What defines a class?

[Lephys]

Well, if you're trying to define a class, you must start with the seed. You cannot start by naming what kind of flowers the plant will have. How do you even know the plant will have flowers?

 

I know that may seem silly and overly philosophical, but it holds true.

 

The question I would pose is, what makes a town? Or, rather, what makes the path 50-feet outside of a town "outside of town," and the path just inside the town "inside of town"? If the town has a wall around it, how do they know where to build the wall? Well, the town ends where everything-that-isn't-that-town begins. The specific mathematical measurements of the edge might be fuzzy and up for interpretation, but no one denies that that town definitely ends, or argues that the forest outside of town is actually just more town.They call it a forest, and they call the town a town, and they know there's a boundary there. That is truly just an observation of differences, but I believe it is that boundary that defines a class.

 

Again, I know that's seemingly silly, but I think that provides insight into when exactly you don't have a successful class system in a game. Whether it's skills, or what quests become available, or how NPCs behave towards your character, you've got to have a substantial enough boundary between classes, or there isn't a point in having them. These boundaries inherently produce limitations. Obviously, if Class A is different from Class B, then Class A must be limited by being incapable of doing SOMETHING that Class B can do.

 

However, if the ONLY difference between Classes A and B is that Class A gets more hitpoints or deals more damage than Class B, or has the ability to throw a stone while Class B cannot throw a stone, then you don't have enough difference to constitute two classes.

 

A perfect (though somewhat simple) example is merchants. One merchant might sell some rope, some healing items, a weapon here or there, maybe a boot, and another merchant might sell a completely different list of "random" items, yet you'd be perfectly content calling them both "General Goods" merchants. Why? You don't feel that there's a fundamental difference between them, even though they don't sell the exact same lists of items. They don't really DO anything different. They sell miscellaneous items. Meanwhile, the weapons vendor sells only weapons. A slight distinction, in comparison to an entire playable character class, but it makes my point, nonetheless. The weapons vendor might even be a blacksmith, and repair or otherwise customize your weapons and/or armor. But, exactly what specific weapons he sells, or whether or not he sells armor, too, is irrelevant beside the fact that he is distinguished from any other merchants in the game who aren't also weapons vendors.

 

The problem with simplifying class boundaries with overlapping circles drawn around groups of skills within a big field of skills is that you can very easily end up with just a bunch of "Miscellaneous Task-Performers" rather than actual classes.

 

A blacksmith fashions metal, and no other tradesperson does. That gives the blacksmith a purpose and a role. If the baker could ALSO fashion metal if he so chose, just not quite as awesomely as the blacksmith, then you'd have a town filled with merchants who ALL repaired and customized your metal equipment to various degrees. So, when asked "what makes the blacksmith the blacksmith, since everyone can provide metal equipment?", you could only answer "Well, when I finally get halfway through the game, and I can afford/need exceptionally good equipment, I'll need to go to him, because no one else will have that." And that's just plain bland...

 

A Wizard and a Warrior and a Rogue all try not to be seen by the enemy, but a Rogue is the only one of the three who SPECIALIZES in not-being-seen.

 

As long as you provide each class with some distinct, encompassing role to fill, you can overlap their skills and stats all you want.

 

With that in mind, look at it like this: In an RPG in which you must combat enemies, ANY class you have is going to ultimately do the same thing -- Eliminate enemies. Therefore, within the combat system, the only thing that reinforces class distinction is the manner in which each class ends things' lives.

 

I apologize for the length of that, but I think the seed of thought on this matter is more important than the color of the leaves (as it ultimately decides the possibilities of the color of the leaves.)

 

 

Since it's almost impossible to make all the classes in a given class system have COMPLETELY, 100% different skill/ability sets, what if there were a great deal of skill overlap, but each class got unique, over-arching abilities that greatly affected these skills? For example, many classes could utilize magic, but Mages could develop the manner in which their spells behave. Spell-customization, to put it simply. ONLY Mages could ever access the spell customization options. Everyone else just gets the basic pool of spells. Warriors could have melee-weaponskill customization, allowing for bleeds and combo attacks and stances with the very same thrusts and slashes that anyone else with a sword has access to.

 

I know it's almost the same thing as simply having skill trees and only allowing the trunks to overlap, but it seems like it could be much more interesting if done properly.

 

I just think what a character does isn't as important in class distinction as is the manner in which he does it (as with the "all classes ultimately kill things in combat" example.)

