Classes are flavor.

[J1M]

Character optimization is a game in itself, and fun for a variety of reasons. Agreed that it is a form of meta-fun that largely sits outside the game.

Assume a system where dwarf = character class. Assume human is also a class. What would that look like in terms of capabilities? What is a paragon human?

[rusty_shackleford]

Assume human is also a class. What would that look like in terms of capabilities? What is a paragon human?

Human as a class would look like a GURPS character, that is, no real class at all.

[rusty_shackleford]

The humanization of demi-humans has resulted in them losing everything that made them unique. In a misguided attempt at diversification, the result has been homogenization. Dwarves are effectively short humans who drink a lot of alcohol, and maybe live underground. They might have a small constitution bonus.

Most of the unique elements they had were eroded way over time in RPGs because it became blatantly clear that demi-humans were simply superior to humans if they were just humans except with bonuses(...duh.) In modern RPGs, tabletop or computer, you're lucky if race does anything beyond cosmetics.

Dwarves are not "humans but short." Demi-humans should be a different way to play the game, not a way to get +1 to your constitution score. If your interest is in minor bonuses and maluses, then subraces already handled this just fine.

That isn't to say you can't make an RPG where dwarves have classes, but they should not be copies of human classes... beyond say, fighter.

[maidenhaver]

Dwarves should have a faster pulse than Men, so they inhabit a faster version of our world, which is why they drink all the time in human settlements. Elves have a slower pulse than us, so they experience a slow world. That lets them rapidly shoot arrows, live longer, or even explain why they talk funny.

[J1M]

Assume human is also a class. What would that look like in terms of capabilities? What is a paragon human?

Human as a class would look like a GURPS character, that is, no real class at all.

I was hoping it would be an interesting discussion. If you had to map human to a class, what would the rationale be?

For example:

a) Humans are fighters because human fighter is the most common combination created on D&D Beyond. (Obviously flawed since those are default choices, created doesn't equal played, etc)

b) Humans are alchemists. IRL humans have no inmate magical ability and our advantage over nature is granted by science and discovering knowledge.

c) Humans are clerics. Religion is central to the human condition and the variety players expect can be expressed via dirty/domain selection.

[rusty_shackleford]

Assume human is also a class. What would that look like in terms of capabilities? What is a paragon human?

Human as a class would look like a GURPS character, that is, no real class at all.

I was hoping it would be an interesting discussion. If you had to map human to a class, what would the rationale be?

For example:

a) Humans are fighters because human fighter is the most common combination created on D&D Beyond. (Obviously flawed since those are default choices, created doesn't equal played, etc)

b) Humans are alchemists. IRL humans have no inmate magical ability and our advantage over nature is granted by science and discovering knowledge.

c) Humans are clerics because religion is central to the human condition and the variety players expect can be expressed via dirty/domain selection.

This is why human-as-a-class doesn't work, we know humans too intimately to write it. No human can write from the perspective of an elf, no matter how much they try to be in the character or build the lore up.
If you try to write an elf, you will always end up making a human-themed elf because we cannot understand anything else. Do you think it's merely a coincidence that all attempts to write detailed lore for demi-human races ends up just being some mashup of a foreign human culture? The only time this doesn't hold is when it's purposely not expanded upon, and they're left as alien.

If you want a serious answer for this question, I'd suggest either seeking out the last neanderthal or an intelligent alien.

[Klerik]

which class tastes like coconut?.

[ERYFKRAD]

which class tastes like coconut?.

Shapeshifter- hairy and definitely nuts. So that's closest to coconuts you'll get

[rusty_shackleford]

Human as a class would look like a GURPS character, that is, no real class at all.

I was hoping it would be an interesting discussion. If you had to map human to a class, what would the rationale be?

For example:

a) Humans are fighters because human fighter is the most common combination created on D&D Beyond. (Obviously flawed since those are default choices, created doesn't equal played, etc)

b) Humans are alchemists. IRL humans have no inmate magical ability and our advantage over nature is granted by science and discovering knowledge.

c) Humans are clerics because religion is central to the human condition and the variety players expect can be expressed via dirty/domain selection.

This is why human-as-a-class doesn't work, we know humans too intimately to write it. No human can write from the perspective of an elf, no matter how much they try to be in the character or build the lore up.
If you try to write an elf, you will always end up making a human-themed elf because we cannot understand anything else. Do you think it's merely a coincidence that all attempts to write detailed lore for demi-human races ends up just being some mashup of a foreign human culture? The only time this doesn't hold is when it's purposely not expanded upon, and they're left as alien.

If you want a serious answer for this question, I'd suggest either seeking out the last neanderthal or an intelligent alien.

Came across a blog-post that pretty much sums up the same argument.
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2 ... elves.html

Allowing players to play as non-human was probably a mistake, they're just humans with pointy ears. It devalued non-humans by reducing them to humans.

[aweigh]

Classes are flavor.
I can't quite remember where I read this originally. But the more I've thought on it, the more I concede that it is truth.
What do I mean by flavor?
https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=flavor

A distinctive yet intangible quality felt to be characteristic of a given thing

The issue I have with most entirely skill-based RPGs is that your character ends up lacking a certain uniqueness quality. My character in Fallout may be a gambler, but he doesn't feel very different than your character who is a gunslinger. Odds are, I'll still end up using a gun, just not quite as good as your character. I don't find myself locked out of much, if anything.
This is especially true in skill-based games with parties that allow you to customize your party members as much as your main character.

