Adapting a video game concept to D&DN

[Kzach]

I've never really liked the idea of classes. I know it's a D&Dism but I feel I can like D&D and still not like some aspects of it and this is one of my biggest dislikes.

The primary reason I dislike it so much is that it feels like an intrusion upon my freedom to take the character where I want to go with it. It's an artificial limitation that doesn't stop at the character sheet and instead seeps into every aspect of play so that I constantly feel restricted in what I do with the character.

And yet, of course, without classes people would probably clamour that it "isn't D&D". But what exactly IS a class? Do classes have to be a strait-jacket? Or can they simply be a leaning towards certain aspects of character development?

In reference to the thread title, it occurred to me whilst playing Skyrim that the concept of classes could cater to BOTH sides of the argument for and against classes. The idea was spurred by the Guardian Stones in Skyrim where you can choose a 'thief', 'mage' or 'warrior' stone and the effect it grants is to speed your learning of skills specific to those roles.

With the whole "we want to cater to everyone" schtick of DDN, I felt this was a grand opportunity to create classes in a similar vein. Instead of saying, "This is what a fighter is, and this is what the character can and can't do from now on," why not simply say, "As a fighter, the character gains bonuses to certain fightery-type things and will always do better in those things than others, but is not restricted to those things."

Anyway, it was just food for thought and something I'd very much like to see implemented in DDN so I thought I'd speak up about it.

 

[Daven]

Classes have a big pro: you know what you are.
When you play in a rpg where you buy skill points even for combat or magic skills, you can create every possible character you want.
But, you are undefined. You are good at swinging swords, ok, you can also do some magic tricks, well. But what do you are? You are John, you are a character with a soul, some skills, but you have not a definition.
Instead rp games with classes define your character. You can customize if you want (feats, multiclassing and not-combat skill are there for this), but you know WHAT you are, and, most of all, other people know what you are!
Instead I do not know what your John charcater is, I can not be sure you are good at something, apart from trusting your self-describing, that, in-game, can be difficult.
I know, classes sound gamish, sound stereotyped, but classes are a good help at define you and what you can do.
In a world with wizards, clerics and fighters, you know that a wizard can find magic, that a cleric can turn undead and that a fighter can take you equipment if you are weak
In a game without classes, you do not know if that one who can find magic can also cast magic missiles. You do not know if that one who can turn undead can also heal, and most of all, you do not know if that one who can take your equipment can also swing at goblins!

 

[Belphanior]

I've never really liked the idea of classes. I know it's a D&Dism but I feel I can like D&D and still not like some aspects of it and this is one of my biggest dislikes.

The primary reason I dislike it so much is that it feels like an intrusion upon my freedom to take the character where I want to go with it. It's an artificial limitation that doesn't stop at the character sheet and instead seeps into every aspect of play so that I constantly feel restricted in what I do with the character.

And yet, of course, without classes people would probably clamour that it "isn't D&D". But what exactly IS a class? Do classes have to be a strait-jacket? Or can they simply be a leaning towards certain aspects of character development?

In reference to the thread title, it occurred to me whilst playing Skyrim that the concept of classes could cater to BOTH sides of the argument for and against classes. The idea was spurred by the Guardian Stones in Skyrim where you can choose a 'thief', 'mage' or 'warrior' stone and the effect it grants is to speed your learning of skills specific to those roles.

With the whole "we want to cater to everyone" schtick of DDN, I felt this was a grand opportunity to create classes in a similar vein. Instead of saying, "This is what a fighter is, and this is what the character can and can't do from now on," why not simply say, "As a fighter, the character gains bonuses to certain fightery-type things and will always do better in those things than others, but is not restricted to those things."

Anyway, it was just food for thought and something I'd very much like to see implemented in DDN so I thought I'd speak up about it.

That's not really a video game concept, plenty of RPGs already did that. Alternity, for example.

D&D 3e also did this to an extent through skills and feats. Every class can learn every skill and every feat (with a few exceptions, granted), just not as well or soon as the others.

There are many advantages to having classes. It's easier for new players, it's easier to insert new material into the game at a later date, it's easier to separate powers that are not meant to exist within the same character, archetypes are for many people more compelling than generic "can probably do anything" Joes, and so on.

Not sure it really matters though... The next edition will use classes. Period.

 

[trancejeremy]

I get what you mean, but at the same time, I think part of the reason it works in the later Elder Scrolls games is that they are single player (or character). You almost really need to be a Fighter/Mage/Thief.

Whereas if you are playing with a group of others, if everyone can basically do what everyone else can, but only slightly better in one field, it can get awkward. And perhaps boring.

To continue with the video game analogy, look at most team based FPSes - usually those have classes to encourage more complex gameplay.

 

[Kzach]

I'm not saying do away with classes, I'm saying that they can be done in such a way as to satisfy those who like sticking strongly to one role and identity whilst allowing others to also branch out, instead of making them a strict straight-jacket.

