Brainstorming Martial/Combat Classes

[Iota]

I'm working on a homebrew fantasy RPG where I've divided classes up into three categories (magical, professional, and combat/martial) with a few hybrid classes also available. I'm set on the three professional and magical classes, but I keep going back and forth on the combat classes and I'm looking for advice/opinions. One ground rule is that combat classes should be based on things you could only learn from military or combat training; so they need to be as un-magical as possible (i.e. Paladins would be a martial/magical hybrid class).

Weapon Master(/Marksman/Martial Artist): This is the one class I'm pretty set on. It would focus on developing skills and special maneuvers with a particular weapon type. I had considered breaking this class up into two classes (one melee and one ranged), but I think the concepts overlapped enough they can be combined in a single class. I'm also considering including unarmed combat techniques in this class for similar reasons. At one point these were my three core combat classes, but I really thought they weren't as different from each other as my magical and professional classes were.

Berserker/Barbarian: I've really never thought that this was a great concept to build a whole class around. It seems more like a particular fighting style that could be covered with a feat/skill/stance that any fighter could learn.

Monk/Martial Artist: The magical/supernatural flavor of D&D Monks would rule them out as a pure combat class, but a more realistic Martial Artist class is still possible.

Knight (not Paladin): It always bugs me that a basic Knight class is usually absent from medieval RPGs, while it's a strong contender in my mind. I my mind this class would have a more defensive focus than the Weapon Master class and provide skills like mounted combat, battlefield command, heavy armor bonuses and the like.

Ranger(/Marksman/Hunter/Scout): Magical Rangers would be a magical hybrid class. Skilled Hunters would be a professional hybrid. Marksman could be rolled into Weapon Master. Scout is covered by my professional Explorer class.

Assassin/Rogue: This would also be a professional hybrid class (if not fully professional).


So, I'm looking for ideas about how you would set up three martial classes that are not magical and don't rely heavily on skills learned outside of combat training.

 

[Stormonu]

Well, my initial feeling is that your working from a flawed premise. By preventing martial classes from even acquiring psuedo-supernatural abilities without multiclassing, you are doing the equivalent of asking a group to fight a war with sticks and stones while everyone else is capable of loading up with machine guns, laser weapons and artillery.

If you are keeping the spellcasters mostly as-is beyond 6th level, I think anything you try for "purely mundane martial skill" is going to be left in the dust.

Personally, I wouldn't go the wuxia route of Book of Nine Swords, but going the route of Iron Heroes would probably be more along the lines of what you may be looking for.

As for divisions, I really think you need three, maybe four:

1) The strength-based warrior who relies on aggressive, damage-dealing attacks. This is the character who "goes in swinging", probably favoring 2-handed or reach weapon attacks and is moderately armored. Combat tricks would be offensive in nature: tripping, sundering, bull-rushing. Beserkers/Barbarians might fall in this category.

2) The finesse/agile fighter who relies on swift, precise strikes. Probably favors two-weapon attacks and tends to be lightly armored to be manueverable. Combat tricks tend to be flashy and showy: tumbling, feint, sidestepping attacks and the like. Swashbucklers tend to fall into this category.

3) The endurance/constitution based fighter who depends on outlasting his enemy. Tends to favor weapon-and-shield combat, and is generally heavily armored with high hit points. Combat tricks tend to be defensive in nature: combat reflexes, stand firm, deathless, bodyguard. Knights would probably fall into this category.

4) The ranged fighter who peppers opponents with missile fire. Generally lightly armored so they can outmaneuver pursuing foes. Combat tricks are all based on ranged combat: precise shot, far shot, sniping shot, etc. Archers would probably fall into this category.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Well, my initial feeling is that your working from a flawed premise. By preventing martial classes from even acquiring psuedo-supernatural abilities without multiclassing, you are doing the equivalent of asking a group to fight a war with sticks and stones while everyone else is capable of loading up with machine guns, laser weapons and artillery.

If you are keeping the spellcasters mostly as-is beyond 6th level, I think anything you try for "purely mundane martial skill" is going to be left in the dust.

