People often boil down the necessity of classes down to this trinity, but the Thief does nothing except taking interesting description and creativity and replacing it with skill rolls and unnecessarily hogs interesting actions outside of combat from the fighter.If being "skilled" is a class, then that just turns interesting interactions into a stat requirement. Where disabling a trap would take investigation and prodding of the dm and describing an interesting solution, it instead becomes the singleplayer section for the one player reduced to a skill roll with the only flair needed being "I see trap, I disable trap *roll*", reducing the co-operative elements of a situation while also giving even less for the fighter to do outside of combat.Justify why the trinity should remain intact and why Thief shouldn't just be rolled into fighter for the benefit of all and if you want to be a sneak just roll a dex fighter with a light loadout?
Trying to remove things while attempting to look intellectual is dishonest, since it's easier to just declare something sucks and should go. Meanwhile understanding the purpose, niche and archetype takes effort into learning about it.
>>98043594What game?
>>98043594well as long as we're being reductive, isnt magic just an alternate means of circumventing traditional problem solving? magically unlocking a door or becoming invisible to sneak past a guard is the same stuff the thief does, just by another method. shouldnt everything just be a fighter? that way you can think of interesting roleplay ways to become immune to dragonfire rather than wiggling your fingers and quoting a block of text from the manual
Thank fucking god I never had to suffer D&D to play a TTRPG.
>>98043675>shouldnt everything just be a fighter?Yes.There should also be only two attributes: Suck and Fuck. Fuck is the chad-attribute and Suck is for faggots.No skills, we don't want to clutter the character sheets.There are also no character sheets, everything about your character should fit on a coaster.There are also no dice mechanics, you just declare your actions and use the Suck or Fuck attribute depending on the context.
>>98043675Yes, wizard's function is to do the impossible to circumvent problems, only they do it with limited resources, which is key. This makes their treading on the other classes limited. Skill checks are infinite. The assumption here is that we're doing a class system, and if we are, which could at their core be justified as being their separate class.The argument for wizard is that in a class system they justify their existence mechanically. Same could be said for cleric, which could be justifed as its own class, as these two require their very own mechanics that cannot easily be rolled into another class.The thief however cannot. It should actually be Fighter, Cleric, Wizard. >>98043729>pathfinder player loses it and resorts to strawman as soon as his precious skill rolls are threatened
>>98043649or you could have read the 2nd paragraph and responded to it
>>98043659Any osr dnd derivative fantasy game with a class system.
>>98043594Of those three, the wizard should go. It would make a lot more sense for all characters to start mundane and aquire magic in the course of their adventures. Low level characters wpuld be uniformly mundane and high level characters would be appropriately very magical. And you would no longer have a situation where some characters have a vast array of abilities and others have next to none. Instead everyone would get their own unique set of spells that help to define their character alongside their other skills.Better yet though just drop the class system altogether.
>>98043594But Thief is my favourite :(
>>98043729Only if I can name my character "Chuck".
>>98043729>tfw suckmaxxed fuckcelCitysisters... i dont slick so good... >>98043776Well hold on. You've said the wizard justifies its existence through a mechanical contrivance. If that's true, cleric uses the same contrivance of limited casts to do the impossible, doesnt it? A cleric is just a wizard.
>>98043594I agree.Also, Clerics are just Wizards with slightly different spells, so they should also be the same class.
>>98043594You only really need a "Player Character" class. Then you can assign martial prowess, magical ability and flavor, and skill and abilities to taste.Either that or go hog wild like in pic related.
>>98043729>Lasers_&_Feelings.jpg
>>98043908>A cleric is just a wizard.Class systems are there for structure, upholding archetypes, niche protection and ease of balance.A cleric in the dnd imagination is upholding the heavy armored priest crusader type. Making it a class now means you can give it heavy armor and to balance this limit the amount of spells it gets while also gating off the wizard spells the cleric and vice versa. That's one of the reasons anyway.
>>98043957A cleric is just a religious wizard. No amount of cope can stop that from being true.