[mokona]

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 first iteration of a Barbarian class in Dungeons & Dragons reads like the game's designer tried to cobble together all of the abilities of Robert E. Howard's Conan into a single package. It's easy to see why we might have a hard time distinguishing a barbarian from a fighter. The fighter is an open character concept that can accomodate many different builds and, in contrast, the barbarian is a single character fleshed out into an entire class.

 

Later game designers rewrote entire aspects of the barbarian class in an attempt to take it from a single character (Conan) and flesh the class out into an broad concept like classes are supposed to represent. I'm not sure that the barbarian class has, yet, really found a niche that isn't already covered by the fighter class. One difficulty is that the fighter class is really, really broad and players seem to like it that way. Another difficulty is that "strong character" is defined by your attributes (specifically, the Strength attribute) and is not defined by your class. Designers have tried to make barbarians different from fighters based on the Mighty Strength concept and yet that falls flat when a fighter could have an 18 Strength wielding a two-handed sword while his companion barbarian has a 16 Strength or less.

 

A more extensive overview of AD&D's barbarian class from 1st edition through 4th edition: http://5eworld.blogspot.com/2012/03/barbarians-at-gates.html

[Hormalakh]

Well, if you're trying to define a class, you must start with the seed. You cannot start by naming what kind of flowers the plant will have. How do you even know the plant will have flowers?

...

 

Since it's almost impossible to make all the classes in a given class system have COMPLETELY, 100% different skill/ability sets, what if there were a great deal of skill overlap, but each class got unique, over-arching abilities that greatly affected these skills? For example, many classes could utilize magic, but Mages could develop the manner in which their spells behave. Spell-customization, to put it simply. ONLY Mages could ever access the spell customization options. Everyone else just gets the basic pool of spells. Warriors could have melee-weaponskill customization, allowing for bleeds and combo attacks and stances with the very same thrusts and slashes that anyone else with a sword has access to.

 

I'm glad so many of you are taking up my question because I think that we're all hitting on pretty much the same thing: namely, defining a class isn't as easy as it seems and that a lot of implementations of classes has been done poorly in the past.

 

The first iteration of a Barbarian class in Dungeons & Dragons reads like the game's designer tried to cobble together all of the abilities of Robert E. Howard's Conan into a single package. It's easy to see why we might have a hard time distinguishing a barbarian from a fighter. The fighter is an open character concept that can accomodate many different builds and, in contrast, the barbarian is a single character fleshed out into an entire class.

 

One difficulty is that the fighter class is really, really broad and players seem to like it that way. Another difficulty is that "strong character" is defined by your attributes (specifically, the Strength attribute) and is not defined by your class. Designers have tried to make barbarians different from fighters based on the Mighty Strength concept and yet that falls flat when a fighter could have an 18 Strength wielding a two-handed sword while his companion barbarian has a 16 Strength or less.

 

A more extensive overview of AD&D's barbarian class from 1st edition through 4th edition: http://5eworld.blogs...s-at-gates.html

 

And voila. I have found out why I hate the monk class just as much as I dislike the barbarian class. They've worked these classes into the game backwards. Instead of taking a broad approach of "what kind of job would be important in an adventurer's field?" and creating characters from that broad class, we've started to take specific characters and stretch them to fill entire roles. This is the same thing that has occurred with the monk. We've taken a very specific cultural application of a fighter and tried to stretch that role to fill in another complete role. It looks misshappen in our newly-created world.

 

I know it's probably too late to propose this, but I really wished that the devs would take another look at these "vague" classes (barbarian, monk, ranger) and think about them some more and "rework" them (and maybe give them new names if needed). Then we have the somewhat-vague-but-better-sketched-out classes (druid, paladin, chanter) of which they're already - it seems - looked at one of them (the chanter) and made a few changes. And finally the "core-four-type" classes which are extremely broad and can have a variety of characters playing them (wizard, priest, fighter, rogue, and cipher) which really haven't ever needed any changes.

 

Thank you guys for the very well-thought out comments! Keep them coming. They've been able to articulate points which I have been thinking but just haven't found the best way to say.