Personally, I wouldn't go the wuxia route of Book of Nine Swords, but going the route of Iron Heroes would probably be more along the lines of what you may be looking for.

Well, he said he's "working on a homebrew fantasy RPG," so I think we should refrain from assuming that magic is more powerful than melee unless he indicates that's the case (which it may well be). In my homebrew fantasy RPG, if one of my players wants to focus on damage, they know to go the mundane warrior route, not magic. And this is an SRD-based game (so, 3.X D&D!), where magic is even less restrained than normal (there are no spells, you simply make them up on the fly using concrete rules). My game has about 250 pages of rules, and of the combat rules, warriors are definitely the kings of offense.

Now, we don't know if this is true for his game or not. And, I also don't think there's wrong with you warning him just in case this is the case. I just don't think we should assume it's the case if this thread does take off. I'd hate to see it spiral out of control into a "wizard > warrior" debate if it truly wasn't the case in his game.

Again, nothing wrong with your warning, if it's a "just in case you game works this way" thing. I agree with some of your assessment in 3.X D&D, and if it's true of his game, I think your warning is more than warranted.

As for divisions, I really think you need three, maybe four:

1) The strength-based warrior who relies on aggressive, damage-dealing attacks. This is the character who "goes in swinging", probably favoring 2-handed or reach weapon attacks and is moderately armored. Combat tricks would be offensive in nature: tripping, sundering, bull-rushing. Beserkers/Barbarians might fall in this category.

2) The finesse/agile fighter who relies on swift, precise strikes. Probably favors two-weapon attacks and tends to be lightly armored to be manueverable. Combat tricks tend to be flashy and showy: tumbling, feint, sidestepping attacks and the like. Swashbucklers tend to fall into this category.

3) The endurance/constitution based fighter who depends on outlasting his enemy. Tends to favor weapon-and-shield combat, and is generally heavily armored with high hit points. Combat tricks tend to be defensive in nature: combat reflexes, stand firm, deathless, bodyguard. Knights would probably fall into this category.

4) The ranged fighter who peppers opponents with missile fire. Generally lightly armored so they can outmaneuver pursuing foes. Combat tricks are all based on ranged combat: precise shot, far shot, sniping shot, etc. Archers would probably fall into this category.

I kind of like your idea. Maybe divide it up into three different broad sections: Strength warriors, Dexterity warriors, and Constitution warriors (using D&D physical attributes as a baseline... feel free to alter this to fit this particular game system).

Strength warriors could capture the brutes of the world. The powerful damage dealing people that will knock you all over the battlefield with pure force and skill. They'd get bonuses to damage (maybe double Strength bonus to weapons), deal mainly with large weapons, get to use Strength as their attack attribute on thrown weapons, to lifting, breaking down doors, etc. This class is versatile enough to flavor as barbarians, guards, thugs, soldiers, mercenaries, and the like.

Dexterity warriors would be all about finesse and precision, as you said. They'd get things like Dexterity to attacks (instead of Strength, if that's the case in this game). They'd get to add Dexterity to their weapons (light weapons, bows, etc.) in addition to Strength (whereas Strength warriors get the benefit of wielding larger weapons, possibly Strength and a half or double Strength bonus, bonus damage, etc.). They'd get bonuses to attack, called shots (if it's in the game), movement (speed bonuses, moving about the battlefield, etc.), etc. This class would be for the swashbucklers, archers, pirates, duelists, etc.

Constitution warriors would be all about defense and outlasting opponents. They'd get the benefit of higher hit points, increasing the bonuses from wearing heavy armor and using shields, add damage reduction when using heavy armor, have a second hit point pool (add their Constitution bonus as temporary hit points each level, and this pool refreshes at a certain rate equal to their Constitution bonus each round), ability to move at full speed in heavier armor and heavier loads, etc. This class should fit nicely for heavy infantry, the stereotypical shining knight, bodyguards, guardians, etc.

Anyways, just my input. I hope it helps. As always, play what you like

 

[Iota]

Thanks for the great input!

Well, my initial feeling is that your working from a flawed premise. By preventing martial classes from even acquiring psuedo-supernatural abilities without multiclassing, you are doing the equivalent of asking a group to fight a war with sticks and stones while everyone else is capable of loading up with machine guns, laser weapons and artillery.

