Why does 4th Edition have classes anyway?

[Username17]

For option two to be better there MUST be powers in list A that are actually functionally crap compared to available powers OF THE SAME LEVEL in list B.

This is false.

The fact is that you a a player have a different desire to get each ability in the game. Whatever lists they happen to be on, you're going to want some abilities a lot and some abilities very little. When you select abilities off a list, you're going to take the abilities you want most first, and you're going to take the abilities you want least last. That should be non-contentious in any setup where we can assume that the player understands what he or she wants.

So if you make 10 selections from list A, the first selection will be your favorite ability off that list. Your sixth ability will be your sixth favorite from that list. And this is also important: since you're choosing your list, you're getting your favorite list. But if you make 5 selections from list A and 5 selections from list B, then your sixth choice is your favorite ability from your second favorite list. A first choice is almost always more valuable than a sixth choice, even if the first choice is only from your second favorite list.

So yeah, choosing five from one list and five from another list is almost certain to be superior to choosing ten from a single list. If there are any reasonable numbers of lists or vague attempts to balance those lists, you can pretty much guaranty that everyone will choose the two lists option.

---

Which brings us to another point: this proposed system is no different from not allowing people to multiclass at all. If you pick 2 classes out of 5, that's the same as there being 10 classes that happen to have a fair amount of ability overlap where you pick only one. It's one thing to have people write "Warblade/Warlock" on their character sheet, and frankly it's exactly the same thing to have the people write "Eldritch Knight" on their character sheet. There's nothing really gained from presenting this as a multiclassing situation, because it's functionally identical to just having hard rails character classes and having more of them.

-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

If you went classless there wouldn't be lists to worry about people mixing and matching. Just have abilities. If some people take a lot of frail caster choices and others mix castery stuff with physical stuff, who cares?

There is no prize for completing a class. Its not inherently better if people spend all there abilities on very similar things. I'm going to say that there are two worthwhile options. Classes and classed with no multiclassing. Either you force people to stay within a role or you don't. The middle ground just makes it hard to balance the competing pressures of finishing classes and diversifying.

How this applies to a D&D revision is important. If you try to force certain roles you are bound to make a big chunk of the population unhappy. Unless you own the D&D license people will just not play your game. If you do own it they will play with houserules.

[MartinHarper]

Having a secondary tactic to fall back on if you get disarmed doesn't sound like a negligible benefit to me. What does the black mage who doesn't pick up a secondary schtick get instead?

I think it balances at around the level of a 3e feat, depending on the relative power levels. Obviously it's not as good as Leadership. It may also be worse than something like Silent Spell or Eschew Materials which makes it harder to be disarmed.

There's nothing really gained from presenting this as a multiclassing situation, because it's functionally identical to just having hard rails character classes and having more of them.

The only gain I see is that there's less writing involved. You can write out five classes, and you have (5x4)/2 class choices, or 5x4 choices if there is a primary and a secondary class. You don't need to spend words on the Paladin if you can tell people to make a Fighter/Cleric.

[PhoneLobster]

This is false.

And then you follow with an argument based on what a player LIKES.

And suggest that players will like mixed lists more.

You didn't make an argument about game mechanical power levels and declare that mixed lists would be better. Because that is effectively a rather baseless accusation.

Instead you made MY argument for me, players like more choice.

I mean really "We can't allow mixed ability selection because players will get more of their favourite abilities".

How in hell did you imagine for a second that players getting more of their favourite abilities is actually a bad thing, let alone such a bad thing that you could state it without further explanation and ANYONE else would agree it is a bad thing?

[Orion]

The only gain I see is that there's less writing involved. You can write out five classes, and you have (5x4)/2 class choices, or 5x4 choices if there is a primary and a secondary class. You don't need to spend words on the Paladin if you can tell people to make a Fighter/Cleric.

I'm fairly certain that the effort of balancing each set of abilities in combination with four others erases that benefit. It's easier to write an Eldritch Knight and a Bard than to write one set of wizard spells that synergizes equally well with fighters and with rogues.

[Manxome]

PhoneLobster, I really don't understand why you're having such a hard time following this.

