is adventuring for.

The Leader shows up in pure form sometimes though. Daenerys Targaryen is neither a fighter, a wizard or a rogue, she’s pretty much just a leader. Similar with Ariel from Disney’s The Little Mermaid (don’t think it fits for H C Andersen’s story) and some other Disney princesses.

 

[AsenRG]

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

I prefer two classes: Wizards/Gifted and Weapons Users.
Any other archetypes - Rangers, Leaders, whatever - are just specialties of these two. Probably specialties that can be combined and switched with training, too.

...Of course, since I generally prefer skill-based games, that's really beyond the point. But hey, you asked, I replied!

 

[AsenRG]

Never read them and only saw the Conan films, but I'm not sure how examples of multifarious characters with a broad range of skills means that everyone who isn't a mage is automatically a combat expert

Actually, that's wrong. The examples actually prove that sometimes, even mages are combat experts...

Grey Mouser: former student of magic, killed the murderer of his mentor by forbidden magic (and nearly perished in the attempt, but hey, he was a student). Abstains from it, most of the time, afterwards...see: nearly perished.
He is, also, one of the best swordsmen out there. Arguably only his mate the Barbarian can really compare.

Player: "I never realized how far-reaching your houserules to the magic were!"
Referee: "Well, now you know - and you only invested a background skill in it, anyway".
Player: "Fair enough. I think I'd rename my character the Grey Mouser, instead."

Conan: casts a ritual spell to thwart the magical pursuers that were after him in "Beyond the Black River". Little-known fact...

So maybe I should rethink my earlier answer and just say: "One class - Adventurer, everyone else is an NPC".

 

[raniE]

Actually, that's wrong. The examples actually prove that sometimes, even mages are combat experts...

Grey Mouser: former student of magic, killed the murderer of his mentor by forbidden magic (and nearly perished in the attempt, but hey, he was a student). Abstains from it, most of the time, afterwards...see: nearly perished.
He is, also, one of the best swordsmen out there. Arguably only his mate the Barbarian can really compare.

Player: "I never realized how far-reaching your houserules to the magic were!"
Referee: "Well, now you know - and you only invested a background skill in it, anyway".
Player: "Fair enough. I think I'd rename my character the Grey Mouser, instead."

Conan: casts a ritual spell to thwart the magical pursuers that were after him in "Beyond the Black River". Little-known fact...

So maybe I should rethink my earlier answer and just say: "One class - Adventurer, everyone else is an NPC".

I think this tracks well with the TFT style of classes Hero and Wizard. Heroes can still learn magic and Wizards can still learn skills, but it's more expensive for them. So usually you'll end up with a Hero with some magic tricks, or a Wizard with some skills, not full fledged Warrior-Wizards or the like.

 

[AsenRG]

I think this tracks well with the TFT style of classes Hero and Wizard. Heroes can still learn magic and Wizards can still learn skills, but it's more expensive for them. So usually you'll end up with a Hero with some magic tricks, or a Wizard with some skills, not full fledged Warrior-Wizards or the like.

Yes, for these examples, definitely!

Though you'd struggle to cover Jason Greycloak with this. Now that was a full-fledged Warrior-Wizard!
Actually, a system that makes high Intelligence the uber-stat, like old Runequest, would cover this one best.

Also, I'd just like to point out that most of the Conan stories are free, legally, at Project Gutenberg!

 

[VisionStorm]

Actually, that's wrong. The examples actually prove that sometimes, even mages are combat experts...

Grey Mouser: former student of magic, killed the murderer of his mentor by forbidden magic (and nearly perished in the attempt, but hey, he was a student). Abstains from it, most of the time, afterwards...see: nearly perished.
He is, also, one of the best swordsmen out there. Arguably only his mate the Barbarian can really compare.

Player: "I never realized how far-reaching your houserules to the magic were!"
Referee: "Well, now you know - and you only invested a background skill in it, anyway".
Player: "Fair enough. I think I'd rename my character the Grey Mouser, instead."

Conan: casts a ritual spell to thwart the magical pursuers that were after him in "Beyond the Black River". Little-known fact...

So maybe I should rethink my earlier answer and just say: "One class - Adventurer, everyone else is an NPC".

Both of those characters sound like they were created using a skill-based point-buy system, where magic is just another skill. Also, everything I've read about the Gray Mouser makes him sound kinda like a Sue. He just excels at everything: combat, magic, sneaky-sneak, etc.

I think this tracks well with the TFT style of classes Hero and Wizard. Heroes can still learn magic and Wizards can still learn skills, but it's more expensive for them. So usually you'll end up with a Hero with some magic tricks, or a Wizard with some skills, not full fledged Warrior-Wizards or the like.

The issue with that approach is that in it classes just complicate character advancement rather than facilitate it or provide further distinction. IMO the point and usefulness of classes is that they help define specific roles or archetypes, and streamline character advancement by predetermining certain core components, like combat ability, magic level, defenses, etc. Otherwise you're better off with skill-based point-buy mechanics, and gating off magic behind an extra pay wall and GM permission if you want to make it rare or inaccessible.

 

[AsenRG]

Both of those characters sound like they were created using a skill-based point-buy system, where magic is just another skill.

Yes. I keep telling that to people...

Also, everything I've read about the Gray Mouser makes him sound kinda like a Sue. He just excels at everything: combat, magic, sneaky-sneak, etc.

Wish-fulfillment in our fantasy? Can't have that...oh wait, we've got Eragon, the Wheel of Time, and a host of other examples!
Guess we'll just have to put up with it?

The issue with that approach is that in it classes just complicate character advancement rather than facilitate it or provide further distinction.

Indeed!

IMO the point and usefulness of classes is that they help define specific roles or archetypes, and streamline character advancement by predetermining certain core components, like combat ability, magic level, defenses, etc. Otherwise you're better off with skill-based point-buy mechanics, and gating off magic behind an extra pay wall and GM permission if you want to make it rare or inaccessible.

I agree, FWIW.
And since I see no point in "defining specific roles and archetypes", much less in "predetermining certain core components" of advancement...my solution has always been "skill-based mechanics". The point-buy I can take or leave.

 

[raniE]

Both of those characters sound like they were created using a skill-based point-buy system, where magic is just another skill. Also, everything I've read about the Gray Mouser makes him sound kinda like a Sue. He just excels at everything: combat, magic, sneaky-sneak, etc.



The issue with that approach is that in it classes just complicate character advancement rather than facilitate it or provide further distinction. IMO the point and usefulness of classes is that they help define specific roles or archetypes, and streamline character advancement by predetermining certain core components, like combat ability, magic level, defenses, etc. Otherwise you're better off with skill-based point-buy mechanics, and gating off magic behind an extra pay wall and GM permission if you want to make it rare or inaccessible.

I'm not seeing how the two classes of TFT complicate character advancement. There are no levels, and skills and spells are simply a matter of having them or not (you roll against your attributes when using a skill, and attributes can be increased through character advancement as well). The only thing it does is make you pay double for skills if you're a Wizard, and double for spells if you're a Hero. There's no real complication there.