>>98043594It's hard to even think of any non-D&D adjacent/inspired media where the "Fighter" is completely inept at everything else.
>>98043594I will answer this post seriously.You have seen the issue with the class system at its core, and instead of dealing with the class system, decided instead to limit it further.The problem isn't that the rogue should just be skills the other 2 classes can take, the problem is that the wizard and the fighter are also just skills your character can learn.Classes are a combination of skills to provide an archetype and as such make it easier for people to choose. Its more colourful, but more constricted. Either play a game with between 3 and 9 classes (any less becomes meaningless, any more becomes ridiculous) or you go classless. I personally recommend you go classless.
>>98043594Shadowdark tries to have it both way by saying you can bypass traps without rolls, but when there's time pressure you have to roll, and the thief does so with advantage. In play this probably just means the thief is useless almost all the time or the thief begs to roll to get his dopamine kick from skill check successes in non time pressure moments which would be 99% of them and he turns it into 5e dnd.
>>98043594I agree that the thief should be rolled into the fighter. I think the third class to balance it out should be the bard. A class focused on leading minions and creating social connections. It would mean that a morale system would need to be introduced but I think three resources for three classes is fine (HP Spell Slots Morale). You could have Fear and Love, fear having a smaller floor to gain effects but a larger ceiling with love having to take more to get out of it but more beneficial in the long term. Separate effects though so you can stack both.Fear would help route enemies while love would buff your allies. This would help differentiate Captains/Leaders in both sides giving more reason to focus them over clearing the hordes out first.
>>98043957Hypocrite that you are, you've just justified the thief
>>98043675>isnt magic just an alternate means of circumventing traditional problem solving?yes which is why 5e sucks balls because the party has a billion spell slots to circumvent problems at any given time instead of dealing with them with any sort of thought or having to deal with the consqeuences of putting your character in physical danger or ending up with a partial success
>>98044061They exist as an archetype which could potentially be justifiable as its own class, but by doing so they make the game worse mechanically and reduces interesting scenarios to a single roll and makes something universal and co-operative into a resourceless bypass with a roll mechanic while reducing the fighter to doing little outside of combat. This cannot be said about the cleric or wizard.Something like Shadowdark>>98044034attempts to wrestle with this problem
>>98043922That's a thief though
>>98044021I think the only problem is that rogues or other skill check classes just actively make the game worse by simplifying the game or turning a co-operative situation into a solo one too much in certain areas. If the rogue's skill check advantages were limited to sneaking checks, acrobatics checks, dodging, ie stuff that will come up but that don't reduce the interesting stuff by bypassing it, and then throwing on sneak attack, then you have some basis for a class justification.Just leave trap spotting and disabling out of it. And then from there, since you've decided on a class system, decide if it needs to be a class or not. But even with things like sneaking it's like...I don't want the fighter to get the signal in their head that they should just hang back doing nothing because the rogue has better sneak skill instead of joining in the infiltration.
>>98043594Jokes on you I removed the distinction between magic user and fighter too. Everyone can try to fight, everyone can try to learn from scrolls and spell books. Not everyone's going to be good at it but that's okay, that's what stats are for.
>>98043988Yeah the archetype is more like Fighter+Rogue rolled into one where the same guy with rippling muscles who fences with a longsword and punches goons is the same guy who sneaks around the castle and takes out the sentries silently and the same guy who swings around in ropes and does underhanded rogue shit like cutting down candelabra ropes.Sneaking, cleverness and climbing are more universal non-caster shit in heroic fiction than not.
>>98043789> DnD and clonesWhere is the Divine Caster? Because "restoration wizard" is mostly an Elder Scroll thing.
