Broad vs Narrow Classes

[Lich-Loved]

I am working on a game system approach that is a blend between the "Non-flashy fighter" and the Tomes' views of the martial classes. One of the philosophical challenges I am working on is whether it is better in a class/level system to have broad or narrow classes. For example, during design I have created three class templates or archtypes: Martial, Scholar and Blended for melee, caster and hybrid classes respectively. I use these archtypes to establish broad categorization of skills per level, HD and the like. The question is, is it inherently better for the game to have narrowly defined classes or to have only these archetypes and allow players to draw from a menu of feats, core per-level abilities and the like to build characters? For a concrete example, would it be better (and by better I mean better for character diversification, character ability balance and player flexibility in creating the character they envision) to offer a Fighter, a Knight, a Rogue and a Monk (narrow classes) or by offering a basic chassis for a martial character and allowing the player to choose from a wide range of feats or class skills to build the character they want (broad classes)?

[Roy]

Using narrow classes leads to being turned off all the time by pure accident. Seeing as this was the original problem with the beatstick classes, and you are trying to fix this I think your question has just answered itself.

[Lich-Loved]

I see your point, Roy, but the Tomes (which I respect as a source of game design), did take the narrow class approach, and I don't believe that these classes end up being "switched off" or ineffective a meaningful amount of the time. Thus, I think that either approach (broad or narrow) could lead to success, and I am trying to determine the pitfalls of the broader approach since it does not seem to have been discussed at length here.

The concern is that the narrow approach forces the difficult task of creating scores of class-specific abilities that are balanced among each other and metered appropriately and even if done properly has the effect of limiting the player to a degree; in the absence of multiclassing (which has its own issues) no one is going to make a Tome Knight into a Tome Barbarian, for example. On the flip side, making a pool of abilities and feats available may cause weird, broken things to occur that perhaps I cannot foresee.

[RandomCasualty2]

The concern is that the narrow approach forces the difficult task of creating scores of class-specific abilities that are balanced among each other and metered appropriately and even if done properly has the effect of limiting the player to a degree; in the absence of multiclassing (which has its own issues) no one is going to make a Tome Knight into a Tome Barbarian, for example. On the flip side, making a pool of abilities and feats available may cause weird, broken things to occur that perhaps I cannot foresee.

Yeah, the main issue with broad classes is that it becomes much more difficult to balance test them.

A tome barbarian for instance is pretty damn obvious. We know what he does, and we know how he does it.

Now take a broad class like a cleric or a wizard. We honestly have no idea what any individual wizard does, nor can we make too many generalizations about the class in combat as a whole, because any one character of that class can have many potential loadouts.

It's no surprise really that the broad classes tend to be the most broken.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

In my opinion, I like having broad classes with Ability Trees that might overlap into other classes.

For Example. There could be a Fighter class with several possible builds/abilities:

Bow
Dagger (thrown and close)
Melee Close
Melee Reach
Intimidating (make enemies take penalties or cause them to give up)
Commander (adds bonuses to allies, leads armies)
Fighting Stances (Rapier, Two swords over head, etc.)
Dirty Fighting (jugular attacks, hamstring blows)
Advanced Technical Combat Maneuvers

There could be a Monk Class which is focused more than Fighter on Melee Close Combat, but has it's own abilities

Bow
Staff
Nunchaku
Unarmed Strikes
Unarmed Grapples
Different Fighting Stances (Preying Mantis, Tiger, Crane, etc.)
Self-Healing/Ridiculous Jumping/whatever other Supernatural stuff you want to add build/ Hadouken

There could be another class called Rogue which might have abilities such as:

Bow
Dagger (thrown and close)
Disguise/Hide in Plain Sight/Extra Sneaking
Dodging
Melee Close
Intimidating (make enemies take penalties or cause them to give up)
Fighting Stances (Rapier, Two Dagers, Double Crossbow)
Dirty Fighting (sneak attacks, jugular attacks, hamstring blows)
Stealing/Thieving/Bluffling/Lying

My idea was that each possible build type might have multiple ways of being effective. For example two Melee Close Fighters would not be the same and could be built differently and both be effective. The same goes for other classes.

Of course you'll see some overlap on these lists. I mean, why can't a fighter having Stealing/Thieving/Bluffing/Lying Powers? Well to be honest, I'm not sure there's any good reason for that other than flavor reasons: We like to keep the general flavor of the class within certain bounds.

This is why I'm in favor of multiclassing rules or feats whichi let you get powers from other classes. This helps keep the flavor of classes in the world, while letting people expand away from the designer's archetype of what a class should be able to do.

In my opinion I hate, the 4e design of narrowing these classes down and having classes defined as Striker, Controller, etc. and then whining about when one classs that's a Defender becomes too Striker-ish or Controller-ish. And I want to avoid threads like this http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1159752

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

It's no surprise really that the broad classes tend to be the most broken.

