# What Is Worthy of a Class?



## Ahnehnois (Aug 29, 2013)

I think one of the subtle differences between PF and D&D is that PF designed classes with a boatload of customizable special abilities (bloodlines, ki powers, etc.). And then threw in archetypes. Of course, they had an easy time doing this because the "build your own class" concept had gradually developed throughout the lifespan of 3e. Their intention was in large part, I think, to get rid of prestige class proliferation, but they took a more general step in the direction of "build your own" classes.

I've started to build much more open-ended classes as a consequence. For example, instead of listing "trap sense" and then having a bunch of "alternative class features" that change the bonus to something else, I wrote a rogue that simply has "rogue sense" which grants a +1 bonus to a small number of related saves or checks, and gives several examples (including all the 3e trap sense variants) and suggests that you make up your own if needed. I also did the PF thing where rogue special abilities go through the whole progression, rather than starting at level 10, and have tons of options. I do a lot of that these days. More skills, more bonus feats, more special abilities that can be whatever you want them to be. Fewer set-in-stone class abilities. Fewer dead levels.

By writing more open-ended classes to begin with, I get less of players coming to me and wanting to trade this ability for that or wanting to make their own class. And yet, the clarity of the class structure is maintained; I'm not playing a classless game and multiclassing has become less common. Players can build their characters the way they want more easily. That's my answer to this.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 29, 2013)

I wonder if that's not small potatoes, though -- why have a rogue at all? The rogue isn't doing the heavy lifting of telling people what their character is like anymore. Why not just have an "adventurer" that can pick between a Rogue Sense or an attack bonus or a minor magical ability or _Detect Evil_ or....


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 29, 2013)

Well, the rogue is still distinct from the wizard or the fighter. I think it's easier for us that are used to picking classes to make some mission statement about what we want to play. A rogue is still a "skill guy with some combat ability"; the variety of things under that heading that various editions have tried to capture in kits, variants, or new classes are simply easier to reach from one class.

If you're making the cases that classes aren't needed at all, in principle I agree. That's mostly a legacy thing in my book. If I were writing a new rpg, I'd write "an 'adventurer' that can pick between a Rogue Sense or an attack bonus or a minor magical ability or Detect Evil or....".


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Aug 29, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> So what I want is less debates over what SHOULD be a class and what SHOULDN’T be a class, and more conversation about the basic elements of class-building that we can teach to any DM, so that ANYTHING can be a class, depending on what your own games need. *Are you with me?*



Must spread XP around, etc., etc.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I wonder if that's not small potatoes, though -- why have a rogue at all? The rogue isn't doing the heavy lifting of telling people what their character is like anymore. Why not just have an "adventurer" that can pick between a Rogue Sense or an attack bonus or a minor magical ability or _Detect Evil_ or....




There's a distinction, though, between "rigid silo of what your character can do" (fixed class abilities), "flexible silo of what your character can do" (picking from a buffet of class abilities ala PF), and "classless system" (choose from any level appropriate class ability). I think you rightly point out that the class system exists in D&D for more reasons than just historical inertia; that archetypes have a purpose in the game. If the "adventurer class" can pick freely from any class's ability list, than there's no longer a class system - an important part of those archetypes is that they not only define what you're good at, they also define what you're not good at. For all we gripe about it, a key part of a class based system is limiting what you character can do based on that archetype.

So are we discussing the ability for DMs to create new archetypes for their campaigns, or removing archetypes entirely and just going classless? There's nothing wrong with the latter, but personally I'd rather have a system to bolt different mechanics onto a simple class skeleton and then fine-tine with variant class abilities and fluff changes, sort of a combination of PF-style alternate class abilities with D&D Next style sub-classes, where the sub-classes do most of the heavy lifting. Boom, instant Gladiator or Templar or Noble class that feel different from a fighter or magic-user mechanically and flavor-wise, and it will still provide a loose silo for character hooks - the "cognitive shortcut" you mentioned.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 29, 2013)

Trickster Spirit said:
			
		

> So are we discussing the ability for DMs to create new archetypes for their campaigns, or removing archetypes entirely and just going classless?




Quite possibly, they're linked...a simple class skeleton that applies to every character is, ultimately, a classless game. You build classes with that skeleton for your own game, or, heck, maybe not if you don't need the congnitive shortcut?

I suppose a useful place to start structurally might be with wizard spell levels and spells per day. That's nine discrete "ranks" of abilities, with discrete uses in a day., spread out over 20 levels...maybe "different spell lists" isn't a bad place to turn to in our games' archetypes? Hmm...I wonder how much flexibility within an archetype is really needed for one particular game.....


