It may be too late, but should there even be classes?
If there is going to be a redesign, how about opening the system to allow people's imaginations to really run?
The class system still boxes people into roles. It seems like systems have danced around it some, but What if there were skill strands based on attributes from which people could learn?
Just like you only have so much time to learn so much, you can be great at one or two skills or mediocre at a few?
Maybe characters could get investment points for particular strands based on primary attributes - intelligence is your primary attribute - you get points for intelligence based skills, same for str, wisdom, dexterity, etc.
That is just losing focus.
Are there open systems without classes? Plenty of them. Burning wheel is one i played recently where you literally go TES route lvlings skills as you use them and so on.
That doesnt mean when someone comes to play pathfinder they expect this system to be one of those.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it's way too late to make that fundamental of a change to PF2E.
Having played the largely classless Shadowrun and Eclipse Phase, I wouldn't recommend the classless approach for casual players or beginners/new players in PF2E. Without sufficient system mastery, they'd likely find it (much) more difficult to build a character that is an effective contributor in the party. Being useless, or nearly so, is frustrating and would be very discouraging to prospective players new to PF2E.
Now, I would be interested in an Advanced Classless Guide hardcover down the road, but it'd be a substantial project to largely rebuild the entire system, work out all the math & balance issues, and then write/present it an accessible way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everything Ambrosia said. I've played classless systems and I'm fine with them, but they aren't for everyone. Having classes makes it easier to teach the game, easier for players to build characters, and provides a base flavor you can riff off of and run with. Also, well, this is still a D&D spinoff, not entirely its own thing.
That said, I'd be interested to see Paizo do a classless splat somewhere down the line and would buy it. For my NPC building and the couple of players who are smarter / more advanced than the others, if nothing else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes.
Yeah, it's way too late to make that fundamental of a change to PF2E.
Having played the largely classless Shadowrun and Eclipse Phase, I wouldn't recommend the classless approach for casual players or beginners/new players in PF2E. Without sufficient system mastery, they'd likely find it (much) more difficult to build a character that is an effective contributor in the party. Being useless, or nearly so, is frustrating and would be very discouraging to prospective players new to PF2E.
Now, I would be interested in an Advanced Classless Guide hardcover down the road, but it'd be a substantial project to largely rebuild the entire system, work out all the math & balance issues, and then write/present it an accessible way.
Yeah. Class-based systems are easier for new players, and they also bring certain themes and tropes to a game that make the setting what it is. Wizards are wizards, for example. While there's variance within, a wizard in general has certain expectations, flavors, and abilities.
Those tropes are part of the fantasy setting that PF is part of. Pick up the rule book? Join a new game? There's yer wizard, Harry.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A system without Classes wouldn't be Pathfinder. It would lose something of the fundamental nature of the sort of game it currently is. It would become something else.
Many Classless systems are great. Heck, in many ways I prefer them to class based ones...but they aren't Pathfinder (which is the same kind of game as D&D) and trying to make Pathfinder into them will just destroy its identity and render it unappealing to the majority of those who enjoy it as what it is.
I hadn't really thought about the difficulty for new players joining the game. Fair enough.
I agree with others: it's a sacred cow. And a very angry, immortal one at that.
However, the design direction does make me think about some of the thinking when the ARG was published -- it made an attempt to universalize racial traits into a point buy system. And it inherently raised the possibility: if this could be attempted with races, why not try the same with classes?
I say keep the classes, but the changes that are in store for PF2 do make it easier than ever to HOUSERULE a system where (1) you can create your own classes or (2) go classless and let players pick and choose what they want.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Playing a classless system is very flexible but makes the characters feel very samey.
A good example is listening to the starfinder threads that someone is bummed that their mechanic wants to be "the best hacker" but the operative or envoy are as/nearly as good. The pc's mechanic isn't that satisfying to them because they aren't that unique because its a skill and nearly everyone can be pretty close in skill levels.
