What defines a class?

[Hormalakh]

I've been thinking about this question and I have read some previous discussions/arguments erupting due to what I believe are disagreements in what a class should be defined as. The discussion on "Monks" and especially Forton has made me continue to think about this, and I wanted to see what Obsidian has to say on the matter:

 

What defines a class? What makes one character in your world a different class than another character? From the definitions provided, they seem to be descriptions for a career path or a mental state that a character would be. But I can't be sure how exactly you are distinguishing between your classes.

 

Are they distinguished by the skills they can have?

By their combat styles?

Philosophies or personalities of these characters?

 

Any information on this would be really beneficial to us, the players. The reason I bring this up is because sometimes the distinction between classes are very vague, and often, different criteria distinguishes between classes (as opposed to a singular criteria effective across all classes). It's easy to distinguish between a fighter and a wizard, but the same criteria cannot be used to distinguish between a fighter, a monk, and a barbarian. The same thing occurs with a rogue and a ranger.

 

Monks, especially, are the product of a philosophy fit into a combat style within a specific culture. No other class really is described this way.

 

As I said in another thread, I hope the devs can articulate these distinctions to us and utilize one definition for the word "class" and define their classes by distinguishing between them through that singular lens so that a lot of these arguments between what a paladin or a monk mean can be better understood by us the players.

 

D&D, because it is a game that has evolved through each new edition has had its definitions diluted, corrupted and sometimes made backward-incompatible, has made convoluted descriptions that are difficult to understand. When starting a completely new IP and gameworld, we do not have to work with these adulterated definitions. We should be clear about what we mean.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Alexjh]

Well in the case of project eternity, I think it refers primarily specifically to how an individual how each of the classes uses their soul energy differently, but I don't think even then at least as far as 3rd Edition was concerned the classes were fairly clearly differentiated.

 

Some they've talked about and some not, but generally speaking its more or less the tone of a class, some like fighter and rogue are fairly broad with options of going down different specialities within that, whereas some like monk and barbarian are a bit more limited in scope but, but I think the general idea is that each class focuses on a different set of mechanics that are enhanced by their soul powers.

[Tethros]

Right, so in the Elder Scrolls games, you were always defined by your skills. A particular "class" of characters just had a preset level in X, Y, and Z skills, all of which could be reduced or increased for more customization. I think that this is a really powerful and flexible format, because it allows the designers to create a core set of viable classes for new players, but it also allows us to explore the nuances of character creation as gamers.

 

Particularly, it allows you to design characters from the top down or the bottom up. Do you really like the idea of a diplomat character? Give them skills in languages/conversation, bartering, anything social (i.e. top-down). Do you want to deal as much damage as possible with a particular type of weapon? Make a barbarian fighter with all skills in axes, and magic for buffs (i.e. bottom-up).

[Lephys]

Simply put, a class should be defined by a specialization, be it in role, skillset, etc. For it to be valid, the specialization of all classes must be equally as interesting. Not necessarily preferentially, to every single person on the planet. But, in general. You don't want a Warrior's only depth to be how much damage his skills deal and how long he stuns, for example. Because, then, there's hardly any difference between him and any other combat-heavy class.

 

But, a class should play a role, and it should be a useful role. There might be an engineer class, or some other tech-related class, and they should be able to modify weapons and armor, and affect traps and environments in their own way. This should include how to deal with quests and NPCs and lore. Since there's a tech-person in your game world, there must be tech, and, therefore, they should be able to interact with it in a unique way. Other classes may know what tech is, and perhaps even use a bit of it. If they didn't, it would be TOO forcefully divided. I mean, when your mage is the ONLY person in the universe who can do anything magical, the world becomes a little weak. Everything's too separate, like you put ingredients in a bowl and didn't stir them enough or something. You've got lumps of flour in your cake mix...

 

But, obviously, classes like Warrior and Ranger will be similar in ways, as they can both physically enharminate (that's definitely a word) foes in combat. It's necessary, however, for a good RPG to have a strong sense of uniqueness to a class. The Ranger doesn't just need to be a Warrior with a bow who can possibly call an animal to help him.

