Do you prefer classes or classless systems?

[LemonDemonGirl]

Classless systems end up being Talent point sinks.

[gerey]

I prefer neither - I like systems where you get to build up the history of your character from childhood to adulthood (ideally broken down into three age "blocks"), that then determine which skills are going to be your primary ones and you can more easily level up, and which you will struggle with. Pepper this process with events that can help add a few more skills not necessarily related to the archetype you're building up.

As an example, if your character started out as a child of the nobility, he could then move on to become a squire in the second "block", ultimately ending being a knight. This in turn would determine what skills he would have, like Speech (Nobility), plus the knowledge of how to wear plate armor, ride a horse, read, etc., while he would clearly not know how to pick locks, sneak around or communicate with riff-raff from the slums.

[wndrbr]

Classes for party-based rpgs, classless for single-character rpgs.

[Boontaker]

I prefer neither - I like systems where you get to build up the history of your character from childhood to adulthood (ideally broken down into three age "blocks"), that then determine which skills are going to be your primary ones and you can more easily level up, and which you will struggle with. Pepper this process with events that can help add a few more skills not necessarily related to the archetype you're building up.

As an example, if your character started out as a child of the nobility, he could then move on to become a squire in the second "block", ultimately ending being a knight. This in turn would determine what skills he would have, like Speech (Nobility), plus the knowledge of how to wear plate armor, ride a horse, read, etc., while he would clearly not know how to pick locks, sneak around or communicate with riff-raff from the slums.

You like classes+, classes with extra steps, the illusion of classless

Classless systems fail in multiplayer games because eventually 1+2+3=meta

In single player if you don't want to play stealth archer, then that is a decision you can make. In multiplayer the stealth archers will outperform you so hard you will quit the game.

[Xenich]

Wouldn't a classless system that focuses on the negatives of progression in a skill focus be a balance?

That is, the further down a line of lets say magic based focus (ie intellectual driven skills), the more negatives it creates for some physical focuses. You still get the ability to have hybrid selections, but how far down any particular line produces enough negatives that picking skills on the other end of the spectrum become... less effective and possibly ineffective all together?

This is why I don't mind classless systems if they have the proper reasonable concepts to their focus. Much like perks operate, but each progression of a skill has a negative association to its counterpart in some way.

This is akin to the dual classing concept of AD&D where the players focus can be spread out, but it comes with negatives to doing it.

Properly implemented with the logic of this practical balance would still achieve the flexibility of a classless system, yet not produce the issues that evolve from those types of systems through its concept which would restrict through psuedo class based means on that level.

[J1M]

In theory, classless could be better if you have a single character and the combat has a pretty narrow range of expression. (Because then you can see everything in a single playthrough. )

In practice, as soon as you have some sort of squad or party, class-based is strongly preferable.

As someone else mentioned, a paladin is interesting because he is god's champion AND because he lacks ranged abilities AND because he can ignore certain maladies that other people can't.

If we look at something like Pathfinder's Alchemist, Paladin, and Druid, that is an interesting set of high-flavor choices for a party. Especially if we aren't stupid and set the party size to something other than 3.

This decision alone: who to bring for a 4-person party from these 3 classes, has a more interesting/satisfying decision and more replayability than most classless progression systems.

I'm not sure why we call them classless systems either. They should be called "I-hit-things-and-also-cast-a-self-heal systems".

[Xenich]

In theory, classless could be better if you have a single character and the combat has a pretty narrow range of expression. (Because then you can see everything in a single playthrough. )

In practice, as soon as you have some sort of squad or party, class-based is strongly preferable.

As someone else mentioned, a paladin is interesting because he is god's champion AND because he lacks ranged abilities AND because he can ignore certain maladies that other people can't.

If we look at something like Pathfinder's Alchemist, Paladin, and Druid, that is an interesting set of high-flavor choices for a party. Especially if we aren't stupid and set the party size to something other than 3.

This decision alone: who to bring for a 4-person party from these 3 classes, has a more interesting/satisfying decision and more replayability than most classless progression systems.

I'm not sure why we call them classless systems either. They should be called "I-hit-things-and-also-cast-a-self-heal systems".

I don't have the willpower to get into the details of the discussion. I understand what you are getting at, but my point was more in terms of "could" that system that is open to such deviations in selection be balanced out with individual negatives upon each selection where the example you give isn't effective to any real means compared to the ideal makeup which would essentially be a "class" template (ie a paladin).

I guess this doesn't work well in a party system, probably better suited for a single character game for what I am talking about as a party system truly requires more of a template based design of pieces that work together and less about the individual characters detailed options in progression.

[Norfleet]

I find classes to be more replayable than classless because classless strongly incentivizes making the same amorphous blob of optimal traits every time.

Well, having classes puts you in a box that you can strive to be the best in. But one box is probably still the best box.

[Norfleet]

In practice, as soon as you have some sort of squad or party, class-based is strongly preferable.

As soon as you have a squad or party, classes emerge even in a classless system. Unless your system is "everyone can do everything and its just a matter of grinding the skill levels out", at some point buildspace budgeting limitations and skill synergies create an effective "class". The "Strength Class", the "Dex Class", the "Int Class", for instance.

[J1M]

In practice, as soon as you have some sort of squad or party, class-based is strongly preferable.

As soon as you have a squad or party, classes emerge even in a classless system. Unless your system is "everyone can do everything and its just a matter of grinding the skill levels out", at some point buildspace budgeting limitations and skill synergies create an effective "class". The "Strength Class", the "Dex Class", the "Int Class", for instance.

Yes, but it feels lame due to being devoid of flavor.

[Norfleet]

That's why we call them the Fighter, the Thief, and the Wizard instead.

[Lord of Riva]

Definitely distinhuishable classes.

That is the sole issue with classless systems: Once you found out how to break the system characters always end the same.

[Norfleet]

That is the sole issue with classless systems: Once you found out how to break the system characters always end the same.

Nah, because within a classless system, unless you can do everything, there's still going to be effectively "classes" within that system. They just won't be as rigidly defined. But in many games these days, even within a class, there are subclasses if you can't pick every useful skill within it.