Class Granularity

[Aust Diamondew]

I prefer low granularity. In an ideal system feat/talent/whatever choices would differentiate all characters into their specializations. And there would be either no classes or about 3-4 classes (like True20 or Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Rogue).

I don't mind new base classes as much as prestige classes, the vast majority of which annoy the hell out of me.

Fortunately, no one holds a gun to my head and forces me to use new classes when I play or run a game.

 

[GreatLemur]

I prefer low granularity. In an ideal system feat/talent/whatever choices would differentiate all characters into their specializations. And there would be either no classes or about 3-4 classes (like True20 or Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Rogue).

Hell, I could imagine getting the job done with as few as two classes: Warrior and Wizard. "Wizard" subsumes all types of spellcasting and other supernatural powers, while both classes would get enough skill access that a dedicated skill monkey character would be unnecessary (because, damn it, everybody should have a bunch of cool stuff to do in combat, and a bunch of cool stuff to do out of combat, and they don't really need to be related through some archetype).

Hell, since 4e seems to be getting rid of the different bonuses-by-level tracks so familiar from 3e character classes, I think it might actually be extremely easy to hack it into a modular, classless system. I'll have to wait and see.

 

[Spinachcat]

HIGH
Palladium / Warhammer / AD&D 2e w/kits / 3.X with Prestige - all went for a very high number of defined character classes which sell splat books. People like them because they are like pre-made builds with strong themes and defined niches.

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.

LOW
True20 / GURPS / HERO and all point buys - all go for a low granularity with few if any character classes (or templates) which give the player the maximum ability to customize and modify the base character and continue to modify him with maximum freedom as the character progresses.

I can't choose. I have had huge fun with all of them. There are plenty of positives and a few negatives about each level.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

HIGH
Palladium / Warhammer / AD&D 2e w/kits / 3.X with Prestige - all went for a very high number of defined character classes which sell splat books. People like them because they are like pre-made builds with strong themes and defined niches.

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.

LOW
True20 / GURPS and all point buys - all go for a low granularity with few if any character classes (or templates) which give the player the maximum ability to customize and modify the base character and continue to modify him with maximum freedom as the character progresses.

I don't agree with your definitions and they're clearly not what the OP intended, either, so I'm a little unsure why you're providing them. Traveller, for example, may have various "classes", but in the end, it's what abilities (stats, skills, etc.) you pick up that defines you, and that often results in characters from different classes being effectively extremely similar.

I suspect most people would also catergorize games like Exalted as "low". Whilst they may encourage specialization, it's not a necessity, and after all is said and done, it can be difficult to differentiate Exalts, if you just look at their stats, especially after a bit of XP.

GURPS and other points-buys aren't just "low", either, they're zero granularity in most cases.

I want a variety of options. I would prefer to avoid "builds." A "build" implies an emphasis on pre-planning one's character, and I hope we have much less need for that in 4E. Ideally, at every level you should be able to choose which way you want to go and have it work out. (I doubt we will ever see this ideal truly attained, but 4E should go a long way toward it.)

I agree with this. I think most players want to "build" their character as they go along, and don't want aspiring to a particular "build" and having to pre-plan for it and so on. The idea of "builds" is very much tied to the pre-reqs associated with them, too. When you're just choosing abilities as you go along, you can aspire to a build, but you don't have to (an example of this in D&D 3E would be picking your abilities with a Bo9S character - there are no pre-reqs and little in the way of the kind of synergy that demands planning - this is what I expect to see in 4E).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

There isn't a poll option for me. I would prefer very high granularity with relatively few classes. They aren't necessarily tied together. Specifically, I would prefer that the classes be far more narrow in scope, and multiclassing be the default assumption. For example, if you want to be able to "Fight" with weapons, you take N levels of "Fighter"--and that's it. Taking "Wizard" gives you increasing abilities with spells, but no BAB, weapon proficiencies, etc. This would pretty much blow the single class simplicity model out of the water, but would have so many other positive effects, I think the trade would be worth it. Not having to compromise on some middle ground of granularity and class bloat would be merely one of the good effects.

