My favorite system of all time: HERO.
#2 on that list: 3.5Ed D&D.
Classed vs classless isn't even a decision point for me.
#2 on that list: 3.5Ed D&D.
Classed vs classless isn't even a decision point for me.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
To Class or not to Class...
- Thread starter Iota
- Start date
I used to be all about the classless, point-based systems. Over the years, however, I've come to feel that classed systems are vastly superior if you intend to have a large power scale (the "zero-to-hero" approach), and that in general the benefits of classless are over-hyped.
Given a set of design elements, 95 percent of players will build characters who follow a handful of obvious archetypes, and you end up with a de facto class system anyhow. I ran a GURPS Fantasy game a while back, and what I got was a bunch of fighters, wizards, and rogues pretending to be one-of-a-kind point-based snowflakes.
Given a set of design elements, 95 percent of players will build characters who follow a handful of obvious archetypes, and you end up with a de facto class system anyhow. I ran a GURPS Fantasy game a while back, and what I got was a bunch of fighters, wizards, and rogues pretending to be one-of-a-kind point-based snowflakes.
David Howery
Hero
I've never tried a classless system, but they seem more logical for more modern/future setting games, provided that there are limits on what skills a person can learn ("Hi, I'm Bob, and my character is a mechanic/doctor/lawyer/Green Beret"). For D&D and the like, I rather liked the class system, mainly because it saddled a character with both advantages and disadvantages...
So you draw the line at Military Snipers/TV Show hosts/PHD's? Or singer/Forensic Linguists? What about guitarist/CIA Missile Tech consultants?
Ruth Westheimer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sha Na Na - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jeff Baxter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Barry Sheck of the Innocence project is an MD and Lawyer.
Brian May just got his PHD in Astrophysics last year.
Heck- in an hour, I'm going to a class in Family Mediation taught by a guy who is a former Navy pilot with dual PHDs from Oxford (one in Law, one in Psychology), and undergrad degrees in Sociology and Biology.
Truth is, the modern world allows more and more people the leeway to indulge in/dabble in all kinds of things. The modern human in a modern society is probably more likely to be proficient in a broader range of non-related skills than people of past generations.
Last edited:
Ed_Laprade
Adventurer
I've always prefered the Jack-of-All-Trades type of character, so classless for me. (3.x style multiclassing you say? No thanks, that's getting the worst of both worlds. Unless, maybe, you start at mid level.) But then, I've never been terribly bothered by things not being entirely balanced.
Argyle King
Legend
I prefer classless.
However, I'll also say that I prefer classless to also be level-less.
However, I'll also say that I prefer classless to also be level-less.
David Howery
Hero
I was referring more to the practice of 'cherry picking' useful skills in a game. In real life, sure, you could probably find someone who's knowledgable about mechanics, medicine, law, and a Green Beret to boot, but the odds are that he'd be really good at only one of those, and have a passing knowledge of the rest...
howandwhy99
Adventurer
For reality puzzle games class is game scope. The complexity of the puzzle game for the player performing the class is numerically listed in class experience needed to become more and more proficient in it. The higher the complexity / difficulty, the higher the number. Sub-classes are more narrow scopes relatively more or less within the primary class. Prestige classes are more highly defined classes taken after basic classes are satisfied to a certain degree. When a threshold of proficiency is reached, all of the abilities of the class emerge into a more functional whole and all the abilities increase for the class. Taking another class is easy, but multi-classing means starting the other at the beginning: level 1. Players can and often explore outside of their class scope, but they are simply exploring another class and will not receive experience points for within the chosen class they have declared to focus on for the game (or game session for mult-iclassers).
So there are people who are scientists and as a class it has a high level of difficulty in improving as a scientist. Other people may choose a sub-specialty like medicine, but the skills don't overlap completely with scientific practices. Some scientists of great ability later choose to switch to a prestige or later stage focus like astronaut, but no one begins as an astronaut without becoming a good scientist or another profession first. When the threshold of learning a number of actions in synchronicity is reached, the abilities of each become easier and a higher level. A pitcher learning how to stand, swing their arm, hold the ball, and manipulate their body to pitch is improving on working all in unison. How granular this advancement is depends on how granular one's view of the process is. Multi-classing is similar. Everyone is proficient in many scopes, but a person's professional scope is usually fairly high. Of course there are many people with a high degree of proficiency in many areas like a doctor/lawyer/teacher, but we don't typically include shoe tyer among these. Its about where we draw the line for when the ability is complex enough to be a significant benefit to others as well as one's self. Lastly, people act outside of their class scope all the time, but don't expect to become improve at them when they do. If one' doesn't exercise, will they become bad at it or at least not improve.
So there are people who are scientists and as a class it has a high level of difficulty in improving as a scientist. Other people may choose a sub-specialty like medicine, but the skills don't overlap completely with scientific practices. Some scientists of great ability later choose to switch to a prestige or later stage focus like astronaut, but no one begins as an astronaut without becoming a good scientist or another profession first. When the threshold of learning a number of actions in synchronicity is reached, the abilities of each become easier and a higher level. A pitcher learning how to stand, swing their arm, hold the ball, and manipulate their body to pitch is improving on working all in unison. How granular this advancement is depends on how granular one's view of the process is. Multi-classing is similar. Everyone is proficient in many scopes, but a person's professional scope is usually fairly high. Of course there are many people with a high degree of proficiency in many areas like a doctor/lawyer/teacher, but we don't typically include shoe tyer among these. Its about where we draw the line for when the ability is complex enough to be a significant benefit to others as well as one's self. Lastly, people act outside of their class scope all the time, but don't expect to become improve at them when they do. If one' doesn't exercise, will they become bad at it or at least not improve.
Well, first, I really don't see a distinction between skills being "useful" or not- it really depends upon the PC and the campaign.
As to the second part, most classless systems take this into account by making skill improvement as much a limited resource as feats are in D&D. In HERO, for instance, you have to spend character build points to improve skills...or powers, or stats. So you may be über skilled, but you may not have all that much in the way of survivability.
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
I designed my RPG to be a classless, level-based fantasy RPG (so I guess my preference is clear).
Similar Threads
