Fantasy RPG Classes

[TheNovaLord]

1) and 3) well answered above by others

under 2), assuming you have a classed based system,is it important that the classes all need the same mechanics/system/rules?

for example, and plz dont degrade to an edition war, in 4th the classes have quite similar mechanics...a spell power looks like a melee power, and say WHFRP where the starting professions have pretty similar numbers.

whereas in earlier editions of D&D the mechanics of a spell where quite different to the mechanics of a melee attack.

I like classed systems, so id quite favour systems where the classes look very different to each other, and there abilities often follow almost different rules, to another class.

hope that all makes sense.

 

[Jhaelen]

This thread asks three main questions:

1) What type of character concepts do you expect to see in a Fantasy RPG?

2) Of these concepts, can you think of any mechanical executions of that concept that you particularly like?

3) Do you have any original concepts for a class, or a new spin on an old concept?

1) Difficult to answer, since it depends a lot on the setting. Assuming the setting includes magic, I'd expect a minimum of two character concepts: a magic user and a non-magic user.

2) Dunno about the first two, could you elaborate on why you're asking?

3) Back when I thought about non-combat roles I came up with the idea of an architect class. I don't think I've ever seen that in any game.

 

[Clavis]

I am a firm believer that the base classes in a class-based fantasy role-playing system should reflect pre-existing archetypes and tropes, and only pre-existing archetypes and tropes. Otherwise, it's pointless to use classes at all. The advantage of a class-based system is the ability to get games going more quickly by being able to point to some precedent in mythology, literature, or real-world history and say "your character is like that". That's why I believe a class-based system like D&D should never have been weighed down by skills and feats, which work better in class-free, point-based systems.

I think the base classes (for player characters) should be Warrior, Thief, and Magic-User. I'm of the opinion that Clerics as a class are not necessary, because they can represented either by Warriors under holy orders, or by Magic-Users. I think Magic Users should have the ability to use healing magic, just like they do in legend. I've always been somewhat dissatisfied with the disconnect between D&D magic and the magic of real-world legend, and would like to see the two much more closely linked.

Subclasses of Warrior could be things like Soldier, Crusader, Knight, Gladiator, Ranger, and Archer.
Subclasses of Thief could be things like Con Man, Cat Burglar, Thug, Highwayman, Assassin, and Tomb Robber.
Sublasses of Magic-User could be things like Witch, Conjuror (summons and binds demons and other explaner creatures), Illusionist, Theurgist (uses divine names and powers to create effects like a wizard), Necromancer, Saint, and Prophet.

I've never been completely satisfied by the way the classes have been represented in any D&D, although generally I think the older versions of the classes were generally better than the newer ones (which sometimes seem to be almost completely divorced from mythology and classic fantasy literature) The Classic D&D thief really got the short-end of the stick at lower levels, however. Also, I like that 4th Edition introduced the use of implements for Wizards, which does actually make them more like their legendary precedents.

One thing that I think was always missing from D&D was the ability to represent warriors in loincloths or chainmail bikinis as effective characters. It's such a strong fantasy trope that the ability to play such a character (perhaps with an ability that improve their base AC with level) should really have been present.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Fighting man

Magic User

Cleric

That is your bread and butter. Add as much gravy on top of that as you like.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

One thing that I think was always missing from D&D was the ability to represent warriors in loincloths or chainmail bikinis as effective characters. It's such a strong fantasy trope that the ability to play such a character (perhaps with an ability that improve their base AC with level) should really have been present.

Actually, that 'trope' is more a matter of artwork than writing. Even Conan wore armor when he could get it! (Swashbucklers are a different matter, but come from a different 'world' than the usual mideival characters D&D expects.)

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

1) What type of character concepts do you expect to see in a Fantasy RPG?

Expect as in want, or expect as in "Yeah, I know I'm going to see these"?

For "I know I'm going to" I agree with those people who say it depends on the fantasy and the setting, but I think it still boils down to three: "guy who uses the hitting", "guy who uses the knowing", and "guy who uses the magic". Everything else is slapping labels onto these.

For "want" I have a different arrangement: "guy who does physical stuff", "guy who does mental stuff", and various combos of those two AKA "hybrid guy". I don't believe in magic being its own archtype, I believe that magic is generally a version of "guy who does mental stuff" and other cases are usually "hybrid guys" with magic layered on after the archtype.

2) Of these concepts, can you think of any mechanical executions of that concept that you particularly like?

No.

3) Do you have any original concepts for a class, or a new spin on an old concept?

Given how much stuff is out there I wouldn't bet anything I can say has not been done before. So being lazy I won't.

 

[Jorunkun]

The most basic cluster is probably Warrior, Expert and Adept, as per True20.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

This thread asks three main questions:

1) What type of character concepts do you expect to see in a Fantasy RPG?

2) Of these concepts, can you think of any mechanical executions of that concept that you particularly like?

3) Do you have any original concepts for a class, or a new spin on an old concept?

1) Originally, the classic 4 of fighter, thief, magic-user, and cleric. Now, more along the lines of warrior, expert, and adept, ala True20/generic classes from UA.

2) Honestly, there are multiple interpretations that I really like. While I enjoy the simple fun of playing Basic/Expert D&D, I also like the newer versions presented in 3.X & 4th ed. Personally, I really like the idea of having generic classes that can apply to a broad variety of concepts & that can be built to a player's particular tastes.

3) Actually, I grew to like how classes were designed in Star Wars Saga Ed., & I kinda wish that D&D went that way (though I don't have any problems with the current version of the game). Just have 3+ core classes that are highly customizable. I know of the Sword & Sorcery version created, but I'd like to see a version suitable for a broad range of fantasy genres, and not just for a more low-magic themed setting.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Teacher/instructor.

That would be such an amazingly fun Leader class to play in 4e.

No, You Idiot! Instructor Daily 1
"How many times do I have to tell you?"
Daily * Martial?
Standard Action Close burst 5
Target: One ally
Effect: The target makes an at-will attack against an enemy of your choice, and gains a bonus to attack rolls equal to your Wisdom modifier until the end of the encounter. Before or after the attack, the target may shift a number of squares equal to your Intelligence modifier.

Shine My Boots Instructor Utility 2
"You missed a spot."
Encounter * Martial?
Immediate Interrupt Close burst 1
Trigger: An adjacent ally is hit by an attack.
Target: the triggering ally
Effect: The ally gains a bonus to AC and Reflex against the attack equal to your Intelligence modifier

Or, you could just reskin the Shaman, do the Wis/Int build, and treat the spirit companion as an apprentice. Instead of actually disappearing when dealt the damage, he just scurries over to you and requires a minor action to be redeployed.

 

[lutecius]

1 & 2) I could live with the true20/UA classes too, but I prefer to see the Expert as the fast/agile guy rather than the skills guy or maybe just as a subset of fighter.

The dnd cleric has always felt like a fighter/caster hybrid to me and even then, having both clerics and paladin is redundant.

I think the healer and wizard are just variants of a same archetype but I guess for spellcasters more than warriors, some variants (priest, elementalist, necromancer, telepath...) could be considered classes of their own when they do really different things. The warrior would then also need subclasses to even things up (knight-in-shiny-armor, leather-thonged-barbarian, flamboyant swashbuckler, sneaky archer..)

Mechanically I prefer casters and non-casters to use different sub-systems even if it's more difficult to balance. If they have to use the same resource management mechanic, I'd rather have casters go at-will than non-casters go vancian. A point system for both could also work for me.

3) not that I know of. (maybe flamboyant-leather-thonged-archer-in-shiny-armor but I'm afraid that's a bit too much of a niche concept)