>>98043594The "necessity of classes", as with all things involved with a given rulebook compiled under the title of a game, is for whatever challenges the game's designer(s) want the players to face.The issue with books of suggestions like D&D is that each option is made with a pop culture reference, or sacred cow pointing to a long-outdated pop culture reference, not with the idea each option could face any combination of the challenges possible with its suggestions. Non-magical beings can't survive in a world filled with so much hostile magic and hostile users of magic without having magic themselves, because D&D made the only counters to magic come from magic itself.Worse yet, non-magical options in D&D can't access magic through features afforded by their class; they depend on the meta grace of the DM, so according to the suggestions written as rules, it is completely "fair" for non-magical classes to never have access to magic or magic counters in a world where the majority of everything that matters is magical.The "challenge" of a player possessing a non-magical character becomes not engaging with a supposed game, but engaging in meta discussions, meta permissions. It isn't a matter of their skill or luck according to what's written as supposed rules, it's a matter of how that person feels in that moment, consistency or fairness be damned.tl;dr: The only justification for the trinity remaining intact is being a part of a game in which those options are capable of contending with its challenges through the player's skill and/or luck, not through how a daddy DM or a fagbait storyteller feels one moment or the next.
>>98044145>>98044239I mean in practice the wizard causes way more problems to the system than thieves. If every class is problematic in some way maybe the class system is a bad idea.
>>98043594>>98043675Don't forget that in OSR, combat is a failstate. There's no reason to have a Fighter class whose only purpose is to mitigate that either.Every character should simply be a Magic-User who starts with no spells and has to use their wits to survive unless they find spells as treasure.
>>98044340>Don't forget that in OSR, combat is a failstate.nogame myth
Most D&D derived systems really struggle to give the Fighter anything at all to do when the party isn't in combat. This, I think, is the crux of the issue. The Thief's entire identity, outside of sneak attacks, is "can do stuff outside of combat without needing to cast spells". And in order to maintain that identity, the Fighter can't be allowed to do anything other than hit things. If Fighters were good at stealth and diplomacy and jury-rigging then there would be no reason to play Thief. And so you end up with this situation where in order to justify the existence of the Thief class, the Fighter just has to stand around twiddling his thumbs whenever the party is doing anything that doesn't involve hitting things with sticks.
// WEAPON CLASS // MELEE >> Low velocity tools fortify close-range ability when hand-to-hand is unavoidable. Their utility makes up for lack of raw power./ GUN >> Tools of high velocity & penetrative force; light weight guns are best for rate of fire & suppressing flesh/ablative armors, heavier guns lose capacity & rapid fire in favor of greater armor penetration./ EXPLOSIVE >> Tools of destruction with an increased area of effect. Quite costly to use, care must be taken to ensure oneself & allies are not within blast zone.// TECHNICAL CLASS // OPERATIVE >> Cooperates with a load-bearing ally for both of them to take advantage of the Mounted State, giving both shared Power & Reflex, & less Wait Time./ STEALTH >> Uses the Cover State to improve one's effectiveness, reducing the need for heavier defenses & increasing stopping power; requires the target to be unaware of their presence./ ASSAULT >> Acrobats who make use of the Aerial State for its brief evasive benefits to launch powerful attacks from the high "ground"./ VANGUARD >> Hardy heroes who charge in, using the Dashing State to avoid significant harm./ BRUTE >> They draw fire, distracting foes by putting them in Taunted State, or holding them back with Grappling.// SPECIAL CLASS // HEALER >> Grants ascetic power in the form of Miracle, which requires both hands to form a star of power. Though called healers, their power star can easily be used to cause great harm as well./ JET >> Calls upon the power of Ignition, sacrificing a single turn for three turns worth of increased mobility & burning strength, whether up close or at range./ PSION >> Utilizes the Focus State to look inward to one's own well of power, instead of upon a foe, unlocking the ability to unleash destructive powers; at the cost of becoming increasingly vulnerable.The WEAPON, TECHNIQUE, & SPECIAL classes work together to create a style unique to a given Feature, which helps solidify a Hero's role in combat.
>>98043789>>98044261That's the thing, if you're boiling it down it should just be Fighting Man, Magic User, and Healer, with anything else being a derivative of the above. Theif doesn't use magic so it should just be a variation of Fighting Man.
>>98044674Give everyone magic or no one. It's a stupid dichotomy in the first place.
