Roles in RPGs

[Flynn]

That sounds pretty cool. And it's from Badaxe Games? As in, has something to do with Wulf Ratbane?

I'll check it out.

-z

That's the one! There are some great ideas in there, just waiting to be mined. Even if you don't use the system out of the box, so to speak, you'll still find good stuff you can use.

Hope this helps,
Flynn

 

[Pbartender]

*Cough!* True20 *Cough!*

 

[SavageRobby]

I do think - the way classes are used now, as repositories for abilities, rather than archetypes - they should be removed, and just exposed the abilities in trees or chains or whatever. The original point of classes was to have a distinct archetype, but when you're layering class upon class upon class, those archetypes blur beyond the point of recognizability. So why have them? They're a clunky mechanic that is just a holdover.


I believe a large part of the reason for this blur is that the planned-for party size has been reduced. In earlier editions, parties were routinely 6-10 members. It was simple enough to make sure that all your bases were covered, in terms of class abilities and roles. When you only have four (the new standard), its much more difficult to make sure you have them covered, and hence the need for the blurring of the archetypes.

 

[Hjorimir]

*Cough!* True20 *Cough!*

Yup! True20 is the answer!

 

[Pbartender]

Yup! True20 is the answer!

Maybe not the answer, but it certainly is an answer. Plus, its an answer that does most everything the OP wants to do and that's already developed and wrtitten.

 

[maddman75]

If you want flexibility over archetypes and niche protection, you'd be best off to dump D&D altogether and get some nice point system like Unisystem or GURPS. Just take the skills you want, qualities you want, done. They generally won't make sure that no one else does what you do, and they won't protect you from making a worthless character, but they allow you that flexibility.

I prefer such systems. If you don't want archetypes, might as well drop classes and levels altogether and get something made for such a game.

 

[Quartz]

For example, in core 3.5 it's impossible (without resorting to multiclassing) to have a wizard who can disarm a trap. Or a fighter who can sweet talk a princess.

This is not a problem; it's one of the design features of D&D.

And what is wrong with multiclassing? If you want to do combat, you take a levels in one of the combat classes. If you want skills, you take levels in a class with skill points (bard, ranger, rogue). If you want nature-specific abilites, you take levels in ranger or druid. If you want the ability to heal, you take levels in bard, cleric, druid, or paladin. Etc.

Mix and match. Sure, if you're a spellcaster, you might not get those 9th level spells, but are you really going to be playing the character that long?

A fighter who can sweet-talk a princess is likely a (Fighter or Knight or Paladin) / (Rogue or Bard)

 

[SavageRobby]

This is not a problem; it's one of the design features of D&D.

And what is wrong with multiclassing? If you want to do combat, you take a levels in one of the combat classes. If you want skills, you take levels in a class with skill points (bard, ranger, rogue). If you want nature-specific abilites, you take levels in ranger or druid. If you want the ability to heal, you take levels in bard, cleric, druid, or paladin. Etc.

Mix and match. Sure, if you're a spellcaster, you might not get those 9th level spells, but are you really going to be playing the character that long?

A fighter who can sweet-talk a princess is likely a (Fighter or Knight or Paladin) / (Rogue or Bard)

But then why uses classes at all? There are much more elegant mechanics to accomplish the same end.

 

[GreatLemur]

Maybe not the answer, but it certainly is an answer. Plus, its an answer that does most everything the OP wants to do and that's already developed and wrtitten.

It's an example of this general direction, at least. I wouldn't call it perfect--especially if you want to retain access to D&D/d20's great ocean of mechanical options--but it's the best implementation of generic classes I've seen yet.

But, without going so far afield, I think a lot of what Zaruthustran is talking about can be achieved simply by eliminating class skills. If every skill costs one point per rank for all characters, you can have your socially-adept Fighter without any trouble. It's not exactly a complete solution, obviously: It wouldn't fix weird, flavor-heavy classes like the Ranger, for example. (What two-weapon fighting, favored enemies, animal companions, and spellcasting have to do with each other, I will never freaking understand.) But it's an extremely simple hack that opens up a lot of character possibilities without much of a balance impact.

 

[GreatLemur]

And what is wrong with multiclassing? If you want to do combat, you take a levels in one of the combat classes. If you want skills, you take levels in a class with skill points (bard, ranger, rogue). If you want nature-specific abilites, you take levels in ranger or druid. If you want the ability to heal, you take levels in bard, cleric, druid, or paladin. Etc.

The problem is that it's like trying to chisel a sculpture with a sledgehammer. The vast majority of classes take far too many different mechanical factors along with them for cherry-picking levels to give you any fine control over your character.

For example, maybe I want to make a hulking, street-brawling thug. I can take a level of Barbarian for Rage and d12 Hit Dice, but I also get fast movement with that, and a bunch of wilderness-oriented class skills. I can take some levels of Monk to get decent unarmed strike damage, but then I find myself with things like Still Mind, Ki Strike, Slow Fall, and so on. I can take some Rogue levels for the kinds of criminal skills I'd like, and I guess Sneak Attack is good fit--this guy naturally fights dirty--but what am I supposed to do with Trapfinding and Trap Sense?

Multiclassing is great, but it ain't exactly the last word in character option modularity.