Warrior classes: a dissection

[Monte Carlo]

How do you like to structure fighter / warrior classes.

 

The traditional (1st / 2nd Ed) D&D route is to (a) choose specific weapons (b) put proficiencies into them (c ) maybe choose a subclass or kit and (d) use the right magic items.

 

It was pretty straightforward and not as interesting as the spell-casting / stealth classes. 3E made things a bit more interesting with kits, allowing you to build a tank, 'light fighter', dual-wielder, berserker or whatever using a menu of symbiotic skills, feats and classes. Then prestige classes came in and killed it.

 

Then I started thinking about other games and the cultural underpinnings of warrior classes. If you think about it, the culture a warrior comes from will have an enormous influence on his or her class.

 

* Types of weapons used (tech level / culture / taboo / tactics)

* Codes / ethics (is there an elite warrior caste with rigid codes of chivalric honour or are fighters just mercenary scum?)

* Armies (does the fighter come from a culture with a standing army or one with levies or auxiliaries or just a tribal horde)

* Culture (tribal / developed)

* Class (noble warrior trained in certain weapon types and tactics, or tribal skirmisher with survival skills and tracking?)

 

Over to you. But I would like a warrior class that allows me to imagine a range of character archetypes, from rapier-armed remittance man through to axe-wielding berserker savage through to professional musketeer / mercenary through to wily and cunning tribal scout / skirmisher. And *without* the need for kits / subclasses.

 

Is this possible?

[Knott]

If we move away from and drop the limitations the illusion of "Classes" impose on us and instead use a more free-form character-System in order to create the character we wish to play, then anything is possible!

[Gurkog]

In short, yes.

 

The long answer is to have a large variety of skills and whatnot for the player to pick and choose from. That allows a combat 'style' to be specialized in without using rigid class structure.

[Monte Carlo]

That's all very well, but my post was made knowing that we will have a class system. I am playing with the hand I'm dealt.

 

I have a home-brew system. In it the base warrior class is divided into three:

 

* Knight

* Regular

* Tribal

 

The Knight is a quasi-paladin class, the regular an all-rounder with a focus on weapon specialisation and the tribal a barbarian / scout hybrid. All are cultural archetypes.

 

I think this works, they are a bit like kits I suppose but within them there is more flexibility. For example, a regular can dip into the Knight and Tribal pools and vice versa (to a certain extent). This would, for example, make a Tribal Chieftan (i.e. a tribal with some knight characteristics, a frontier warrior (a regular who has gone snake-eater) or a Knight-errant (a knight who slums it with the other ranks, sacrificing leadership skills for weapon prowess).

 

All varieties have role-play and cultural considerations behind them.

[Tale]

It might be possible, but not without its own pitfalls. I mean, I can imagine a class that's built to take advantage of whatever you put into it. Pump all your int and you have a spellsword, pump all your dex and you have a swashbuckler, pump your strength, etc. However, this seems like it'd be difficult to do without turning everyone into an auto-attack bore or otherwise making them all play the same.

 

I'll admit I've never played around with the bones of systems to become well informed enough to back that up.

[Monte Carlo]

This is why the class is tied to a cultural archetype which sets your initial skills and powaz. Knights get to inspire allies and perform healing. Regulars have combat and toughness-type feats. Tribals get agility and dodge powaz. Then you branch out and see what type of character you become from there.

[Tale]

This is why the class is tied to a cultural archetype which sets your initial skills and powaz. Knights get to inspire allies and perform healing. Regulars have combat and toughness-type feats. Tribals get agility and dodge powaz. Then you branch out and see what type of character you become from there.

Sounds an awful lot like a kit to me.

[Knott]

That's all very well, but my post was made knowing that we will have a class system. I am playing with the hand I'm dealt.

 

The cards aren't shuffled yet, let alone even printed.

So there is still time to pitch in with ambitious ideas.

(...) But that massive list of options is not really conceivable in a computer game of this scale. It would in fact simply be easier to drop the use of class and simply make a system that is flexible to begin with without starting with limiting lables. And for those who need inspiration/frameworks; there will of course be pre-generated characters.

[Monte Carlo]

This is why the class is tied to a cultural archetype which sets your initial skills and powaz. Knights get to inspire allies and perform healing. Regulars have combat and toughness-type feats. Tribals get agility and dodge powaz. Then you branch out and see what type of character you become from there.

Sounds an awful lot like a kit to me.

 

No, because a kit is fixed and can't develop other skills.

[Scryer]

Couldn't this be done simply by dropping the classes and making a skill based system? With something like S.P.E.C.I.A.L. and a sufficiently diverse range of skills you could basicaly turn your character into whatever you want.

 

Or think of the pre-Skyrim Elder Scrolls system where you choose main skills and secondary skills that get variable bonuses and still retain acces to the rest only at lesser values and maybe harder to raise in the beginning.

[Jarmo]

Maybe not S.P.E.C.I.A.L., but taken from there I could see this work by picking feats or perks, a couple at first and more later.

Moral code, cultural impact, level of education, class status and other stuff like that, I'd prefer to be separate from base class and just roleplayed.