I think it's more of a problem of Magic Being such a broad concept, and non-magic users not being given broad abilities, and magic users not really being well tested.

[RandomCasualty2]

I think it's more of a problem of Magic Being such a broad concept, and non-magic users not being given broad abilities, and magic users not really being well tested.

Well yeah, magic users are so difficult to test because they're so broad. There are thousands of different spell type configurations and different strategies.

Some guy may mix fire and enchantment, another may go pure protective magic, someone else may try scry and die. And there's just no way you're going to test all of that.

[Roy]

I see your point, Roy, but the Tomes (which I respect as a source of game design), did take the narrow class approach, and I don't believe that these classes end up being "switched off" or ineffective a meaningful amount of the time. Thus, I think that either approach (broad or narrow) could lead to success, and I am trying to determine the pitfalls of the broader approach since it does not seem to have been discussed at length here.

The concern is that the narrow approach forces the difficult task of creating scores of class-specific abilities that are balanced among each other and metered appropriately and even if done properly has the effect of limiting the player to a degree; in the absence of multiclassing (which has its own issues) no one is going to make a Tome Knight into a Tome Barbarian, for example. On the flip side, making a pool of abilities and feats available may cause weird, broken things to occur that perhaps I cannot foresee.

The baseline when making them was a single classed Transmuter Wizard. You might have met him. His name is God. So, why exactly would they be narrow, again?

[Username17]

Narrow and broad is about how many different characters you can make with one class, not how much stuff each class can do. A narrow class is Elothar Warrior of Bladereach. A broad class is Wizard.

The tradeoff is that narrower classes take longer to design because you need more classes to cover the conceptual space. Broader classes take longer to put into the game because there are more choices to make during chargen. Therefore a narrower class model is superior for play because more of the work has been done by the game designers.

Replacing Sorcerers with Dread Necromancers and Beguilers is a good move. Broad classes like Warrior/Mage/Hybrid are the work of a lazy designer wager to shove their work onto the consumer. If you're going to do broad classes, you should go point based and eliminate the false intermediate level of choice.

-Username17

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Why are Beguilers or Dread Necromancers better than Sorcerers when for the most part the Sorcerer can do everything the Beguiler or Dread Necromancer can do and more?

[Ice9]

Therefore a narrower class model is superior for play because more of the work has been done by the game designers.

Well, they're superior for play if the game designers have made a class for the character you want to play. But rulebooks are not infinite, and the more narrow the classes, the greater the probability that none of them is quite what you're looking for.

That is, if I want to play a swashbuckler, then the ideal thing is for there to be a Swashbuckler class, specifically focused on that. But in the absence of such a class, I'd rather have a wide Warrior class that can handle swashbuckling than nothing.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

This is a problem of 4th edition for me that hasn't quite been put to words.

I want to play an Undead Necromancer-type character. There aren't classes out there that do what I want. So I either have to make the mechanics I want or play another game to play the character that I want.

[Caedrus]

I gotta disagree with Frank on this one.

Broad classes aren't necessarily the work of "lazy designers." There are various benefits to that design agenda that you've not mentioned, Frank, such as empowering players to make exactly the character they want. I never liked the Beguiler because he was always the same, with a preset list of spells and so forth. Broad classes can be helpful in expanding character variety and enhancing character customization.

Heck, they don't necessarily take less effort to make than narrow classes, considering that you want to cover the same conceptual space.

Say you have a Wizard class with 200 spells divided up into 5 schools. You could easily split that up into 5 classes with 40 spells and only access to one school. Making that split doesn't take much of any effort at all. Actually, it could take *less* seeing as the Narrow route sidesteps some things that could eat into your design time, such as balancing specialization vs. generalization and certain ability interactions, among other things.

Your logic here seems to ignore a lot of the other factors that go into design. More classes does not necessarily mean more complexity of design.

[Lich-Loved]

The baseline when making them was a single classed Transmuter Wizard. You might have met him. His name is God. So, why exactly would they be narrow, again?

I guess I am just obtuse or perhaps worn out after a brutal work week, but I am failing to see your point. I consider the Tome classes to be narrow insomuch as there are different classes for what equipment you carry/utilize as a Fighter-type (Knight vs Barbarian for example). That distinction is a fairly fine one, I believe. There is nothing wrong with that distinction and it is obviously the product of a conscious choice on Frank and K's part when they looked at how to handle the "broadly defined" core caster classes. It is completely conceivable that Frank and K could have created broad Fighter-types to compete with the wizard, but they did not. Basically, I want to know why. If you have some insight on the matter, I ask that you please be more direct, because I am simply missing your point.

The tradeoff is that narrower classes take longer to design because you need more classes to cover the conceptual space. Broader classes take longer to put into the game because there are more choices to make during chargen. Therefore a narrower class model is superior for play because more of the work has been done by the game designers.

