Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Humanophile" data-source="post: 235551" data-attributes="member: 1049">Classed/classless is not a binary situation, it's a continum.  Although of the two, I'd prefer pure classed to pure classless.  But I think the class rules of 1e/2e show what happens when you take classes too far.  So Psion, realize that what you're defending isn't rigid classes here, but the class structure of 3e, which while nice, is far from perfect.I'll grant that classes impose balance and some sense of structure on your game, but on the other hand characters are properly rewarded for taking appropriately "batched" skills by the nature of reality; if you want to make a character who kills things, he's going to have both Shootin' BFG's and Pummel Things.  If you want a character who's a good cat burglar, you're going to want B&E skills, stealth, alertness, and hopefully running skills for when the excrement hits the rotary blade.  Having one skill but not others of its type really bottlenecks your character  (E.G:  A character with B&E skills but no stealth ones will have a hard time doing anything once he's actually inside.)  Psion, you say this is an advantage hard-coded into the class system, but of the 11 classes out there, only 4 even come close to giving you flexible archetype goals (Fighter, Sorcerer/Wizard, and Expert), while the rest come with baggage you may not want, from the rest range from small hiccups (most rogue-types will admittedly have a sneak attack like ability) to the logic-defying shoehorning of certain abilities with classes (see many complaints on the ranger/monk/cleric for ideas here).  To me, the more a class system forces you to play the archetype/stereotype instead of your ideal (power-scaled appropriately, of course), the more I just want to chuck the whole thing.My other problem with classes, is that in order for a system to be properly called Classed, it either has to permanently restrict/impede a character's advancement opportunities (at best making the guy who chose to enter game as a fighter but spent the last 20 years of his character's life as an archivist have to spend more points on scholarly-type skills than on hacking things to bits skills, at worst mirroring the excesses of a 2e [your wizard can never learn how to wield a long sword] or Palladium systems [where who you are at level one pretty much determines the rest of your life]), or else are forced into a 3e style of staggered class-granting (in which case, you have the illogic of only learning things at certain times, of learning too much at one go, and of learning things that may not come along with the "package" you want.  One of the most illogical things to me in 3e is that if you're shipwrecked and don't know the native's language, you have to become better at fighting or spellcasting to be able to learn it.  And if you just went up a level a couple of sessons ago, you have quite a while to go before you can even begin to understand them).  None of these strike me as entirely realistic or desirable.Mind you, classes have many advantages, and with inexperienced players, pick-up games, or any other situation where the DM doesn't have the time/experience/inclination to do all the work for himself, they're good.  But if nobody minds the risks of imbalences (and/or at least knows how to curb the worst excesses) and the game is more focused on the characters novel-style than action/adventure-style, I see classes as being more headache to work around than they're worth.</blockquote>

Verification