----------



## Shayuri (Aug 29, 2013)

Classes, like most things in RPG games, are about mechanics and aesthetics. Mechanically, classes have a lot to offer. One item that was enshrined in canon in 4e, but has been with us from the start, is Role. Each class has a particular activity, or distinct subset of activities, that it is designed to excel at.

What class equates to what role, and indeed even what roles are represented in the game to begin with, is up to debate...and aren't in my mind all that relevant to this discussion. The idea that a class is one way to easily and quickly collect a set of numbers that enable a character to fulfill a role is what I want to focus on. I think that's why a lot of classes wind up looking similar. Fighters and barbarians, for example. Wizards and sorcerors. Big guy with his hands full of weapons versus little guy throwing magic around.

So here's my question. Did roles evolve out of those prototypical classes? Or did even those 1e triad of first classes come into being because the 'roles' of Smasher, Healer and Blaster somehow predate the hobby itself?


----------



## kelbar (Aug 29, 2013)

I've played more 4e then 3ed. More because everyone I know was trying it out. 
I run a level 3 to 12 Campain ,Which had classic classes.
an Campain few year later I played low adventure 
and found that avenger has wide range of role play option at table. To holy zealot to stealthy holy assassin. And one class that sent the GM mad was runeprist player hand book 3. 

So I love to see Avenger and runeprist return in same form.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 29, 2013)

Shayuri said:
			
		

> What class equates to what role, and indeed even what roles are represented in the game to begin with, is up to debate...and aren't in my mind all that relevant to this discussion.




I think they might actually be pretty central. 4e's roles were combat roles, but there's roles in adventures and stories that transcend and invalidate combat roles. With the example of every faction being a class in Planescape, for example, that says that the roles are _philosophical_ roles: we want someone to play the "We think everyone is dead" person and someone to play the "I like to experience EVERYTHING" person, etc. Or maybe even more centrally, "we want someone to play the Lawful person, someone to play the Chaotic person, someone to play the Good person, someone to play the Neutral person..." With the example of replacing roles with Icons from 13th Age, you've got someone who plays the "Archamge" and someone who plays the "Dwarf King" and someone who plays the "Crusader." Those become the roles you want to see in your games. Those are roles much more relevant to the playing of those games than "striker" or "defender."

Of course, even in 4e, the difference between a role was just one little game mechanic. Either you had extra dice, or you used a mark, or you had a 2/round heal, or you had an area effect/tenacious status effect. Is that little difference enough for an entire character identity?

"What roles are my players interested in playing?" is probably a very relevant question to ask when coming up with your own classes, but maybe for DMs, "What roles does my world/setting/campaign plot enable?" might be even better. Though thornier to answer pre character gen. But perhaps using villains as construction elements can help there: if you're playing the Temple of Elemental Evil, maybe evil cultists and divine priests and elemental-themed character classes would be more relevant?


----------



## Andor (Aug 30, 2013)

Classes, as noted, serve many purposes. They serve as useful buckets of abilites tied to playstyles and perhaps roles or fluff archetypes. 

They are not needed, but otoh while the Hero system has been around for almost 25 years now I've never found a group that actually used it for fantasy gaming. Because it's too much work. Saying "My 5th level Wizard memorizes fireball" is a heck of a lot easier than figureing out what an Energy Blast (5d6) with Area of Effect (5 hex radius), Gestures, Incantations, OIF (Spell component Pouch), Charges (1) costs. The answer is (25 * (1 + 1.25))/(1 + 2 + .5 + .25 + .25) = 14 character points. Now do that for all your spells. And Items. And your henchmen. Oh and wait, that should probably be in a power framework becuase you can change you spells per day. 

I'd be interested to play in such a campaign but I've never seen the group willing to do it.

This was one of the pre-essentials weaknesses of 4e, there was no class that a new person could just sit down and play without a lot of homework. Personally I haven't played a primary caster in D&D for years because of the work required. Picking a class with more limited options allowed me to play without taxing my aging brain trying to recall the thousands of D&D spells I've seen over the years. OTOH if I didn't feel like limiting my choice to deciding how much power attack to use this round I can move to more complex classes like a Binder or Totemist without opening the full caster can of worms. 

My fiance is new to gaming but wanted to play a spellcaster of some sort in our 3.5 game. We pointed her at the Warlock and she was perfectly happy. She would not have been happy if I asked her to read 50 pages of spell descriptions, I promise you. 

So they don't just silo abilities or archtypes, they also silo _player oriented_ choices about how much work you need to put into a game to play well. 
Just my 2¢


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Aug 30, 2013)

I actually prefer non-classed games, but I do see their value where they are used.  I think the most important benefits are niche protection to promote teamwork and simplifying character creation and advancement.