That being said i think there is a good design niche for a class which would have those special capabilities to pick up or take other class's features to satisfy the builder types of players. Having the ability to combo different class abilities normally not found together would scratch the itch of a lot of players who feel constrained by pathfinder rules.
Playing a classless system is very flexible but makes the characters feel very samey.
Of all the things said in defense of classes, this is the one thing I can say is objectively untrue. If the options are varied enough, a classless system can make for very distinctive character builds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is just losing focus.
Are there open systems without classes? Plenty of them. Burning wheel is one i played recently where you literally go TES route lvlings skills as you use them and so on.
That doesnt mean when someone comes to play pathfinder they expect this system to be one of those.
Yep, in order to be “D&D”, classes and levels are just too integral to the experience. In my mind, so are the six ability scores, AC, and Hit Points.
Maybe you could do it as a house rule or maybe hope for something like that in an unchained kind of book later down the road but for the core system Hard pass.
RIP Trackless Step.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this will have to wait about 12 years for Pathfinder 3rd Edition to come out . . . and then I want an unholy hybrid of Pathfinder with Mutants & Masterminds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this will have to wait about 12 years for Pathfinder 3rd Edition to come out . . . and then I want an unholy hybrid of Pathfinder with Mutants & Masterminds.
well I hope to finish my unholy hybrid of starfinder and M&M soon so maybe in another 5 years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It may be too late, but should there even be classes?
If there is going to be a redesign, how about opening the system to allow people's imaginations to really run?
The class system still boxes people into roles. It seems like systems have danced around it some, but What if there were skill strands based on attributes from which people could learn?
Just like you only have so much time to learn so much, you can be great at one or two skills or mediocre at a few?
Maybe characters could get investment points for particular strands based on primary attributes - intelligence is your primary attribute - you get points for intelligence based skills, same for str, wisdom, dexterity, etc.
I think it's a fair question, and one worth pondering, but the real question is whether D&D players as a general group can handle a game without a rigidly-enforced class system.
I had begun thinking down similar trails earlier this week when I saw yet another complaint or argument over Rogues and Fighters "stepping on each other's toes" in their combat roles or whatever, and someone posted a disgruntled "might as well make them the same class!"
Well, I asked myself, why AREN'T they the same class, with the varying gradations between sneaky trap-finder and scout, the guy with all the unique skills, heavily-armored guy, and heavily-armed guy being a matter of customizable choice from player to player, based on the sort of character the player envisions? There need not be only one class in the game, but perhaps the game could use fewer classes but better options for customizing them. Why not wrap several of the 3rd Edition "muggle" classes up into a single, better-balanced class with a menu of mix-and-match specializations? Why can't the guy with the sharp stick pick locks or bargain with shopkeepers or persuade stubborn NPCs when she isn't poking things with the sharp stick, and why couldn't a party containing two or more of these characters be allowed to customize those characters in ways that complement each other, rather than compete?
The counter to "why not?", is "Because, of course, the general D&D community couldn't handle that break from tradition, and tradition is built around having the skill-guy and pokey-stick-guy arbitrarily divided into a minimum of narrow muggle classes, and the more additional narrowly-divided variations on those two classes that do more or less the same but even more narrowly-defined things with varying degrees of success, the better."
I like distinct classes. It is one of the defining features of the game. If you take that away it is no longer Pathfinder. There are plenty of classless systems out there if that is what takes your fancy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the real question is whether D&D players as a general group can handle a game without a rigidly-enforced class system.
Given that some PF1 players can handle complex multiclassing and archetype usage, I would assume they could handle a classless system, too. However, this doesn't necessarily mean they want to.
Why not wrap several of the 3rd Edition "muggle" classes up into a single, better-balanced class with a menu of mix-and-match specializations?
To some extent, that already happened: It's called vigilante.
A classless sub system would be great. Like a class that got some general feats first and then any other class feat at -4 levels or something. Like an Adventure class, not as strong but more freeformed.
A comprehensive class builder would also be useful in large groups like mine where people don't like repeating classes.
But I think PF should keep classes. Some in my group love classes and complain about the lack of classes on other games.
