What are Classes?
What is the point of classes in your TTRPG? Classes offer different categorizations of character options, but beyond that, what is the value of a class system? Classically, their value comes in distinguishing playstyles or roles in an adventuring party. Each class has a specialty meaning they can do something that the other classes cannot! If classes start to blend together, or if classes begin to overlap, then some classes risk become redundant.
Some classes systems are strictly mechanical, but some class systems describe your character's place in the setting. For example, the word fighter is an abstract word. As a class, it describes anyone who is trained in the art of war, but a soldier is a fighter with allegiance to a country. A knight or samurai are a part of social class. Further, the class of knight and samurai describes the character's cultural (and maybe even ethnical) origin. Some class systems also give titles to your character at different levels.
Pure Classes
Truely there are only three types of pure classes.
Fighter - guy who bonks, wears armor, uses shields; for conventual combat
Rogue - guy with uncommon, usually non-combat skills; a utility class
Mage - guy who casts magical spells; extraordinary and supernatural stuff
I call these the three basic classes. I'm going to refer to these three classes throughout this post, although, apologies, I might not use the class names consistently; Rogues are also known as thief, mages are also known as magic-user.
Combination Classes
Some classes are effectively a combination of classes or combo class for lack of a better term. For example, the cleric as it was originally published in the original D&D game was a little bit of a fighter and a little bit of a magic-user. It was something of an in between. What distinguishes cleric from fighter is they can't use as many weapons and armor. What distinguishes cleric from magic-user is clerics get a different spell list, and it didn't have the as much spell variety. Further, clerics have their own specialty in turning the undead and a roleplay restriction that required them to be an ethically or morally lawful / good character. Note that to create a combination class that's not excessively powerful, you must get some but not all benefits of one class, and some but not all benefits of the other class, and possibly some other restrictions or requirements.
Variant Classes
Over the years, other classes have been added. Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian were originally variants of the fighter in Advanced D&D, not separate classes, which makes sense because fighter does not describe a specific type of warrior. Fighter abstractly describes any and all types of warriors. If you don't like the term variant class, you could also go with a sub-class. A ranger is a fighter who trades his heavy armor for tracking skills to fight beasts and outlaws on the edge of civilization. Barbarian comes from the Greek "barbaros" meaning foreigner, and so a barbarian is just a fighter from another culture, usually a culture with a lower level of technological development. A scald (I think this was mentioned in some unearthed arcana or other supplemental magazine) is a warrior poet. Scalds make records of the battles they participate in as a song or poem. I think it was a prototype of a bard. By the way, a bard is actually a rank for a druid-in-training, not whatever modern D&D says. Fantasy, am I right?
Prestige Classes
Some games have prestige classes. These are classes that are earned through play. In D&D 3e, arcane trickster and eldritch knight were both prestige classes. Knight and Samurai are, in my mind, prestige classes. Both knight and samurai are types of fighters, but they have a social rank. The elevated social status means you have privileges, but also duties and allegiances, and even a code of conduct. These positions must therefore be earned, or granted by an ranking NPC, hence why they're prestigious. I would also argue that a paladin is a prestige class because paladin comes from the latin word palatinus which means "of the palace"; a paladin was therefore a member of the palace. Who lives in a palace? Nobles and royalty. Ordinary warriors do not become paladins. How did paladins become religious warriors? Because they serve a lord whose authority comes from a higher power (God). God blesses the king, and so, paladins, being of loyalty to a king blessed by God, and being of faith in that God, get just a touch of that blessing. This is why paladins can perform lay on hands and turn undead and etc.
Specialties
What's important about classes is that they have a specialty or a niche. This means that there is something that only they can do that no one else can do, or alternatively, no one else can do as well as they can! If a class doesn't have a niche, then there's no point in having them as a distinct class. Maybe you should opt for a skill-based system rather than a class-based system.