>>98044674>Theif doesn't use magicskill issue
>>98043804>>98044256high iq posts. ive always felt that the entire concept of character classes for player characters are an unnecessary and dated mechanic. for npcs it can be useful to quickly and easily create certain types of npcs without having to craft a whole character every time, but for player characters all it does is limit what characters can do in a very unrealistic, unimmersive, artificial and gamey way. it even results into completely bizarre and ridiculous situations like class-locked equipment; why on earth could the thief not wear a quirass, or the wizard put a helmet on his head? why couldnt the warrior use a magic staff as a quarterstaff even if he doesnt know magic?in real life, classes — or anything resembling them in any way whatsoever — dont exist, and i cant think of a good argument as to why they should exist for player characters in games either. real people have natural aptitudes, and skills developed with experience. thats what stats are for.the mere existence of multiclassing is evidence of the problematic nature of classes; they are the hack to give answers to questions like "why couldnt someone get good at magic AND know how to swing a sword" or "why couldnt a thief wear heavy armor". its an attempt to fix a problem created by a mechanic that doesnt need to exist in the first place.and this has been shown to work, and work wonderfully. fromsoft games have completely classless character growth systems (starting classes are basically just rolling for your initial stats and equipment). and yet, those games have very clear and distinct builds, like a stereotypical warrior (heavy strength build), thief (lightroll dex build with bow), wizard (int caster), cleric (faith caster), and any kind of hybrid you could imagine, unbound by the restrictive nature of classes and multiclassing. i see no reason why this kind of free leveling system couldnt work just as gloriously in a tabletop rpg.
>>98043649>Trying to remove things while attempting to look intellectual is dishonest, since it's easier to just declare something sucks and should gothis is also why midwits revere the unabomber. He accurately identified some problems but his own solutions escaped criticism because they were too fucking stupid to even attempt.
>>98043840Mine too, but we gotta make a good case for it my hooded fren
>>98044256And then you end up with a game where if there is to be anything interesting occuring mechanically other than "I attack and deal 5 damage" then you will end up with a giant list of unstructured abilities and spells that all have to work together and be balanced with each other, so you start covering for this by putting in level restrictions and preqrequisite abilities and stats and after all these restrictions you try and structure it and what you end up with start looking awfully similar to something you are very familiar with, like how your guy who's picking the best spells maybe shouldn't have the heavy armor, but trying to keep all the preqrequisites straight in your head becomes impossible so you end up just freeing yourself by restricting abiltiies to classes, and a great weight lifts from your shoulder and you end up doing a class system like dnd.
>>98043594Imagine an IRL soldier who can ONLY shoot. It's just so fucking funny.
>>98044741>>98044268>in real life, classes — or anything resembling them in any way whatsoever — dont exist>The issue with books of suggestions like D&D is that each option is made with a pop culture reference, or sacred cow pointing to a long-outdated pop culture referenceWe're not trying to ape real life though. The reason not every game is going classless is because we want those restrictions, not every player being a heavy armored wizard with a shield for max ac and a wand in the other hand like we're playing all librarian terminators in space hulk or something.No, we want the sneaky rogue in leather and a dagger, we want the old scrawny wizard with a mighty intellect and arcane prowess, we want the fighter with only his brawn and skill at arms as a BASE. Then likely some customization or options around it to let in hybrids, niche ones or options going against the grain. But this idea of leaning into dnds stupid magic and just going full Eberron or whatever is not what most people want.
>>98046226spoken like someone who is laughably bad at game design, wtf? its not that hard to balance things, its literally just basic maths + iteration. you also obviously should be using skill requirements over level requirements, and there is zero reason why making wizards not wear heavy armor would require class equipment restrictions when you HAVE STATS to do that and everything else for you.
>>98046226The amount of things you assume here that are totally wrong is impressive. >nothing interesting occurring mechanically Not the goal. You'll make another wrong assumption from that. >balanced with each other lol no. >level restrictions and prerequisites again lol no. >end up looking similar to what you're familiar with Doesn't even make any sense unless you say what you think that is. >picking spells more lol >keeping things straight in your head easy when you're not cluttered with whatever amount of cruft you think games need Best part of all that is it actually plays like a much faster and better version of dnd, and player character specialization grows contextually through play rather than a metagame about character builds.