 

Edit: That blog post was a great read mokona and I think the same criticisms work for the monk too.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Heresiarch]

I think what really defines a class is it's modus operandi in combat. Like getting surrounded by five thugs in a dark alley. A fighter just pulls out his sword and makes short work of them using his abilities (not just swinging his sword repeatedly at each and every one). A mage casts some distracting or misdirecting spell to give himself time and then kills them with fireball, acidball or Greater Curse of Bubonic Plague, slaughtering everyone in hundred meter radius. A rogue will make use of his throwing daggers to clear an opening and get away... or just lose LOS to circle them, attack from behind and kill off the remaining thugs. A cypher may use his abilities to make the enemies hesitate, start thinking that the whole robbing-this-particular-person business was not such a good idea to start with. Or simply scare them out of their minds with horrible phantoms.

 

But it becomes tricky when it comes to artificial classes. What is a barbarian? Lightly armoured fighter with a big weapon filled with rage and bloodlust? Well, he's still a fighter ultimately. just with slightly different abilities. What is a monk? Fighter without any weapons or armour, using his extensive combat training to be deadly and untouchable? Well, it's Hollywood. Even if you're a nimble ninja and a master of chi, going barehanded against armed opponent is always a bad idea. I don't think there's any martial arts that does not teach weapon usage. But anyway, a monk is still a fighter without armour and weapons, compensating it with out-of-the-blue bonus to stats he misses out on. What is a paladin? Well, I probably should not even go into that, because I hate the DnD representation of the class so much.

 

In the end classes can be differentiated into those which makes actual sense and those included by popular demand. It is not inherently bad, but I would prefer more content with less classes (class-specific dialogues, quests, whatnot) than more classes with less content. I think NWN2 clearly demonstrated why the whole over 9000 classes thing is such a bad idea.

[LadyCrimson]

A fighter just pulls out his sword and makes short work of them using his abilities (not just swinging his sword repeatedly at each and every one).

Call me old-fashioned, but to me a fighter who has "abilities" is already not a pure fighter, regardless of what name you give the class. Well, maybe a few abilities like shield-bashing and spinning to hit a few foes at once (for less dmg) or whatnot.

 

But so many games these days have "warriors/fighters" who seem to have these rather magical abilities, like slamming their hammer on the ground to cause an "earthquake" to stun enemies in a huge circle, or to light the ground on fire. Or jumping 20 feet in the air to cause extra dmg. when they land. I mean, I have nothing against such abilities as options, but that's not "pure melee" warrior ... that's melee+magic.

[Heresiarch]

A fighter just pulls out his sword and makes short work of them using his abilities (not just swinging his sword repeatedly at each and every one).

Call me old-fashioned, but to me a fighter who has "abilities" is already not a pure fighter, regardless of what name you give the class. Well, maybe a few abilities like shield-bashing and spinning to hit a few foes at once (for less dmg) or whatnot.

By abilities I don't mean Diablo-style abilities, but rather physical abilities like stuns, counters, feints, taking the blade and so on. If the the fighter's options go only as deep as fighting or not fighting, you might as well do without the class.

[LadyCrimson]

Hence why I said shield bashing or whatnot. Defensive moves such as counters/blocks are fine, if they make some sense for gear equipped.

 

But I'd disagree that only fighting/not fighting = not having the class at all. They could, for example, get a much larger bonus to AC/damage mitigation from the same armor then others, to represent their high stamina/pain tolerance in terms of survival/tank. I like taking a warrior and beating the game doing nothing but hacking with the sword and not using the given abilities, focusing largely on defense vs. offense. It's a challenge. Personal likes.

 

To be clear, I'm talking about fighters who can/are wearing the heavy, full armor get ups, with maybe the giant shields. If we're talking fighters who generally don't wear major/full armor (for speed), more like the stereotypical Romans/Greeks or something, it changes the concept in my head a bit already....so it kinda depends on the gear, for me. Perhaps penalties to some abilities for wearing certain types of gear.

[LadyCrimson]

As an aside, I'm not sure if it's been stated how much the Soul stuff will affect warriors in P.E. I think they have said it could be used to perform super-human abilities. If they're going to have a basis that even warriors will utilize it for casting defensive or strength and speed enhancing type spells or whatnot, then that alters things as well. But it still turns things away from being a pure fighter, imo, in terms of defining class.

[Somna]

Here's the blurb on the fighter from Marceror's information thread for reference:

 

Fighters are men and women trained to use a wide variety of traditional weapons in brutal combat. They are often put in -- or put themselves in -- harm's way and are built to take an extraordinary amount of punishment. Though not traditionally as mobile as the monk nor as likely to dish out individually withering attacks as a rogue, fighters are dependable and flexible, able to shift between a variety of attack modes that alternate between high damage, maintaining a strong defense, weakening opponents, and dealing harsh retribution to those who attack his or her allies. Some fighters build up arsenals of feints, knockdowns, and special attacks rather than rely on the “slow and steady” approach.