If you have a class that isn't the best at doing what it does, then why would you pick them? For example, in 5th edition D&D, there is the Rogue class and the Ranger class. The Ranger can get the survival skill and they can be double-proficient in it, unlike the ranger. Furthermore, the 5e Rogue has a combat action called Sneak Attack which allows them to add a bunch of bonus damage dice to an attack roll if a condition (having advantage) is met. Meanwhile, the 5e Ranger class has a Hunter's Mark bonus action. Get a load of this. It costs a bonus action to use it to mark a target or to mark a new target. When you attack a marked target, you get to add an additional damage die. Just one. Want to know how to simplify this? Just give the ranger a bonus damage die when they attack. They would still be doing less damage than a Rogue's Sneak Attack. So, if a 5e Rogue can track better than a 5e Ranger, and do more damage than a ranger, why pick Ranger? In my opinion, the other 5e Ranger options are meh. In my opinion, the designers of modern editions of D&D have trivialized the ranger as a distinct class and they should just make the ranger a subclass of either rogue or fighter (or maybe they can make it a floating subclass?). The reasons why they haven't are up to speculation, and I'm not usually one for that.
Designing a Class System
One of my favorite examples of games with a class system is Lamentations of the Flame Princess; it's a retroclone of D&D Basic Expert (or B/X) from 1984. To my recollection, you can download the players handbook and referee guide (both books without pictures) for free on the website! What I like about the LotFP Fighter is that they are the only class that gets a scaling to-hit bonus. Every other class only gets a +1 to-hit bonus, but Fighter's to-hit bonus is equal to their level. Why do I like this? Because it makes the fighter distinct. Really, why would a magic-user grow in martial proficiency as they level up? You could argue that they'd get a little better over time, but do we really need rules for that? For simplicity, I would say just nah.
In the Thief Class (the old name for the Rogue) section of the LotFP book is where the game describes skills. Why? Because you don't need skills to be in a separate chapter because only the Thief needs skills. Duh. Skills are rolled on a six-sided die in LotFP. The book says the referee can permit any player to roll a skill check if it is reasonable, but they succeed by rolling a 1. In other words, the other classes have a 16.67% chance to succeed a skill check if the referee rules it's allowed. The thief is the only character who can do all the skill rolls and can improve them as they level up.
The Magic-User Class in LotFP is the only class that can do magic (asterisk, there is a cleric class and an Elf class). In summary, if you want to hit things, be a fighter. If you want to do skills, be a thief. If you want to cast spells, be a magic-user. That's a class system.
Re-Flavoring an Existing Class Rather than Creating a New One
The LotFP Magic-User is the only class who can cast spells. There is a fully designed Cleric class in the book, but I've heard the game's author say that there really isn't a cleric class in his head because the Cleric in LotFP in his setting is just a magic-user who thinks he's a cleric because all magic-users are a little crazy. This makes sense because the LotFP book does not distinguish magic-user spells from cleric spells, and the mechanical distinctions between Magic-User and Cleric in LotFP are minor. I think I like this a lot! It says to me that if you want to be some other class, all you have to do is pick a standard class and flavor it as something else.
I really like this idea. I would rather have this as an option than a long, long catalog of distinct classes. Why? Because I don't need that! It's bloat! It's clutter! And because I want to make my own stuff. I want looseness and flexibility in my games! I don't want players looking at a catalog and asking "is this it?" If you want to be a Paladin, pick Fighter and flavor it like a religious character. If you want to be a Druid, pick Cleric and re-flavor it as the priest of a nature religion or a nature wizard or whatever the eff a fantasy druid is. Etc. There's no need to design distinct, separate classes that are basically the same with minor differences.
Balance
Did you notice I never once mentioned jack crap about balance? Attempting to balance the character classes is probably what ruins the class system. Classes should have specialties. There should absolutely be things that some classes cannot do, or if they can all do it, the rest of the classes have the basic, minimal chance that any normal man would have at doing it. The trouble with balancing classes is that it's work, it's unnecessary work, and you probably can't achieve a perfectly balanced class-based game with classes that feel distinct. I feel that the wizard class is trivialized by the presence of other magic classes.
Proposed Alternatives
Five Torches Deep is a 5e compatible game that made four classes. I don't recall exactly, but it's basically fighter, magic-user, thief, and cleric, but with different names. All of the 5e classes appear as subclasses. Fighter, Barbarian, and Monk might have been subclasses of the Warrior. Thief, Bard, and Ranger might have been subclasses of the Rogue. Druid, Paladin, and Cleric might have been subclasses of the Zealot. And finally, wizard, sorcerer, and warlock are subclasses of the Mage. Why? Because you're taking the four basic classes, the most basic classes, and you're using them as a base. Then you're creating distinct flavors of each base. That is so effing slick! Seriously, look up Five Torches Deep!