Abilities in the game will not all have exactly the same utility, because real games aren't perfectly balanced. Some abilities will be better than others. That doesn't mean some abilities are crap for their level. You're assuming 100% perfection and accusing me of assuming crap, whereas I'm actually assuming there will merely be 99% perfection.

But more importantly, the value of any given ability changes based on what abilities you already have, because some abilities synergize better than others. So even if every ability is balanced in a vacuum, certain combinations will be better than other combinations. That doesn't literally have to be true, but it will be true in any interesting system that actually gets built, so assuming the contrary is pointless and stupid.

Iconic strengths and weaknesses of classes doesn't mean that one is immune to fire and another is immune to ice. It means that class A has multiple abilities devoted to a schtick that class B can't do, which is the entire point of having classes in the first place. That schtick doesn't have to be "good vs. fire, bad vs. ice." It's probably something like "battlefield control" or "horde breaker" or whatever. I don't care. Regardless, having more classes gives you access to more schticks, and it's really hard to design a game where that is not a significant advantage, unless you just assign some arbitrary penalty to doing multilple things. There will be less overlap between your powers, which means you'll be effective in more situations, which means you're a better character. The goal in an RPG is to win all the fights, not win the first one really hard and die horribly in the next one.

And you might not like logic that involve probabilities, but they are seriously stacked against you here. If you've got 5 classes each with 100 abilities and your build choices are to pick 10 from one class or 5 each from two classes, the total multiclass builds outnumber the singleclass builds more than 3200 to 1 (and that gets worse as you add more classes). That doesn't guarantee that the best builds are going to be multiclass, but no one is going to check each of those individually to be sure they're all balanced, and statistically the single-class builds are going to have a very small share of the awesome.

[virgil]

Players, not always thinking in the long-term, consider Mega-Damage their favorite. MDC flat-out doesn't make the game better, despite the favoritism some show towards the concept.

Synergy remains when you allow multiclassing, and because not everyone can look at abilities in the long-term, this is only going to expand the power difference between players. This is likely the biggest downside to multiclassing. You already have the less optimal players falling behind in combat due to tactics. You're going to make it even worse when you add, on top of that, the fact some mixed choices are going to be better than others.

[JonSetanta]

So if you make 10 selections from list A, the first selection will be your favorite ability off that list. Your sixth ability will be your sixth favorite from that list. And this is also important: since you're choosing your list, you're getting your favorite list. But if you make 5 selections from list A and 5 selections from list B, then your sixth choice is your favorite ability from your second favorite list. A first choice is almost always more valuable than a sixth choice, even if the first choice is only from your second favorite list.

So yeah, choosing five from one list and five from another list is almost certain to be superior to choosing ten from a single list. If there are any reasonable numbers of lists or vague attempts to balance those lists, you can pretty much guaranty that everyone will choose the two lists option.

And yet if there were only 1 list to choose from, the difference between A and B isn't there.
You end with 10 from A as the only option, making 5/5 really irrelevant.

Players will still cherry pick the best, the cream of the crop, but that's just the way even nature works.
Why would anyone NOT pick the most effective powers?
The task for designers would then be to make sure the no-so-well-liked powers are brought up to snuff in individual effectiveness, folded in to another power as a utility option, or removed outright.

I don't see the distinction between lists as an important issue.

[Manxome]

Sigma, I don't think I follow your point. Are you suggesting we solve multiclassing problems by having a totally classless system? That the problems aren't a big deal because there exists some theoretical system that's even more flexible? That we shouldn't care because some kind of balance issues will exist even without multiclassing? I don't get it.

Frank is saying that if you offer players the choice between 10 from one class or 5 and 5, we can reasonably expect the 5/5 option to look more appealing, and so single-classing will be a special case, not a typical thing. That sounds totally correct to me and I don't understand what part you're disagreeing with.

[JonSetanta]

Sigma, I don't think I follow your point. Are you suggesting we solve multiclassing problems by having a totally classless system? That the problems aren't a big deal because there exists some theoretical system that's even more flexible? That we shouldn't care because some kind of balance issues will exist even without multiclassing? I don't get it.

I'm saying why bother with multiclassing and classes at all if they give you so many problems.
It's obvious that the 4e move of "Nope! Now you can't multiclass" pissed off a lot of gamers, but if you want to go that way then good luck.