 

It's a bit like a cat and a dog. At a glance, they're both furry, and they both have four legs, and a tail... I mean, really, they're QUITE similar. BUT, cats and dogs, as most of us know, behave in remarkably different manners.

 

So, you don't want to run into the situation where you've just got various breeds of a couple of animals. You don't want a Barbarian who's just a bigger Warrior with berzerking capabilities, or some kind of Rune Guard guy who does everything a Mage does, except he uses magic items instead of drawing on mana or some other direct magical energy. They have to DO differently, not simply technically be different. Like the forms of water. Ice is crystalline and rigid. Water is flowing and enveloping. Vapor is nimble and permeating. They're all water, but they DO things in very, very different ways. You fill a room with water vapor, and you fill a room with ice, and you've got two COMPLETELY different rooms.

[Osvir]

I'd like to see something that hasn't been done yet (afaik) and I think this will be the last time I will bother with posting it.

 

Obsidian said they would handle Out of Combat Skills as a separate "Tree" than the Leveling Up feature, can't the Out of Combat Skill be attached to the Character Levels then? You could have Classes with specific Class abilities that level up with the Character levels as well in this fashion.

 

What I am most curious about, and a new take on it, is to have an external Weapon Leveling (Like how Baldur's Gate handles it, you kill an enemy, you get 15 experience). This way you can define your class.

 

How?

 

You start off as a Fighter, but you want to be able to cast Magic with your Fighter so you Equip him with a Grimoire. You'll practically be your own take on what a Fighter/Wizard is, you defined the class progression. You'll be a Fighter with Fighter Class Abilities with weak Grimoire Magic Abilities.

 

You start off as a Wizard, but you want to be up close and personal with your Wizard so you equip him with Sword & Board. You'll practically be your own take on what a Wizard/Fighter is, you defined the class progression. You'll be a Wizard with Wizard Class Abilities with weak Close-Combat Abilities.

 

etc. etc. for all the rest of the classes.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Osvir

[Lephys]

I definitely like that idea, Osvir. I think being a Warrior doesn't mean you can't fight with a quarterstaff, or use magic, just as being a Mage doesn't mean you can't handle a weapon well. I've ALWAYS loved the idea of a combat Mage. A Mage who can do more than poke people occasionally with a dagger in between spells.

 

You just don't want to take it too far. Like in Skyrim, for example. Or Fable. Yeah, you could "make your own class." But, since you could pretty much do everything to the fullest, there really wasn't much of a specialization. You shouldn't be allowed to do EVERYthing. It just doesn't make any sense in an RPG. If you play ALL the roles, then you're left with a PG.

 

I think a very good way to handle this is how Guild Wars 2 did their combat system. I know, I know... it's just an MMO. Bear with me, though. With their system, different classes get different skills, even when using the same weapons. So, instead of being a Rogue, and just getting only the first 3 abilities in the generic Axe skill tree while a Warrior gets all of them, you get ROGUE-axe skills. You use an axe in such as way as to maneuver a lot in combat and bleed and poison people, whereas a Warrior might knock people around a lot more and attack in a much slower, more straightforward fashion, probably striking multiple foes at once with cleaves and such.

 

I just REALLY like the way they handled that, because you really feel like a different class, even when you're wearing the same armor-type and carrying the same weapon as someone from another class.

 

So, I'd love to see something similar in a cRPG. Like... a battle Mage who gets to use lots of pure magic on people and still fight with Mage-like combat skills (you don't just run around cleaving everything in sight, and leaping across the battlefield.) Then, maybe that Warrior who wants to use magic gets a lot of combat-magic -- spells that don't simply create fiery explosions out of thin-air so much as they augment weapon combat. Maybe you'd fight a lot more like the element-benders from Avatar: The Last Airbender. Ya know? Thrust earth at people, rake fire about in waves around you, etc. That way, you'd still get cool magic, but, it wouldn't be quite so bland as "I'm a Mage, and I get firebolt, fireball, firewall, and meteor strike." "Oh, hello, Mr. Mage. I'm a Warrior, but I ALSO have firebolt and fireball! The exact same spells YOU have! Only I carry an axe and you don't, ^_^. I just don't get access to firewall and meteor strike... but who cares? Those cost a lot of mana, anyway, and I have less than you do, 'cause I'm a Warrior, u_u."