If you are keeping the spellcasters mostly as-is beyond 6th level, I think anything you try for "purely mundane martial skill" is going to be left in the dust.

Well, he said he's "working on a homebrew fantasy RPG," so I think we should refrain from assuming that magic is more powerful than melee unless he indicates that's the case (which it may well be). In my homebrew fantasy RPG, if one of my players wants to focus on damage, they know to go the mundane warrior route, not magic. And this is an SRD-based game (so, 3.X D&D!), where magic is even less restrained than normal (there are no spells, you simply make them up on the fly using concrete rules). My game has about 250 pages of rules, and of the combat rules, warriors are definitely the kings of offense.

Stormonu brings up some good points that I was concerned with as well, but yes, this magic system isn't based on D&D's at all. Spellcasters are there to produce effects more than to deal damage. Magic is potentially powerful, but it's extremely dangerous to the mage's sanity to cast anything beyond moderate effects. (PC's can easily irreparably shatter their own minds if they aren't careful) Also combat works differently and physical damage potential is ramped up and dibilitating injuries more likely than in D&D. So, like with JamesonCourage's system, martial classes are where consistent single-target damage output is found, as well as meat-shields and the like. Basically, the role of martial classes is to provide RELIABLE combat functions, while the other classes provide features like AoE, burst damage, and short-term effects.

Personally, I wouldn't go the wuxia route of Book of Nine Swords, but going the route of Iron Heroes would probably be more along the lines of what you may be looking for.

I've always thought a Wuxia RPG would be fun to try, but Bo9S didn't really strike the right chord with me.

As for divisions, I really think you need three, maybe four:

1) The strength-based warrior who relies on aggressive, damage-dealing attacks. This is the character who "goes in swinging", probably favoring 2-handed or reach weapon attacks and is moderately armored. Combat tricks would be offensive in nature: tripping, sundering, bull-rushing. Beserkers/Barbarians might fall in this category.

2) The finesse/agile fighter who relies on swift, precise strikes. Probably favors two-weapon attacks and tends to be lightly armored to be manueverable. Combat tricks tend to be flashy and showy: tumbling, feint, sidestepping attacks and the like. Swashbucklers tend to fall into this category.

3) The endurance/constitution based fighter who depends on outlasting his enemy. Tends to favor weapon-and-shield combat, and is generally heavily armored with high hit points. Combat tricks tend to be defensive in nature: combat reflexes, stand firm, deathless, bodyguard. Knights would probably fall into this category.

4) The ranged fighter who peppers opponents with missile fire. Generally lightly armored so they can outmaneuver pursuing foes. Combat tricks are all based on ranged combat: precise shot, far shot, sniping shot, etc. Archers would probably fall into this category.

I kind of like your idea. Maybe divide it up into three different broad sections: Strength warriors, Dexterity warriors, and Constitution warriors...

Yeah, I forgot to mention a Swashbuckler class (#2) that shuns the protection of armor in favor of better maueverability. It's interesting that you broke them up based on stats rather than other concepts. My mind had been working more along the lines of "sources of power," e.g. Weapon Masters', Martial Artists' or Marksmen's talents come from intense, focused training (with a particular weapon or unarmed) while Knights' abilities come from organized field command and a Berserkers comes from an uncontrolled fury. Of my professional classes, one is based on an ability (the Charmer/Diplomat class) while the other two are based off of particular skillsets (Explorer and Inventor/Crafter). The magical classes are based on sources of power: Psionics from internal power, Arcanists from executing precise formulaic rituals, and Invokers from allegiance to powerful magical beings/creatures (no "gods" in this world).

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Weapon Master(/Marksman/Martial Artist): This is the one class I'm pretty set on. It would focus on developing skills and special maneuvers with a particular weapon type. I had considered breaking this class up into two classes (one melee and one ranged), but I think the concepts overlapped enough they can be combined in a single class. I'm also considering including unarmed combat techniques in this class for similar reasons. At one point these were my three core combat classes, but I really thought they weren't as different from each other as my magical and professional classes were.