 

And while fighters are often thought of as being primarily melee-based, they can specialize in a variety of weapons, including bows, crossbows, and even firearms. They're unlikely to outclass rangers at their own game, but fighters can be almost as dangerous at a distance as they are up close. Though it may not look like it to see them in battle next to wizards and priests, fighters are just as able to tap into the power of their souls to devastating effect: accelerating their attacks to a superhuman speed, striking foes with such power that nearby opponents are knocked off their feet, and maintaining a phenomenal endurance that allows them to rapidly bounce back from even terrible wounds.

 

When they aren't locked in life and death struggles, fighters are, unsurprisingly, often quite athletically capable. Even so, it's not uncommon to find fighters who are stealthy and well-educated. Moving unseen and knowing how to get out of a jam can come in handy even for them.

[Heresiarch]

But I'd disagree that only fighting/not fighting = not having the class at all. They could, for example, get a much larger bonus to AC/damage mitigation from the same armor then others, to represent their high stamina/pain tolerance in terms of survival/tank.

I have a problem with that. Not with your personal preference, but with propensity to reduce classes to the sum of numbered statistics.

 

When I choose a class and all I get for description is "this class gets +x to AC, high BAB, low THAC0", I get sad and ask if we can play some other game instead. Preferably that involves less math and more RP. If I play a warrior in a tabletop and say that I want my character to kick the person running away under the knee, I expect the knee to pop and that person to fall to the ground (after applicable to-hit rolls or whatnot). Hearing that I can't do that, because there is no such move in the rules, but instead my character performs an attack with +x bonus for flanking, -y penalty for targeting and running and inflicts z points of damage.

 

In the end all you can do about that character is get him better gear to capitalise on his high stats. Which seems incredibly boring compared to the extent of micromanagement spellcasters and other characters with special abilities can employ.

[Hormalakh]

Isn't it weird though that we define the core classes with one metric - how they fight - and then define another group of classes with another metric - that they are really melee fighters except they fall into a certain category (monk, barbarian, some could argue paladin)?

 

It's like monks and barbarians should actually be subclasses of the core class, "fighter." The rest of what defines them caan come from the character and the equipment s/he wields. A barbarian would wield hide armor and double-handed sword and a monk would have no equipment. Then the dialogue options you choose would be related to your role-playing that certain fighter.

 

A wizard, cipher, priest, rogue do not have these issues because they are defined completely differently. They are not defined by the equipment they carry or the character that they define.

 

The reason I bring this whole thing up is because ultimately these classes (the monk and barbarian and maybe some others but to a lesser extent) will not be played in the game and are thus a waste of developer time. Yes, yes I know people play barbarians and monks. But why spend so much time and energy creating a whole new class when you could just fit them under the fighter class and add a few special abilities that describe those classes (barbarian rage is available for fighters and unarmed expertise too) and just play a fighter? Then when you want to be a barbiarian, you play a fighter with the special abilities of rage, you wear barbarian hide, and wield a double-handed sword. If you want to be a monk, play a fighter with the special abilities of unarmed combatant, don't wear armor and wield a staff or other amulets that give you armor class. You are effectively a "monk" through role-playing and an effective equipment/special abilities design. Why do we believe that monks and barbarians require a wholly separate class? Why are paladins a wholly separate class without just being priests that are good in combat? We get a little bit of that in the description (clerics are devoted to a god, paladins devoted only to a cause) for P:E.

 

So, that's why I'm asking what defines a class. When we can describe how classes are defined and use one singular criteria to distinguish among all our classes, then we can truly flesh out what makes each class stand out. Otherwise, we've got monks and barbarians really being a subclass of fighter and paladins being a subclass of clerics. If they just give the special abilities to those larger roles, and make a few restrictions (you can't have barbarian rage and unarmed mastery at the same time) then what's the point of spending all this time creating wholly new classes?

 

Edit: I've added a poll (in the general discussion forum because that place gets a whole lot more traffic) to make this same point. I want to see how many people actually play these classes that are "vague" for lack of a better term. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/62349-what-is-the-class-you-will-be-playing-first-as-a-party/

 

I got the idea from monoka's link to that blog. Very good read.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Hormalakh

[JFSOCC]

I think the problem is that classes are inherently archetypes, and nobody is an archetype. If you must frame differences, decisions would need to be made, but this thread shows that we can't even decide on it. Everyone will work with their ideas of what a class should be, and then apply it to an available archetype. Or you could argue from the Archetypes "what should they have" but that only works if everyone has the same idea what constitutes the Archetype. same problem.

