D&D 5E Races and classes

[Charlaquin]

I

suspect more people still like vanilla but we hear from a subset online who complain.

I am not against a classless system but classes and archetypes is one reason I think 5e and D&D still reign supreme.

Yeah, there’s no denying that class based systems seem to have broader appeal. There is something deeply psychologically satisfying about self-identification with archetypes; it’s the same reason inane personality quizzes like “which Naruto character are you,” the MBTI test, and astrology are so popular.

But, people do tend to get bored with only a small selection of broad archetypes. Just as there is a tendency to want to identify one’s self with an archetype, there is an equally powerful tendency to want to express one’s self individually within that archetype. People don’t stay satisfied with just being “a Sakura” or “an INTJ” or “a Saggitarius”. They want to be a Sakura, but with some Hinata tendencies, or a borderline INTJ/INFJ, or a Saggitarius with Ares Rising or whatever. And a pure class-based system doesn’t really allow for that. You end up needing to come up with more and more classes representing more and more specific concepts, until you end up with a bloated game and end up having to nuke it with a new edition.

Now, a class/subclass split helps alleviate this problem. You can have classes representing broad archetypes and subclasses representing more specific expressions of those archetypes. But it will eventually lead to the same problem, as we see here. This is why I have long been an advocate of a multi-tiered system of granularity. Pick a class that represents a broad archetype and defines the fundamental structure of your abilities and advancement. Pick a subclass that further refines that archetype and gives you some specific abilities to choose from. Then build your own specific expression of the concept your subclass represents with your individual choices of abilities.

The suggestions for using different Battlemaster maneuvers to create different themes of fighters is a decent example of what I’m talking about here. I just wish that they applied this concept more broadly across more levels, to allow more flexibility.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Yeah, there’s no denying that class based systems seem to have broader appeal.

Nope, just D&D. Most other RPGs don't use classes.

 

[Zardnaar]

Nope, just D&D. Most other RPGs don't use classes.

D&D is bigger than the rest put together by large factor.

 

[Charlaquin]

Nope, just D&D. Most other RPGs don't use classes.

That just isn’t true. They’re not always called classes, but they serve the same role from a design perspective. Clans in Vampire the Masquerade and Vampire the Requiem (and their analogues in other WoD/CofD games), Classes in 13th Age, Playbooks in every PbtA game, Classes in Pathfinder, Types in Numenera, Classes in the Dragon Age RPG, Careers in the Warhammer RPG... Not to mention the video game space.

There are definitely plenty of classless RPGs out there as well, but it is true that class-based or hybrid systems tend to have more commercial success.

 

[tetrasodium]

D&D is bigger than the rest put together by large factor.

Except shadowrun, vgtm as noted, pathfinder, starfinder, pathfinder2, rifts, some versions of savage worlds, some versions of fate, dcc, and an endless list of older RPGs. Even without calling them a "class" its extremely common to have classes or a class analog in an rpg for good reasons. 5e messed up by basically making class the last meaningful choice you have and archetypes just being part of the class. Sure you have feats and in some cases spells, but in both cases there are a tiny handful that are so much better than all other choices that it's not much more than the illusion of choice

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I think Shadow of the Demon Lord from Shwalb does a better D&D than 5e itself by making each part of the character creation gain level, and by making mix-maxing archetypes super simple. Magic being divided by theme instead of of vague schools also help defining your character. He's supposed to release a more family friendly book based of his system that is clearly 5e-adjacent later in 2021; the original books tend to have a little too much eyerolling-ly edgy or immature stuff for my taste

 

[zarionofarabel]

D&D is bigger than the rest put together by large factor.

D&D having a bigger fanbase doesn't change the fact that it is a single RPG.

That just isn’t true. They’re not always called classes, but they serve the same role from a design perspective. Clans in Vampire the Masquerade and Vampire the Requiem (and their analogues in other WoD/CofD games), Classes in 13th Age, Playbooks in every PbtA game, Classes in Pathfinder, Types in Numenera, Classes in the Dragon Age RPG, Careers in the Warhammer RPG... Not to mention the video game space.

There are definitely plenty of classless RPGs out there as well, but it is true that class-based or hybrid systems tend to have more commercial success.

I don't remember the skills of the White Wolf games being restricted, same with the powers. It doesn't matter what clan you belong to, you can still take whatever skills and powers you want. In reality that clans are more thematic than anything else. 13th Age and Pathfinder yes as they are D&D derivative. I'm not sure about PbtA as I'm not familiar with them. I'm pretty sure careers in Warhammer are also thematic. Even video games have had classes go the way of the dinosaur. I know Mass Effect abandoned them in the later games, and the Elder Scrolls never used them as anything other than a thematic choice. All the Runequests don't have classes, I don't think the 2d20 games qualify, neither does Traveller or Cepheus. I've got dozens of RPGs that don't use classes of any kind. Then again I don't have many OSR games, which do use classes, so yeah might be a toss up.