A classless system could work in a perfectly modular system design, but the nature of Spell casting in the D20 subsystems make this pretty challenging for the kind of high-fantasy game that is Pathfinder. You could do classless based upon everything being feats and then provide the obvious class templates that people are looking for, but it is very hard to make feats balanced if one is: you get +2 to two skills, and another is: you gain access to an entire level of spells.
Obviously you could move away from spell lists and broad level-based spell selection, but that is a pretty radical change for pathfinder, and is probably not going to please the majority of current players.
A classless system could work in a perfectly modular system design, but the nature of Spell casting in the D20 subsystems make this pretty challenging for the kind of high-fantasy game that is Pathfinder. You could do classless based upon everything being feats and then provide the obvious class templates that people are looking for, but it is very hard to make feats balanced if one is: you get +2 to two skills, and another is: you gain access to an entire level of spells.
The solution is not to make everything just feats with equal weight.
For example you can give players a number of constructiom points and make a level of spellcasting more expensive than say power attack.
A classless system could work in a perfectly modular system design, but the nature of Spell casting in the D20 subsystems make this pretty challenging for the kind of high-fantasy game that is Pathfinder. You could do classless based upon everything being feats and then provide the obvious class templates that people are looking for, but it is very hard to make feats balanced if one is: you get +2 to two skills, and another is: you gain access to an entire level of spells.The solution is not to make everything just feats with equal weight.
For example you can give players a number of constructiom points and make a level of spellcasting more expensive than say power attack.
That wouldn't really work when you have 4/9, 6/9 and 9/9 Spellcasting; and that further subdivided into Spontaneous (with Spells Known), Prepared (with Spellbooks) and Prepared (but without spellbooks) . Obviously they're not all worth the same as each other and trying to find the balance would be madness.
Keep the Classes. Fix them up a little, obviously, but classless d20 doesn't work unless you do a complete overhaul from the ground up (see: Mutants and Masterminds) and it would end up being massively complex, which the devs said they're trying to avoid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well my "dream idea" of the class system of D&D would technically be like a "Build Your own class" deal, pick a Chassis, pick your features, build what you like. However its hard to Balance proper and would lead mostly to a "Choice paralysis" and require a wast knowledge of options.
So selecting from a wide array of classes that have a Level of customization is better than the "Golden Axe" scenario where you pick "Elf" and is stuck with a lightly clad elven woman with a bow and dagger.
Its about finding a proper Balance within a framework.
A "Build Your Own Class" kit would be a great tool for GMs, but not necessarily for players (though if it was point-buy style, experienced players could have fun with it, too).
There have been similar optional rules for BECMI and AD&D 2e.
If we can't revert to some kind of semi-Gestalt multiclassing, this would be my second-best solution: no point-buy, but multiclass characters pick their features and progressions from menus to make a balanced, bespoke multiclass.
I came in to say "yes, we really do still need classes". There a ton of levelless, classless games out there; if that's what we wanted Pathfinder to become, why would we even be playing Pathfinder in the first place?
Here, here is a link for free copies of the older editions of Barbarians of Lemuria. The BoL Hack ($2.50) even converts the Barbarians of Lemuria rules into something more suited for PF.
I will buy a copy of the BoL Hack for the first few people to request it, if they're serious about trying it.
But I would assume that most of the people who play Pathfinder are aware of the fact that other games exist... and that they play Pathfinder because it's the general shape of the game that they want to play-- they don't want to play something whose general gameplay and structure is totally different.
I mean... that's why the game exists, isn't it?
A "Build Your Own Class" kit would be a great tool for GMs, but not necessarily for players (though if it was point-buy style, experienced players could have fun with it, too).
This reminds me of 2.5E D&D, the Players Option books. But even those didn't have a universal point pool and generic build chassis. They were still class based, with each class having a different number of points to spend on features.
Probably the closest we could get would be a more general Warrior - Expert - Adept base, with each being able to acquire a limited version of the others core features like Warrior or Expert getting Bardlike casting. But that should be a splat, an optional system, not the core assumption in the CRB.
