2014: The End of Character Classes?

[Cadence]

A metagame note: I see D&D classes as having, among others, the function of providing power balance between characters by dictating what features your character can and cannot have.

I like the (vague) power balancing and how they provide what @Hyper-Man described as 'some type of party "schtick" preservation'. I also like having a common language like @Dungeoneer and @Jan van Leyden.

On the other hand I also like how some D&D versions have had advice on customizing the classes (like the 2e DMG), and I'm hoping the Advanced Class Guide for PF will have something similar. That gives the experienced players and DM the option without overturning the whole apple-cart.

So, for example, a min-maxer can't take all attack bonus and then add several attack bonus-boosting spells to his character. Well,
1) Is it so wrong if I want my character to be good at only one thing (attacking)?
2) Do I need an invisible hand to guide me away from making an unbalanced/useless character?
3) Shouldn't the GM be taking responsibility for these things?

1) Yes if boring munchkin = wrong? No if everyone at the table likes hyper-optimized death dealers.
2) You might not, but I think lots of players do. Lot of useless class-guides out there otherwise.
3) Doesn't the GM have enough on their plate already to have to do that for every single character?

 

[MasterTrancer]

...

What's your take? Are you willing to wave goodbye to classes?

In some games, absolutely! I am a great lover of multi-faceted PCs, and I greatly appreciate a classless approach (especially in CRPG, but to a lesser extent in TTRPG as well).

If we narrow your question to "Are you willing to wave goodbye to classes in D&D?", though, my answer is a deafening no! Classes (IMHO, as usual) are one of the tenets of this game, a mean to readily identify the capabilities and the potential of a given PC.

I'm in favor with dual- (and poly-) and multi-classing, coped with non-overlapping classes, though, and I think there should be the most focus.

FWIW, my 2 cp on this topic.

 

[TrippyHippy]

As others have pointed out, going Classless isn't something new. RuneQuest was making a big deal of it being a classless, skill-based system as far back as 1978.

However, fans keep going back to Class-based system, sometimes under different names - Clans (Vampire), Careers (Traveller), Archetypes (Champions) etc. Even if they don't have them, the game usually still falls back on other group affiliation choices - RuneQuest has Cultures, Professions and Cults to join, for example.

The reason is not just because of the simplicity of character generation, although that is a factor, but rather that Classes are a powerful tool for creating a feel of a society that players can relate to. They don't just inform about player choices in a game, but they express the way a party of adventurers will work together - and indeed inform what sort of world they will be part of. It's a tool for world building as much as it is for character building.

 

[howandwhy99]

Take away classes and you don't have a role playing game. Which is fine, but I think people are here to role play.

 

[nnms]

As others have pointed out, going Classless isn't something new. RuneQuest was making a big deal of it being a classless, skill-based system as far back as 1978.

It's definitely not a new phenomenon. Perhaps it only feels like it is because of how d20 took over the market for almost a decade and the original poster simply hasn't been exposed to the 35+ years of RPG history that hasn't involved classes recently.

Take away classes and you don't have a role playing game. Which is fine, but I think people are here to role play.

LOLwut?

You seriously think not having a class system means something is not an RPG? That's hilarious.

As for myself, I recently got back into early d100 gaming and am enjoying the lack of classes. The players also seem to enjoy being able to concentrate on what they want to the degree they want through experience checks and training.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Classless = not an RPG, too funny.

I like D&D for its classes, and I like other systems for their lack of classes. So many good choices out there for roleplaying.

PErsonally, I want D&D to keep classes. No need to totally throw out the baby. That said, I would prefer to see classes a bit less restrictive, which to me means good multi-classing.

 

[steenan]

I like classes where they fit - in games with strong genre archetypes or separate tactical roles. In such cases, they are a perfect tool and I definitely don't want to get rid of them.

On the other hand, there are many playstyles where classes don't help in any way and act as an artificial restriction, unnecessary complication or both. But for such games, I went classless many years ago.


Various design patterns are tools. One uses a tool that fits the task at hand - here, a specific setting, genre and playstyle.
Classes are like a hammer. There's a lot of things that one really shouldn't use a hammer for, but for some, a hammer is exactly what you need.

 

[GMMichael]

Many RPGs chose to go classless many years ago.

Why the insistence that I think classless systems are new?

3) Doesn't the GM have enough on their plate already to have to do that for every single character?

I just had a conversation after last night's Modos RPG game about GMs, and how they're responsible for drawing players away from eRPGs. Another BIG responsibility. So yes, the GM has a lot on his plate. But this particular question might be one of time management: leveling up doesn't take place at the same time as roleplaying. And GMs should be actively involved in developing the PCs. A side note: if your RPG has a good leveling system, these time requirements can be reduced.

However, fans keep going back to Class-based system, sometimes under different names - Clans (Vampire), Careers (Traveller), Archetypes (Champions) etc. Even if they don't have them, the game usually still falls back on other group affiliation choices - RuneQuest has Cultures, Professions and Cults to join, for example.

The reason is not just because of the simplicity of character generation, although that is a factor, but rather that Classes are a powerful tool for creating a feel of a society that players can relate to.

Let's not get classes and occupations confused. A character class is a set of character-rules constraints and options, sometimes with a theme. An occupation is something that your character does in-game to get by in the world. I'm no expert on RuneQuests's cultures, professions, and cults, but just keep in mind that this thread is only about the character-rules end of the class-occupation spectrum.

Classes are a powerful tool for imbuing a sense of character in a player. They shouldn't have anything to do with a character's in-game experience (of society), because classes are a metagame feature. Now, that's not to say that a character's class and occupation can't coincide. Just that they're two different things.

So let me rephrase my earlier question:
Classes are a wild and wonderful tool for character creation, character identity, and GM support. However, many classless systems have shown that they aren't necessary. What will the tipping point be, if any, that makes classed systems the underdog?

 

[Zhaleskra]

Of course there are weird compromises as well, HARP has "Classes" (called Professions), but for the most part it really is a skill based system with a class & level design theme.

I admit I skipped 4e, and I'm only slightly regretting that. For D&D to be recognized as D&D I think it should keep classes. That said, I do think it's a little redundant to have both a Cleric class and a Paladin class.

While avoiding the race as class idea, I think maybe classes need a little simplification, like
* Warrior
* FX (to borrow from Alternity)
* Skill being

Losing classes would cause D&D to lose it's "jump on in, the water's fine" feel.

 

[Henry]

I'm with Russ, Delericho, etc. -- seeing as how the number-one best selling RPG (Pathfinder) is class-based, and the #2 best selling RPG (D&D) is class-based, I don't think it's going anywhere anytime soon.