Where do we go now...

[Scribble]

So in 1 I remember the bard was built by sort of multiclassing other classes. The ranger too I think right?

In 2e we had kits. In 3e we had prestige classes, and in 4e we have paragon paths, character builds, and now multiclass feat builds (like the gladiator...)

Seems like in every edition there's a way to "modify" base classes to creat something more to what you envisioned in your head.

My question is what do you think should motivate a designers to choose one path or the other? Anything?

Say for instance an asian themed book comes out, and we now want a Samuri. Should it be a new class? A new build for the fighter? A multiclass path?

What are your thoughts? Why choose one over the other when building the class?

 

[Voadam]

So in 1 I remember the bard was built by sort of multiclassing other classes. The ranger too I think right?

Nope, in 1e AD&D the ranger was its own class, just with spells from both druids and MUs.

You are right on the bard, it was a wierd fighter thief druid mulitclass prereq before you could actually be a bard.

1e and 2e had multiclassing (demi-humans) and switch classing (humans) as well for customization away from single classed characters.

 

[Scribble]

Nope, in 1e AD&D the ranger was its own class, just with spells from both druids and MUs.

You are right on the bard, it was a wierd fighter thief druid mulitclass prereq before you could actually be a bard.

1e and 2e had multiclassing (demi-humans) and switch classing (humans) as well for customization away from single classed characters.

Right I couldn't remember on the ranger. It's been a while since I looked at the 1e classes.

 

[Jack7]

My question is what do you think should motivate a designers to choose one path or the other? Anything?

I think it is an interesting question Scrib for two separate but related reasons.

First of all I like encapsulated, well defined, classical and archetypal characters, like the original Wizard, Paladin, Cleric, etc. But I also recognize that the game must adapt as time goes on and that more and more things in our world are becoming programmable, and that they appeal to different individuals because they are "easily programmable," meaning they are also easy to customize and individualize. Things that are easily "programmable" are popular to the modern mind, and are flexible and also powerful in many ways, and that's the way I think characters should be designed for future development. It's the way I'm designing character classes (professions) for the Conjunction contest. There will be a "base class," and then you can program in other attributes as your career develops. Because a game class is really a profession, not a class at all.

To use an analogy think of a modern soldier. You start out as a grunt, become a specialist and then later on can become Special Forces, a Paratrooper, enter an air wing, go into Intel, or even add on other related skills such as law enforcement capabilities and skills, investigative skills, survival skills, general abilities, or even stuff like thieving skills. Many soldiers learn infiltration and surreptitious entry skills for information retrieval, counter-terrorism and for hunting down drug cartel members. Same for fighters, or Rangers, who would excel with certain infiltration skill add-ons.

There will also be classless types. So you can start out with a general base then go in any direction you like, or start out classless and then "concentrate." Plus I'll allow Skill Suites, and even Capability Suites, such as Vadding, or Survival Suites that are open to any and all classes. (I like some of the 4E class designs in this way, for what they imply about class crossover flexibility.) Imagine a Cleric who wants to learn to manhunt. He can learn this from a Ranger he pays to teach him. He may never be as good as the Ranger because he has other things he must also do, but he can learn to do so if he is interested, and he can practice and become better at it. He can become a Renaissance character, not just limited to "clerical stuff." If he wishes he can also multi-class. So you'd have three or more options in how to proceed with your career. You could take Base, and then program it, take Classless and then devise as you go along, or take Multiclass.

But I think all in all that every character type should be programmable in some way, though I think 4E took a big and good step in that detection. It's not what I'm imagining but it's in the right direction. It's the trend of the modern world, and the overall mind-set of the modern world.

The second reason the question is interesting is change. The modern world is full of change and career adaptation. I think character classes and races and so forth ought to change over time. They did historically anyways. And programmable and flexible character types and classes that are open to change over time just make for better classes. So if classes are programmable then they are open to easy modification and then are flexible when it comes to change, either in-game change, or market desire change.

Now that doesn't mean you can't have classical archetypes, it just means they become more flexible over time and that individual interpretations of them become much more flexible in general.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My question is what do you think should motivate a designers to choose one path or the other? Anything?

Say for instance an asian themed book comes out, and we now want a Samuri. Should it be a new class? A new build for the fighter? A multiclass path?

What are your thoughts? Why choose one over the other when building the class?

It depends on the size of the concept and the design goals.

That samurai could be a lot of different things, depending on their vision of it. It could be a build. It could be a path. It could just be a re-fluffed core class.

