Mixing class abilities in a class based system: Does this defeat the purpose?

[Celebrim]

I agree with the OP that free multiclassing defeats the purpose of a class-based system.

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] listed five possible reasons for using classes. IMO each of them is defeated by being able to multiclass freely.

Well, despite the fact I'm mentioned, I don't agree.

"a) Easy to grasp archetypes or roles." - If I can multiclass freely, at some point the resulting characters won't resemble easy to grasp archetypes or roles. However, this doesn't defeat the original purpose. Nothing is forcing people to multiclass, and the easy to grasp easily entered archetypes and roles are still there and still available to those that want them. Multiclassing is a more advanced player behavior, and presumably those that attempt it do so only after having gained some experience with the system.

"b) High balance between classes." - If I can multiclass freely, the result is by no means guaranteed to be markedly weaker or stronger than single-classing assuming we've a reasonably well constructed system. If you feel otherwise, then let me suggest that your experience with multiclassing is being unfairly colored by experience with 3.5 D&D. However, if you examine the problem I think you'll find that it's not multiclassing that breaks the balance between classes, but two things - low balance between spellcasting and non-spellcasting classes, and prestige classes that were unfortunately never designed to be balanced in the first place. The big problems in 3.5 were things like poor play testing at high levels of the initial system, PrCs, and poor overall playtesting of splat books as they were introduced. None of that had anything to do with multi-classing, as classes like Druid was broken even solo-classed in 3.5.

"c) Enforced character breadth." - If I multiclass a class with high enforced character breadth to another with high enforced character breadth, the result is still high enforced character breadth. The culprit in 3.5 is once again - Prestige Classes. The huge amounts of PrCs that were published to generate sales of books meant that for any given concept there were usually 3-5 variant PrCs that overlapped the concept. So sure, under such circumstances you dip 3-5 classes with overlapping theme to produce very narrow characters with single really powerful tricks. But that's not a problem with multiclassing itself, but rather with the PrC concept combined with conscious willful destruction of game balance by the publishers for the sake of selling books.

"d) Regular predictable progression of abilities." - If I multiclass in the 3.X style, then I'm still a 5th level character regardless of what classes I took. I have a predictable number of HD and predictable maximum abilities, and a predictable range of attack bonuses, defenses, skill ranks, and so forth. Therefore the original goal is not defeated. This is actually a bigger problem in 1e style multiclassing/dual classing, which produced highly unpredictable combinations of abilities and levels for a given amount of XP.

"e) Easy mix and match to the desired setting." - If it was easy to select a subset of archetypes available to characters in a setting, then presumably the combinations of these roles to a large extent also fit the setting. Afterall, even in a setting with well defined roles, not everyone is going to have a simple life story but could be forced through circumstance, luck, divine intervention, and sudden change of social class to change roles.

 

[howandwhy99]

Classes are the one feature which make role playing games role playing games. Choosing a class is choosing the sphere of activity both you and your character will advance in through play. Core classes are designed to fulfill all areas of each one of these classes. Subclasses allow players to customize, cross over, get flexible, and have their own unique class part of the campaign world.

(In fact, someone sort of just added Chaos Rangers to one of the games I'm in yesterday. Which may color the game nicely.)

Classes aren't groups of ability stats, but certain stats apply more or less overtly to certain game systems. The confusion is the powers and checks mechanics currently en vogue. These don't readily apply to creating a role playing game, one where class ability by players matters. But it is popular and fun. In the cases of games like those classes are largely as irrelevant as to characters. Both grouping are arbitrary.

 

[Grydan]

Classes are the one feature which make role playing games role playing games.

Given the existence of role-playing games that do not use class systems, this is clearly incorrect.

If there is truly a single feature that we can point to that sets role-playing games apart from all other games, I would think it rather obvious that that feature is 'role-playing' (an activity that can indeed be aided by the use of classes, but which is not contingent upon it).

 

[Umbran]

Classes are the one feature which make role playing games role playing games.

You want to rethink that statement? 'Cause the run, and Deadlands game I currently Shadowrun game I'm starting up don't have classes. You want to try to tell me they aren't RPGs?

 

[howandwhy99]

Given the existence of role-playing games that do not use class systems, this is clearly incorrect.

If there is truly a single feature that we can point to that sets role-playing games apart from all other games, I would think it rather obvious that that feature is 'role-playing' (an activity that can indeed be aided by the use of classes, but which is not contingent upon it).

role playing was never about performing a fictional personality until the 80s. Roleplaying doesn't require pretending. It simply requires performing a social role. IOW, why D&D was called a role playing game and not a theater or storytelling game. Character isn't the focus of the game and not necessary to the it or role playing, at least in D&D.

You want to rethink that statement? 'Cause the run, and Deadlands game I currently Shadowrun game I'm starting up don't have classes. You want to try to tell me they aren't RPGs?

Given the decade long feud between GURPS and D&D about how GURPS wasn't a role playing game and how the term was acquiring more definitions... I'll stand by what I said. But I respect others definitions even though those games would be better titled storygames or something else, if only for the sake of clarity.

 

[Li Shenron]

D&D has always been a classed based system, but 3rd edition began introducing abilities from classes that other classes could take. From then on we have seen class abilities being crossed with other classes and I feel this defeats the purpose of having a class based system if every other class can take abilities from other classes. One of the things I don't like with Pathfinder is other classes, such as the Magus, are able to take Fighter only feats. I would like for 5th edition to keep abilities tied to the specific classes they were designed for, in my opinion, I think this keeps classes unique.

My thoughts in a nutshell:

- archetypes are an excellent gaming aid, both as a starting point for character creation and for fantasy world building

- a player can use archetypes for example:
(a) because she's a beginner and wants to start with an iconic character
(b) as a starting point for more complex character design (either at the beginning of the game, or later on)
(c) as a refreshing start after playing another type of character
(d) to test out the features and feel of a new edition

- a DM can leverage on archetypes for world building, for example by making them corresponding to precise roles in society or even factions, creating organizations etc.

- D&D has traditionally used classes to represent archetypes, but other elements of the game served a similar purpose (e.g. alignment), and 5e is introducing even more options for framing archetypes, most notably backgrounds and subclasses but in a sense also some of the new large feats can do so

- niche protection is just a design paradigm to ensure that archetypes are strong enough on its own, and as such it's a good thing

- the downside of archetypes is that if they are enforced hard by the rules, advanced players will feel restricted in either their narrative or tactical character design choices

- a smart RPG game finds a nice compromise in providing archetypes as first-degree choice (i.e. presented up-front as the fastest, easiest, more natural or "default" choice), and tools to go beyond the limits as second-degree choice (i.e. presented as optional rules or at least in later chapters so that they feel like an advanced option): this is IMHO the best approach possible

- such best approach must be however supported more or less equally for all archetypes, otherwise it will feel unfair: e.g. if the Wizard can take Fighter features but the opposite is not true (as in core 3e), then the overall idea IMHO fails

 

[pickin_grinnin]

role playing was never about performing a fictional personality until the 80s. Roleplaying doesn't require pretending. It simply requires performing a social role. IOW, why D&D was called a role playing game and not a theater or storytelling game. Character isn't the focus of the game and not necessary to the it or role playing, at least in D&D.

I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from, but everyone I knew who played D&D in the early days (white box one) was "performing a fictional personality" with their characters.