Olde Swords Reign (is free online by the way!) is 5e compatible and also uses the four basic classes of fighter, specialist (instead of thief), magic-user, and cleric. There are no subclasses or variant classes. Instead, the game takes all the class features you're familiar with and puts them into different pools of feats. The categories are fighter feats, specialist feats, and general feats. Everyone has access to the general feats. Essentially, this decouples class from subclass entirely, because subclasses or variant classes are restrictive. You aren't restricted to a single growth path like in 5e, instead, you can pick and choose what you want when you want it. It's customizable and allows for a lot of flavor.
Social Skills-Using Class
In case you're wondering, I don't care to create a class dedicated to influencing others socially because this is a roleplaying game and I don't believe the mechanics of the game should govern or try to mechanize or systematize conversations. I don't believe conversation should be balanced with other aspects of the game, like combat or exploration. In fact, I hate that! I think anyone who can fight well can also talk and explore perfectly well.
Classes Describe the Setting
Another thing to consider is that the rules of the game describe the setting. The class options that are available to the players describe what classes exist in the world, or alternatively, which character classes are adventuring classes. For example, in D&D B/X, there is no option for dwarves to be any class. They are restricted to the Dwarf class. As a reader, you wonder why. The book doesn't explain it, but you have to figure that there must be Dwarf clerics because they have their own pantheon, it's just that dwarf clerics don't adventure. Fair. In AD&D, dwarves had class options but were restricted from being magic-users. Why? Must be something about dwarven culture shunning magic or the career. Use your imagination. Maybe there are dwarven magic-users, but they're very rare. I recall notes that most dwarfs are lawful good and the thief class can't be that alignment, so there you go. Dwarf culture does not produce thieves.
If you take my recommendation to pick a basic class and flavor it, that flavor must be compatible with the setting. If you pick any class and flavor it as a traveling minstrel or a troubadour, that means there are traveling minstrels in the world. Just keep in mind that, rules as written, the game master (GM) is the curator of the setting and it's his setting even if it's a published, official setting. That means if the GM says no dwarf wizards, then there are no dwarf wizards.
Multi-Classing or Dual-Classing?
Multi-classing means being able to gain a new class and the benefits of the new class while still retaining the benefits of the old class. Dual-classing means being two full-classes at once, possessing all of the benefits of each, and progressing in them both simultaneously. Dual-class characters usually need double xp to advance in level, but a multi-class character needs normal xp based on the total of their levels in all their classes.
I believe multi-classing must be pursued in play. If you're a thief and you join the army and receive military training then congratulations, you're now multiclassing as a thief-fighter. However, if you as a player of a thief character decide you want to also be a fighter one day, no, you can't just add that to your character sheet. If one multi-classes, there must be a penalty for balancing, right? Not necessarily. If I join the military and go through boot camp, why wouldn't I be able to do everything a beginner soldier can do? I would just be a beginner or a novice in that new class. No dual-classing.
The Three Basic Classes in Other Genres
I'm not much of a sci-fi guy, but I suppose I could be into space opera. Think Star Wars for a moment. How do these three classes (fighter, thief, magic-user) translate into Star Wars? First, let's make some basic assumptions. First, piloting is a common skill and does not indicate a class (example a pilot class). Lots of people seem to be able to use vehicles. No big deal. Second, use of computers and machines (even droids) is also common to people within the setting, even if it's all unfamiliar to you! These skills do not indicate a need for a class to me, such as an engineer or machinist class. Third, there is no magic, instead we have the force. Forth, guns are the dominant way of fighting in many places, and in those places, they'd be common and ordinary, but weapons that bonk or cut or stab are probably uncommon in those areas.
So, a fighter in Star Wars would be able to handle any armor and any weapon. A staff, a grenade, a big gun, whatever. There's one exception: the light saber is off limits. Why? Because! Now shut up.
A thief would be able to use peasant weapons, small arms, a holdout blaster. Right? And they'd be able to hack any computer terminal or pick any locked door too, and they'd be able to disarm any trap or explosive, at least better than anyone else. They can sneak and they can back attack. Familiar? Cool? OK.
