| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the back of another thread about reducing feats and how many people suggested it would kill a significant level of diversity despite what can be done within a class without feats. It got me thinking......
Is the simple fact that you have to choose a class hindering your character concept or at least limiting the diversity than can be achieved with your character ?
I look at the NPC classes and think now there are some pretty clean slates as far as classes go that pigeon hole people less than the heroic PC classes. But at the same time even they have connotations about what type of character the class represents.
Still for argument sake what if you turn these NPC classes into vanilla heroic classes by giving them a bonus general feat every level as a class feature.
Ok calm down I can see the level dip mechanics wheel turning in your mind already. Moving past level dipping would the clean class slate and a boatload of feats to work with further improve character diversity or simply lead to some nasty min-maxing ?
Just seems with the classes and archetypes we have, they can covers a large number of options but can they every really cover every possible option someone might want to try ? not to mention every time someone picks a class is their creativity and choice already being channelled down a certain line of thinking purely due to a name and some abilities
e.g. I choose Barbarian ... well I guess I get angry and rage that's a given. Sure you can be the civilized Barbarian who doesn't rage but everyone else in the group will be asking you WTH aren't you raging for your bonuses your going to cost us this fight.
Thoughts ?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
A class-based system isn't as flexible as a classless system, that's true. But if you want a classless system, you're probably better off seeking one out than modding Pathfinder to do it, I think.
Somewhat, though I'd say it's more of a matter of a class' mechanics than its theme - there are some concepts that I haven't yet been able to turn into actual characters, thanks to unarmoredness only being (somewhat) viable if you're a Monk or a Duelist, and neither of those fitting the flavor I was looking for very well.
Unless your GM is really anal about a character of a given class sticking to that class' theme, I don't really think that should matter at all. For example, you could say that the Barbarian's rage is not actually getting angry, but rather a sort of battle trance that they go into, or something like that.
Of course, there are some classes that work against that, the Paladin being the most obvious, but there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to, say, play a Rogue who isn't thief-like at all.
|
Somewhat, though I'd say it's more of a matter of a class' mechanics than its theme - there are some concepts that I haven't yet been able to turn into actual characters, thanks to unarmoredness only being (somewhat) viable if you're a Monk or a Duelist, and neither of those fitting the flavor I was looking for very well.
Unless your GM is really anal about a character of a given class sticking to that class' theme, I don't really think that should matter at all. For example, you could say that the Barbarian's rage is not actually getting angry, but rather a sort of battle trance that they go into, or something like that.
Of course, there are some classes that work against that, the Paladin being the most obvious, but there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to, say, play a Rogue who isn't thief-like at all.
Absolutely. I've actually built a LG rogue scout...(not scout archetype, military scout)
He was an NPC. Pretty cool.
A class-based system isn't as flexible as a classless system, that's true. But if you want a classless system, you're probably better off seeking one out than modding Pathfinder to do it, I think.
Don't think I actually said I wanted or even thought PF should be a classless system.
A class-based system isn't as flexible as a classless system, that's true. But if you want a classless system, you're probably better off seeking one out than modding Pathfinder to do it, I think.Don't think I actually said I wanted or even thought PF should be a classless system.
It's the logical endpoint of what you're getting at. When you've moved entirely to generic classes, you might as well be classless.
One of the reasons I like Gestalt play is because it opens up more character type options.
Also, there really is nothing stopping you as a GM from "filing off the serial numbers", so to speak.
It's the logical endpoint of what you're getting at. When you've moved entirely to generic classes, you might as well be classless.A class-based system isn't as flexible as a classless system, that's true. But if you want a classless system, you're probably better off seeking one out than modding Pathfinder to do it, I think.Don't think I actually said I wanted or even thought PF should be a classless system.
Its your logical endpoint
Why do you think the system can't support both themed and non themed classes alonside each other ?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
man again do not get wrapped up in what paizo names the dang stuff
just grab the mechanics that fit the thing that is brewing in your head and bring it to life
It basically follows this chain: if you can pick more or less whatever abilities you want as you level up, subject to certain totals and restrictions, then why have classes at all? Why not just cut out the middle?
Now, you could certainly have such a system and have pre-made example templates analagous to the classes we have now. But overall, if you're going to make that move, why bother with classes?
This presumes that part of your 'feat every level' includes turning certain class features into feats, as otherwise again, there seems to be little point.
I would say that a rules-heavy system like Pathfinder being turned classless would probably be closer to gurps in its slowness. FATE, for instance, is classless, but is also much, much lighter on rules.