Except shadowrun, vgtm as noted, pathfinder, starfinder, pathfinder2, rifts, some versions of savage worlds, some versions of fate, dcc, and an endless list of older RPGs. Even without calling them a "class" its extremely common to have classes or a class analog in an rpg for good reasons. 5e messed up by basically making class the last meaningful choice you have and archetypes just being part of the class. Sure you have feats and in some cases spells, but in both cases there are a tiny handful that are so much better than all other choices that it's not much more than the illusion of choice

Well, class analog isn't a class unless it restricts players in their choices, if it doesn't then it's a thematic choice. And yes, most classless RPGs have thematic archetype choices but what you can do with a character as they advance is not actually restricted in any way.

If the sub-classes don't offer anything but the illusion of choice why would they even have them?

 

[Charlaquin]

D&D having a bigger fanbase doesn't change the fact that it is a single RPG.

I don't remember the skills of the White Wolf games being restricted, same with the powers. It doesn't matter what clan you belong to, you can still take whatever skills and powers you want.

Skills are unrestricted, but Disciplines (powers) are generally Clan-specific. There are some you can take an an additional XP cost. Storyteller and Storytelling are kind of hybrid systems though, with some class-based elements and some skill-based elements, so point taken.

In reality that clans are more thematic than anything else. 13th Age and Pathfinder yes as they are D&D derivative.

So? D&D derivative games sell. This only supports my argument.

I'm not sure about PbtA as I'm not familiar with them.

You should check some out, it’s an excellent system. At least look at Apocalypse World, is the game all the PbtA games are based on.

I'm pretty sure careers in Warhammer are also thematic.

Eh, I don’t really know Warhammer, so I’ll defer to you on that.

Even video games have had classes go the way of the dinosaur. I know Mass Effect abandoned them in the later games, and the Elder Scrolls never used them as anything other than a thematic choice. All the Runequests don't have classes, I don't think the 2d20 games qualify, neither does Traveller or Cepheus. I've got dozens of RPGs that don't use classes of any kind. Then again I don't have many OSR games, which do use classes, so yeah might be a toss up.

There are a lot of class-based video games and a lot of classless ones, just as with tabletop systems.

Well, class analog isn't a class unless it restricts players in their choices, if it doesn't then it's a thematic choice. And yes, most classless RPGs have thematic archetype choices but what you can do with a character as they advance is not actually restricted in any way.

You can’t just No True Scotsman classes like that. Not all class-based systems are equally restrictive, but that doesn’t invalidate them as class-based. If anything, the rise of hybrid systems further supports my argument that there are meaningful benefits and drawbacks to going class-based.

If the sub-classes don't offer anything but the illusion of choice why would they even have them?

Wha...? Look, you should really read 5e before trying to critique it. It’s really difficult to have a productive conversation about a game system to someone who isn’t familiar with it.

 

[zarionofarabel]

You should check some out, it’s an excellent system. At least look at Apocalypse World, is the game all the PbtA games are based on.

THEY MAKE NO SENSE TO ME!

There are a lot of class-based video games and a lot of classless ones, just as with tabletop systems.

I'm not a huge gamer and I will agree that there are both games with and without classes. However it seems the trend in games, at least the major IPs that a twit like me plays, seem to be going classless as that seems to be what the player base wants.

You can’t just No True Scotsman classes like that. Not all class-based systems are equally restrictive, but that doesn’t invalidate them as class-based. If anything, the rise of hybrid systems further supports my argument that there are meaningful benefits and drawbacks to going class-based.

Restrictions VS No restrictions at all. Classes have restrictions. Classless has none. That's why I don't consider White Wolf games to have classes as the powers are not actually restricted, they might cost more, but any character can take them.

Wha...? Look, you should really read 5e before trying to critique it. It’s really difficult to have a productive conversation about a game system to someone who isn’t familiar with it.

That's what the other guy said, that subclasses only offer the illusion of choice. I'm assuming that's not true or there wouldn't be over a hundred different classes.

 

[Charlaquin]

THEY MAKE NO SENSE TO ME!

Interesting. Have you tried Dungeon World? It’s generally a smoother introduction to the style for folks who are more accustomed to traditional RPGs.

I'm not a huge gamer and I will agree that there are both games with and without classes. However it seems the trend in games, at least the major IPs that a twit like me plays, seem to be going classless as that seems to be what the player base wants.

I disagree. I think the trend is towards hybrid systems, which makes sense as there are pros and cons to class-based and to classless, and hybrid systems allow you to take advantage of both.

Restrictions VS No restrictions at all. Classes have restrictions. Classless has none.

That’s far too binary a distinction. There are plenty of systems that have some restrictions, but are far less restrictive than “pure” class-based.

That's why I don't consider White Wolf games to have classes as the powers are not actually restricted, they might cost more, but any character can take them.

It just isn’t true that any character can take any ability in these games. Can most characters take most abilities, albeit potentially at greater cost? Yes. Can any character take any ability? Definitely not.

That's what the other guy said, that subclasses only offer the illusion of choice. I'm assuming that's not true or there wouldn't be over a hundred different classes.

Ok, but like... read the rules you want to participate in discussion about so you don’t have to rely on assumptions like that and can actually contribute informed opinions to the discussion.