 

[Ratskinner]

I'm not saying do away with classes, I'm saying that they can be done in such a way as to satisfy those who like sticking strongly to one role and identity whilst allowing others to also branch out, instead of making them a strict straight-jacket.

Within the DnD "paradigm", that sounds like multiclassing, to me. Which I approve of in easier and more flexible forms.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I'd like to see Classes not defined by roles. I'd like to see a "support" Fighter (basically the 4e Warlord), or a "tank" Wizard (ie a melee wizard), or a Rogue "healer" (which could be a Bard).

I think a Class should define how you go about doing things (Fighters swing a sword and use other weapons, Bards sing, Mages cast spells, etc).

I think a role should give you benefits that work in conjunction with your class features, but support the type of role you want to play.

I think a theme should round-out your character, and make your class more specific. Perhaps give non-combat related abilities in some instances.

For example:
Class: Fighter
Role: Support
Theme: Knight

So the Fighter class gives you a wide array of weapons and armor to use. You are good at hitting with weapons. You may have a class feature that supports this like Weapon Specialization, where you do extra damage with a specific weapon (where as other classes don't get this ability).

You choose Support, so when you make your weapon attacks, you bolster your allies, and perhaps on each successful hit, your allies get bonuses to hit the same target. Or perhaps the target you strike is weaked by your blow and deals less damage with their next attack

If you picked a "Striker" role, you would perhaps deal more damage with your attacks. If you picked a "Defender" role, perhaps you have a 4e "mark" like effect that encourages the target to attack you back rather then your allies. If you picked a "Controller" type role, perhaps you can push your target back 5 feet on a successful swing.

You picked Knight as your theme. So perhaps you start with a Horse and Squire. Perhaps you get a bonus to hit and damage when using a Lance. Perhaps you have a "challenge" ability to challenge a foe and get a bonus against them. Perhaps you gain a skill bonus when making Nobility checks.

Class is the method to delivery
Role is the result of what happens when you deliver (deliver an attack, deliver a spell, deliver a heal, etc).
Theme rounds out your class and better defines it, gives you a synergy.

Lets mix it up now...

Class: Rogue
Role: Controller
Theme: Knight

So perhaps the schtick about the Rogue class is that they deal extra damage when an opponent is flanked or unaware of them.

With the Controller role, perhaps the Rogue can trip (because that is controller-ish) an opponent when he successfully hits them while they are flanked.

With the Knight theme, the Rogue gets all the benefits as the Fighter above did. But he is not a very noble Knight. He uses trickery and fights dirty, and has no problem with flanking an enemy. But he may be beholden to a king, he has the proper training in Lance, he has a horse and a squire, etc. All the things the Fighter-Knight has, except he is very different because he is a Rogue scoundrel type and not a Fighter-in-your-face combatant type.

Anyway, those are some options and ways to go about inserting classes, roles and themes. I think it allows for a mix-match of endless possibilities if they go this route. No two-Fighters have to be the same. They are better defined by role and then theme. You can have a party of all Fighters, and fulfill each role. Perhaps a squad of infantry in a military based campaign, where having a cleric or mage wouldn't make sense, yet those roles (healing, striker, control, support, defense, etc.) would still be fulfilled.

 

[mkill]

I'm not saying do away with classes, I'm saying that they can be done in such a way as to satisfy those who like sticking strongly to one role and identity whilst allowing others to also branch out, instead of making them a strict straight-jacket.

Let's take this a level higher and ask: What do you gain by the ability to branch out? What is the goal of that?

The thing about fantasy is that it always had strong archetypes - the knight in shining armor, the mighty wizard shooting lightning in the sky, the shady rogue and his crossbow...

While there are variants of each archetype - just look at all the different Rangers like Drizzt, Aragorn, Minsc and Belkar - there are parallels that you can build a class on. And even if you mix archetypes, like the Fighter / Wizard, they can become archetypes in themselves that spawn a new class.

I think that's why universal systems like GURPS were never strong in fantasy - a class system like D&D is just better in simulating the archetypes. You just need to make a few picks and you have something that feels like Wizard. In GURPS, that involves a lot more time and effort.

Ask yourself - how often did you have a character concept that was within the fantasy genre but couldn't be built with 4E and especially 3E?

 

[darkwing]

Why D&D?

And by the question I mean, if you don't like classes, why not try a different RPG that doesn't have classes? There are several out there.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Classes come with several advantages, the biggest one being that you can select what you want to play with a single choice. That's invaluable to new players, and it takes far, far less time than building a character in a skill based system. If you need more flexability, there's multi-classing, feats, skills, and magic items to give your character mechanical variety.

Then there's the advantage of defined scope. The classic four classes exist because D&D was a game based on classic fantasy. It's modeled after the Fellowship of the Ring. That's the game. You're weren't supposed to play a character outside of that scope.

Classless systems exist. In the RPG world, they might be in the majority. I play those when I want more flexibility in character design. I play D&D when I want to play archetypical fantasy characters. I've come to appreciate both.