It basically follows this chain: if you can pick more or less whatever abilities you want as you level up, subject to certain totals and restrictions, then why have classes at all? Why not just cut out the middle?
Now, you could certainly have such a system and have pre-made example templates analagous to the classes we have now. But overall, if you're going to make that move, why bother with classes?
This presumes that part of your 'feat every level' includes turning certain class features into feats, as otherwise again, there seems to be little point.
Errr nope not what I was thinking, haven't even considered turning class abilities into new feats.
Then what purpose would these serve other than level dips? If they can't act as replacements for the current classes, but they don't have actual class features to stand on their own, what are they supposed to even do?
No, not at all. You're talking about mechanical diversity. The things a class can do. Themes obviously place some limits on what a class can and can't be, but overall having themed classes doesn't stifle this diversity, IMO. Why? Because there's more than one way to accomplish a role or specialty. Say you want a character who is a "tank." One class could achieve that by using heavy armors and maybe getting damage reduction or a very high HD, and be "tough." Another might instead be a "dodge tank" that isn't especially tough, but is just difficult to hit and has parries/counters when foes miss. Completely different themes and classes, same end result: A guy who can hang in melee quite well.
If anything hurts diversity, IMO, it's the non-thematic classes like Fighter who simultaneously *by design* have no particular unique talents or "calling cards" but also are expected to not be outshone by more specialized/specific-concept classes. Requiring a bland class that does nothing but "fight good" to be balanced means any other class with actual flavor to it must be inferior to this "fights good" class at fighting in order to not invalidate him.
If you are dismayed about modeling a very specific type of concept, that's a problem of any class-based system, it's not the fault of classes having a theme or being more generic. Unless you just had a tiny amount of generic classes that were unique and defined solely by the class features they picked from a big list. 3E did that; the result is certainly interesting, but IMO slants the power even HARDER in favor of the caster, who now not only has spells, but can also cherry pick other niches like sneak attack.
It seems like you've already answered your own question; just ask your GM if it's OK for you to play an Adept. If heroic classes are so itchy, why not have a go?
Fighters fight, casters cast, rogues sneak, summoners summon. Bards sing, cavaliers ride horses, ninjas are cool, clerics heal...
And each can do any number of other things, depending on the player.
If anything hurts diversity, IMO, it's the non-thematic classes like Fighter who simultaneously *by design* have no particular unique talents or "calling cards" but also are expected to not be outshone by more specialized/specific-concept classes. Requiring a bland class that does nothing but "fight good" to be balanced means any other class with actual flavor to it must be inferior to this "fights good" class at fighting in order to not invalidate him.
You know I hadn't even considered the reverse could be the case. Hrmm that's an interesting line of thought by removing certain "generic" classes it then frees up room for new more heavily theme'd classes, which might in deed go further to improving diversity instead of curbing it.
Hrmm what class apart from Fighter might that encompass, truely generic classes that are just the sum of thier parts
Fighter - Obviously
Rogue - rogue tricks might save this one but only just
Cleric - apart from domains seems like flavour wise the witch and oracle have this beat
Wizard - nothing much defines them as a class
Indeed perhaps removing the big 4 would actually help diversity assuming you filled the gaps with other more colourful classes
Somebody here did make a classless system for pathfinder. I haven't read it nor do i have the time to find it right now or know what it's called or who made it. But it's out there in the Homebrew section somewhere.
I would say that a rules-heavy system like Pathfinder being turned classless would probably be closer to gurps in its slowness. FATE, for instance, is classless, but is also much, much lighter on rules.
You actually think Pathfinder is a rules-heavy system?
Somebody here did make a classless system for pathfinder. I haven't read it nor do i have the time to find it right now or know what it's called or who made it. But it's out there in the Homebrew section somewhere.
I would say that a rules-heavy system like Pathfinder being turned classless would probably be closer to gurps in its slowness. FATE, for instance, is classless, but is also much, much lighter on rules.You actually think Pathfinder is a rules-heavy system?
Compared to many of the recent RPG releases PF is rules heavy. RPG's seem to be tending towards more indie like rules lite system.
I'll grant compared to older RPG's PF isn't a rules heavy game.
|
Hrmmmm. No I don't really see the options currently available in the game being restrictive enough not to allow the building of almost any type of character mechanically.
We've got archetypes, multi-classing and prestige classes so that is covering a huge amount of ground for a class-based system in terms of "I want to play X." That's helped with the inclusion of more base generic classes like Fighter or Rogue that allow the player to put a lot more of the emphasis and focus on it.
The creation of characters has come a long way after all in the heritage of the game. Think back to the days where you would roll your dice and see what kind of character(s) you were given. Races and Classes restricted by your ability score rolls. Sure made character creation go faster if you weren't muddling about.
