Do we really need Classes anymore?

[Numlock]

The problem is that you can't easily predict how any one power will interact with another. Maybe some warlock power combined with some barbarian power will foster some unholy, imbalanced combo that breaks the game.

I hope you, and everyone else reading this, will agree with me that if this is an authors way of keeping his system balanced, the fault is with the author and the system, and not the Class-less-ness of this system. GURPS for instance is a Classless system (although with templates), but still very balanced. This is because GURPS has a basic rule 'engine' and all power, skills and feats give modifiers to that system, where as DnD has a lot of 'custom' rules for certain classes, e.g. a different spell list for each class.

Concluding, I don't like Classes, but I cannot deny that in flavor-heavy games Classes are necessary to keep this flavor intact.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Classed systems are simpler/easier to balance than classless, sure. Doesn't mean classless systems cannot be well-balanced.

Oh, and "flavour", or the inactness of same, does not require classes, any more than it requires, hm... levels, say. Or hit points. Well, you get the idea.

Packaging, is all it is. Just like levels. Or schools of magic. Or whatever. Incidentally, for those prone to "analysis paralysis" or the like, I can see classes and/or levels being a real lifesaver. At least, in games where chargen is at all complex, and/or character advancement (in the mechanical sense) occurs, to any appreciable extent.

Personally, I don't much care either way, having enjoyed both, and continuing to do so. To be sure though, in those times I might have a detailed concept in mind to begin with, it's possible a classless system will serve my needs somewhat better. But otherwise, there's not much in it.

 

[Umbran]

GURPS for instance is a Classless system (although with templates), but still very balanced.

That is not my experience, at least, not in the way I mean the term "balance".

In GURPS, you've very little guarantee at all that two characters built with the same number of points will be balanced. One may decide to build down a very combat-centric path that nearly breaks the system, while another will ignore combat, and take skills with little to no practical use.

Ergo, the system is not balanced. If the choice to build characters that are of equivalent power, or not, is so entirely in the hands of the player, then it isn't the system that is balanced.

 

[pawsplay]

In my experience, Classless systems tend to make characters with very close mechanics... and somewhat boring. I used to play shadowrun for a time, but aside from flavor, Every shaman had the same (optimal) spells, every Decker the same (optimal) software and so on. And this can get really worse when you have a system With no restrictions, like storyteller, where you can create a 16 year old garou with ocult 5 and Computer 5, One of the most capable in the world in two completely different areas...

I heard that new classless systems have more variety in character building. But at this moment, Class systems just brings the variety i want in crunch to my game.

That is not my experience, at least, not in the way I mean the term "balance".

In GURPS, you've very little guarantee at all that two characters built with the same number of points will be balanced. One may decide to build down a very combat-centric path that nearly breaks the system, while another will ignore combat, and take skills with little to no practical use.

Ergo, the system is not balanced. If the choice to build characters that are of equivalent power, or not, is so entirely in the hands of the player, then it isn't the system that is balanced.

If you read these two quotes together, seemingly, GURPS characters should all devolve to the same, supposedly optimal killer build, and yet any two characters will not be of comparable power, suggesting they are not built to the same killer build. It is possible that one of these things is true and the other isn't, both are true in an inobvious way, or neither is true.

I'm going with "neither is true." Simply because anyone can create a fifteen year old computer programming battle-mage doesn't mean they will, and a fifteen year old with those capabilities is pretty much the definition of unique. White Wolf games have some issues that are unique to games with hard ceilings on ability, which GURPS does not have. GURPS, on the other hand, has issues with unlimited levels of relative skill. In neither case is there is a build that eclipses all others, or even several such builds. And as in D&D or many other classed games, it is relatively trivial to make sure a character is minimally competent in the activities done by ALL adventurers. For instance, in Werewolf, anyone could have one or dots of Brawl, unless they make the conscious choice they don't want. In GURPS, a below-average attribute is a deliberate choice, not one mandated by trade-offs.

In a sense, the Gnosis 5/Computer 5 is a member of a "class" in that they are specialized enough that is probably most of what they do. That does not make them unbalanced, it just makes them similar to other characters of that type. D&D 4e is actually unusual in that there is less numeric disparity outside someone's specialty; in 3e, or in Palladium, or Rolemaster, there is a decided grade between someone who has studied a skill and someone who hasn't.

