To Class or not to Class...
Scribble
First Post
I prefer class based systems. (My preference comes from the DM side of things)
Inevitably with classless there is always some combination of skills/powers that is the most optimized, and power gamer types end up gravitating towards them.
This essentially makes it a class based system anyway, just in disguise.
If the designers recognize this they tend to gear everything towards these combos, and those that don't meet those expectations don't measure up, making it harder to run the game for a diversified group.
To further confound things (especially when the designers don't account for the hidden classes) they also tend to have many more pitfalls that the power gamers can use to their advantage to become "uber powerful" which also ends up being a nightmare at the table with basically a class based system, but the classes are whacked out combinations of powers with no thought aside from a + here and there.
I find these issues less prominent in games where the combination of powers etc, are already bundled by classes.
Games like 3e and 4e try to split the difference, but still fall prone to some of the above pitfalls, as new unitended combos/classes are built exploited etc... Thus all the errata.
IF gaming with a group that 1. wants rules to represent every aspect of their character, and 2. Aren't power gamers; classeless systems can be useful.
In my history of running games I've come across more power gamers angry that they can't "customize" (aka dominate) then non power gamers, which sways my taste towards class based because it will inevitably cause me less of a headache at the table.
Your experience may vary.
Inevitably with classless there is always some combination of skills/powers that is the most optimized, and power gamer types end up gravitating towards them.
This essentially makes it a class based system anyway, just in disguise.
If the designers recognize this they tend to gear everything towards these combos, and those that don't meet those expectations don't measure up, making it harder to run the game for a diversified group.
To further confound things (especially when the designers don't account for the hidden classes) they also tend to have many more pitfalls that the power gamers can use to their advantage to become "uber powerful" which also ends up being a nightmare at the table with basically a class based system, but the classes are whacked out combinations of powers with no thought aside from a + here and there.
I find these issues less prominent in games where the combination of powers etc, are already bundled by classes.
Games like 3e and 4e try to split the difference, but still fall prone to some of the above pitfalls, as new unitended combos/classes are built exploited etc... Thus all the errata.
IF gaming with a group that 1. wants rules to represent every aspect of their character, and 2. Aren't power gamers; classeless systems can be useful.
In my history of running games I've come across more power gamers angry that they can't "customize" (aka dominate) then non power gamers, which sways my taste towards class based because it will inevitably cause me less of a headache at the table.
Your experience may vary.
WizarDru
Adventurer
There was a time when I preferred Class-based. Then one day I discovered GURPS. That became our game system of choice. This was in 1986. 
It remained our system of choice until 3E came out and pulled my group back in to the fold. But one reason I liked 3E is that it appeared to take the elements I liked from D&D and the elements I liked from a system like GURPS and combine them.
I believe each method has their own advantages and disadvantages and my preference would be based, in part, on the type of game and campaign to play. Class-based systems can allow for archetypes AND allow for diversification of individual characters at the same time (compare a sword-and-board fighter to a great-sword wielder, for example).
Classless systems can allow for excellent and diverse character concepts, while class-based systems can allow for well-realized archetypes. A classless system requires much more work to balance in terms of character generation, IMHO, while a class-based system can lead to characters have little individuality. But only if those systems aren't designed well. I have seen example of both good and bad design on both sides of the aisle.
Me, I just care about having fun. And I have had a lot of fun under both.
It remained our system of choice until 3E came out and pulled my group back in to the fold. But one reason I liked 3E is that it appeared to take the elements I liked from D&D and the elements I liked from a system like GURPS and combine them.I believe each method has their own advantages and disadvantages and my preference would be based, in part, on the type of game and campaign to play. Class-based systems can allow for archetypes AND allow for diversification of individual characters at the same time (compare a sword-and-board fighter to a great-sword wielder, for example).
Classless systems can allow for excellent and diverse character concepts, while class-based systems can allow for well-realized archetypes. A classless system requires much more work to balance in terms of character generation, IMHO, while a class-based system can lead to characters have little individuality. But only if those systems aren't designed well. I have seen example of both good and bad design on both sides of the aisle.
Me, I just care about having fun. And I have had a lot of fun under both.
Wombat
First Post
When I started with rpgs, classes were pretty much the only option; then came RuneQuest. Since that time I have generally preferred classless systems, but I can go back and forth, especially in the class-based system allows for serious customization and flexibility -- this is why I came back to D&D with 3e; the classes felt like guidelines, rather than straitjackets.
Skill based classless levelless systems are my choice. Heavy Gear 2e (not silouette, that is a good example of a skill based system gone too complex), and WEG Star Wars are my favorites.
It does depend alot on the genre tho, I do prefer D&D for its ease of play and run for a fantasy game more that a skill based system. I intensely dislike SF or modern with a level/class base system. The only reason I play SAGA is that it is Star Wars. If it werent Star Wars, there is no chance I would use the system.
