Class Granularity

[Aust Diamondew]

MIDDLE
You could argue that games like Shadowrun / Traveller / RuneQuest / Exalted are middle options. These games have a core group classes. All of these systems are skewed toward encouraging very niche and specialized characters with game fluff that presents the key archetypes. In the case of Classic Traveller however, we went from 6 base careers in Book 1 to 18 in the Citizens of the Imperium supplement.

Shadowrun has no classes, it has suggested archtypes but its definitely classless.

@KarinsDad- I agree there is definitely an economic reason in having lots of classes and such, allows for you to sell more books.
But for me, I'm thinking I might just settle for the 4e core unless they come up with some really really excellent stuff.

 

[Diamondeye]

I'm in favor of high granularity, or else a classless system.

3.5, IMO, gets it about right in terms of overall granularity. However, I also think there are too many base classes, and too many PRCs that are either bizzare (Green Star Adept) or monumentally silly (Drunken Master).

In terms of base classes, I like the PHB classes, the TOB classes, and a few of the others such as knight, duskblade, and swashbuckler. I don't like the incantation system of the warlock, and I see the hexblade, beguiler, and warmage as unnecessary, and stealing too much of the sorcerer/wizard role.

I also think that there is a real problem with PRCs that have excessive entry requirments. Eldritch Knight, for example, is a very simple PRC, and doesn't even offer armored caster benfits, but requires proficiency with simple and martial weapons, and level 3 arcane casting. I think that's rather high for a class that really offers no unique benefits; it's only a fusion class of melee/caster.

Finally, some of the PRCs have really pretentious fluff. For example, Order of the Bow Initiate. It starts out "When asked 'what is truth'...." Really, that's exactly what my character is inclined to do when he sees a skilled archer, go ask him for his philosophical viewpoints. :\

 

[sinecure]

I don´t think out of combat roles are very important. I rather think that out of combat stuff should mainly be free and should not directly affect combat.

In point buy that´s my biggest grief: usually you buy imbalanced combat options with out of combat penalties. And if you are the only one who doesn´t you are usually way underpowered.

For out of combat i prefer something like a point buy (skillpoint) system, with some combat role related preferances. But nobody should restric the fighter if he/she wants to be a part time sage. (his stats will usually make sure he is not as good as a wizard who focuses on that)

I don't think point buy ever works for anything or GURPS would be a great combat game.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't think point buy ever works for anything or GURPS would be a great combat game.

Point buy generally means 'system can be broken if the players try'. It's just about impossible to balance a point buy system.

It works well if you have players without strong gamist instincts, who put roleplaying a deep character ahead of 'winning'. But otherwise, point buy means, 'here, make a tweak'.

 

[Sadrik]

I think, I would prefer about 4-5 classes for each power source. Then allow a whole host of Paragon Paths (PPs) and Epic Destinies (EDs) for them.

So right now for the martial power source we have:
Fighter
Warlord
Ranger
Rogue

And if we add 3 other classes from Martial Power book. I think that would be too many. Martial power source is kind of funny though. It could easily encompass more classes.

The most important thing though is that each class has a true niche. I don't want classes that tread on other classes. For instance the sorcerer could very easily tread on the wizard --> all bad.

So my vote is I don't care how much granularity, as long as the classes have a true niche.

 

[Agamon]

Extremely high granularity? No. I'm avoiding the 4E supplements, but I like a number of base classes with their own abilities, rather than a generic, classless system.

 

[Lurker37]

I prefer fewer, customisable classes. Each class has a clear concept, but there are multiple ways to explore that concept.

Let's look at rogues, for example.
For my tastes, ideally rogue A and Rogue B could both be stealthy characters who are effective through skill and agility (both mental and physical), yet actually focus on very different aspects of their class and play very differently. Despite this, they both would be equally effective and fun to play.

I don't like having separate classes for an acrobatic rogue, a ranged rogue, a stealth and backstab rogue, a cat-burglar rogue, a fast-talking pickpocket rogue, a rogue trained to steal from wizards, a rogue trained to steal from (or for) temples, a confidence artist rogue, an espionage rogue, a detective rogue, a swashbuckling rogue...

 

[small pumpkin man]

Point buy generally means 'system can be broken if the players try'. It's just about impossible to balance a point buy system.

It works well if you have players without strong gamist instincts, who put roleplaying a deep character ahead of 'winning'. But otherwise, point buy means, 'here, make a tweak'.

Not necessarily, Mutants and Masterminds 2e, for example, gets around this by putting a hard "level" limit on combat based abilities. Now I haven't played it enough to know exactly how balanced it is (and nothing is ever really balanced), but it doesn't seem to have the basic problems something like say, OWoD had.

 

[GreatLemur]

Not necessarily, Mutants and Masterminds 2e, for example, gets around this by putting a hard "level" limit on combat based abilities. Now I haven't played it enough to know exactly how balanced it is (and nothing is ever really balanced), but it doesn't seem to have the basic problems something like say, OWoD had.

Well, I wouldn't say that prevents M&M from being breakable. There's definitely still a lot of GM common sense and player self-restraint required. The books actually go out of their way to point out abusable-but-technically-legal mechanics to make sure nobody gets blindsided.

That said, I love the hell out of the system. I've got about a dozen campaign ideas I'd love to try out with it, and less than half of them have anything to do with superheroes. With my group, I'm a lot more worried about the whole character-generation-that-requires-an-Excel-spreadsheet angle than any game-breaking powergaming.

 

[Dausuul]

Finally, some of the PRCs have really pretentious fluff. For example, Order of the Bow Initiate. It starts out "When asked 'what is truth'...." Really, that's exactly what my character is inclined to do when he sees a skilled archer, go ask him for his philosophical viewpoints. :\

When asked "What is truth," the archer replies...

Hey, look, buddy. I'm an Order of the Bow Initiate. That means I solve problems.

Not problems like "What is truth," because that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of philosophy.

I solve practical problems.

For instance, how'm I going to stop some big mean monster-hubbard from tearing me a structurally superfluous new behind?

The answer? Use a bow. And if that don't work... use more bow. Like this +5 composite little old number, designed by me. Enchanted by me. And you'd best hope--not pointed at you.