Strip "Background" out of classes

[Derren]

So the Fighter is (let's not get into an argument about whether the playtest *sample* character embodies this for you) the best pure combat class in the game. It is entirely focussed on combat.

The Rogue is a the best skill-using class in the game. It is balanced between exploration and combat, with a powerful situational attack based on the use of its skills.

The Ranger, I think, should be the best hunter in the game - regardless of whether that's urban, wilderness, whatever. It should be a class which is equally focussed on exploration and combat.

So the ranger is just a mix between a fighter (bow) and a rogue (tracking).

So why not remove the ranger (and all other classes like him) and allow free multiclassing between the big 4.
Or even better, finally switch to a true classless system like all other modern RPGs.

 

[Fifth Element]

Or even better, finally switch to a true classless system like all other modern RPGs.

If you define a "modern RPG" circularly as one that is classless, then you'll reach this conclusion. But otherwise there's no basis for this claim.

 

[Derren]

If you define a "modern RPG" circularly as one that is classless, then you'll reach this conclusion. But otherwise there's no basis for this claim.

Can you tell me a single bigger (non D20) rpg/edition developed in this century which has such a rigid class structure like D&D?
Usually they have archetypes, sometimes even life event based character creation which allows for very varied characters for all types of games. A rigid structure like D&D has only allows for combat characters, limiting what the RPG can do quite a lot (and imo is one of the reason D&D is seen by a lot of people as a combat boardgame and not really an rpg).

 

[Sadrik]

Can you tell me a single bigger (non D20) rpg/edition developed in this century which has such a rigid class structure like D&D?
Usually they have archetypes, sometimes even life event based character creation which allows for very varied characters for all types of games. A rigid structure like D&D has only allows for combat characters, limiting what the RPG can do quite a lot (and imo is one of the reason D&D is seen by a lot of people as a combat boardgame and not really an rpg).

Complete non-point, D&D 5e will have classes. The question I have is how narrow those classes will be vs. how broad. Some people argue that tweaking a weapon selection or having a slightly different spell list or having a slightly different bonus damage ability encompasses an entirely new class. I don't think so. I want multi-classing to be a strong part of the game. If I have a ranger who is a rogue fighter, I suppose that is fine, I just want the class features to be different enough to warrant its inclusion, not just a refluffing of some other features.

For instance, hunting and tracking what does that mean? Tracking is easy, everybody with a perception skill should be able to do it. So you give them a perception bonus on top of that, rangers are all keen. Hunting what does that mean? So you give them a quarry ability like in 4e or you give them sneak attack or you give them favored enemy damage bonus. Ultimately, giving them what amounts to feat (bonus to perception) and an at-will triggered damage bonus. It sounds a lot like a rogue. So they have to have something else... Perhaps that triggered damage bonus is enough, idk.

 

[Hussar]

Remalthalis mentioned the 2e monk kit from the Complete Fighters. However, that wasn't the only monk kit. There was also the cleric Monk kit in Complete Cleric. It actually worked out rather well. You only got a couple of major spheres and two minor spheres (up to 3rd level spells) so, if you picked and chose your spells, you could create a very credible ninja type monk - darkness spells, minor healing and cause wounds, that sort of thing. Worked rather nicely.

I look at themes like this. If a given concept can be covered by a number of classes, then it should be a theme. Staying with monk, for example. A rogue/monk is a nice, non-magical ninja type. A fighter/monk fits well with the Legend of Kung fu type. A wizard monk becomes your anime/wire-fu style monk quite well.

So, why have a monk class? If you have a monk class, you are pretty much forced to a single archetype - whatever architecture the class fits. Less classes actually makes the game somewhat more versatile since themes can be more broadly applied, presuming we want themes that apply to all or at least most classes. If you bang in more and more classes, then themes become too restricted because you won't be able to find commonalities between classes.

 

[Fifth Element]

Can you tell me a single bigger (non D20) rpg/edition developed in this century which has such a rigid class structure like D&D?
Usually they have archetypes, sometimes even life event based character creation which allows for very varied characters for all types of games.

I've been told that 4E D&D is a completely different game than 3E, so it would meet your criteria I suppose.

But that's beside the point. You've defined "modern" games to exclude class-based games, and then pointed out that modern games don't have classes. It's circular logic. Circular logic that ignores D&D and Pathfinder still being giants in the industry. What good is a definition of "modern" RPGs if it excludes games that a plurality of "modern" RPGers play?

A rigid structure like D&D has only allows for combat characters, limiting what the RPG can do quite a lot (and imo is one of the reason D&D is seen by a lot of people as a combat boardgame and not really an rpg).

Oh, you've given the game away there. All editions of D&D are combat boardgames now? Try harder.

 

[Derren]

You've defined "modern" games to exclude class-based games, and then pointed out that modern games don't have classes.

Actually, I define modern as "this century". And as you are unable to provide any example of one other than D&D with a rigid class structure my point still stands.

Oh, you've given the game away there. All editions of D&D are combat boardgames now? Try harder.

Try harder what? Oh I guess I am trolling because you don't like my opinion but can't provide any counter argument.

And yes, it applies to all versions of D&D. The degree of how much of a board game D&D was differs with the edition but in the end all editions are made for tactical combat in dungeons. That is what D&D focuses on. Not role playing but combat. Which is the reason why people are only allowed to play combat characters (=classes) and why combat and its tools take up 2/3 of the rules.

It is quite common in other RPG communities to "graduate" from D&D and see it as a beginner step to RPGs but not as a proper member of that genre.

In my opinion this 1970 design of combat in dunegons won't work any more. People looking for simple hack&slash can play video games. D&D either has to mature and become a full RPG or completely switch over to a board game format and stop pretending to be an RPG.

 

[Fifth Element]

Actually, I define modern as "this century". And as you are unable to provide any example of one other than D&D with a rigid class structure my point still stands.

I'm the wrong guy to ask, since I mostly play D&D. But how does 4E not meet your criteria? I notice you're now trying to exclude D&D entirely from the discussion, just in case there is a version of the game that did meet your definition.

Since you've decided that D&D is not a modern game, you've excluded it from your definition of a modern game. And then point to D&D saying it's not a modern game.

Try harder what? Oh I guess I am trolling because you don't like my opinion but can't provide any counter argument.

How can you counter something that's purely an opinion? I think your opinion is entirely wrong. There, I guess we're even now.

It is quite common in other RPG communities to "graduate" from D&D and see it as a beginner step to RPGs but not as a proper member of that genre.

Yes, I do remember that attitude. I had a bit of it myself back in my late teens. But then I grew up and realized I was playing a game.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Yes, I do remember that attitude. I had a bit of it myself back in my late teens. But then I grew up and realized I was playing a game.

... and that those people were jerks.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I'm a big fan of RuneQuest, and I am eagerly awaiting my copy of the upcoming 6th Edition. I like the fact that it is Classless, Skills-based, develops cultural paradigms into magical systems and has realistic combat simulation at it's heart.

But it's not D&D.

When (if?) I buy D&D 5th Edition, I want it to be D&D.

For me, D&D is certain Classes, certain Races, Levels, AC, Escalating HP, 6 Ability scores, Vancian Magic, D20s and other polyhedral dice, along with whatever bells and whistles make it mechanically functional to play and enjoy. If it doesn't have these things there is no incentive for me to buy it and play it. If I want a game to do what RuneQuest does (or any other game for that matter), I'd buy that instead. If I want an authentic D&D experience I'd buy D&D.

The problem with recent editions, in my view, is that some of the designers didn't prioritize this perspective enough in their design process. I hope they don't make the same mistake again.