>>98046273>not every player being a heavy armored wizard with a shield for max ac and a wand in the other hand like we're playing all librarian terminatorsthere is zero reason why you need classes to achieve different characters having wildly different builds.>we want the sneaky rogue in leather and a dagger, we want the old scrawny wizard with a mighty intellect and arcane prowess, we want the fighter with only his brawn and skill at arms as a BASEand you can have all of that and more without any need for classes.
>>98046281>>98046285What systems are you referring to? Again though if you have restrictions just not class ones to what abilities you can have, aren't you locking people out from doing what they want anyway just by different means? The simple existence of class games leads me to believe there must be some purpose to them, likely to uphold the archetypes in a way that classless don't if it's open ended. You make it seem like there's no drawback to it.
>>98046326What restrictions are you talking about? I primarily run Into the Odd for dungeon crawling. Works great. Class games give players something to futz with if that's the goal. That's it really.
>>98046326>>98046273>>98046285Yeah, it's not like there aren't games that still have those types of divides without needing explicit classes.Easy example I can think of off-hand is Knave. You have a limited number of inventory slots. Pieces of armor each take up one slot and give 1 AP. Any magical spellbook takes up one slot and can be used to cast a spell once per day. If you go all-in on armor, you won't have room for spellbooks. Carrying more spellbooks means you can't bring as many different weapons or other tools either.And of course, a character's ability scores also limit what they're actually good at.
>>98043594All retarded reductionists need to look at this, and understand why it failed.
>>98046273I ( >>98044268 ) didn't say anything about aping real life.My point was about a game's internal consistency, and its options allowing the players to engage with the game, and how D&D doesn't facilitate either.If you want to link my posts and greentext what I say, please respond with something that addresses what I actually say.Thanks in advance.
>>98044382Well put. In such a class system, the only thing I can think of to do is this>>98044239 ie make dealing with traps something everyone does, I think the thief can still be best at sneaking and he does that and maybe pick locks, but sneaking has situations that are good to have multiple people in play often enough anyway that the rogue being good at it will likely only keep the fighter out of it half of the time. Basically just spread the rogue activties out a bit more evenly to the fighter.
>>98046326>What systems are you referring to?literally any other than class restrictions. stat requirements for abilities or equipment, inventory slots, or a myriad of other finite resources.>Again though if you have restrictions just not class ones to what abilities you can have, aren't you locking people out from doing what they want anyway just by different means? no? because the system is more malleable (since it doesnt have to follow the blueprint of classes) and therefore the player can choose to do whatever the fuck they want with their character. that doesnt however mean that you can do EVERYTHING on the SAME CHARACTER. you just get to pick and choose what your characters strengths and weaknesses are freely, rather than a from a completely arbitrary predetermined set of pre-made builds (classes).so no, simply because you dont have classes doesnt mean every character will be casting high level spells while wearing heavy armor and being a master at sneaking and all other tasks, because both spells and armor and any other kind of aptitude takes resources, and you do not have enough resources to have your build be good at everything. this also doesnt mean that the archetypes dont come up naturally; if someone wants to be a strong wizard, theyre probably gonna be leveling their wizardry skills a lot, thus neglecting all the stuff that makes you a good fighter or a good thief. classles is literally just a superior system.
>>98046339>Into the Oddcool, will check it out>>98046349This sounds cool, but, also sounds like you'll end up with a very simple game mechanically, no? If equipment is the whole deal, then I'm guessing the guy who wants to be sword guy doesn't carry around five fencing manuals in his slots to make his sword do more things than just deal x amount of damage? I understand some find this fine, but I personally find it to be lacking in how engaging it can be, especially if the spells are so much more varied and flavorful in comparison.>>98046375Is this not more of an issue in newer editions of the game though, to be fair? In your average osr dungeoncrawler the wizards are more limited in what they can cast and how many times they can do it. This prevents them from just domianting the game in all areas and actually makes the martials make sense with the world's internal logic since they are needed to deal with most threats, and a gang of wizards would have a hard time accomplishing it on their own.>>98046416I mean that does sound awesome, and I understand that implicitly you can't pick everything, just that I would be surprised if there wasn't a very meta build that floated to the top that would not cohere with the typical archetypes. I guess if you do have very many tiers of archetypical abilities, I can see how it can kind of balance itself potentially, like if there's 10 ranks of sneak, then if you put all your skill points into that, sure you won't be the terminator librarian, but you will undeniably be the very best at a certain task. I want to believe.
