Class Granularity

[Aristotle]

Class granularity refers to how few, or how many, classes are available in the game. More classes equal more granularity.

So, in the past couple of years, we seem to have seen both extremes of this issue. Extremely low granularity systems with only one real character class were typically not well received, as it's just an attempt to shoehorn a classless system into a rule set that assumes classes exist, but a few of the low granularity examples (such as True20 with it's martial, skill, and caster trio) seemed well received. 3.5 was highly granular once the supplements started rolling out.

Is 4th hitting or missing the mark here? With power sources, and the discussion of class abilities being trimmed to allow for other classes to pick up those aspects in future supplements, it seems like we are heading for another fairly large set of classes. (which many people feel is a primary cause of "rules glut".)

What's your preference? Do you prefer a system with a few, fairly generic classes, or are you on board with the idea of a large base of streamlined, role specific, classes?

 

[Dausuul]

If one is going to have a class-based system at all, I prefer that it be fairly low-granularity. IMO, classes should be broad-based and flexible rather than narrow and prescriptive. I'm hoping the 4E system of "class powers" will help with this; new class powers can be added to existing classes in order to expand the class concept.

 

[OakwoodDM]

I voted high, because I am more on board with systems that have loads of classes, where I can ignore the ones I'm not interested in, than systems with three classes. If I'm being honest, however, I'd vote for middling granularity - about DnD at release level of granularity. Not too many, not too few. About a dozen classes is my comfort zone.

 

[D_E]

I prefer a low to moderate number of classes, but each class must be flexable enough to enable a variety of concepts. SWSE is pretty good with this, IMO, while many of the 3.x classes were not.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think I prefer a "Top-Down" approach. First, make n broad class concepts, then expand on these and create "subclasses. It's not neccessary that these concepts are always called classes. 4E "top class" are the 4 roles, but they aren't actually classes, instead the subclass of roles are called classes. Beyond that, things like talent trees can be used to implement further subclassing, if desired or neccessary.

The approach has the key advantage that you slowly begin to understand what options do you have.

"Do you want to fight in melee, ranged or cast spells?"
"If you want to fight in melee, do you want to be light and agile or heavily armored and armed"
"If you want to be heavily armored, do you also want to use a shield, or do you prefer a large weapon?"
"If you want to fight with a large weapon, do you prefer fighting with a polearm or with a closer combat weapon?"

If you start the questions somewhere in the middle, it gets difficult to see the possibilities (and a system starting this way has a high change of missing important subtypes.)

 

[Pale Jackal]

I voted low granularity, but OakwoodDM has a point about "middle granularity."

I'm not fond of splatbooks, at all, but I am perfectly comfortable with 9-12 or so "core classes."

Though I suppose I'd still probably prefer more feats/talents rather than more classes, if that makes sense.

 

[GreatLemur]

I loved 3.5's truckloads of base classes. But I'd love generic classes with a truckload of customization options a lot more.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

I think high granularity is going to be fine under the 4E development model.

Under 3.x a new class would be released in a splat book with only a minimal set of rules and then receive varying levels of support in later supplements.

With the "one ph a year" approach of 4E, when a new class is released it will come complete with a fully built-out, robust rules support for it. There will be no need for later supplements to build it out any further to make it as viable as other classes.

 

[Talislan]

In theory (as unfortunately that is all we really have) I think it is making in-roads to the right direction. That being low granularity that with expansive grain development. (IMO)

The whole concept of minimal 'base' classes backed up by expansive 'pathways' seems like a fair middle ground between zero and too much granularity. In theory it should allow for greater acceptible variation/customization without removing essential functionality from a given class.

That said the difficulty will still arise of balancing what a player wants to be able to do, and what their characters class can do. As Dausuul mention, I too am hoping that the 'class powers' and pathways/destinies will deal with this more efficiently than we have seen in the past. (again imo)

T.

 

[jaer]

I'd prefer to have 20 basic classes ranging from 1-30, each with a different focus and varying abilities, and lots of choices as they move up (the various teired progression concepts) then to have 8-12 basic classes to pick from with 50+ prestigue classes that vary wildly in power and pre-req stupidity, all of which must be decided early on and planned for. Sometimes that was cool for role-playing, but overall, it bloomed more into powerplaying or as a weak bandage for lack of variety in the main class ability set.