 

That system is what always gets implemented, and it just seems far too simplified. I think we can to better.

[Alexjh]

Classes in some ways are a bit tricky to get right as a mechanic, in theory I love the Elder Scrolls mechanic of levelling up anything you want to create some freeflow classes. The problem with that is however, that the result is always a fighter, a rogue a wizard or a combination thereof.

 

This comes at the expense of things I consider to be "specialist" abilities which include among other things, D&D class features like bardic music, barbarian rage, druid wildshape, turn undead, favoured enemy and all monk skills. For the sake of characters not just being overpowered and maintaining the ability to build on the archetypes would mean somehow preventing people learning all of those together because it would be both overpowered and a bit silly to have raging panther running through the middle of a fight, singing and burning all the undead it went near.

 

One option would be to let you select a class, which then locks you into these specialist abilities but then from there on in its a free for all on anything else. This is still a bit clunky though. If you had them at the opposite end of training as skills only a few could master it could theoretically work but then it'd turn these classes into prestige classes which doesn't do them justice in my view.

 

I'm not really sure there is a solution that covers all the issues that either system brings up...

[Osvir]

I definitely like that idea, Osvir. I think being a Warrior doesn't mean you can't fight with a quarterstaff, or use magic, just as being a Mage doesn't mean you can't handle a weapon well. I've ALWAYS loved the idea of a combat Mage. A Mage who can do more than poke people occasionally with a dagger in between spells.

 

You just don't want to take it too far. Like in Skyrim, for example. Or Fable. Yeah, you could "make your own class." But, since you could pretty much do everything to the fullest, there really wasn't much of a specialization. You shouldn't be allowed to do EVERYthing. It just doesn't make any sense in an RPG. If you play ALL the roles, then you're left with a PG.

 

Exactly. What I am envisioning isn't a TES system:

 

Character & Class Level Up = Quest Experience"It is at the end of the journey we realize it was a journey" in that way I feel about lots of things. I can only come to full realization when my Quest is done, and I learn the experience of it (Quest Based-System). It makes no sense that Quests would have anything to do with my skill with a sword, unless a specific Quest. My sneaking, speech skill and trade skill could all be tied to Questing however.

 

Weapon Level Up = Kill enemies. How Baldur's Gate does it (Take down 1 Enemy, get 15 Experience for the Equipped weapon). You'd have 1'000'000 Experience just to Level it 1 Level. When I am only the one left standing on the battlefield, that is when I learn. When I have taken down my opponent, that is when I learn. You learn in the midst of combat as well, but for simplicity's sake and philosophically you learn when you are alive and your opponent is dead. If the other way around you learned/experienced only to embrace defeat or death.

 

Fighter -> Monster dies = Experience

Monster -> Fighter dies = Death, no Experience

 

Makes sense?

 

I really like the idea and thought about how a Rogue with Axes would have its own style, just a thought:

* 11 Classes and some 22~ weapons? That's about... 231+ different styles/animations/abilities at least

 

For simplicity's sake it would be easier to tie about 3-4 abilities to each Weapon for everyone, that would narrow down Weapon Abilities to some 33-44+ (this is not taking Spells or Schools into Account). Class specific abilities could be 3-4 for each class as well, now up to 33-44+ abilities. Roughly 70-80 Abilities in total, which could leave us with ~140 spells instead of having "[Class] Axe" skills.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Osvir

[BetrayTheWorld]

I really like the idea and thought about how a Rogue with Axes would have its own style, just a thought:

* 11 Classes and some 22~ weapons? That's about... 231+ different styles/animations/abilities at least

 

For simplicity's sake it would be easier to tie about 3-4 abilities to each Weapon for everyone, that would narrow down Weapon Abilities to some 33-44+ (this is not taking Spells or Schools into Account). Class specific abilities could be 3-4 for each class as well, now up to 33-44+ abilities. Roughly 70-80 Abilities in total, which could leave us with ~140 spells instead of having "[Class] Axe" skills.