A magic-user is out. Sorry. Instead, we have force-user. Either a jedi or sith, or some uninitiated force adept. A force adept is someone with some force sensitivity or above-average potential with the force who has discovered a few basic force powers. They can't really learn more on their own, they need a teacher. Jedi have restrictions to the list of force powers, but the sith have unrestricted access. The force-user has access to the same weapons as a thief (small blasters, bonk-sticks), and the supremely supreme light saber.
As a thought experiment, what is Han Solo's class? He's described as a smuggler, but does that mean the same thing as a Thief? Maybe he's a fighter who smuggles? I would say if you wanted to interpret Han as either a thief or a fighter, you can. It depends on how you justify it.
Now, the Star Wars KOTOR games describe three (non-jedi and non-droid) classes: Soldier, Scout, and Scoundrel. If you read them, you'll easily identify Soldier is the Fighter and Scoundrel is the Thief. So what is a scout? At a glance, I think it's something like a ranger, but I'm not sure. I only conclude that based on the fact that I think ranger definitely suits a setting like Star Wars. I think someone really only stuck the Scout in the game for variety. I would rule that it's just a variant of thief with wilderness survival skills instead of urban thievery skills and call it a day. And I think that's fine.
I played Shadow Run on the PC by Harebrained Schemes. It's good. It's a cyberpunk fantasy thing. They have street samurai as their fighter and that's what I picked. They have a class called a Rigger that remotely controls drones or robots as a utility class, possibly a thief(?), and a class called a Decker who goes into the internet almost like going into the matrix and they hack computers (another utility class). Cool in concept but I thought it wasn't fun. They have mages (magic-users) and shamans (magic-users with a nature flavor). They also have a class called either the adept or the physical adept which as far as I can tell is the monk, so a flavor of fighter.
Skill System Plus Class System?
Not really into this myself. The first time this might have been done is D&D 3e, and I think this led to the eventual trivialization of the Ranger class by taking their specialty, tracking, and making it into a general skill, survival, that anyone else can do. I think the benefits of a class system is to simplify a game, and the benefits of a skill system are to allow customization. The thief is the utility class. Give them a theme for their skills. Thievery or Wilderness Survival or Alchemy. Just use your judgement in-game and play. It's fine.
If you want multiple skills or skill sets, I suggest instead making clear, distinct variants of the Rogue / thief, aka the utility class. Basic Fantasy RPG (also free!), has the thief as a core class and the ranger as a supplemental optional class which just swaps some skills around. Effectively, the dungeon skills and the wilderness skills. Use the logic of your setting to make these variants.
Conclusion
There are three categories of classes: The combat class, the utility class, and the magic class. Each category has flavors (variants). You don't need distinct mechanics for each. I have an opinion that classes should be distinct. For example, if you're a non-combat class, why would you be good at combat? Only the utility class needs to worry about skills, and only the magic class needs to worry about magic. Below, I have an abstract concept of how one might distinguish these. Features that are listed are part of the class, but features that are not listed are not. For simplicity, I am using D&D 3e saving throw names.
Combat Class
HP: base of 10 HP, +1 HP per level
Weapons and Armor: all, including shields
Hit Bonus: +1 per level, max +10
(optional) Either Bonus Attack or Bonus Damage Die: +1 every 5 levels
(optional) Crit range: +1 every 5 levels (19-20 at level 5, 18-20 at level 10)
Saves: Fortitude +1 per level
Flavors: Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Monk / Pugilist, Soldier, Knight
Utility Class
HP: base of 8 HP, +1 HP at even levels
Weapons and Armor: peasant
(optional) Hit Bonus: +1 at even levels or +1 every three levels beginning at level 3
Skill Bonus: +1 per level, max +10
Skills: Based on flavor or a theme
(optional) backstab: +2 bonus damage dice when attacking unaware foe from behind
Saves: Reflexes +1 per level
Flavors: Thief, Dungeoneer, Ranger, Alchemist, Assassin, Rogue
Magic Class
HP: base of 8 HP, +1 HP at even levels
Weapons and Armor: peasant
(optional) Hit Bonus: +1 at even levels or +1 every three levels beginning at level 3
Spellcasting Bonus: +1 per level, max +10
Spells Available: Based on flavor or a theme
Saves: Will +1 per level
Flavors: Mage, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer, Witch, Warlock, War Priest
I would suggest allowing players to distinguish these characters with feats or talents if this is too basic for them. How are they available, either by level up or training or whatever, and how frequently, is up to you, but don't hand them out too often.
No comments:
Post a Comment