Frank is saying that if you offer players the choice between 10 from one class or 5 and 5, we can reasonably expect the 5/5 option to look more appealing, and so single-classing will be a special case, not a typical thing. That sounds totally correct to me and I don't understand what part you're disagreeing with.

I thought it was more of the assumption that once 5 picks are made in the single list, the remaining 5 are automatically crappier simply because the best has been taken.
In essence I don't agree that powers should be ranked like that. One could compare them to each other in a case-by-case method for specific situations, but as far as favorites go it really wouldn't make a difference between 1 list or 2.
I don't even mean regarding classes alone with this bit; I mean in a general sense, if EVERYONE has access to ANYTHING then why bother making categories for powers other than to provide thematic differences and sorting (or perhaps tag interaction).

I doubt the 5/5 would be 'more appealing' because with classless setup one could have 1/2/3/5 or 1/1/1/1/1/5 etc.
Build, role, and archetype could be result rather than cause of power selection and relative worth determined by the powers themselves, along with synergy between powers.

Yes indeed, I am a classless fan. I probably won't ever agree to entrench roles and archetypes.

[Username17]

In a classless system, you will get a certain number of ability selections. You'll get some super moves, you'll get some utility powers, you'll get some tactical abilities, you'll get some defenses, and they will all come from The Big List[tm]. These selections will have some sort of cost out of the point reserve set aside for each subcategory (the simplest model is the 4e model where each selection costs 1 point, and you have a number of points equal to the number of abilities you are expected to have). This gives the maximum flexibility, at the cost of everyone playing the same class - explaining what you character does is complicated and other characters are extremely likely to step on your character's toes.

An example of this system is Slayers. Amelia Seyruun and Lina Inverse are built in a classless fashion. They both have a few backup sword moves which they almost never use. Amelia I think has one where she jumps super high that works kind of like a ranged attack, while Lina has a thing where she hits people up into the air and then kicks them super far. And Amelia has a number of Healing spells that cure poisons and diseases and stuff, and Lina of course has a short list of ultra-destructive spells that destroy cities, dragons, and demon gods. But by and large their spell list is pretty much the same. On a round by round basis, Amelia and Lina are quite likely to be casting flare arrow, diem wing, dam brass, or elmekia lance. Frankly, if Amelia isn't casting vas gluudo and Lina isn't casting giga slave, they could be the same character.

---

And that is the advantage and the disadvantage of a classless system. If you put everyone on the same class, then the overlap between characters will increase. Groupthink within the players of your game will focus on certain "essential" powers that everyone will have. The players will decide based on their collective analysis and playstyle that freeze arrow is simply too useful for its cost to justify not having, and then every single party member will have it.

That's not a universally desirable trait. Lots of people want the other players to GTFO and get their own damn shtick, and they are not wrong for wanting that. They want to be the guy who puppets shadows around and makes shaded duplicates of his enemies in battle. As opposed to a guy who does that and also shoots freeze arrows at things like all the other players.

The desire to have the character you want is intricately linked to the desire to have the other players play something else. In order to have a character that is different from the other characters at the table, you have to make concessions. You have to not have some of the cool powers so that the cool powers you do have can be the ones that the other players don't fucking have. You can do that in a classless system with raw player to player communication. You can make an honest agreement that player A wants to be the Ice Mage so the other players won't choose ice powers in order to not walk all over his deal. But you can also just throw up a class system that gives out the cold powers to the Ice Sculptor and not to the other classes. That's more rigid, since of course you wouldn't be able to have the players choose a different arbitrary dividing line to distinguish one character from another - but it's also predetermined so you don't have to have a long discussion about what kind of character each person wants - everyone can just make a character and have a minimum of toe stepping happen.

Yeah, classed systems aren't for everyone. But they have real advantages. Advantages which are fucked in the actual ass by "multiclassing."

-Username17

[Bigode]

And then you follow with an argument based on what a player LIKES.

And suggest that players will like mixed lists more.

You didn't make an argument about game mechanical power levels and declare that mixed lists would be better. Because that is effectively a rather baseless accusation.

Instead you made MY argument for me, players like more choice.

I mean really "We can't allow mixed ability selection because players will get more of their favourite abilities".

How in hell did you imagine for a second that players getting more of their favourite abilities is actually a bad thing, let alone such a bad thing that you could state it without further explanation and ANYONE else would agree it is a bad thing?