 

Actually, it'd be less work than that if you grouped weapons together that were used in the same way. For instance, a handaxe and a machete are two different weapons that are functionally used in exactly the same way. Both are single-handed, chopping-only types of weapons. Therefore the abilities and animations associated with their use wouldn't have to be different. Further, single-handed weapons that had both chopping and thrusting capability could share -some- animations with those as well, narrowing the number of animations that need to be created.

 

Basically, I don't think we need to oversimplify a good idea.

Edited November 19, 2012 by BetrayTheWorld

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I think what defines a class is progression. Classes will develop Attack bonus, Skill points, HP, etc. at different rates.

[Osvir]

I really like the idea and thought about how a Rogue with Axes would have its own style, just a thought:

* 11 Classes and some 22~ weapons? That's about... 231+ different styles/animations/abilities at least

 

For simplicity's sake it would be easier to tie about 3-4 abilities to each Weapon for everyone, that would narrow down Weapon Abilities to some 33-44+ (this is not taking Spells or Schools into Account). Class specific abilities could be 3-4 for each class as well, now up to 33-44+ abilities. Roughly 70-80 Abilities in total, which could leave us with ~140 spells instead of having "[Class] Axe" skills.

 

Actually, it'd be less work than that if you grouped weapons together that were used in the same way. For instance, a handaxe and a machete are two different weapons that are functionally used in exactly the same way. Both are single-handed, chopping-only types of weapons. Therefore the abilities and animations associated with their use wouldn't have to be different. Further, single-handed weapons that had both chopping and thrusting capability could share -some- animations with those as well, narrowing the number of animations that need to be created.

 

Basically, I don't think we need to oversimplify a good idea.

 

I am oversimplifying it because 231+ Weapon Abilities. On top of that you're going to want to put in Spell Abilities. I counted what feels to me to be the High-, Mid- and Low-Magic Class:

 

High-Magic: Priest, Druid, Wizard, Cipher

Mid-Magic: Chanter, Monk, Paladin

Low-Magic: Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, Ranger

 

If using my method you would have about 80~ Weapon Abilities (Not Weapon+Class Abilities, but Weapon only, that are the same for each Class but a Fighter would be best with Sword & Board, and could even have Class Abilities that are directly tied to the Sword & Board) and you'd have about 160 Spell Abilities to distribute between the classes. I did a quick brainstorming and I got it to around 25~ Spells Each for the High-Magic (Obviously it needs to be more), 10~ each for Mid-Magic and about 5~ each for the Low-Magic (in total). Obviously all 3 of these needs to have more, in my opinion. Most importantly the High-Magic ones, (25~ Spells spent across 12 Levels... 2 spells per level, maybe not so fun :/).

 

I'd like to have about 40~ spells each for High-Magic (total of 160), 20~ each for Mid-Magic (60) and maybe 10~ each for the Low-Magic (40). That's 260 Magic Abilities. With the idea I am challenging, which I like but I'm looking at resources, you might need 500~600 Abilities with description, in total. Rogue-Axe might have the same animation, but the effects of the Rogue-Axe versus the Fighter-Axe are different. I haven't even started going into Class Abilities yet, see where I'm going? That's why you need to oversimplify, just as much as you need to exaggerate it, this way you'll see where the middle ground is better.

 

Let's go back to those 500~600 abilities (in total). In my idea only about 80~ would be Weapon Abilities, leaving about 420~520 Abilities that could be distributed to Spells and Classes. This is if the game would be developed with the mindset that they are going to have 500-600 abilities spread across Weapon/Class/Spell. In the idea I am challenging we are looking at 230 Weapon Abilities versus 270-370 Spell & Class Abilities.