 

What defines a class?

What (ultimately) the designers choose.

And I don't know if everybody can be pleased.

 

But we can all have our say in what we like and enjoy.

[Hormalakh]

I think the problem is that classes are inherently archetypes, and nobody is an archetype. If you must frame differences, decisions would need to be made, but this thread shows that we can't even decide on it. Everyone will work with their ideas of what a class should be, and then apply it to an available archetype. Or you could argue from the Archetypes "what should they have" but that only works if everyone has the same idea what constitutes the Archetype. same problem.

 

What defines a class?

What (ultimately) the designers choose.

And I don't know if everybody can be pleased.

 

But we can all have our say in what we like and enjoy.

 

As long as Obsidian truly "decides." As in, it becomes an actual decision-making process and not just "let's use what's been done in the past." A lot of the fears stem from the lack of thinking that has gone into making those classes in the first place. I really find the poll interesting. The two classes that have not been voted for are the monk and the barbarian. It's too early to tell, but the poll is indicating towards those classes needing some major "thinking about and decision making."

Edited November 20, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Somna]

I think the problem is that classes are inherently archetypes, and nobody is an archetype. If you must frame differences, decisions would need to be made, but this thread shows that we can't even decide on it. Everyone will work with their ideas of what a class should be, and then apply it to an available archetype. Or you could argue from the Archetypes "what should they have" but that only works if everyone has the same idea what constitutes the Archetype. same problem.

 

What defines a class?

What (ultimately) the designers choose.

And I don't know if everybody can be pleased.

 

But we can all have our say in what we like and enjoy.

 

As long as Obsidian truly "decides." As in, it becomes an actual decision-making process and not just "let's use what's been done in the past." A lot of the fears stem from the lack of thinking that has gone into making those classes in the first place. I really find the poll interesting. The two classes that have not been voted for are the monk and the barbarian. It's too early to tell, but the poll is indicating towards those classes needing some major "thinking about and decision making."

 

Not necessarily. In the monk's case at the very least, the class is distinctive enough for someone to explicitly not vote for it.

[Lephys]

The traditional Barbarian, Monk, and Paladin classes are definitely subclasses, any way you look at it. The terminology used might be different, but they are not actually separate classes by any stretch of the definition. Do they technically work okay in a game when listed as separate class choices? Yes. If the game separates them based on their skillsets and all the math, then sure. They technically work. They don't cause the universe to implode or anything, but they're not very exciting.

 

When you think of classes, imagine you're choosing a sport. Imagine, for example, that a Wizard (Mage, whatever term you want to use... the main, overarching elemental magic-wielding class) is a soccer player. Well, if you were to have, say, the DnD Sorcerer class, that would ALSO be a soccer player. He might be a defenseman or the goalie, figuratively speaking, as opposed to the offenseman that the Wizard is. They do things differently, but they're both playing the same sport.

 

Now, if you were to look at a Warrior, then perhaps he plays football. A Barbarian might be a defensive lineman, and a Monk might be a running back, but they are all still playing the same sport.

 

So, really, yes, I believe that the best design decision would be to put such classes together. Can you still have a Monk? Sure. But they are not a fundamentally significant root.

 

I also agree that, if you let it, an RPG can very much dissolve into a bunch of math. "Well, which armor will give me the biggest number bonus? How can I do the most damage?" I hate that DPS has become such a huge deal now, and that MMORPGs have separated everything into overly simplistic roles based upon simple game math.

 

If you ask me, the best RPG is the one that best hides the math. Obviously, you need SOME math, for referencing, measuring, and relating things in the game world. However, when everything's just a bunch of numbers, and when you allow the class differences to dissolve into slight variants to an equation (armor bonuses, damage, attack speed, etc.), the game becomes quite dull compared to what it could be.