Berserker/Barbarian: I've really never thought that this was a great concept to build a whole class around. It seems more like a particular fighting style that could be covered with a feat/skill/stance that any fighter could learn.

Monk/Martial Artist: The magical/supernatural flavor of D&D Monks would rule them out as a pure combat class, but a more realistic Martial Artist class is still possible.

Knight (not Paladin): It always bugs me that a basic Knight class is usually absent from medieval RPGs, while it's a strong contender in my mind. I my mind this class would have a more defensive focus than the Weapon Master class and provide skills like mounted combat, battlefield command, heavy armor bonuses and the like.

Ranger(/Marksman/Hunter/Scout): Magical Rangers would be a magical hybrid class. Skilled Hunters would be a professional hybrid. Marksman could be rolled into Weapon Master. Scout is covered by my professional Explorer class.

Assassin/Rogue: This would also be a professional hybrid class (if not fully professional).


So, I'm looking for ideas about how you would set up three martial classes that are not magical and don't rely heavily on skills learned outside of combat training.

How strong are the roles? If they're like 4e, I can almost see the non-mystic martial artist being divided into two roles (like skirmisher and defender), but if it's more like d20 Modern (buy feats, buy talents) then it's more than likely one class.

I don't see why knight would be a different class than weaponmaster. A knight is a (usually) minor nobleman, rarely inheriting much property or wealth. They train in three combat styles that I'm aware of - hand to hand on foot (generally vs heavily-armored opponents, so axes and maces, or sometimes shortened lances), swordfighting (mainly duels vs lightly-armored nobles, sword use in battle was actually pretty rare) and horse-back combat (mainly lances). Naturally an individual knight might specialize - one knight might get accolades for being a duelist, but is only a fair combatant on an actual battlefield. Said knight should probably consider getting a job as a bodyguard for a higher-ranking nobleman.

Knights tend to have lots of endurance, as a knight wouldn't consider skipping 6 hours of practice a day except for religious reasons for fear of being beaten by someone who simply had more dedication than them.

Compared to a "commoner" warrior, the difference is just training and wealth. A knight would likely have been trained from the age of seven and had access to better training, and can afford chainmail or heavier armor and a warhorse.

In a level or point-based system, a "generic" knight would have more levels or more points than a "generic" commoner, and this is one reason the nobles were able to lord it over the peasants for hundreds of years.

I agree with what you said about berserkers. Seems more like a feat or talent to me.

I think I would need more information on how you're handling "feats" or "combat styles" before I could say anything else about divisions.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think 1E and 2E had some good approaches you could exploit. Personally I think the problem with martial classes you see in 3E, is they extended too many of their benefits to other classes. Severely limit other the BAB of non-martial classes. If only the fighters, paladins and monks of your setting have a high BAB and everyone is playing with very low numbers, that is an immediate balancer. Feel free to give martial classes bonuses to damage with weapons, combat tricks, etc. I would even go so far as to pretty much make martial characters the only ones with effective multiple attacks. Feel free to give warrriors way more HP than others. To an extent this already exists, but I would go ahead and let fighters start out with 20 HP and give them a pretty consistent edge as they level. The advantage of a warrior over a wizard is the warrior doesn't have to stop and cast a spell, and he doesn't remain defensless while attacking. In a game where a fighter can get off 3 effective attacks with decent damage against a wizard before he can cast his spell, there is a serious advantage. Plus a warrior a warrior can always keep swinging his sword, wizards run out of spells.

 

[Iota]

How strong are the roles?

Roles are more open-ended (D&D 3.x-ish), so "builds" are more critical to determining roles than classes.

I don't see why knight would be a different class than weaponmaster.

I had also tinkered with the idea of having Knight be more like a Prestige Class that Weapon Masters (or possibly other martial classes) could move into after a certain amount of training. I guess I'm actually trying to avoid classes like Knights and Barbarians since they are too prescriptive about the kinds of settings the RPG can support (since every world would need to contain knightly orders etc. if one of the core classes is a Knight), whereas I prefer more flexibility.

Thanks for the background on knights, by the way.

I think I would need more information on how you're handling "feats" or "combat styles" before I could say anything else about divisions.

