Class System, with or without you? What do you think?

[Jediblack]

Classes in rpg... aren't they too restrictive? What do you think about a D&D classless with magic and combat skill instead of base attack bonus and so on?

Obviously I'm not here for flame, but I'm interested in your ideas.

See you
Davide

 

[Chun-tzu]

Generally speaking, no, I don't think classes are too restrictive. I do think several of them could be much more customizable, though (especially the Paladin and Monk).

Classes cut down on the time required to create a character, and make it easier for beginners to create a character. They're also helpful for allowing players to design characters based on certain archetypes, like the knight in shining armor, or the dextrous elven archer, or the mysterious, shadowy mage.

It's often frustrating when you've got a perfectly viable character in mind who you can't create within the confines of a standard game, but with d20 supplements, house rules, and the DM's approval, it's quite easy to work around those limits.

 

[hammymchamham]

I think it depends on the campaign world, but in general classes are a good thing. Look around, you have poor people, middle class, upper class, and stinking rich people. I think classes are generally a good thing for people to include...


OH, you mean charecter classes. Yes, I think they should be in DnD, since its part of what makes DnD... DnD. I've never felt confined by 3rd edition. 3rd edition is not about whatn you cant do, but what happens when you try. Want to be a mage who wears full plate, go for it. Granted, you're spells will fail often, but you can do it in 3rd edition, something undoable in 2nd.

 

[Victim]

I find that I can almost always build a character with classes. However, sometimes to get the abilities you want, you have to pick up a few that don't fit so well.

But ideas for non class based systems should probably go under House rules.

 

[Jediblack]

I wouldn't offer any rules... I only want to hear your impressions.

 

[Umbran]

In theory, classes can be rather restrictive. In practice, 3E D&D classes work pretty darned well, and I don't find them particularly restrictive at all.

 

[bret]

I intensely dislike character classes. I'm frequently finding that I have to work hard to achieve a certain character concept, and even then often times it doesn't quite fit.

I very much prefer classless systems. When you want to get through it fast, Character creation can normally be handled via a template of some sort. The other alternative is work with the GM to create the character you want.

I know that 3ed DnD is a lot better about things, but I still find it constraining.

 

[Crothian]

I've been able to use many alternate concepts and fit them into the class system. The DMG has some great guidelines for altering the classes. Classes are very useful and I really thing they help the game.

 

[Darklone]

I do agree that classes make the game faster and easier to play, especially for beginners.

My solution for allowing more flexibility: More feats, class abilities changeable against certain feats and more classes.

Luckily more and more sourcebooks and campaign settings include variant classes instead of silly and over"balanced" PrClasses.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

I prefer class-based systems. Most classless systems, IMX, make "mush" characters.

This is not to say that the classes cannot evolve and grow as the game evolves and grows. I also believe that classes (or multiclassing) should have some measure of flexibility.

Too much flexibility is bad because then we would be playing without rules, and too much structure is bad because then we would be playing...well, a board game.