I dont see an issue with optimization. It is as much a problem in a level system as in a skill system, and the it should be handled the same way.
It does depend alot on the genre tho, I do prefer D&D for its ease of play and run for a fantasy game more that a skill based system. I intensely dislike SF or modern with a level/class base system. The only reason I play SAGA is that it is Star Wars. If it werent Star Wars, there is no chance I would use the system.
I dont see an issue with optimization. It is as much a problem in a level system as in a skill system, and the it should be handled the same way.
Jack7
First Post
Actually I use both systems in my D&D setting. A character may be classless if he so desires, or he may take on the modified classes that are normal for my particular setting.
He or she may also multiclass or be dual classed, or he may take on particular class skills or even capabilties of different classes if he can find someone to train him and he devotes serious time, effort, and expense to follow his training.
As for other games we play generally we use classless characters and this is especially true the closer the game setting gets to modern times and real life.
However some military and other professions in our more modern games, and games taking place in the future have professions that in some ways mimic fantasy “classes,” which are really professions anyway, more than typical social status or nobility classes.
I see classes in fantasy gaming as being more a function of setting background and what might be called “flavor” by modern gamers, because the Class Ideal better suits the historical associations of that particular period of time and how those types of societies operated, than as a real reflection of either actual character limitations or capabilities.
He or she may also multiclass or be dual classed, or he may take on particular class skills or even capabilties of different classes if he can find someone to train him and he devotes serious time, effort, and expense to follow his training.
As for other games we play generally we use classless characters and this is especially true the closer the game setting gets to modern times and real life.
However some military and other professions in our more modern games, and games taking place in the future have professions that in some ways mimic fantasy “classes,” which are really professions anyway, more than typical social status or nobility classes.
I see classes in fantasy gaming as being more a function of setting background and what might be called “flavor” by modern gamers, because the Class Ideal better suits the historical associations of that particular period of time and how those types of societies operated, than as a real reflection of either actual character limitations or capabilities.
For me, it depends strongly on the style of the system in question.
If it's, generally, strongly focused on overcoming challenges (combat and non combat) with use of game mechanics, then balance and niche protection become important. In such case, classes and levels are useful. Optimally, there should be no multiclassing (or maybe a vary limited version), because it increases the number of potentially abusive combinations that need to be playtested by degrees of magnitude.
In games focused on certain genres, classes are a good way of enforcing genre-appropriate archetypes. So, classes without levels in this case.
In games focused more on simulation or story, a flexibility of character creation and, even more so, character evolution during the game, becomes crucial. Classes are counterproductive in this case - either players are artificially constrained, or flexible multiclassing is added, making the system more complicated and abusable than a pointbuy.
If it's, generally, strongly focused on overcoming challenges (combat and non combat) with use of game mechanics, then balance and niche protection become important. In such case, classes and levels are useful. Optimally, there should be no multiclassing (or maybe a vary limited version), because it increases the number of potentially abusive combinations that need to be playtested by degrees of magnitude.
In games focused on certain genres, classes are a good way of enforcing genre-appropriate archetypes. So, classes without levels in this case.
In games focused more on simulation or story, a flexibility of character creation and, even more so, character evolution during the game, becomes crucial. Classes are counterproductive in this case - either players are artificially constrained, or flexible multiclassing is added, making the system more complicated and abusable than a pointbuy.
Desdichado
Hero
Tend to prefer classless games, generally, although I tend to play and run class-based games. Classed games come with the benefit that they give you stuff you may not have thought of. By that I mean that the conceit of classless systems is that they allow you to build your fully realized character concept exactly the way you want to. But in reality, my character concepts are usually more vague rather than fully realized, and the class system allows me some shorthand to fill in other aspects of character design that were beyond my vague impression of what the character was.
This comes with the caveat that I despise class based systems where there isn't any flexibility to customize the outcome, or enough classes where you feel like you're constrained and unable to make the character that you want to. By and large, I feel most modern class using games have managed to avoid this pitfall though. D&D 3e and 3.5, for example, eventually released lots of optional classes, either through third party sources or additional splatbooks, that I never feel like I can't build the character I want unless GMs intentionally limit options that are out there. d20 Modern made classes that were very flexible and were more about helping fill in mechanics rather than driving character concept, at least until you got to the more archetypical advanced classes. I think I may actually prefer that approach to any other.
This comes with the caveat that I despise class based systems where there isn't any flexibility to customize the outcome, or enough classes where you feel like you're constrained and unable to make the character that you want to. By and large, I feel most modern class using games have managed to avoid this pitfall though. D&D 3e and 3.5, for example, eventually released lots of optional classes, either through third party sources or additional splatbooks, that I never feel like I can't build the character I want unless GMs intentionally limit options that are out there. d20 Modern made classes that were very flexible and were more about helping fill in mechanics rather than driving character concept, at least until you got to the more archetypical advanced classes. I think I may actually prefer that approach to any other.
Classes for me, please.