>>98043729Kek. About 20 years ago wotc released a character sheet for the upcoming 4th edition on April Fools' Day that just had two attributes, Cool and Awesome, two skills, Cool and Awesome, and two abilities, Cool and Awesome. I'll have to see if I can find it to post here.
>>98046465>I would be surprised if there wasn't a very meta build that floated to the top that would not cohere with the typical archetypeswell first of all there will always be a meta build regardless of whether the game has classes or not. every game is unbalanced to some degree, and thus every game has a class that is better than others, and some classes that are just a secret hardmode. and yet, people play different classes anyway because its fun.secondly, you can limit people's ability to roll the perfect meta build every time by not just dropping them the exact loot they need for it just because thats what they want to complete their meta build. metagaming should be discouraged anyway. ttrpg is about emergent storytelling and immersion (to me anyway), if you wanna crunch numbers go play starcraft.thirdly when there inevitably is a meta build, who cares whether it aligns with one of the stereotypical archetypes? who cares if players even play archetypal characters at all? if a player doesnt, clearly its because they dont want to. its up to the player. i personally really like stereotypical squichy wizards and rogues, but sometimes i like something different, and even when im playing a wizard i dont like the game telling me NOOO YOU CANT PICK UP A MACE FROM THE GROUND THATS ONLY FOR WARRIORS as if god's hand stopped me from taking it because "wizards arent supposed to". thats retarded, ill pick up the mace if i need to, even if im gonna do bad damage and injure my elbow using it because i put all my skillpoints to erudition and insight or whatever.>I guess if you do have very many tiers of archetypical abilities, I can see how it can kind of balance itself potentially, like if there's 10 ranks of sneak, then if you put all your skill points into that, sure you won't be the terminator librarian, but you will undeniably be the very best at a certain task.thats exactly how im planning to build my homebrew rpg. anyone can sneak, but how well?
>>98046366No idea what this is attempting to communicate.
>>98046465>This sounds cool, but, also sounds like you'll end up with a very simple game mechanically, no?In some ways. But if we're talking about games that have fighter/thief/mage as the classes, those aren't exactly known for having a bunch of mechanical customization. It's very much in a similar vein to osr games, but I bring it up mainly to demonstrate how it's entirely possible to make a game where being an spellcaster in heavy armor can be limited in ways that aren't just "spellcaster's can't wear armor".>then I'm guessing the guy who wants to be sword guy doesn't carry around five fencing manuals in his slots to make his sword do more things than just deal x amount of damage?Yeah, instead he'd be using those five slots for armor, or for different magical swords. But it's also not the sort of game where you fully commit to being 'the sword guy', because you're just making use of what you find in the dungeon, rather than planning out a build.If one wanted, one certainly could make a more crunch-heavy game with a similar baseline concept, where abilities are a function of equipment, but there are also fancy maneuvers if you've got a parrying dagger or a fencing manual or whatnot. But that's a more complex game than what Knave is trying to be.
>>98046159I make it a policy never to take a job that's so sentimental. One thing's for sure, this OP guy's lost his mind.
>>98046465>This sounds cool, but, also sounds like you'll end up with a very simple game mechanicallyInto the Odd anon here, but the general idea of most nusr/osr rules lights is the interesting gameplay comes from emergent problem solving and exploration choices rather than an array of combat mechanics. Combat itself can be more or less engaging based on tactical and strategic choices rather than if you're using a specific combination of things for bonuses.