While that might be a proper refutation to Frank, you made Manxome's prior point for him: if you allow dual-classing, you are stupid for expecting it not to be the norm. For "liking options" and actual greater synergy, as said in other posts.

[K]

So yeah, choosing five from one list and five from another list is almost certain to be superior to choosing ten from a single list. If there are any reasonable numbers of lists or vague attempts to balance those lists, you can pretty much guaranty that everyone will choose the two lists option.

I don't think that has to be true. What I have intended(and what I'm not sure came across in the posts) is that the A and B lists are actually a bunch of sublists like spell levels.

So a single class character is getting two abilities of the four at each spell level. A multiclass is getting one of each spell level from master list A and B.

In practice, this means that you get your one favorite effect from each spell level from both classes and this is offset by the fact that you can't get three other effects from that level.

Considering that things will be basically balanced tactically at the spell level, I don't think it matters if you do your Single Target attacking with Divine or Transmutation, or both. Focusing on one tactical choice like Area damage by double dipping both classes just means that you lose out on other tactical options like Control.

Which brings us to another point: this proposed system is no different from not allowing people to multiclass at all. If you pick 2 classes out of 5, that's the same as there being 10 classes that happen to have a fair amount of ability overlap where you pick only one. It's one thing to have people write "Warblade/Warlock" on their character sheet, and frankly it's exactly the same thing to have the people write "Eldritch Knight" on their character sheet. There's nothing really gained from presenting this as a multiclassing situation, because it's functionally identical to just having hard rails character classes and having more of them.

-Username17

Your premise is that there has to be a fair amount of ability overlap, and that's the key reason why the proposal works: there won't be a fair amount of ability overlap. My two examples were just samples based on FF which as we know is a system with stupidly high overlap.

The system I'm proposing it that while tactically there is a lot of overlap, the the details won't. Warriors will do Control with fients and tricks while wizards will do it with walls and the like, so Warrior Wizards who double dip in the control abilities are getting rather different things.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

...But you can also just throw up a class system that gives out the cold powers to the Ice Sculptor and not to the other classes. That's more rigid, since of course you wouldn't be able to have the players choose a different arbitrary dividing line to distinguish one character from another - but it's also predetermined so you don't have to have a long discussion about what kind of character each person wants - everyone can just make a character and have a minimum of toe stepping happen.

Yeah, classed systems aren't for everyone. But they have real advantages. Advantages which are fucked in the actual ass by "multiclassing."

Your premise is false. Classed systems don't automatically grant each player a unique character. Haven't you ever played in a game with 2 Fighters, or 2 Wizards? I have. In these cases a classed system forces you to step on more toes than a classless system.

Classless systems require agreements before the game on roles and covered abilities. So do classed systems. Bottom line, the only real benefit on the "stepping on toes" issue is that classless systems might take 5 minutes to explain your character, while in a classed system you just state your class. If the best part of a classed system is saving a few minutes (or an hour even) in character generation, then that is pretty goddamn weak.

[K]

Yeah, classed systems aren't for everyone. But they have real advantages. Advantages which are fucked in the actual ass by "multiclassing."

-Username17

Those aren't advantages. You seriously still can have two guys at a table pick Ice Mage. The solution is still "the party agrees to not take Ice magic because Steve asked us not to."

The advantage of the class system is that you can put people on rails so that they are forced to specialize thematically and tactically. I mean, just writing the name "Rogue" on people's character sheet makes them much less likely to want to play that character as a griffin-riding warrior even if that's one of the best tactics for their abilities.

.

[Username17]

\
Your premise is false. Classed systems don't automatically grant each player a unique character. Haven't you ever played in a game with 2 Fighters, or 2 Wizards? I have. In these cases a classed system forces you to step on more toes than a classless system.

Classless systems require agreements before the game on roles and covered abilities. So do classed systems. Bottom line, the only real benefit on the "stepping on toes" issue is that classless systems might take 5 minutes to explain your character, while in a classed system you just state your class. If the best part of a classed system is saving a few minutes (or an hour even) in character generation, then that is pretty goddamn weak.

