Flexible Classes or Many Classes, My Conundrum

[Ace]

I am thinking about increasing the number of core classes in my upcoming Grim N Gritty, Drama Point Low Permanent Magic Item game

I would include version of the classes in AEG Swashbuckling Adventures, OA, Rokugan, WOT, Sov Stone, Kalamar and a few other resources

This gives the players new options to play with to make up for the fact they have less magic items


My other option was to flex the classes, that is Let Rogues take social abilities instead of Sneak Attack and that sort of thing

Any thoughts on which would be better?

 

[Crothian]

I like the more versatile core classes. I like the idea of versatility in the core classes and specifics in the prestige classes.

 

[mkletch]

I'd also vote for flexible core classes, but I view the classes as ingredients for the character, to be mixed to taste. Many, though, do not like the multiclass system. If you fix the issues of twinked saves and no BAB for multiclass characters (check the d20 Modern SRD for a good mechanic), though, the multiclass system is great.

-Fletch!

 

[Umbran]

Hmm. To play Devil's Advocate for a moment...

If the core classes are too flexible, you may leave them without strength or identity. Let us remember that classes are not merely packages of stats and abilities, and making them sol that players can get exactly the powers they want is not the only consideration - they also comprise iconic building blocks from which the game world is constructed.

 

[Desdichado]

If the core classes are too flexible, you may leave them without strength or identity. Let us remember that classes are not merely packages of stats and abilities, and making them sol that players can get exactly the powers they want is not the only consideration - they also comprise iconic building blocks from which the game world is constructed.

Yes, but whether or not that is a good thing is a debatable topic, really. In reality, people do not belong to "classes" as they are defined in d20, so it may not behoove everyone's character concept to fit into a narrowly defined class. And characters that grow organically, like real people, need to be multiclassed basic characters, much like in d20 Modern. The d20 Modern "classes" are a great concept, and I'd love to work them into a fantasy game (all you really need to do is swap out Computer Use, Drive, Pilot and Repair for skills like Alchemy, Spellcraft, Use Rope, etc. and fix weapon proficiencies -- the talent trees work fine in fantasy as is.)

The problem (if you consider it one -- for this type of setting, which is also what I enjoy, this may be a desirable feature) is that spellcasting comes only with advanced classes, and not basic classes. With only ten levels (instead of twenty) of spellcasting class, you really only get up to 5th level spells.

 

[Magius del Cotto]

I'd say go with more flexibility over more classes. Every time I make a new character in D&D right now, I go with fighter simply because of how flexible the class is. I've gone through about a dozen fighters thus far, and they've all been different in some way. You really can't get that type of base variety in the other classes as things stand now in D&D, and I'd like to see something more along the lines of D20 Modern or Traveller20 (T20) class-wise, where the base classes are extremely flexible and the prestige classes are set up like the current classes in the skills they get.
That's just me, though. Not sure what anyone else would say to this.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, but whether or not that is a good thing is a debatable topic, really. In reality, people do not belong to "classes" as they are defined in d20, so it may not behoove everyone's character concept to fit into a narrowly defined class.

Yep, it's debatable.

In reality, people don't belong to classes (actually, depending on how you define classes, that's debatable, too). However, in reality, they dont throw fireballs, either. Fantasy role playing games aren't reality. Realism is good only up to the point where it's useful and entertaining. It is not a goal in and of itself, IMHO.

Perhaps it doesn't behoove everyone's character to be fit into classes. But also perhaps it doesn't behoove a game to have just any old kind of character in it. There's something to be said for classes in that they help assure that you've got something viable for an action-oriented game.

And characters that grow organically, like real people, need to be multiclassed basic characters, much like in d20 Modern.

Haven't seen d20 Modern, so I cannot speak to that. The barrier to multiclassing in D&D is pretty low. There's little prohibiting you from "growing organically" right now.

 

[Desdichado]

I agree. And like you said, it really depends on the genre you are trying to emulate. Although many folks around here pish-posh the idea of introducing an element of "realism" into the game, I think a better term would be "verisimilitude." The illusion of realism, within the bounds of the campaign world rules. Although my settings are fantasy, I like them to be "realistic" and believable, even when they're also being fantastic and impossible.

But, as you say, that's a decision of taste. It's certainly not necessary for all games. However, as the question posed assumed that flexibility either through extremely flexible classes or through easy multi-classing into a variety of basic classes was a taste decision that was already made, it's a given that the archetypes represented by traditional RPG class structure probably isn't desirable at this time.

 

[Umbran]

Although many folks around here pish-posh the idea of introducing an element of "realism" into the game, I think a better term would be "verisimilitude."

I think dividing between "realism" and "verisimilitude" is a decent idea in gaming. I don't pish-posh on realism. I think there must be a certain level of realism iin the game in order for the players to have a grasp on the world. If the world is too unrealistic, it ceases to be functional.

My gripe is with quibbling points of realism. It isn't particularly rational to get a tizzy over how "unrealistic" a particular portion of the game is. Changing one part of the game won't significantly increase the level of "realism" if you leave many other glaringly unrealistic things in it.

From my own experience, though, gripes about the level of restriction in the D&D class system aren't so much about "realism" or "verisimilitude" as they are about tolerance of compromise.

However, as the question posed assumed that flexibility either through extremely flexible classes or through easy multi-classing into a variety of basic classes was a taste decision that was already made, it's a given that the archetypes represented by traditional RPG class structure probably isn't desirable at this time.

Yes, but then why pick a game that has such at it's root?

Gamers, for some odd reason, tend to forget the old adage, "Use the right tool for the job". We tend to try to make hammers into screwdrivers. We'd rather undertake a major reworking of a system than take a look to see if maybe there's a system that better fits our needs.

I am not against house rules - add a little here, tweak a little there. I've done it many times. However, whenever you realize that in order to make the system do what you want you need to largely retool one of it's major underpinnings, it's perhaps time to look around for another system. Not because a game system is somehow holy and must remain pristine, but because it's just plain easier.

There are lots of games out there. Why keep re-inventing the wheel? Why cobble together a system you know darn well you cannot playtest adequately, when someone has already created something along the lines of what you want?

 

[2WS-Steve]

My vote is with many flexible classes (er, so it's a bit wishy-washy...)

Classes provide a nice cohesion and allow a bit of rule-breaking in how you put them together that a broadly flexible class or point-based system doesn't have. By having many classes with 25 or so options, only one of which may be taken per level for ten levels, you provide enough flexibility that players will feel that the class reflects their particular tastes while allowing you to do do some of the nifty customizing tricks that work best in a class-based system.

You can also look at the way FFG's Path-of books effectively turn a smaller list of abilities into a large list of abilities in their Legendary Classes section.