 

If I'm a character whose skills are based upon Dexterity, I don't simply want to have Dexterity, as opposed to Strength, determine my damage and hits, all while using the exact same skills and combat animations as a Strength-based person. I want to actually fight in a dexterous manner. And the Strength-based person should knock people around a bit more, for example, but not move as much. And a Mage's spells shouldn't just have a cool animation that isn't a sword-swinging, then tick some damage off. As the player, I should FEEL like my spell acted in a different manner than a sword or arrow striking someone. Maybe a Druid's barkskin-type-spell ACTUALLY has their skin behave like thick tree-bark. Rather than simply adding some number to your armor (just like actual armor, itself, or a Wizard's shielding spell, or a Dexterity AC bonus), perhaps a foe's weapon could get stuck in your "skin" as a blade can in a log or a tree of they used a strong attack. Just an example of ability differentiation.

[Hormalakh]

^then why define them as classes? make them subclasses. We really don't have this problem with chanters, ciphers, druids even though they could probably be described as "sub-classes" of wizard, wizard, and wizard.

[JFSOCC]

just a thought, but what would you guys think of different interfaces and types of input for different classes?

 

So one class might have "strength, intelligence, dexterity, etc." as attributes, but another class would have "shielding, energy systems, restorative power, etc" and another yet might have "instinct, flow, clarity, etc" and they'd all work differently, but the outputs are similar and can be input against other classes. (so one class' attack score might be calculated against another's defense score based on different types attributes and modifiers. I.E. Shielding might work as defense, but also a will save against certain spells (which for another class would have been the will save)

 

Maybe too complicated, but as a thought experiment, consider how that would make all classes so much more distinct.

[LadyCrimson]

Can't speak for tabletops, but with cRPG's it's felt like one big reason for the subclasses of fighters was because people got bored of "sword/tank fighters" when the format (video game) is (still) often very limiting re: enemy combat AI, options, reactions .. it's an attempt to get away from the feel of simple one or two attack option button-mashing so many games are accused of....especially, perhaps, in the more limited graphic perspective of isometric.

 

Fighter/Mage/Thief/Cleric no longer seems like enough to many and not having 40+ different skill options and attack button combos is too "restricting."

[Lephys]

^then why define them as classes? make them subclasses. We really don't have this problem with chanters, ciphers, druids even though they could probably be described as "sub-classes" of wizard, wizard, and wizard.

 

Ahh, sorry. Looking back at my post, I realize I was very vague when I said "the best design decision would be to put those classes together." I meant "Just have a Warrior 'class,' then allow Warriors to become/play-as Barbarians, Monks, or Paladins."

 

I really did not make that very clear. I apologize. My brain kind of jumped ahead to the math thing. I shall THROW IT IN THE DUNGEON for a fortnight as punishment! u_u

 

 

Can't speak for tabletops, but with cRPG's it's felt like one big reason for the subclasses of fighters was because people got bored of "sword/tank fighters" when the format (video game) is (still) often very limiting re: enemy combat AI, options, reactions .. it's an attempt to get away from the feel of simple one or two attack option button-mashing so many games are accused of....especially, perhaps, in the more limited graphic perspective of isometric.

 

Fighter/Mage/Thief/Cleric no longer seems like enough to many and not having 40+ different skill options and attack button combos is too "restricting."

 

True. I mean, it is great to have variety, even within a class. Variety is, after all, the spice of virtual life. . But really, it's good that Monks and Barbarians exist, they just probably don't need to be organized as completely separate, choosable-at-the-beginning-of-the-game-as-distinct-options classes. I mean, if you make a Human, you can have a male human, or a female human... a tall human, a lithe human, high charisma, low intelligence, low charisma, high intelligence... but those are all still just variants of a Human. You can't be all of them at once, but they are all variant options available to a racially human character.

 

And, again, I'm talking here about the traditional Barbarians and Monks and such. As long as your game's Barbarian or Monk goes about things exactly like a Warrior does, yet simply with more specificity (does things in a reckless and feral manner whilst clad only in crude armor, or does things with ultra-precise unarmed combat and a very focused and spiritual demeanor), they should simply be facets of the Warrior class.