>>98046585kek <3 nice rare, purloining that
>>98046582>>98046597I hear that, but even if simplicity is a main goal, is there still not a strange assymetry between the melee ppl doing a basic attack and the spellcasters doing fancy things of different aoes and effects? Maybe the reliability of a weapon with good +hit and damage goes a long way in making them feel nice to play even if your party member is a spellcaster?
>>98046679>is there still not a strange assymetry between the melee ppl doing a basic attack and the spellcasters doing fancy things of different aoes and effects?Not really, for a few reasons. The first of which is that while you can have a few spellbooks for different effects, you can still only use each of them once. That means if you've got an Elemental Wall spellbook and a few utility spellbooks, you're only conjuring up a wall of fire once.The second is again, that there isn't a strict divide between melee characters and spellcasters. A character with high Strength is probably going to be in melee, but nothing stops them from using a spellbook. The third is that the way you get spellbooks is finding them as treasure. The same way you'd find a magical sword with a special effect. Every type of character is relying on magical loot in order to do 'fancy things'. You're sort of asking if there's asymmetry between the guy who has an invisibility cloak and the guy who doesn't. The answer is yes, but it's not because the game is divided into "cloak haver" and "non-cloak haver". It's because the party found that cloak and decided the first guy was the best one to give it to. None of the characters are going to really have the luxury of never needing to shoot a bow or swing a weapon.
>>98046679>is there still not a strange assymetry between the melee ppl doing a basic attack and the spellcasters doing fancy things of different aoes and effects?Feature not a bug. Its more oriented at combat as war rather than combat as sport or an arena fight where everything is balanced. If the combat is proactively run by the dm and players everyone always has something to do.
>>98046523It's a dev comment about a fighting game that bombed horribly despite having a strong pedigree from past entries. Maybe it wasn't the full reason for it, but it was part of it. Basically the designer could not understand that people like the characters for both their character and functions, and just broke them down to functions even though it doesn't work out. People have favorites for a reason.
>>98044674> Divine Magic> Healing MagicFirst: No.Divine magic, or any alternative like Ki, should not be relegated to an healing's role anymore than D.O.T.s, banishment effects and necromancy... depending.Second, the alternative to frontline combat is necessary if you also trace a line between types of magic. A Finesse vs. Power kinda thing, to "quote" World of Darkness.If you remove Rogue (thief, wtf?), might as well remove classes and go full elder scrolls.
>>98050066nta I can't tell if its >removing class features is like removing character traits! or >characters are more than their class traits! I'm inclined towards the later but its unclear because the OP is about removing things and the response example also is. Might be something about class niche being more than just one type with overlap being important for players to feel like they have options. Or something else entirely, /v/tards are like that.
>>98044741>real life, classes — or anything resembling them in any way whatsoever — dont existExactly real life soldiers can fire a rocket launcher, pilot a helicopter, or drive a tank without needing any so called training or specialization.A scientist is just as capable of programming a computer as they are synthesizing chemicals or doing advanced differential calculus without needing to specialize in any of those tasks. They are just naturally good at all of them.Just like how an artist can play every musical instrument, paint a masterwork painting, or sculpt a statue without needing to specialize in any of those tasks.Why people think rpgs need "classes" and "skills" and "specializations" is complete nonsense.
>>98043594Make a character like pic related using the core class design, but don't use Thief/Rogue.I await your attempt at an answer.
>>98044340So...a thief?
>>98044741>fromsoft games have completely classless character growth systems (starting classes are basically just rolling for your initial stats and equipment).This is so blatantly wrong, you'd have to only have a surface level understanding of those games to convince yourself to make that claim. Starting classes literally dictate your beginning and ending character. It's the difference between "doing your thing," sooner, and rounding out soft/hardcaps by end game (assuming you stick to the universally accepted level thresholds).
>>98051011Fighter. Decent int (able to plan heists)+high con(withstand psychoactive substances and punches from little kids and from falling). Low cha (can't keep up his cover in the mall) and low wis(takes unnecessary risks and fucks up). Skill proficiency: stealth, intimidation, persuasion. Background: criminal. Start feat: Tavern brawler. Entertainer's pack with santa disguise.