 

[Mercule]

Moderate to high -- more moderate than high. Classes represent character archetypes and should be appropriate to those archetypes. But there is a danger of glut, so some breadth in archetypes is a very good thing.

If you go with a very few, but flexible classes, you almost need a lot of options to make it flexible enough. At that point, just go with a point-based system. Trying to push a class-based system to conform to point-based expectations ends up giving you the weaknesses, rather than the strengths, of both.

The exception is for strongly gamist games (dungeon crawls, etc.) where you're dealing with a few, specific archetypes geared to work in a set environment and minimalist style. I think the three general classes from Unearthed Arcana would be great for one-off module games, like when the "old gang" gets together for a weekend.

Edit: for the record, what I hearing about 4E sounds like the designers are heading in the right direction in balance between glut and flexibility.

 

[Lackhand]

There isn't a poll option for me. I would prefer very high granularity with relatively few classes. They aren't necessarily tied together. Specifically, I would prefer that the classes be far more narrow in scope, and multiclassing be the default assumption. For example, if you want to be able to "Fight" with weapons, you take N levels of "Fighter"--and that's it. Taking "Wizard" gives you increasing abilities with spells, but no BAB, weapon proficiencies, etc. This would pretty much blow the single class simplicity model out of the water, but would have so many other positive effects, I think the trade would be worth it. Not having to compromise on some middle ground of granularity and class bloat would be merely one of the good effects.

Depending on how you do it, this is a point-buy system (or at least, a very very simplistic one with little mechanical depth -- either each level of fighter gives you lots of options, there are a lot of things named fighter with relatively few options, or each level of fighter gives you very few options and there's no other way of improving your fighteriness.
Glass cannon wizards (depending on how little wizard gives you) are a bug, not a feature, in D&D's terms.

 

[Toben the Many]

IMO, in high granularity leads to system break down.

Because the people designing the classes are human, the more classes there are the more room you have for human error. Basically, you have more chances of a few classes really standing out as the power classes when you have a high granularity. Look for example, with what happened with Specialty Priests in 2nd Edition and the splatbooks with 3.x.

While you always have human error in a game system, you feel it a lot more when someone makes a class too powerful or too weak.

I like a moderate amount myself. It worked well in the core rulebook for D&D 3.5, and in games like Vampire or Werewolf in their core books. 4 to 9 seems to work as a good number for me.

 

[Belorin]

I voted low, but I included new power sources in my descision.
If 4E can keep base classes to 3 or 4 per power source and keep the number of power sources to say 7 or 8, i.e, martial, arcane, divine, shadow, psionic, primal, ki and/or artifice depending on how the monk is classified. Then open up new feats, powers, and abilities to allow customization of these classes, then at paragon and epic tiers have a good selection of paths and destinies. I think the system could handle this very well. One thing to remember is that even though there is a grid for power sources and roles, not every source needs to fill every role. The martial controller is a good example, not without coming up with some very specific class powers, etc can this class exist. In another thread I mentioned a grenadier for this, but the campaign would need smoke powder or an alchemical substitute in order for it to work and then it would probably be considered an artifice class in stead.


Bel

 

[Stalker0]

Really, its not about class granularity, its about archetype granularity.

Classes are just one way to give players a chance to play archetypes that they enjoy. The thieving scoundrel, the smooth talker, the stoic warrior, the crazed berserker. Everyone has their own take, but we all strive to play some kind of image we've got cooked up in our head.

In a class system, you can accomplish these archetypes by two main methods:

1) A class. The class itself provides your archetype with a suite of abilities.

2) Other abilities. Whether its feats, powers, or skills, these abilities allow you to acquire things for your archetypes.

Each one has its uses: Using feats and powers provide more focus, you can pick up an ability to want without any of the "class baggage" of adding a new class. However, some abilities are too powerful to be placed into feats. In this case, new classes can provide those abilities.

I personally like to use new powers and feats as the first line to gaining class archetypes, then adding new classes when the first line fails. However, each has a use, and ultimately both are important for each person to create the exact character they want.