It's a point-buy system for skills, each ranked from 1 (Novice) to 5 (Master), which cover many of D&D's Skills, Feats, and even some class abilities. You also gain class levels which provide class-specific abilities as well as "unlocking" skill levels that are compatible for each class. Even spellcasting is basically a set of skills that you improve as you progress (eliminating spellcasters that are good at a bunch of unrealated magical effects for no particular reason other than they are all spells of the same "level"). So, each class will have access to a bunch of skills that either their background training or their progress in a class makes available to them. For example, a character that selected to have a background in both combat and magic and chose the Weapon Master class for 3 levels would be able to buy 1 rank and a lot of general combat and magic skills and 3 levels in skills specifically available to Weapon Masters.

Personally I think the problem with martial classes you see in 3E, is they extended too many of their benefits to other classes. Severely limit other the BAB of non-martial classes. If only the fighters, paladins and monks of your setting have a high BAB and everyone is playing with very low numbers, that is an immediate balancer.

That's pretty much the route I'm going. If your character chooses to focus in a Professional class and picks the better bonuses from taking all background training in the Professional category, not only can he not multiclass into a Martial class, he can't even train in Martial skills. There's no BAB in this system other than a universal starting To Hit chance. Even if your character takes some Combat training background, he can only train to skill rank 1 in combat skills unless/until he takes two levels in a combat class.

Feel free to give martial classes bonuses to damage with weapons, combat tricks, etc. I would even go so far as to pretty much make martial characters the only ones with effective multiple attacks. Feel free to give warrriors way more HP than others. To an extent this already exists, but I would go ahead and let fighters start out with 20 HP and give them a pretty consistent edge as they level. The advantage of a warrior over a wizard is the warrior doesn't have to stop and cast a spell, and he doesn't remain defensless while attacking. In a game where a fighter can get off 3 effective attacks with decent damage against a wizard before he can cast his spell, there is a serious advantage. Plus a warrior a warrior can always keep swinging his sword, wizards run out of spells.

I can't say I'm on-board with all these ideas, but some may make their way in as I flesh things out a bit more. One thing I was steering away from was the "Warrior as unstoppable lawnmower while Mages cast a handful of spells and then take a nap" cliche. I definitely want warriors to be longer-lasting than a Sorcerer's barrage of spells, but I also want to avoid the silliness of denying that swinging a greatsword around while wearing a suit of metal armor and hacking into trollhide for more than a few minutes is hard work. (Hence a Fatigue stat.)

 

[JamesonCourage]

Roles are more open-ended (D&D 3.x-ish), so "builds" are more critical to determining roles than classes.

If this is the case, I'd recommend going a stat-based route for martial classes, rather than a "conceptual" route. I'd suggest something like what I've already proposed, with the Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution warriors. That way, the classes are open ended enough to support several different "builds" without pigeonholing the player characters into something like the "knight" or "barbarian".

This way, someone can say, "I want to be a barbarian." If you ask them what they mean, if they say, "I want to be really strong, and pretty uncivilized. I want to wear light or no armor, run around, and be really tough." You can then go into why the Dexterity class would be good for light or no armor while running around, why the Constitution class is good for being tough (though all martial classes are tough), and why the Strength class is good for being really strong and wrecking your enemies with long metal shivs.

If you like the idea of builds, I'd suggest leaving the concept away from something like "weaponmaster" as any martial character who wants to be good with a weapon (ie, all martial characters, especially if you let unarmed fighting count as a weapon) will think it's the way to go. However, dividing things up into Powerful, Graceful, and Tough really helps set the mood of the class.

I can't say I'm on-board with all these ideas, but some may make their way in as I flesh things out a bit more. One thing I was steering away from was the "Warrior as unstoppable lawnmower while Mages cast a handful of spells and then take a nap" cliche. I definitely want warriors to be longer-lasting than a Sorcerer's barrage of spells, but I also want to avoid the silliness of denying that swinging a greatsword around while wearing a suit of metal armor and hacking into trollhide for more than a few minutes is hard work. (Hence a Fatigue stat.)