Actually, that's exactly the point. And it's a point made with combinatorials. If two players are the same class, they can get off each other's toes, but they'll have to work on it. Let's say it takes five minutes of explanation by each person - 1 minutes total. But if you have five players each in the same omni-class, then you have 20 required explanations. Even negating the very real possibility of Sheep/Wolf/Cabbage problems, by having Bob explan to Carl, Carl explain to Greg, Greg explain to bob, etc. etc. you've put the optimistic case of character reconciliation from 10 minutes between the two players who both chose to be Shadow Mages to a 100 minute mass discussion. It's gone from a conversation between two players to something that requires commercial breaks.

If toe stepping becomes a concern between two characters that's extremely manageable. If toe stepping between all five characters becomes an issue that becomes intractable. You literally might end up using up an entire session or more just dealing with that one issue.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

While that might be a proper refutation to Frank, you made Manxome's prior point for him: if you allow dual-classing, you are stupid for expecting it not to be the norm. For "liking options" and actual greater synergy, as said in other posts.

Liking options is not a bad thing while those trying to argue that the synergy of multiclassing will bring about magical mechanical power differentials are arguing a lost cause.

An increased set of abilities to search for broken abilities and broken ability combos in no way means we will suddenly be inserting broken abilities and broken ability combos into the game for anyone to find.

Frank's argument about Ice Arrow kind of requires there to be, well, an Ice Arrow ability that is frankly too good.

At least HE isn't arguing that Ice Arrow actually needs to be broken, just that it needs to be perceived that way. It's still a dumb argument as the two Ice Mages in a class system reveals.

[K]

\
Your premise is false. Classed systems don't automatically grant each player a unique character. Haven't you ever played in a game with 2 Fighters, or 2 Wizards? I have. In these cases a classed system forces you to step on more toes than a classless system.

Classless systems require agreements before the game on roles and covered abilities. So do classed systems. Bottom line, the only real benefit on the "stepping on toes" issue is that classless systems might take 5 minutes to explain your character, while in a classed system you just state your class. If the best part of a classed system is saving a few minutes (or an hour even) in character generation, then that is pretty goddamn weak.

Actually, that's exactly the point. And it's a point made with combinatorials. If two players are the same class, they can get off each other's toes, but they'll have to work on it. Let's say it takes five minutes of explanation by each person - 1 minutes total. But if you have five players each in the same omni-class, then you have 20 required explanations. Even negating the very real possibility of Sheep/Wolf/Cabbage problems, by having Bob explan to Carl, Carl explain to Greg, Greg explain to bob, etc. etc. you've put the optimistic case of character reconciliation from 10 minutes between the two players who both chose to be Shadow Mages to a 100 minute mass discussion. It's gone from a conversation between two players to something that requires commercial breaks.

If toe stepping becomes a concern between two characters that's extremely manageable. If toe stepping between all five characters becomes an issue that becomes intractable. You literally might end up using up an entire session or more just dealing with that one issue.

-Username17

If you eliminate Wolf/Sheep/Cabbage problems and allow each class to be choices off of lists, then it actually doesn't matter if four people all want to play Wizards. They will have different abilities.

People will pick the same class. People will choose bad synergy. The only people you can make happy is the people who want variety.

[NoDot]

Frank's argument about Ice Arrow kind of requires there to be, well, an Ice Arrow ability that is frankly too good.

Actually, it just requires an Ice Arrow ability that people think is too good.

[Manxome]

An increased set of abilities to search for broken abilities and broken ability combos in no way means we will suddenly be inserting broken abilities and broken ability combos into the game for anyone to find.

Actually, that's pretty much what it means.

The more options you have, and the more weird ways in which you're allowed to combine them, the more broken creeps into the game, because avoiding creating broken stuff is really hard and the difficulty increases with the number of things players can do.

If you think you can make an ideal game that maintains vast amounts of customizability and tactical depth without compromising balance in any way, you should feel free to go do that. And we'll be happy to tear it to shreds and laugh at you when you think you're done. But those of us with less faith in our own perfection will spend some time considering how to make the design easier and mitigate the damage done by any mistakes we happen to make, thanks.

While that might be a proper refutation to Frank, you made Manxome's prior point for him: if you allow dual-classing, you are stupid for expecting it not to be the norm. For "liking options" and actual greater synergy, as said in other posts.