Well my "dream idea" of the class system of D&D would technically be like a "Build Your own class" deal, pick a Chassis, pick your features, build what you like. However its hard to Balance proper and would lead mostly to a "Choice paralysis" and require a wast knowledge of options.
My favorite version of the D&D/PF rules is AD&D Player's Option-- basically Second Edition's answer to Unarthed Arcana and Pathfinder Unchained-- and one of the things it did was... just what you described.
And yeah... it was wonderful, but it was also awful, for all the reasons you described.
I would really like to see something... very much like what it sounds like they're already doing, where the bulk of a class comes from its "class feats".
That would not be Pathfinder.
Then with some hardship you can play classless Golarion - with fight and spellcasting curb down to skills and various weird powers made as one shot feats.
All XP bought.
Classless systems sound good in theory but end up being a nightmare to develop, let alone balance. They end up being either very simplistic, easily breakable by cherry-picking the best options from all over the system, or so full of restrictions that they might as well divvy up abilities between classes anyways.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a go a while back at making a classless PF set. I basically took the various abilities the classes get and gave them a feat cost. So smaller ones like Trackless Step were only 1 feat while something like Rage was 3 feats. Spell casting was 2 feats for 3 levels of casting, with you having to pay more to get higher level spellcasting. I never got around to finagling it so ensure that you could build the current classes with it and I am sure there are ways to abuse it, but it was an interesting thing to attempt.
D&D 3.5 Unearthed Arcana had a minimal class Adept-Expert-Warrior system, with extra feats to get features of the normal classes, which sounded like it had promise, but was never fleshed out.
|
I tend to dislike classless systems because there is either a tendency for players to figure out the best combos and run with them or there is too much of a difference in character creation that it is hard for the GM to balance out encounters for combat, social and investigation purposes. Look how the thief has evolved. Is anyone seriously going to jettison sneak attack and go back to being a pure skill monkey? I strongly doubt it.
I strongly prefer class-based systems, but we wanted to do some cyberpunk and there are no good class-based systems out there for a cyberpunk game. The WotC Star Wars worked well, though, for science fantasy. We're doing Shadowrun until August.
It may be too late, but should there even be classes?
That's the kind of question that makes me think you're playing the wrong game. There are plenty of classless RPGs out there that might be better suited to your tastes. Just a thought.
I strongly prefer class-based systems, but we wanted to do some cyberpunk and there are no good class-based systems out there for a cyberpunk game. The WotC Star Wars worked well, though, for science fantasy. We're doing Shadowrun until August.
The original Interface Zero is d20 Class Based Cyberpunk, have you tried that one?
I strongly prefer class-based systems, but we wanted to do some cyberpunk and there are no good class-based systems out there for a cyberpunk game. The WotC Star Wars worked well, though, for science fantasy. We're doing Shadowrun until August.The original Interface Zero is d20 Class Based Cyberpunk, have you tried that one?
I'll look it up. Thanks!
I'll look it up. Thanks!I strongly prefer class-based systems, but we wanted to do some cyberpunk and there are no good class-based systems out there for a cyberpunk game. The WotC Star Wars worked well, though, for science fantasy. We're doing Shadowrun until August.The original Interface Zero is d20 Class Based Cyberpunk, have you tried that one?
Just make sure to get the right one! The newest editions use Savage Worlds as the engine, but IIRC there's a True20 version and a d20 Modern version too. They should all be in drivethrurpg, at any rate.
Just make sure to get the right one! The newest editions use Savage Worlds as the engine, but IIRC there's a True20 version and a d20 Modern version too. They should all be in drivethrurpg, at any rate.I'll look it up. Thanks!I strongly prefer class-based systems, but we wanted to do some cyberpunk and there are no good class-based systems out there for a cyberpunk game. The WotC Star Wars worked well, though, for science fantasy. We're doing Shadowrun until August.The original Interface Zero is d20 Class Based Cyberpunk, have you tried that one?
I downloaded the beta from the Paizo website to check it out. Thanks again!