Replacing Sorcerers with Dread Necromancers and Beguilers is a good move. Broad classes like Warrior/Mage/Hybrid are the work of a lazy designer wager to shove their work onto the consumer. If you're going to do broad classes, you should go point based and eliminate the false intermediate level of choice.

This makes a fair amount of sense to me. I am fond of point based builds in general over classes (I like Shadowrun 4's approach, for example) but I dislike the way they reward hyper-optimization. This is what brought me to broad classes, at least as a preliminary design tool, and that brought me to potentially using them in play. Your points here are well taken as a mark against broad types.

There are various benefits to that design agenda that you've not mentioned, Frank, such as empowering players to make exactly the character they want. I never liked the Beguiler because he was always the same, with a preset list of spells and so forth. Broad classes can be helpful in expanding character variety and enhancing character customization.

This is what concerns me about narrow classes. Character options can be closed off by class choice and the classes can become predictable or bland over time.

[Roy]

God Wizards, or Transmuters are about as broad as they get, and indeed that's why they're so powerful. They have tricks for all sorts of different situations. It follows anything using them as a benchmark is going to follow suit.

Also note, many of the classes are intentionally made shorter than 20 levels.

[Caedrus]

God Wizards, or Transmuters are about as broad as they get, and indeed that's why they're so powerful. They have tricks for all sorts of different situations. It follows anything using them as a benchmark is going to follow suit.

Also note, many of the classes are intentionally made shorter than 20 levels.

A Broad class is characterized by being versatile in build, and thus doesn't necessarily have to be versatile in play.

[Roy]

God Wizards, or Transmuters are about as broad as they get, and indeed that's why they're so powerful. They have tricks for all sorts of different situations. It follows anything using them as a benchmark is going to follow suit.

Also note, many of the classes are intentionally made shorter than 20 levels.

A Broad class is characterized by being versatile in build, and thus doesn't necessarily have to be versatile in play.

...Wait a sec.

So you mean that Fighters would actually qualify as a broad class, because of all the different feats? Yes, they're a very weak broad class, but any terminology that involves calling what could nicely be described as a one trick pony broad is intellectually deceptive, and made of Fail.

[Caedrus]

God Wizards, or Transmuters are about as broad as they get, and indeed that's why they're so powerful. They have tricks for all sorts of different situations. It follows anything using them as a benchmark is going to follow suit.

Also note, many of the classes are intentionally made shorter than 20 levels.

A Broad class is characterized by being versatile in build, and thus doesn't necessarily have to be versatile in play.

...Wait a sec.

So you mean that Fighters would actually qualify as a broad class, because of all the different feats? Yes, they're a very weak broad class, but any terminology that involves calling what could nicely be described as a one trick pony broad is intellectually deceptive, and made of Fail.

It's "broad" because it covers a broad conceptual space and is versatile in build, allowing for a broad array of concepts. The class is broadly defined and can be summed up in terms like "any melee fighter" or "any magic user" instead of narrowly defined like "the melee fighter who uses this set of rapier and dagger techniques." Versatility in play is not related to either of those things, and it's entirely possible to have broad classes that produces characters that are one trick ponies and narrow classes that produces characters that can do everything at the same time. There's nothing intellectually deceptive about that, and even if you were unfamiliar with the term you should have been able to get that definition from the context of the OP...

I'm not sure if the Fighter really qualifies just because there aren't a whole lot of viable and distinctive builds you can make.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Yes, it's "broad" because it covers a lot of conceptual space and is versatile in build. Versatility in play is not related to either of those things, and it's entirely possible to have broad classes that are one trick ponies and narrow classes that can do everything at the same time.

Your terminology has become counterintuitive and unhelpful.

[Caedrus]

Yes, it's "broad" because it covers a lot of conceptual space and is versatile in build. Versatility in play is not related to either of those things, and it's entirely possible to have broad classes that are one trick ponies and narrow classes that can do everything at the same time.

Your terminology has become counterintuitive and unhelpful.

That appears to be the terminology the OP is using.

Incidentally, why is this so confusing to you? Do you not understand the distinction between versatility in build (e.g., you can build a fully functioning Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, or Warmage from the same class.) and versatility in play (e.g., you can be a fully functioning Dread Necromancer, a Beguiler, and a Warmage at the same time within the purview of a single character build)? These are completely separate elements. It is entirely possible to have one and the other, or have one and not the other. They are not mutually exclusive or inclusive.

Anyways, edited last post so that it might offer a bit more clarification for you.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Incidentally, why is this so confusing to you?

Brain spasm, apparently. 2 hours later I have no idea what my problem was.