 

EDIT: And a good idea should be deconstructed, just to be constructed so we can deconstruct it again. A good idea needs to be inspected and analyzed "Does it really work?". Because you don't want the developers to be all like "That is one fine idea let's do it!" and mid-way through development they'll be like "Eeeeh this wasn't a good idea at all". So I think it is good to oversimplify, as well as exaggerate into obscurity, analyze, find problems and find solutions to these problems. Challenge the idea, so that the person that came up with it can think of new ways to present it and/or solve problems that others see that he/she does not.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Osvir

[Umberlin]

I've been thinking about this question and I have read some previous discussions/arguments erupting due to what I believe are disagreements in what a class should be defined as. The discussion on "Monks" and especially Forton has made me continue to think about this, and I wanted to see what Obsidian has to say on the matter:

 

What defines a class? What makes one character in your world a different class than another character? From the definitions provided, they seem to be descriptions for a career path or a mental state that a character would be. But I can't be sure how exactly you are distinguishing between your classes.

 

Are they distinguished by the skills they can have?

By their combat styles?

Philosophies or personalities of these characters?

 

Any information on this would be really beneficial to us, the players. The reason I bring this up is because sometimes the distinction between classes are very vague, and often, different criteria distinguishes between classes (as opposed to a singular criteria effective across all classes). It's easy to distinguish between a fighter and a wizard, but the same criteria cannot be used to distinguish between a fighter, a monk, and a barbarian. The same thing occurs with a rogue and a ranger.

 

Monks, especially, are the product of a philosophy fit into a combat style within a specific culture. No other class really is described this way.

 

As I said in another thread, I hope the devs can articulate these distinctions to us and utilize one definition for the word "class" and define their classes by distinguishing between them through that singular lens so that a lot of these arguments between what a paladin or a monk mean can be better understood by us the players.

 

D&D, because it is a game that has evolved through each new edition has had its definitions diluted, corrupted and sometimes made backward-incompatible, has made convoluted descriptions that are difficult to understand. When starting a completely new IP and gameworld, we do not have to work with these adulterated definitions. We should be clear about what we mean.

 

Some of the questions your asking here, I think I understand it in the context of some games, but, for example, Gothic II is an example of a brand of game that you don't need to question such things. Actually having to earn your way into these different factions, to receive training in their unique skillsets . . . that explains the different between supposed classes. A Class was more of a title, a label, you are one of the Fire Mages because you joined them, and you had titles and ranks within that order (that people outside the Fire Mages may or may not be aware of). I think what made that work is that you actually had to go through the journey to join these different factions, to become 'that class', so to speak.

 

Games where you just 'are' a class, right off the bat, that questions hold more meaning, and . . . it makes me appreciate the system in Gothic II more. What it means to be a class, in a way, is hard to explain, especially in the context of a world around you that sees you and reacts to you. The fact that you're a Wizard in D&D might be relevant, in a crpg, but only to an extent, and it's not like it's definitive beyond certain generalizations - when considering how people see you, if they know what you are at all. In Gothic II people knew you were a Fire Mage, and the things surrounding that fact, on sight - not because they were psychic, but because the Fire Mages wore a particular uniform, and different ranks wore different, very specific, robes. The robes, in addition to any defenses, were a sign of not just that you were a part of the Fire Mage ranks, but where you sat in those ranks.

 

I realize what I'm saying is not entirely in line with some of the things you were asking, but I think it may have some relevance regardless.

[gglorious]

I don't think classes have a clear definition. Each class is a vague family of concepts that are different enough from other concepts to be fruitfully cut away.

 

So, in one system, it may make sense to combine barbarians, monks, paladins, and rangers into one class, but others may break it out more. Some will break it out further, with prestige classes and additional base classes. It's entirely possible that some of these divisions will conflict somewhat. So, in DAO, ranger was a rogue subtype, but in most other cases, ranger is considered more of a warrior subtype.

 

The point of a class is to set up flavor and developmental tendencies for the class and structure the world into categories desirable for the world-builder to work with. So, paladins don't NEED to exist, but it makes the idea of "holy warrior" easier to put together both by players and beings within the larger world and it's a concept that can be worked with. It's kind of like an authorial tendency, so one author may gloss over details about the scenery, but another could really focus on that, and even elevate that into an important plot point. So, if you notice, in IE games, Paladins are very often given special plot focuses, so Carsomyr, the best sword in BG2 is a Paladin sword. One of the hardest battles in IWD2 is a Paladin battle. One of the faster ways to figure out something is wrong in IWD with a group of priests found is by having a Paladin(and they also get a special sword there too). And BG2 actually did a lot with class variation to make it really relevant, which was cool for replay, so each different class took a different place in the game world, with it's own different stronghold(thieves got a thieves guild, priests joined a temple, warriors got a keep, bards got a playhouse, etc)

[JFSOCC]

Great topic.