 

I do not know a lot of details regarding Project Eternity's class mechanics. If they've designed a Monk to be distinguishable enough from a basic Warrior, then, by all means, make it a class. I'm not saying it's impossible for them not to be a subclass.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Lephys

[Alexjh]

Part of the issue here is possibly that classes are all about heroic archetypes, but fighter, wizard and rogue in particular are enormously diverse archetypes compared to the others, and in some cases overlap to the point where they could easily contain the others (see: the mentioned barbarian and fighter)

 

As I see it, the key is possibly working out not only what each class is about, but what differentiates themselves from the other classes, and I think they realistically have to be designed with a mandate. In the case of the fighter classes I kind of see it like this:

 

Front line fighters (of any class) have five primary roles in combat, which for conveniance sake I will name some after the MMO terms/terms I vaguely recall from somewhere, even if its a bit unsavoury for some here:

 

Sustained General Damage Dealing

Keeping the attention of foes ("agro")

Absorbing the brunt of the attacks of foes ("tanking")

Taking out specific threats to your team ("blitzing")

Controlling the way the battlefield moves

 

Some of those overlap a little but you get the gist. All these guys fill point 1 (tho barbarian generally a little better than the other 4)

 

To me a FIGHTER is basically the generic guy who uses learnt skills and abilities to be a jack of all trades and be fairly good at all of those. You can build it to lean towards one of those purposes or the other but generally speaking, they are the versatile one, not the specialist. Generally belongs on the front line keeping the battle ticking in a stable way.

 

A BARBARIAN is good at getting attention and good at sustained damage and specific targeting, but isn't that great a tank and has no ability to control the battlefield beyond just killing people. Easy to damage but tough to kill. Is generally for mowing down the weakest enemies at speed or trying to deal big damage to single powerful ones, less useful for middle enemies who can outlast their rage and aren't priority targets.

 

A PALADIN is very much about tanking, agro and battlefield control, they certainly aren't bad at damage, but they are more about making the team as a whole stronger through buffs and taking the blows so others don't have to. Belongs right in the middle of things holding your entire team together.

 

A RANGER is about control and specific threats: they often add an extra body to the fight (animal companion where applicable) and also often use ranged attacks and traps to change the battlefield dynamic. They aren't really designed for being a damage sponge like the first 3 others. Belongs at the side of the melee, trying to open up vulnerabilities in the enemy.

 

A MONK is closest to fighter in versatility, but also about control and specific threats tho in a very different way to the ranger, while rangers tend to focus on the whole battlefield through traps, companions and ranged, while monks are about moving around the battlefield to where they are needed most. I kind of see them as a battlefield troubleshooter, rush in, take out a guy/stun him etc and then go off to wherever else he is needed.

 

Of course, you can use them all differently, but these tend to be the standard setups of the classes in standard builds.

[Hormalakh]

So make fighters have sub-class type abilities in early levels. Unarmed ans barbarian. Don't make a whole class, eh?

[Umberlin]

While I'm not necessarily for it, it's certainly been done before that sort of adventurer class branching out into fighter/thief/mage classes which then branch into further classes, as in the fighter example of spreading out into monk, paladin, etc etc etc. I supposed it's a taste issue really, surely such systems work, since you can literally point at them and say, "Look, here it is, long standing single or multiplayer RPG, uses a system that is this, or, a variation of this, and it seems to be working." So . . . yeah, if you like that sort of thing, systems like that can and have worked, technically, so it's not impossible. It's just a taste issue, is it to a player's taste and is it to the taste of the developers making a game.

 

Personally I'm fine with what's been presented so far, but I wholly understand that some people like alternatives. In fact even I do, in a way, the Gothic II example is, in a way, a manner of saying you start out as an adventurer that branches out into different possible disciplines/classes by earning your way into different factions and al that. In my mind, the thing that makes the most difference, in what a class is . . . isn't going to be mechanics, it's going to be how they interact with the world, and how the world interacts with them. How they fit in. Where they come from. How they got where they are/become what they are, and that's why I'll go back to the Gothic II example in a discussion like this again and again.

 

Still, there's something to be said for more fixed class systems, and it's not that they're simpler, since they can be quite complex in their own way. Overall it's the presentation, and how someone reacts to you in the world, when they find out what you are, that settles a class into 'what it is' . . . how people in the world percieve you. Obviously what they are/do/their philosophies are a part of that, so it's a shared thing. What you do, versus what people percieve you doing. Your order as a "____" can be isolationist, typically, and only go out into the world for particular reasons (maybe they predict terrible events, and send people out to record them firsthand, for example - having martial skills to defend themselves well enough to bring back said recordings), but the world view could be that when one of you leave your isolation bad things are about to happen so they blame you/distrust you, or, even if they don't pin it on you, still take your presence as a bad sign.