In my game, I have two different hit point values: hit points, and temporary hit points. HP represent actually taking physical wounds, while THP represents fatigue. Performing certain actions reduces your THP, as does getting "hit" (you dodge the blow, but you get tired for exerting yourself). You recover THP at a rate dependent on your Constitution score. So, I like the idea of a fatigue stat, and maybe you can tweak something I've written (or maybe it'll inspire you to expand upon something entirely your own).

Additionally, mages in my system can cast indefinitely, but they become fatigued (unless they buy the ability off at some point, which pretty much all dedicated mages will). However, their unlimited casting is limited to what their casting skill lets them, and it will significantly lag behind their most powerful spells at later levels. In D&D terms, they might be able to burst to get 8th level spells, but they'd only be able to constantly cast 3rd level spells. The recovery time on the 8th level spell is much, much longer than in D&D, but this makes players rely on their wits and their unlimited casting, only bursting when necessary. Maybe this information will let you tweak something or inspire you to do something unique for your game as well.

Anyways, just trying to throw ideas your way. Take what you like, tweak it, keep it, use it, and ignore the rest. As always, play what you like

 

[Bedrockgames]

I can't say I'm on-board with all these ideas, but some may make their way in as I flesh things out a bit more. One thing I was steering away from was the "Warrior as unstoppable lawnmower while Mages cast a handful of spells and then take a nap" cliche. I definitely want warriors to be longer-lasting than a Sorcerer's barrage of spells, but I also want to avoid the silliness of denying that swinging a greatsword around while wearing a suit of metal armor and hacking into trollhide for more than a few minutes is hard work. (Hence a Fatigue stat.)

I love the idea that you will incorporate fatigue. You may want to incorporate some way for warriors to pace themselves (maybe if they only make one attack a round, they don't have to worry about fatigue but multiple attacks require fatigue checks (not sure how you plan to use fatigue so that is just a guess at how it may work).

 

[Iota]

In my game, I have two different hit point values: hit points, and temporary hit points. HP represent actually taking physical wounds, while THP represents fatigue. Performing certain actions reduces your THP, as does getting "hit" (you dodge the blow, but you get tired for exerting yourself). You recover THP at a rate dependent on your Constitution score. So, I like the idea of a fatigue stat, and maybe you can tweak something I've written (or maybe it'll inspire you to expand upon something entirely your own).

Additionally, mages in my system can cast indefinitely, but they become fatigued (unless they buy the ability off at some point, which pretty much all dedicated mages will). However, their unlimited casting is limited to what their casting skill lets them, and it will significantly lag behind their most powerful spells at later levels. In D&D terms, they might be able to burst to get 8th level spells, but they'd only be able to constantly cast 3rd level spells. The recovery time on the 8th level spell is much, much longer than in D&D, but this makes players rely on their wits and their unlimited casting, only bursting when necessary. Maybe this information will let you tweak something or inspire you to do something unique for your game as well.

I love the idea that you will incorporate fatigue. You may want to incorporate some way for warriors to pace themselves (maybe if they only make one attack a round, they don't have to worry about fatigue but multiple attacks require fatigue checks (not sure how you plan to use fatigue so that is just a guess at how it may work).

I think Fatigue is important to include because it lends to more realism and creates moments of dramatic tension that is missing from more robotic approaches (where PC's keep hitting just as well at the end of a day of slugging thru a zombie-infested swamp as they did when they popped out of bed in the morning). The heroism of a last stand of an exhausted warrior or of a wizard risking his sanity to hold a portal open 1 minute longer is the kind of thing I'm shooting for here. The obvious downside to any Fatigue system is the bookkeeping involved.

If you like the idea of builds, I'd suggest leaving the concept away from something like "weaponmaster" as any martial character who wants to be good with a weapon (ie, all martial characters, especially if you let unarmed fighting count as a weapon) will think it's the way to go. However, dividing things up into Powerful, Graceful, and Tough really helps set the mood of the class.

I think I'm going to spend more time fleshing out exactly what abilities I want to make available to the martial classes before I make up my mind here. At least I think I've narrowed it down to Marksman + Martial Artist + Melee Warrior or the Powerful + Graceful + Tough options JamesonCourage mentioned.