For me the primary requirement of a class is that it has to represent an archetype in history, fiction, or legend.  I should be able to say "I'm an X" and be immediately understood.  Class vs subclass is just an organizational convenience.  Swapping our the just the relevant points from one subclass to another makes classes easier to write and learn, but beyond that, it's not a very important distinction.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 30, 2013)

Personally, I think there's two situations for which class-based systems make the most sense:
1) There are different, distinct mechanical subsystems representing character abilities/powers that are mutually exclusive or must be balanced to some degree. I.e. if spellcasting uses different mechanics than fighting with weapons and balance requires characters to be good at either one or the other, then it makes sense to have separate classes for spellcasting and fighting.
2) If the system is tied to a particular setting it makes sense to have classes that represent different archetypes within that setting.

For a setting-less or generic system basing classes on archetypes makes little sense, really. Likewise, if all character abilities/powers are mechanically identical and don't have to be prioritized in some way, then it makes little sense to divide classes based on availability of powers.

I consider 1) the more important reason, since almost all systems make use of roles in some way.
This is because characters are supposed to specialize (since a single character cannot cover all bases) and an effective party requires that all kinds of challenges that will typically come up in the game can be overcome. The number of 'required' classes is therefore a function of the number of 'required' roles and the expected party size. E.g. if the expected average party size is three and there are five roles that need to be covered, each class will have to be able to be good in (at least) two, but no more than four different roles. So anything from five to twenty classes might make sense.

Fitting role-based classes into a setting to represent a particular archetype can be achieved using other other mechanical means than a class: backgrounds, templates, builds, kits, etc. How loose or strict these are is basically a matter of preference.



Andor said:


> This was one of the pre-essentials weaknesses of 4e, there was no class that a new person could just sit down and play without a lot of homework.



I rather strongly disagree with that view. For our group the following statement would much closer to the truth:
"This was one of the pre-essentials strengths of 4e, there was no class that a new person could not just sit down and play without a lot of homework."
4e caused one of our players who had been playing nothing but fighters and paladins in 1e to 3e to switch gears and discover that he actually enjoyed playing wizards! It was the first edition that put all classes on equal terms regarding complexity. Once you understand how to play a character of any one class, you know how to play every class (well, assuming you understand the tactical implications of it being designed to fill one or two particular roles).


----------



## Andor (Aug 30, 2013)

Jhaelen said:


> I rather strongly disagree with that view. For our group the following statement would much closer to the truth:
> "This was one of the pre-essentials strengths of 4e, there was no class that a new person could not just sit down and play without a lot of homework."
> 4e caused one of our players who had been playing nothing but fighters and paladins in 1e to 3e to switch gears and discover that he actually enjoyed playing wizards! It was the first edition that put all classes on equal terms regarding complexity. Once you understand how to play a character of any one class, you know how to play every class (well, assuming you understand the tactical implications of it being designed to fill one or two particular roles).




I think you confirmed my point actually. All 4e classes are equally complex so your player who had been avoiding the morass of options that is a 3e Wizard tried one because he might as well. Yes all 4e classes were (pre-essentials) the same complexity but that bar was set rather higher than an earlier editions Fighter, and much lower than an earlier editions spell caster. This requires more buy-in from the fighter player and disappoints the guy who loves pouring over the minutia of lots of spell descriptions. 

One use of a class is to provide siloed options to the player. Providing a range of complexity/depth in those options is something may people have found useful. Wasn't that kind of the point of essentials?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 30, 2013)

Jhaelen said:


> Personally, I think there's two situations for which class-based systems make the most sense:
> 1) There are different, distinct mechanical subsystems representing character abilities/powers that are mutually exclusive or must be balanced to some degree. I.e. if spellcasting uses different mechanics than fighting with weapons and balance requires characters to be good at either one or the other, then it makes sense to have separate classes for spellcasting and fighting.



That's interesting, in that (at least in the 3e vision of the game), there are really only two: there's the "normal" d20 system with level-based bonuses and DCs and so on and so forth, and then there's magic with spells and slots and stuff. Maybe you could argue there's more (spell-like abilities for warlocks or rage/sneak attack/etc.), but there definitely isn't a distinct mechanic for every class or even every category of class (as divine and arcane casters use the same mechanics).