In KOTOR2 Kreia had some great dialogue, one when you ask her if she is a Sith, and she dismisses it as nothing but a title which does not encompass how she views the world. and when you can get a prestige class, and you can tell her what you want to be, and her response is something along the lines of "OK, then be that, all it is is a change in mindset"

 

Classes exist as a way to frame different ways of playing the game, but also to balance that no one person can do everything in every way. That munchkin playing style which so often detracts from the experience you get by roleplaying.

If you can limit the player's character options enough that no-one can do everything, then I suppose you could do away with classes from a gameplay perspective.

But often the classes also define the world. From a narrative perspective having different classes can make sense.(but so can not having different classes) People in that world might be limited in options by what type of soul they have.

 

letting the player play his character the way he or she wants to play on one side, a balanced game on the other. (and yes there might be other ways to balance the game)

Having a party means you can compensate for shortfalls in your character, makes having a party more meaningful too.

 

So yes, classes limit a player, but these limitations can make sense from a gameplay perspective and a narrative perspective. You simply can't have everything.

[Hormalakh]

What do you guys think about classes from a games mechanics perspective? Should classes define very rigid borders between what a certain person can and can't do? For example, are rogues the only ones who can emply skills like pickpocket? Are monks the only ones who can fight unarmed? Are wizards the only ones who can employ spirit-based magic? Or are these classes undefined boundaries? Can a monk also learn some magic as well as thieving skills? Can a wizard also learn some ranger attributes? Can a barbarian also be partially a priest?

 

If there are undefined boundaries, how undefined do we make it? Are some skills or attributes extremely rigid (priest spells ONLY for priests) and others unbounded (thieiving skills can be learned by any class) or is everything rigid/unbounded?

 

These boundaries help players and the game world to be more/less rigid and help define our experiences. Thank you everyone for responding thus far.

[Hormalakh]

Simply put, a class should be defined by a specialization, be it in role, skillset, etc. For it to be valid, the specialization of all classes must be equally as interesting.

-snip-

But, a class should play a role, and it should be a useful role.

-snip-

I mean, when your mage is the ONLY person in the universe who can do anything magical, the world becomes a little weak. Everything's too separate, like you put ingredients in a bowl and didn't stir them enough or something. You've got lumps of flour in your cake mix...

-snip-

It's a bit like a cat and a dog. At a glance, they're both furry, and they both have four legs, and a tail... I mean, really, they're QUITE similar. BUT, cats and dogs, as most of us know, behave in remarkably different manners.

...

 

The question then becomes where do we draw the lines betweeen the 9 classes? What distinguishes them? If they are mixes of these "skills" are all skills learnable by all classes? Do certain classes get "perks" for skills? Do they get special abilities that other classes don't? How can we make all the classes balanced so that each class is a viable choice? I know that we don't have everything set in stone in terms of classes: all we have are vague descriptions, but can you come up with your distinguishing abilities/skillsets that distinguishes them?

 

-snip-

Obsidian said they would handle Out of Combat Skills as a separate "Tree" than the Leveling Up feature, can't the Out of Combat Skill be attached to the Character Levels then? You could have Classes with specific Class abilities that level up with the Character levels as well in this fashion.

 

What I am most curious about, and a new take on it, is to have an external Weapon Leveling (Like how Baldur's Gate handles it, you kill an enemy, you get 15 experience). This way you can define your class.

-snip-

So you're saying combat skills and non-combat skills don't define a class, but rather "class-specific skills" define them. Can you come up with 9 different skills that you think would do this? I'm assuming all classes can then advance down whichever combat and non-combat skills that they wish. Am I incorrect?