I say most, because it is not true across the board. Daggerfall is in fact an entirely skill-based game. A skill-based game with classes. In Daggerfall, classes represent a particular area of expertise as pertaining to certain skills along with boons and banes. If I had a critique, it is that it did not go far enough. Skills not covered by the class should have been severely hampered or even unable to be used, at least without significant training(and requirements to receive such) to make it accessible.

Classes are archetypes.
Archetypes are flavor.
Flavor is good.
Classes are good.

Not all implementations of classes are good.

————————————————————————————————————————
I think I'm going to start regularly posting blogposts topics that are, to me anyways, about things "core" to RPGs.
Everyone is encouraged to blogpost as long as it's in the right section.

I think character classes (should) dictate how you play the game.

[Emphyrio]

class and classless are both valid choices with their own strengths and weaknesses.

d&d and pathfinder are certainly the wrong way to do it. Multiclassing is bad and defeats the whole point of having a class system.

[Priest]

class and classless are both valid choices with their own strengths and weaknesses.

d&d and pathfinder are certainly the wrong way to do it. Multiclassing is bad and defeats the whole point of having a class system.

Learning when to dip into a selection of different classes is just ****** metagaming. There are so many better ways to add gameplay variety to class base systems, like unique gear as an example.

[rusty_shackleford]

class and classless are both valid choices with their own strengths and weaknesses.

d&d and pathfinder are certainly the wrong way to do it. Multiclassing is bad and defeats the whole point of having a class system.

I enjoyed AD&D-style multi-classing for demihumans where you had to pick the classes when you made your character.
The idea of 3E-style multiclassing doesn't even work for many classes because many of them aren't something you can just become. Sorcerer is the most obvious example. It's an anti-roleplaying system.

[Fedora Master]

Wrath of the Righteous has dozens of classes yet they're all ****. Different flavors of ****.

[Humbaba]

Wrathfinder has many great classes that are very fun and cool.

I always understood classes to define a character's role in the party. I also think that playing as non-humans is great.

The reductionist mantra of "human but x" is ********, mostly untrue and can be applied to most everything (a monkey is human but hairy, a tree is human but green and immobile etc.). If demihumans aren't internally justified then that's a problem with the setting and does not point to some universal truth about how demihumans are redundant. I've never seen someone complain about supermutants being humans but mutated or ghouls being just humies but burnt.

[GhostCow]

Wrath of the Righteous has dozens of classes yet they're all ****. Different flavors of ****.

Some of the classes were fun, but not many. All of the mythic paths were terrible though. Very disappointing.

[rusty_shackleford]

The 'classes' of WotR are the mythic paths.

[Lich]

a monkey is human but hairy, a tree is human but green and immobile etc.

Not really.

[maidenhaver]

Pathfinder is the Lawry's seasoning of classes.

[Humbaba]

a monkey is human but hairy, a tree is human but green and immobile etc.

Not really.

So then we agree that "human but x" is stupid.

[Sweeper]

Man you guys are autistic as ****. Get some beer down your gullet, get some pussy, stop talking about RPG mechanics for ****'s sake.

[maidenhaver]

Sir, this is a RPGHQ.

[WhiteShark]

Man you guys are autistic as ****. Get some beer down your gullet, get some pussy, stop talking about RPG mechanics for ****'s sake.

[Sweeper]

I don't care about vidya no more, but some of you guys are alright and discord is beyond ******* gay.
I have become worse than a Jew, may Allah forgive me for uttering this word, I've become an off-topic poster.

[Emphyrio]

I don't care about vidya no more, but some of you guys are alright and discord is beyond ******* gay.
I have become worse than a Jew, may Allah forgive me for uttering this word, I've become an off-topic poster.

yeah same i've realized that i dont actually like rpgs but i still hang out here because where the hell else can you go

[maidenhaver]

Classless systems are ideal single player but when adventuring in a party, you need dedicated roles. Classes. The role player is one whose class informs his character, not some ******* playbaby dolly dress-up larper niggerfaggit who needs a complicated backstory or motives beyond loot and High Adventure.

[Norfleet]

In a multi-character environment, classes will naturally form regardless of whether the system is classless or not. Even if I can take any skill on any character I wish, if I make a party consisting a guy who specializes in melee weapons and heavy armor, a guy who specializes in skulduggery and stealth, a guy specializes in healing and restoration magics, and a guy who specializes attack magics, I've just made a party of a fighter, a thief, a healer, and a wizard. I didn't need a class system to do that. If I change it up a little and install the healing on the melee weapon guy and make my stealth character an archer and scout, I made a paladin and a ranger instead. Didn't need a class system to define it for me. Even with a single-character environment, unless I have unlimited buildspace like a Bethesda protagonist, I'm going to be making build choices that effectively create a class, and at this point, pretty much every major role combination has SOME kind of class we recognize.

[maidenhaver]

In a multi-character environment, classes will naturally form regardless of whether the system is classless or not. Even if I can take any skill on any character I wish, if I make a party consisting a guy who specializes in melee weapons and heavy armor, a guy who specializes in skulduggery and stealth, a guy specializes in healing and restoration magics, and a guy who specializes attack magics, I've just made a party of a fighter, a thief, a healer, and a wizard. I didn't need a class system to do that.

You made one, and so we see the classes will form. They're necessary.

[Norfleet]

Classes are not a "necessary" thing, but party power optimization tends to involve role specialization. You could just decide to create a party consisting entirely of what are functionally bards, I guess. That's also your choice in a classless system. The point is that in a classless system, nobody is forcing you into an arbitrary mold of what a class can and cannot be, whereas in a class-based system, certain combinations are not merely ill-advised, but outright impossible.

[Klerik]

What class eats this dogshit?