AD&D thoughts, Part Six: Classes, Archetype or Straightjacket?

[dorchadas]

That does seem to be the usual formulation, doesn't it?


This isn't really going to be about "should I use classes or shouldn't I?", because if I didn't want to I'd just run it using One-Roll Engine and set the game in the Forgotten Realms.

So, pros and cons. That's a good place to start.

Pros

• Preserve Core Competency - One of the things people cite as unrealistic about D&D's classes is that you always get better at fighting as you level, but this can be a good thing. For players with little to no system mastery, designing the classes so they automatically get better at whatever it is they're supposed to can prevent a lot of heartache down the road.


• Niche Protection - Classes (if designed well) make sure that everyone has something they're good at. This prevents the problem of useless characters by making sure everyone has a place.


• Ease of Entry - If the game has a large skill lists, lots of advantage and disadvantages, backgrounds, powers, etc., like most White Wolf games (or, even farther, GURPS), then you're asking a new player to make long-lasting decisions about his or her character at precisely the time when they know least about the system. If you want to play a character who totally flips out and kills people, it's much easier to say, "Play a fighter" than to say, "Well, you could play a Brujah or a Gangrel, but make sure to max your physical disciplines, and you probably want the Giant merit because...[blah blah blah]." It also makes it immediately obvious what the game is about.

Cons

• Rigidity - This isn't even "want to cast spells, hope you're a mage." It's more like, "Want to sneak? Hope you're a thief or a ranger" or "Want to cast spells and use swords? Sorry, you're SOL." Defining class abilities too rigidly can make it hard for people to play the character they want to.


• Focus - D&D was, at base, a game about going down into dungeons, killing people, and taking their stuff. The classes as written are organized around this idea. What if you want to swim, or knit? Well, there's the non-weapon proficiency rules for that, or skills in 3.0 (though 3.0 has some skills that only members of certain classes can be good at). What if you want to persuade people through oratory in second edition, or intimidate them, or bluff your way past some guards. Um...uh...Charisma check?[1]


• Classless? - D&D 3.0+ actually has classes for these (commoner, artisan, aristocrat, etc.), but in second edition there are a lot of people out there usually referred to as "0th level commoners." What does that even mean? If "classes" are how the world is defined, the lack of one is an obvious handicap, so how does one handle people who don't fit into the neat molds?

One thing second edition definitely does better than third is that it tries to keep the classes as broad archetypes. Third's proliferation of classes, prestige classes, feats, races, etc. was a good way to sell more books, but it led to some completely insane combinations that no GM would ever allow someone to play but which were rules-legal. Pun-Pun is probably the most infamous of these as the kobold who becomes the most powerful being in the multiverse at level 7, able to do ∞ damage per round, has a movement speed of ∞ and has ∞ in all his ability scores, but there are other less-famous combinations like the Hulking Hurler build that does an average of 5000 damage per round (at level 18) or the Omniscificer, designed specifically to have ∞ in all Knowledge skills so as to be able to learn of Pun-Pun's intentions and stop him before he becomes invincible.

Second edition classes, lacking feats and skills, are quite a bit similar. As written, fighters don't get any special abilities as they level other than attracting followers at ninth level[2]. They only unique benefit they get is weapon specialization, and...well, +1 to hit and +2 damage is good, but not amazing, especially when paladins get permanent protection from evil and a free summonable mount and can detect evil at will and priest spells and still have the same HP, saves and chance to hit as a fighter. Now, paladins have a code of ethics (though see below), and require stringent minima to enter the class, but I don't really know how common "3d6 6 times, going down the list" really is. Even if it is common, letting one group of people play a class that has way more awesomeness than another just because they got lucky might be a problem.

Part of the reason I decided to require specialty priests and specialists wizards (instead of generic clerics and mages) is for flavor, but part of it is also because of linear fighter/quadratic wizard. D&D has an often described "sweet spot" of around 4th-12th level. Above that, casters start to pull ahead too far as their spells allow them to basically do anything (thus destroying niche protection). Below that, you're scrabbling through what has been described as "fantasy fucking Vietnam," constantly watching yourself all the time and hoping that nothing you can't handle show up. Limiting what clerics and wizards can do extends the sweet spot a bit.

I still end up wondering what to do about fighters. Rogues I gave extra abilities to. Paladins and Rangers get abilities as they level. Like I said, Dark Sun turned fighters into a mass combat specialist, but how often does the apparently-assumed progression of the game actual go towards the domain-administering and army-leading? One possibility would be to look into some 3.0 feats (large access to which is basically how 3.0 powered up fighters) and add them as abilities that fighters get as they advance in levels. So, add Cleave at 4th level, and so on. Another possibility would be to give them a larger amount of weapon proficiencies to allow them to hit grand mastery earlier. Then again, it's a bit unclear how much tinkering I'd actually need.

One thing I plan to do is require kits for everyone. Kits are kind of the forerunners of 3.0's prestige classes, except instead of being separate classes they modified the base class (or multiclass combination). The various sorts of specialty priests and specialist wizards are early versions of kits, and there are a bunch of fighter ones: Barbarian, Beast-Rider, Cavalier (widely considered to be stupid overpowered), Myrmidon, etc. That's one way of adding some distinction, but is it enough?

Class balance is the biggest thing that makes me considering using ORE instead of D&D to run the game. Even though it might change the feel a lot (and ORE Reign's magic would need a total rewrite to fit in), it definitely fixes linear fighter/quadratic wizard.

How do you feel about classes? Do you prefer lots of focused ones, or a few broad ones? Would you refer to play in a game that had them, or are there some games and genres that are better for their presence?

[1]: Or "roleplay it out," but I've learned to rely more on the dice in my GMing career because that's really abusable. If someone is naturally charismatic, they can spend their points on combat skills, rely on their talents to fast-talk the GM, and essentially be awesome all around. That and when someone says, "I hit him with my sword," I don't hand them a bokken and say, "Come at me."
[2]: One person on RPG.net dubbed adventurers "petty warlord larvae." They roam around, get into fights, and eventually go into "chrysalis" inside a small keep and emerge with an army with which to menace the surrounding countryside.


Next up--a kind of survey of the various countries around in the time period I want to run and what I can do with them.

Comments

[armadillo-king.livejournal.com]

Solid thoughts.

On the Commoner question, the easy answer is to just import the Commoner and Noble classes from 3.X.

For Fighters, I've heard good thing about the weapon skills(?) from Book of the Nine Swords, a late 3.5 product that supposedly prefigured the 4e Powers. Alternatively, you could import some Talent trees from d20M/Star Wars Saga.