 

Classes in some ways are a bit tricky to get right as a mechanic, in theory I love the Elder Scrolls mechanic of levelling up anything you want to create some freeflow classes. The problem with that is however, that the result is always a fighter, a rogue a wizard or a combination thereof.

 

This comes at the expense of things I consider to be "specialist" abilities which include among other things, D&D class features like bardic music, barbarian rage, druid wildshape, turn undead, favoured enemy and all monk skills. For the sake of characters not just being overpowered and maintaining the ability to build on the archetypes would mean somehow preventing people learning all of those together because it would be both overpowered and a bit silly to have raging panther running through the middle of a fight, singing and burning all the undead it went near.

 

One option would be to let you select a class, which then locks you into these specialist abilities but then from there on in its a free for all on anything else. This is still a bit clunky though. If you had them at the opposite end of training as skills only a few could master it could theoretically work but then it'd turn these classes into prestige classes which doesn't do them justice in my view.

 

I'm not really sure there is a solution that covers all the issues that either system brings up...

 

i'm guessing this is similar to what Osvir said. Can you think of 9 different abilities that would distinguish the classes though? I like this idea.

 

I think what defines a class is progression. Classes will develop Attack bonus, Skill points, HP, etc. at different rates.

I'm not really clear on what you mean. What exactly are these progression metrics though? So do some classes get attack bonuses and others do not? Do some classes get more HP than others? Can you expand on this?

[Sacred_Path]

From the information we have so far, it seems to me that classes are first and foremost unique in their "special abilities". In the case of casters, I hope it is actually their magic or, more narrowly, their spell selection that sets them apart. I'd hate it if casters had "special abilities" in addition to their spells because that would once again screw over non-casters.

 

These special abilities seem to come about as the result of both training and "vocation", for lack of a better word. Thus, a character born without a strong constitution won't be able to "bounce back" from damage, and therefore won't make a fighter, while the rogue's ability to HiPS probably also takes a lot of training or exercise to pull off.

[Hormalakh]

^ Yeah. Especially if magic casters can also do melee damage (which is proving very likely). If wizards/priests/druids/ciphers/chanters can cast magic and fight with weapons, why would I want a regular fighter? What is he bringing to the table other than "can use melee weapons"? I think once they can figure out good legitimate reasons to be able to distinguish a fighter from a monk, paladin, barbarian and give viable reasons for why you would choose one over the other, then we're starting to get somewhere. I want fighters to be an actual viable option with abilities that other classes wouldn't provide.

[Somna]

^ Yeah. Especially if magic casters can also do melee damage (which is proving very likely). If wizards/priests/druids/ciphers/chanters can cast magic and fight with weapons, why would I want a regular fighter? What is he bringing to the table other than "can use melee weapons"? I think once they can figure out good legitimate reasons to be able to distinguish a fighter from a monk, paladin, barbarian and give viable reasons for why you would choose one over the other, then we're starting to get somewhere. I want fighters to be an actual viable option with abilities that other classes wouldn't provide.

 

Given what they've said so far, I'm inclined to believe that there is no such thing as a "non-caster" in P:E (unless you have no soul). The only problem is wrapping our brains around how Fighters and Rogues are going to draw on their soul. If I'd have to guess, I'd say fighters will get to pick abilities like Whirlwind, while Rogues would probably get more shadow-themed abilities.

[Osvir]

See attachment. I don't think it's entirely complete. Worked on it earlier today, didn't think I'd use it but then you go and ask if I can come up with 9 abilities when I've already come up with some 33~

abilities.rtf

[Somna]

Osvir: I'm 99% sure you are thinking of something like the Armoury System for FFXIV.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Somna

[Osvir]

^Yes but not at all or even close to a Job system (Axe = Barbarian, even if I chose Fighter, not like that).

 

The Job System and the Class System are two-different ones (One of them you can switch around as you see fit, the other one will be part of your character throughout the entire game). It is similar, but the weapon wouldn't define your class (mechanically) like it does in FFXIV. It would merely be a tool.

 

A Fighter won't become a Wizard just because he picks up the Grimoire, he'll still be a Fighter (In FFXIV he would become a Wizard).