[ckafrica]

I'm voting for broad. My problem with narrow classes is that it pigeon holes character concepts. If you are going to create reasonably balanced classes, you need to ensure that different class options are balanced level for level. If you can manage to do this than I don't see why can't just allow players to pick and choose abilities per level that suit their character concepts. That is all your classes will really end up being after all.

Sure you could issue to archetypes as both examples and to expedite play (for both the PCs and DM), but ultimately the method that you assemble the classes should be systematic and rational enough that you could just give the building blocks to players and let them do it themselves. If you can't than I'd be apprehensive about the games true balance.

Now LL remember that if you do go broad you can't do ability chains. If I do TWF it should be as good (relative to the opponents I'll face) if I take it at lvl 1 as lvl 20. Everything should scale and should not be dependent on having another ability to be good or stay good.

I'd ultimately like a game where you could actually pick your characters abilities at random and still have them be viable. I should do this because players come up with some fucking weird ideas and it isn't fair to punish them with suck just because their idea fell outside the mold (you either say no or you let it in at equal value)

[Ice9]

I'd ultimately like a game where you could actually pick your characters abilities at random and still have them be viable.

While this isn't a bad goal in concept, I'd only agree to the extent that it doesn't override other goals and narrow the design space excessively. Putting this goal front and center often means you end up with 4E-style blandness. Even when you don't have straight-up ability chains, you still end up with combinations of abilities that are more or less useful, unless you just make all abilities the same.

[Username17]

I'd ultimately like a game where you could actually pick your characters abilities at random and still have them be viable.

While this isn't a bad goal in concept, I'd only agree to the extent that it doesn't override other goals and narrow the design space excessively. Putting this goal front and center often means you end up with 4E-style blandness. Even when you don't have straight-up ability chains, you still end up with combinations of abilities that are more or less useful, unless you just make all abilities the same.

It also means that you have to make everyone fight the same. One of the advantages of a class system is that you can hand people access to genuinely different methods of contributing, which in turn allows you to have individual abilities that are wildly different in scale.

If you create a class that contributes in some method that isn't dependent upon the size of their fire bolts, they can jolly well get fire bolts that are objectively smaller than those possessed by a character who is firebolt centric. If everyone just picks one of the attacks off the big list, you'll never end up with the "shitty backup firebolt." Or to put it another way: let's look at 4e classes. We'll all admit that they are far and away insufficiently interesting or different. But look at the at-wills of Brutal Scoundrel rogues and Artful Dodger rogues. The Brute Rogue gets a class feature where he adds his secondary stat to damage whenever he does a sneak attack (which should be all the time). The Dodger Rogue gets an at-will attack where he adds his secondary stat to damage. If you let people mix and match, people would take both features and add their secondary stat twice. Which would unfortunately count as OP in 4e, because things are dumb.

But the point is that things are like that in general. In a truly balanced system where you could seriously take whatever collection of powers you wanted, even the different methodologies of Brute Rogues and Dodger Rogues would be too divergent. If you open up the conceptual space to point buy (even if that point buy is "you have five points, all abilities cost 1 point"), you are going to have to accept that there will be builds that aren't good. If you want all the playable characters to be decently effective and balanced, you need to limit the conceptual space to a number of effective and balanced character options. It's what class systems are - at least theoretically - good for.

-Username17

[SunTzuWarmaster]

Why are Beguilers or Dread Necromancers better than Sorcerers when for the most part the Sorcerer can do everything the Beguiler or Dread Necromancer can do and more?

Because these are he steps to making a Beguiler for someone that has NEVER player D&D before:
1 - point buy them stats that prioritize Int, and ask them whether they want to be "quick, tough, or talkative/attractive", and give them a Dex/Con/Cha as appropriate.
2 - be race of your choice (recommend Sun Elf, Human or Gnome, but i doesn't really matter)
3 - pick skill points (tell them that they get 6+(int mod) skills to be good at, tell them that Search and UMD are high priority).
4 - Print the Beguiler Spell Reference online
5 - Take Spell Focus(illusion/enchantment) and Greater Spell Focus(illusion/enchantment) until you run out (level 9), and then take every other spell-boosting thing, Rapid Metamagic, Item Creation, or Metamagic feats.

You are done. You can play this character with someone that has never played D&D before within 30 minutes. They will ask you how spells work, and you only need tell them how to calculate the DC, that they can move <distance> on the map, and that taking people by surprise gives them a +1 DC. They will meaningfully contribute to every combat.

The bad part of this is that if there are 2 Beguilers or 2 Dread Necromancers in a game then their characters have EXACTLY THE SAME set of abilities. Also, if you play a Beguiler in one campaign and want to play it in another it is boring, because you have exactly the same mechanical character. There is no way that changing your Spell Focus(illusion) for Skill Focus (Concentration) changes how this character contributes in any meaningful way, because your character abilities (casting Still and Silent Illusion and Enchantment spells) have remained exactly the same.