Classes help to define Pathfinder as (Capital-G) Game.
Is the simple fact that you have to choose a class hindering your character concept or at least limiting the diversity than can be achieved with your character ?
In comparison to a free-form point-buy system? Yes, the class system is more restrictive than some point-buy systems. That free-form method brings a requirement of complexity and system mastery to achieve that flexibility, however.
In comparison to other level-based systems? Not even a little. Pathfinder's addition of archetypes allows for customization while maintaining the class structure in a way that is unsurpassed in level-based RPGs.
maybe this was mentioned, idk. but you sound like you may like how True20 did its classes, i think its a fantastic system myself
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mutants and Masterminds did a good job of making D20 a classless system.
You know I hadn't even considered the reverse could be the case. Hrmm that's an interesting line of thought by removing certain "generic" classes it then frees up room for new more heavily theme'd classes, which might in deed go further to improving diversity instead of curbing it.Hrmm what class apart from Fighter might that encompass, truely generic classes that are just the sum of thier parts
Fighter - Obviously
Agreed. The fighter's utter lack of definition compared to all other martials is their biggest failure. The class features insist upon heavy armour, but then it becomes a race to platemail and it railroads styles of combat that platemail doesn't complement and an utter lack of skill points and no means (magic) to off set it. Fighters need some love.
Rogue - rogue tricks might save this one but only just
This was once a flavourful class which fulfilled a distinct role, but as skills became universal (a very good thing, imho), the flavour watered down. I agree that beefing up the tricks and allowing them superhuman acts with skills would probably help this class.
Cleric - apart from domains seems like flavour wise the witch and oracle have this beat
I think this class has a distinct flavour: a knight templar. Problem is that the paladin has usurped this. I still advocate pushing the "white mage" feel for this class: healing, buffs and turning over maces, chainmail and violence. I think domains do a good job of defining the class flavour, but I'd love to see more domain powers to offset armour and BAB, with those coming with the war domain.
Wizard - nothing much defines them as a class
I disagree with this one most strongly: Vancian prepared casting defines it strongly. The mage with their spellbook and their need to pick spells ahead of time is a flavour. The schools of specialization empasize this, I feel.
Indeed perhaps removing the big 4 would actually help diversity assuming you filled the gaps with other more colourful classes
Removing the notion of the big 4, or at least making the original 4 (paladin was a fighting man) not the archetypical class of the big 4 would be a good idea, however, I'd really only replace the fighter with at least "knight" and "swashbuckler" types: those who tank in heavy armour and those who control the battlefield with speed and agility. The fighter punishes the latter.
The other 3 still have flavour, I feel, but just could use a tweak, or none in the case of the wizard.
For me the most important thing in the game, is that the mechanics are inherently tied to the theme/flavor. I want my game mechanics to make me 'feel' like I am what I am. For all its faults balance wise, the monk has a lot to make me feel like a kung fu theater action hero.
This is ofcourse a personal preference but it is a deal breaker for me. Part of it is that I use the mechanics of race and class to influence my characters from a roleplay perspective. I find inspiration in the ties between mechanics and theme to develop my characters roleplay wise. If you give me a clean slate generic hero mechanically, you'll get the same back form me rp wise. I would be bored, and those around me probably wouldnt enjoy the character much. On the other hand give me a Wayang Witch with the mechanics and flavor to match and I usually come in with very interesting characters (Javan which I am currently playing is among my favorites I've ever played).
I am one of those people who as a child, if you gave me a blank canvas and said draw/paint a picture, I'd stare at it for an hour and not think of anything interesting, but with a little open ended direction, I'd make something interesting and enjoy it.
I would be completely uninterested in a themeless class, and even more so in a themeless system. I know others prefer free reign for their creativity, but it simply doesnt work for me.
Somebody here did make a classless system for pathfinder. I haven't read it nor do i have the time to find it right now or know what it's called or who made it. But it's out there in the Homebrew section somewhere.
I would say that a rules-heavy system like Pathfinder being turned classless would probably be closer to gurps in its slowness. FATE, for instance, is classless, but is also much, much lighter on rules.You actually think Pathfinder is a rules-heavy system?Compared to many of the recent RPG releases PF is rules heavy. RPG's seem to be tending towards more indie like rules lite system.
I'll grant compared to older RPG's PF isn't a rules heavy game.
The Dark Eye gives a new definition to the term rules-heavy, even the more recent editions. But then again, I would guess its pretty obscure outside of Germany, so I guess i shouldn't use it as a point of comparison.