Well, more accurately, "Base classes, please."
Give me an array of say anywhere from 4 ("fighter, cleric, magic-use, thief" a la B/X, BECMI and really, by extention, AD&D is you think of things like "druid, assassin, ranger", et al. to be sub-classes) up to...maybe...10 or 12 (if you want to consider "barbarian, druid, specialist mages," etc... their own Base class).
Adding in "Prestige/Specialty classes" is a slippery slope, imo. With the, literal libraries full of classes from splatbooks, alternate systems, homebrews found online or magazine articles, even movie or tv characters providing inspiration, allowing players these kinds of individual "classes" can really bog down the gameworld.
And, for someone like me, who works his games into a long-crafted, well-developed world setting...doing so would just wreak havoc with the world's internal consistency. I have a few I honebrewed myself. But generally, for beginning players I like to keep it to the 12 "traditional" I use.
Obviously, it's completely a DM-by-DM/Group-by-group preference, and if you're willing to crack those floodgates, that is entirely your prerogative.
But seems to me, if you can't find/mold/create/build a character concept you want when given up-to-a-dozen classes, then you're just not trying.
I recall one...not "argument", but let's say "discussion" with a player who wanted to play a "bounty-hunter vampire-slayer" type character (it was some time ago. I suspect shortly after the movie "Van Helsing" came out...2003? -04?).
Went a lil' somethin' like this...
Player: "I want to be a vampire-slayer."
DM (moi): "Sure. No problem. You could be a Ranger, or a Rogue, maybe. Even just a Fighter. Then work in [x-y-z] skills/proficiencies. You could totally be that."
Player: "But I want to be a vampire-slayer." <blank look.>
DM: <rubs temples> "You have x-number [I don't recall what was officially "on the table" back them] classes to choose from. Start with one of those and we'll go from there."
Needless to say "vampire-slayer" (as it's own class) never became an option in my games/world.
After a few pout-y sessions, all of which included at least one, "but if I was a vampire-slayer like I wanted, I could have blah, blah, blah" comment, the PC died (maybe by player choice, I don't know) and the player left the game. (I believe he'd started as a ranger -WHO, I might add, I do remember allowing to take "vampire" as his chosen foe instead of one of the "giant/humanoid races" from the list).
But I digress.
The point is, Yes, I like classes. I use classes. And I think everyone at the table (or almost everyone) benefits from having classes as a starting framework...especially beginner/new players.
Have fun and happy gaming.
--Steel Dragons
Well, more accurately, "Base classes, please."
Give me an array of say anywhere from 4 ("fighter, cleric, magic-use, thief" a la B/X, BECMI and really, by extention, AD&D is you think of things like "druid, assassin, ranger", et al. to be sub-classes) up to...maybe...10 or 12 (if you want to consider "barbarian, druid, specialist mages," etc... their own Base class).
Adding in "Prestige/Specialty classes" is a slippery slope, imo. With the, literal libraries full of classes from splatbooks, alternate systems, homebrews found online or magazine articles, even movie or tv characters providing inspiration, allowing players these kinds of individual "classes" can really bog down the gameworld.
And, for someone like me, who works his games into a long-crafted, well-developed world setting...doing so would just wreak havoc with the world's internal consistency. I have a few I honebrewed myself. But generally, for beginning players I like to keep it to the 12 "traditional" I use.
Obviously, it's completely a DM-by-DM/Group-by-group preference, and if you're willing to crack those floodgates, that is entirely your prerogative.
But seems to me, if you can't find/mold/create/build a character concept you want when given up-to-a-dozen classes, then you're just not trying.
I recall one...not "argument", but let's say "discussion" with a player who wanted to play a "bounty-hunter vampire-slayer" type character (it was some time ago. I suspect shortly after the movie "Van Helsing" came out...2003? -04?).
Went a lil' somethin' like this...
Player: "I want to be a vampire-slayer."
DM (moi): "Sure. No problem. You could be a Ranger, or a Rogue, maybe. Even just a Fighter. Then work in [x-y-z] skills/proficiencies. You could totally be that."
Player: "But I want to be a vampire-slayer." <blank look.>
DM: <rubs temples> "You have x-number [I don't recall what was officially "on the table" back them] classes to choose from. Start with one of those and we'll go from there."
Needless to say "vampire-slayer" (as it's own class) never became an option in my games/world.
After a few pout-y sessions, all of which included at least one, "but if I was a vampire-slayer like I wanted, I could have blah, blah, blah" comment, the PC died (maybe by player choice, I don't know) and the player left the game. (I believe he'd started as a ranger -WHO, I might add, I do remember allowing to take "vampire" as his chosen foe instead of one of the "giant/humanoid races" from the list).
But I digress.
The point is, Yes, I like classes. I use classes. And I think everyone at the table (or almost everyone) benefits from having classes as a starting framework...especially beginner/new players.
Have fun and happy gaming.
--Steel Dragons
Similar Threads