GURPS achieves "balance" in a different way than 4e. Rather than making all characters roughly equivalent in numbers and scope of abilities, your point budget roughly amounts to a purchase of screen time in a particular area. It would be an exceptionally strange GURPS game in which "I win melee combat" left the other characters with nothing to do. And just to be clearing, completely dominating one area is usually non-trivial until you get to higher point totals, or you resort to exotic constructions. GURPS is well-balanced in that you can create a character with their own area in which to shine.

Umbran, I don't know what your experience with GURPS is, but "If the choice to build characters that are of equivalent power, or not, is so entirely in the hands of the player, then it isn't the system that is balanced," is a great misconception. There are greater opportunities to purposefully fritter away chracter building resources, but you can make a deliberately bad 4e character with very little effort, too. Spending all your points in GURPS on oil-painting and speaking dead languages isn't a hot concept in most games, although it could pay off unexpectedly at some point, but at least it's something; a D&D 4e character with a 10 in their main stat, who is specialized in weapons and implements they don't use and powers that don't synergize is a sad creature. It is decidedly not the case that all D&D characters are created equal.

 

[pawsplay]

Found it: How D&D Became GURPS

An article on the convergence of classed and non-classed systems, looking especially at player options and archetypes.

 

[Fifth Element]

We've never needed classes in any meaningful way. But there's nothing inherently wrong with them, and as stated upthread not every game needs to have the same approach to building characters.

 

[Deset Gled]

If you read these two quotes together, seemingly, GURPS characters should all devolve to the same, supposedly optimal killer build, and yet any two characters will not be of comparable power, suggesting they are not built to the same killer build. It is possible that one of these things is true and the other isn't, both are true in an inobvious way, or neither is true.

I think both quotes are true, and the explanation is this:

If you try to create optimized characters in a classless system, you tend to end up with rather homogeneous results. While there are many options, there are only a few optimal combinations available. Since players will put all resources towards optimizing (and none towards characterization), you can end up with an extreme lack of variation.

OTOH, if you try to create characters that are unique and interesting, you end up with results that are extremely unbalanced. Your characters can be so varied that they have no common ground to even participate in the same tasks as other members of the party. By trying to create a party with flavor, you can end up with characters that simply don't play well together.

The gray area between these two experiences can be difficult to achieve. It requires an experienced GM, a group that is at generally the same knowledge level of the system, good cooperation and good communication between all members. In theory, a class system removes some of the extreme variation, and forces more characterization into each build. YMMV on the results, of course.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Having played in and enjoyed both classed and classless systems, I have to say they both have their merits. If nothing else, a classed system is a point of distinction- its a way for D&D to set itself apart.

 

[pawsplay]

I think both quotes are true, and the explanation is this:

If you try to create optimized characters in a classless system, you tend to end up with rather homogeneous results. While there are many options, there are only a few optimal combinations available.

In my experience, there are nearly countless optimal combinations. What you are saying here applies more easily to classed games, since your "options" consist of a finite number of feats, spells, etc.

Since players will put all resources towards optimizing (and none towards characterization), you can end up with an extreme lack of variation.

Generally speaking "characterization" doesn't cost points. Mind you Hobby (Contract Bridge) isn't likely to come up very often, but if it does, that's a point well spent.

In theory, classful systems will tend to be WORSE in this regard, since the choices are fewer and the good ones therefore more obvious. You could spend all your resources on one or two basic tasks without breaking a sweat. Meanwhile, "characterization" is probably going to be more expensive, if it is touched on at all.

OTOH, if you try to create characters that are unique and interesting, you end up with results that are extremely unbalanced. Your characters can be so varied that they have no common ground to even participate in the same tasks as other members of the party. By trying to create a party with flavor, you can end up with characters that simply don't play well together.

I don't agree. Differences complement and distinguish, much as "roles" do in D&D. Because you are freed from the tyranny of sameness, a wider variety of adventures can be opened up, which increases the opportunies for useful character types.

 

[nedjer]

Useful for newbies, but a bit limiting once you've tried the staples. Personal preference is for free choices of basic stuff at low levels with increasing specialised skill sets further up the tree.