Savage Words is simple and classless
classes are merely packages
and races are merely packages of edges and hinderances.
No, inherent themes of classes are not hindering diversity. They're what makes diversity possible. If everyone is equally capable of choosing any development path, there is literally zero diversity.
Character diversity comes from roleplaying and creative thinking; not from a set of mechanics. There are the same number of character concepts whether Sir Lancelot and Robin Hood are a) both Fighters b) Fighters with different archetypes c) different classes d) classless with different feats e) mechanically identical with different attributes or f) the exact same character roleplayed two different ways.
Classes are just ways to map concepts to mechanics. Increasing or decreasing the number of mechanics or classes does nothing to affect the number of concepts in existence. That's like saying the number of hues of red paint you have determines how many different things you can paint. As long as you have enough for basic differentiation, your play will do the rest.
I am of the opinion that the class-system does not curb either diversity or creativity. I actually feel even the bare mechanics of classes serve to increase the creativity and thus the diversity - as an inveterate tweaker and homebrewer it is exactly the guidelines/rules (read "limitations") inherent in the class packages that inspire me both in concept and with new or tweaked mechanics. I think of it as a negative freedom that begs to be subverted - for some crazed reason I find mechanics inform the concept just as much as a concept appears out of thin air - and it is the very structure of the mechanics that sometimes solidifies and defines the concept.
Let's just say I'm a qualified gonzoholic, and I haven't been stumped by the rules as they are or as I can tweak/craft them to come up with or create a character concept.
I lke the diversity of classes as presented, and am inspired by the very many cool and creative 3PP Base and Alternate classes as well as archetypes.
I'm not one to try to recreate pop-culture characters/icons - the very nature of many of Pathfinder's base assumptions outside of class (spell system, movement grid, skill system, combat system, belief/divine system, damage/healing system) negate a lot of functionality there, but I've seen a lot of exemplary builds on that line.
I guess the bottom line is that I see PF as the river and the classes either as steepin stones on that river or skipping rocks hurtling over it. Sometimes you can only step in certain places, other times you can skip here and there. Rarely you can do both, and the skill or luck it takes to do that is a cherished thing. Generally though the rough timeworn stones are serviceable tools to get you where you want to go. Creatively.
One cannot compare Savage World or other rule light systems with PF, because those systems normally have a rather limited power scale. PF tries to balance several classes from lev 1 to 20, from fighting dangerous fights vs goblins to facing the dragon swooping down on the metropolis to obliterate it all by himself.
The majority of classless systems I have played Fate, Savage Worlds, Cortex play faster than D&D and take the same or less time to gen.
my only problem with savage worlds, is that the power scale is too limited. it isn't fantastic or grandiose enough for me.
ranged combat is clearly superior to melee due to reduced requirement for strength investment and the fact you can get similar, even higher average damage
plus, more dice is superior to bigger dice due to enhanced chance of acing.
bennies, are extra valuable and serve way too many purposes
adventure cards are also overpowering due to their many dangerously powerful abilities.
|
When I was younger, I mostly went for skill based systems. Now that I'm older my preference has changed, and I almost exclusively play classes bases. The switch was due to a little problem called the mage-tank. A skill based system is open ended by it's nature, and allowing the players to just make what the want is something I can support, but then reality set in. Open ended options abound but for some reason 2/3 players made the same character over and over again, the mage-tank, the guy who could wield a sword and wear the best armor while casting the best spells. Wow, how original. Why wield a club, staff or mace if a sword is just a clearly better choice, not fun. Despite that with a very mature group I'll play or run skill based systems, I'll also do it for sci-fi and super heroes, but never again for fantasy. Anyway it's just my personal experiences, everyone has a different view point, but classed based systems regularly outsell skill based ones, maybe others agree.
Oh, I don't care for rules lite systems either. Go figure.
|
Is the simple fact that you have to choose a class hindering your character concept or at least limiting the diversity than can be achieved with your character ?
I've always found that classes tended to add structure around which characters could be built.
Classless systems did not produce more diverse characters, rather they resulted in certain options all characters took.
|
|
To be clear, I think that there's an idea that "diverse characters" needs to mean something radically different from any existing class structure. It certainly can mean that, but it can also mean something that's different in the specifics in ways that existing class structures haven't been able to provide (at least not yet).
My experience with classless systems is primarily GURPS and Champions, with a few more obscure systems tossed in.
Within these systems, most players built characters that conformed to a limited range of play styles. Melee Damage, Ranged Damage, Tank, Controller.
Most optimized characters were very high defense and very high damage.
Most optimized characters took a minor form of self healing. Just enough to fully heal out of combat.