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 30, 2013)

Jhaelen said:


> 1) There are different, distinct mechanical subsystems representing character abilities/powers that are mutually exclusive or must be balanced to some degree. I.e. if spellcasting uses different mechanics than fighting with weapons and balance requires characters to be good at either one or the other, then it makes sense to have separate classes for spellcasting and fighting.
> 2) If the system is tied to a particular setting it makes sense to have classes that represent different archetypes within that setting.



I think the secondary concept of using the class as a shorthand for "archetype" or "role within the narrative" carries weight, even in ostensibly classless games.

Look at FATE Core, for example.  Everything mechanical is based on Skills and Stunts, which are open to all characters.  It's a classless game.  However, characters also have an Aspect called the "high concept", which is pretty much a short phrase that defines the heart of the character.  FATE Core is pretty explicit in saying that any skills or stunts which are out of the ordinary (like a magic skill or special martial art) only be accessed by those who have a high concept which is evocative for that use.  Classless game, but still has a concept of siloing effects into archetypes, which is where most of the narrative weight that D&D class names carry is borne.


----------



## Lord_Blacksteel (Aug 30, 2013)

Andor said:


> They are not needed, but otoh while the Hero system has been around for almost 25 years now I've never found a group that actually used it for fantasy gaming. Because it's too much work. Saying "My 5th level Wizard memorizes fireball" is a heck of a lot easier than figureing out what an Energy Blast (5d6) with Area of Effect (5 hex radius), Gestures, Incantations, OIF (Spell component Pouch), Charges (1) costs. The answer is (25 * (1 + 1.25))/(1 + 2 + .5 + .25 + .25) = 14 character points. Now do that for all your spells. And Items. And your henchmen. Oh and wait, that should probably be in a power framework becuase you can change you spells per day.
> 
> I'd be interested to play in such a campaign but I've never seen the group willing to do it.




There were plenty of groups playing it in the 80's and 90's, usually groups who came to it through Champions and saw 1E and 2E AD&D as tremendously limiting in character concepts. Some still do but I think 3E's unlimited multiclassing and the explosion of options for race/class/feat/skill handled a lot of that need for a lot of players.



Andor said:


> This was one of the pre-essentials weaknesses of 4e, there was no class that a new person could just sit down and play without a lot of homework.




What? There isn't any significant amount of homework needed for a 4E character to start out at 1st level. Stats, Race, Class (just like most versions of D&D, Feat, a few skills (like 3E) and then pick a pair of at-wills, an encounter power, and a daily power, some gear, and you're done! Use one of the character creation programs and all the details are right there on your character sheet! There is room for criticism of 4E but I don't see homework as one of them.



Andor said:


> I think you confirmed my point actually. All 4e classes are equally complex so your player who had been avoiding the morass of options that is a 3e Wizard tried one because he might as well. Yes all 4e classes were (pre-essentials) the same complexity but that bar was set rather higher than an earlier editions Fighter, and much lower than an earlier editions spell caster. This requires more buy-in from the fighter player and disappoints the guy who loves pouring over the minutia of lots of spell descriptions.
> 
> One use of a class is to provide siloed options to the player. Providing a range of complexity/depth in those options is something may people have found useful. Wasn't that kind of the point of essentials?




All 4E classes are not equally complex. Complexity is not just tied to a similar power structure unless all you do is build characters. If you actually play the game the different levels of complexity come from the options each character has in play. A bow ranger is one of the simplest characters to run at most levels as their choices mostly boil down to stand back and shoot something for damage. A Fighter is one of the more complex classes as there is a lot of tactical decision making each round regarding marking, positioning, and what the rest of the group is trying to do. There is more to complexity than how many things are listed on your character sheet.

As for the main article, class matters because it's one of the core elements of D&D and many other games. no, they are not essential to roleplaying, but they are essential to D&D. Classes have been a part of the game longer than races, and a version of D&D without them is something I wouldn't ever expect to see. Other games, sure, D&D, no.

Unlike some of the things discussed above I can't remember the last time I saw a DM designing new classes  for a D&D game, but that would make an interesting supplement for Next. We saw some of this in the 2E Player's Option books, and in the 3.0 DMG. Why not try something similar as its own book for the new version? Even if it focused on a Prestige Class type approach rather than new base classes it could be interesting.

If we want to talk about number and differentiation between classes and "how much is enough" then set D&D aside for a moment and take a look at Rifts. Rifts classes are largely a collection of stat bonuses, skill bonuses, and gear with a few unique mechanics added in for some - spell casting, psychic powers, or regeneration and a breath weapon. For some classes, other than moving a few numbers around, the only difference is what kind of robot you get to drive! To D&D-only gamers that may seem like overkill but it seems to work for that particular game. Why?


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Aug 30, 2013)

Stay classy, D&D.


----------