A full class should be used for any archetypal, character-defining sort of role. In addition, classes sell books, and so there should be a tendancy toward making new classes over other things. They take up a lot of page count, but since they'll be one of the big selling points, that's probably OK.

So Samurai, being a big archetype, should be its own class, and then should have its own builds (a charismatic "court member" samurai, and perhaps a tough dual-wielding "musashi" samurai), its own paragon paths (ronin, mounted knight, katana-fu-fencer, etc.), its own powers and features.

Probably.

But it could be other things. For instance, if the Coasties determine that the "Asia-themed-book" has space all rented out with the Ninja, and they can't spare the page count for its less-meme-worthy kin, they might demote it.

Certainly as it sits, "rogue" is just "martial ninja" by another name anyway.

 

[delericho]

My question is what do you think should motivate a designers to choose one path or the other? Anything?

Say for instance an asian themed book comes out, and we now want a Samuri. Should it be a new class? A new build for the fighter? A multiclass path?

At some point during the 3.5e era, probably just before "Complete Adventurer" was published, WotC decided (probably correctly) that people didn't want to run a Rogue/Ranger/Sorcerer and call it a ninja, they wanted a Ninja class. As such, if and when Oriental Adventures 4e is released, the Samurai will be a new class (Ki powered Defender?), despite that the Samurai can be viewed as a reflavoured Knight, which itself is arguably little more than a Fighter with a particular skill and feat selection (at least in 3e).

What are your thoughts? Why choose one over the other when building the class?

I'm greedy - I'll have as many ways to customise my characters as the game can support. In 3e, this means feat selections, multiclassing, Prestige Classes, Substitute levels, alternate class features, and whatever else is out there. (In 4e, the list of methods is somewhat shorter, partly because the scope for modification via powers is so much greater, and partly because the game is quite new.)

 

[Aus_Snow]

What are your thoughts? Why choose one over the other when building the class?

Personally, I believe that having more than three classes is truly unnecessary, even should you want to allow any given character type. In fact, I prefer no classes at all - total freedom to shape characters how you want to, from fluff through to crunch.

But, in order to pump out tons of books and hopefully make lots of dosh, well yeah, go more and more. . . and more and more. . . classes. There is generally a market for them, it seems. So, why not, from a business perspective anyhow.

That's actually the only 'virtue' I can see for that approach.

But anyway, for D&D (or something similar), I recommend having anything from two to four classes, and sticking with the number you start with. Build on each of them as needed, 'refluff' liberally, and enjoy!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You don't really need classes to churn out new books!

Look at GURPS or Shadowrun.

What you need is books with new character options. Classes are just a neat shorthand.

 

[Scribble]

Personally, I believe that having more than three classes is truly unnecessary, even should you want to allow any given character type. In fact, I prefer no classes at all - total freedom to shape characters how you want to, from fluff through to crunch.

The issue I've seen with classless systems is that once the "optimizers" get involved it turns out there really ARE classes in the game. There are always certain powers that work "best" together.... Unfortunately this ends up with people having things like magical robotic monkies with angel wings and vampire teeth that can use psionics, in a game about WWII fighter pilots..

This hurts the people that want a semi "believable" world...

So we have class based systems that kind of help "lock" a concept into place We have pilot classes, mechanics, soldiers, and their powers all enforce the idea of WWII fighter pilots...

But this hurts the optimizer's fun because there's not enough to tinker with.

So we have games like 3e and 4e that start with a class based system to reinforce a coherent "theme" but put in lots of parts the optimizers can tinker with.

 

[Aus_Snow]

The issue I've seen with classless systems is that once the "optimizers" get involved it turns out there really ARE classes in the game. There are always certain powers that work "best" together.... Unfortunately this ends up with people having things like magical robotic monkies with angel wings and vampire teeth that can use psionics, in a game about WWII fighter pilots..

This hurts the people that want a semi "believable" world...

Wow! Sounds terrible.

And it really doesn't come even remotely close to my own experiences using classless systems, even in those campaigns that have included some 'optimiser' types.

But anyway, like I more or less said before, for a class-based system (e.g., D&D) I've found that fewer is better, to at least the 3 to 4 area; hell, maybe even just 2. It keeps it cleaner, simpler, and generally speaking, faster. But you can still have all the options, all that crunchy goodness, to the extent that you want them for any particular style of game.

And don't get me wrong - I've had plenty of fun with D&D, and other class systems. In fact, I still play them sometimes, to this day. And wil continue to do so, it's highly likely. So yeah, I can put up with the lesser alternative , even if some of the damnably arbitrary restrictions and categorisations are bound to bug me from time to time.