 

Intent versus perception, to me, is another way to define class aside from how you got where you are, to be called such a thing as, "Insert Class Name here" . . . I also need to go back to Gothic II again, the use of Class Name more as a title for the character, than as a fixed idea that's absolute. The King may be a great man in that eye, but that eye over there thinks the King is a bit greedy and that one over there thinks the King is using his daughter as fleeting entertainment with no intent to actually marry her. Fire Mages in Gothic II were viewed in different ways from NPC to NPC, amongst some they commanded respect, yet amongst others they found distrust, that if you'd been a mercenary/dragon-hunter you wouldn't have found.

 

Anyways, enough rambling.

[Alexjh]

So make fighters have sub-class type abilities in early levels. Unarmed ans barbarian. Don't make a whole class, eh?

 

While I see why some people would want that, I find I have problems with that which are demonstrated by both Dragon Age and Elder Scrolls - fundementally, the fewer classes you have the less interesting characters people naturally produce. This is generally because people will try to produce optimal builds within any one class rather than working to character concept. If you have a single class for each of the 3 (or 4) roles within a party, there is less of a dynamic within the party, even if you give them the option to do different stuff within a class it ends up rather muddy as people try to have their cake and eat it, say, a Barbarian who can lay on hands etc.

 

Besides, these are specific disciplines, in real life though there is some overlap in training, if you are being trained by a tribe of barbarians they train you as a barbarian, not as a fighter who can then specialise into being a barbarian, and monks even more so, they are all about being trained from youth in their very specific discipline.

 

By having a medium number of distinct classes (not going overboard, I think 15 at the very very highest) you make the composition of your party more tactical and interesting than a situation where you can get every single one of your front liners to learn rage or lay on hands or whatever. Party based combat is about having the right characters i nthe right place at the right time, if every character can be the right character, it kind of spoils it a bit...

[wanderon]

I much prefer seperate classes to the whole homogenized adventurer starts off as a warrior or mage type that can become something different as he goes along.

 

I'm not familiar enough with the inner workings of the classes to define these classes specifically myself but I do feel that they should be seperate even if they are similar and we should back away from the concept that every class should be able to do everything as an "ease of use" mechanic.

 

Each class needs pros and cons so while fighters, barbarians, and Paladins have some things they can share and do in the same manner they should also have things that only their class can do - in the most simple of terms - Paladins might have holy smite, barbarians - rage, fighters - higher weapon specialization -

 

IMO the more things that seperate them from the other the better as it gives you more reasons to choose one over the other and it also will tend to make them play differently. If I can play essentially the same with a Barbarian as I can with the fighter what incentive is there to complete an additional run as the other?

 

So for my money lets define the classes by giving them as many different (even if somewhat similar) options as possible and in doing so boost the replay possibilities along the way and maybe this game will end up having as long a shelf life as BG does (only 7 more days to BG:EE).

[anubite]

From my experience with Path of Exile, which literally lets you make any class from any class, just about... classes can be defined under these following rules:

 

Classes have a defined role to play in and out of combat.

 

However, this definition is rather vague and too restrictive.

 

Classes have many defined roles to play in and out of combat.

 

However, this definition is too open. It doesn't explain anything.

 

Classes have a finite number of defined roles to play in and out of combat.

 

This is a good starting place, but it doesn't really tell us what a good class system is. From my experience, a good class system has a finite number of roles - and these roles do not overlap much. Rogues can be DPS rogues or tank rogues, but a tank rogue should not play like a tank warrior. A dps rogue should not play like a dps warrior. A dps rogue should have things only a dps rogue can do. So... one good definition of a good class system might be:

 

Classes are a role in a game that have a finite number of subclasses that specialize a role so that it is unique and useful.

 

A rogue should be able to specialize in magic like a mage, in theory anyway, but a rogue with a mage subclass should be different from mages that aren't rogues and rouges that aren't mages. They should perform functions which give them a clearly defined tactical and strategic purpose.

 

Now, don't get me wrong here. Subclasses don't have to actually be classes. A "subclass" can simply be a "specialization". If I pick feats/passive skills to give my rogue +100% more movement speed, he should fulfill the role of a scout, in theory, without there being a narrowly defined "scout class". In fact, I find games fun when they let me build my own subclasses from feats/passive skills/pieces of major classes.

 

I think it's important to stress the idea of complexity here. A good class-based system is complex - if gives you many major and minor classes to mix and match with, allowing for a degree of class overlap, while still allowing classes to fulfill niches. Class-based systems should not become too restrictive, or it feels like you're forced to play a role you do not want to play. If a the system is too loose, then roles have absolutely no meaning and a degree of arbitrariness is introduced into the game.

Edited November 21, 2012 by anubite