[Sacred_Path]

Given what they've said so far, I'm inclined to believe that there is no such thing as a "non-caster" in P:E (unless you have no soul). The only problem is wrapping our brains around how Fighters and Rogues are going to draw on their soul. If I'd have to guess, I'd say fighters will get to pick abilities like Whirlwind, while Rogues would probably get more shadow-themed abilities.

 

Yes, I think there will be. It mostly comes down to definition though. All classes will have "special abilities", which would translate to class abilities in DnD but probably also spell-like abilities in some cases (not a DnD nerd). Not all classes will outright cast "spells". My point was that for those classes that have spells, I'd rather they had no "special abilities" on top of that (which is all classes like the Fighter and Barbarian would probably get).

 

I suspect that using special abilities will not eat up points in any way (stamina has been said to not be tied to other activities) but rather be on a limited-uses-per-day basis, so calling them non-casters should be legit.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Sacred_Path

[Somna]

^Yes but not at all or even close to a Job system (Axe = Barbarian, even if I chose Fighter, not like that).

 

The Job System and the Class System are two-different ones (One of them you can switch around as you see fit, the other one will be part of your character throughout the entire game). It is similar, but the weapon wouldn't define your class (mechanically) like it does in FFXIV. It would merely be a tool.

 

A Fighter won't become a Wizard just because he picks up the Grimoire, he'll still be a Fighter (In FFXIV he would become a Wizard).

 

As someone who played it, I can tell you that none of the written descriptions tell you that you can also equip the skills from the other weapons while using your primary. You just may not necessarily be as effective if it focused on stats not focused by your fighter class. (Edit: You can always gear to try to compensate though.) That's where the similarity comes in to play.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Somna

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

I'm not really clear on what you mean. What exactly are these progression metrics though? So do some classes get attack bonuses and others do not? Do some classes get more HP than others? Can you expand on this?

 

Yes I can expand on this. In D&D 3/3.5(the system that PE will be closest too from what Josh Sawyer has stated) there were 6 metrics that increased among all classes upon level up. they were attack bonus, HP, skill points, and saving throws(Will, Reflex, and Fortitude). Each class had their own rate of progression for the metrics. for example a Fighter gained 10(+ CON modifier) HP, + 1 attack bonus, +2(+INT modifier) skill points per clas level. A Wizard gained 4(+CON modifier) HP, +.5 attack bonus(+1 every 2 levels, 3/3.5E rounds down) and 2(+INT modifier) skill points. Rogues gained 6(+CON modifier) HP, +.75 attack bonus, and 8(+INT modifier) skill points. Certain classes' saves also increased at a faster rate, Wizards had high Will saves, Fighters had high Fortitude, and Rogues had high reflex(I can't remember the exact equation for save progression and don't have a rulebook on hand ATM).

 

Essentially, Fighters ability to hit with weapons and Health/Stamina will increase in larger base increments per level than other classes, Rogues will have more base skill points(or whatever the PE analogue is) per level than other classes, and Wizards will appear to have poorer progression comparing skill, attack bonus, and Health/Stamina, because what they rely on(Spells) typically overshadow these for their progression.

 

 

What do you guys think about classes from a games mechanics perspective? Should classes define very rigid borders between what a certain person can and can't do? For example, are rogues the only ones who can emply skills like pickpocket? Are monks the only ones who can fight unarmed? Are wizards the only ones who can employ spirit-based magic? Or are these classes undefined boundaries? Can a monk also learn some magic as well as thieving skills? Can a wizard also learn some ranger attributes? Can a barbarian also be partially a priest?

 

If there are undefined boundaries, how undefined do we make it? Are some skills or attributes extremely rigid (priest spells ONLY for priests) and others unbounded (thieiving skills can be learned by any class) or is everything rigid/unbounded?

 

These boundaries help players and the game world to be more/less rigid and help define our experiences. Thank you everyone for responding thus far.

 

I wouldn't mind if all classes had access to the same feats and skills, I think that the major boundaries between classes should be different progression for attack bonus, skill points, and Stamina/Health, and the special abilities each class earns. I would also like to see multiclassing.