Liking options is not a bad thing

No, liking options is not a bad thing. But there will be people who like (and certainly people who will use) any options you happen to give them. You will make some people happy if you increase the maximum classes from 1 to 2, and will make more happy if you increase it from 2 to 3. You will make people happy when you write in new classes, new races, new mechanics, and even entire new genres.

But you will also make people sad, because their rules will become more convoluted, their decisions will become more complex (which is only good up to a point), their stories will make less sense, etc., etc.

There are actual disadvantages to adding more stuff, and even to adding more combinations of existing stuff. If you want to play a game other than magical tea party, you have to put your foot down at some point.

No one here is denying that there are advantages to giving the players more options. The question is, at what point do the disadvantages outweight the advantages? And in order to answer that question, you have to actually seriously sit down and consider the disadvantages, not just say "I want X, figure out a way to give it to me (without breaking anything else I care about)."

And you still haven't made one single point that would even suggest that maybe people would want to single-class under K's proposed multiclass rules, so I'm not sure how you think you're rebutting the passage you chose to quote. All you've said is that you think that single-classing should be viable because the game balance should be perfect, and...yeah, that assertion is just insulting. And it wouldn't counter all the arguments that have been leveled against you even if it were valid.

[JonSetanta]

An example of this system is Slayers. Amelia Seyruun and Lina Inverse are built in a classless fashion. They both have a few backup sword moves which they almost never use. Amelia I think has one where she jumps super high that works kind of like a ranged attack, while Lina has a thing where she hits people up into the air and then kicks them super far. And Amelia has a number of Healing spells that cure poisons and diseases and stuff, and Lina of course has a short list of ultra-destructive spells that destroy cities, dragons, and demon gods. But by and large their spell list is pretty much the same. On a round by round basis, Amelia and Lina are quite likely to be casting flare arrow, diem wing, dam brass, or elmekia lance. Frankly, if Amelia isn't casting vas gluudo and Lina isn't casting giga slave, they could be the same character.

Probably the best representative of effective classless fantasy in anything.

[Username17]

If you eliminate Wolf/Sheep/Cabbage problems and allow each class to be choices off of lists, then it actually doesn't matter if four people all want to play Wizards. They will have different abilities.

What? That's of course the worst possible scenario for players generating distinct characters. 4 players wanting abilities from the same sub lists. That's the one in which the conversation to get people doing different stuff takes as long as a feature length movie with the best case and no hard headedness ("I want to make gold golems!" "No, I want to!")

Of course, if you have classes, you can literally divide that conversation's time in two (or more if you are having impasses) by having just one of those characters say "Fuck it, I'm playing a Shadowcaster instead."

People will pick the same class. People will choose bad synergy. The only people you can make happy is the people who want variety.

And there are two kinds of variety. There's the kind of variety in which you can make a character with the Freeze Arrow spell and the Diem Wing spell, or replace on or both of those spells with the mask of the frost wurm or blink shirt soul melds (for 6 total different characters with one shtick); and there's the kind of variety where you can play a sells character or an incarnum character (for 2 total different characters with two different shticks).

Variety of options and variety of shticks actually oppose one another. They are both kinds of variety, and different people value them differently.

---

However, I point out that you can add in variety of options infinitely whether you have hard coded different shticks or not, but if everyone is just picking off the adventurer list yo can never add new shticks. Open choice of abilities generates a lot more options for the amount of abilities you write up, but it never ever generates the kind of variety that hard coded classes do.

If you have six different classes, you can generate as many total options as a single-omni-class system "just" by writing 3 times as many powers. But the difference between a warlock and a totemist is a type of variety that you can only get by actually having a class difference between the two. So if you value the second type of variety, then classes are the only way to go.

If, like Surgo and Phone Lobster, you don't value the type of variety that allows a character to be something fundamentally different from the other things they can be, then of course classes are just a slap in the face. For however many abilities you write up, splitting them between classes will massively reduce the number of combinations of abilities that exist in the game. If that's your only concern, a classed system is clearly not desirable.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

The more options you have, and the more weird ways in which you're allowed to combine them, the more broken creeps into the game, because avoiding creating broken stuff is really hard and the difficulty increases with the number of things players can do.

If you think you can make an ideal game that maintains vast amounts of customizability and tactical depth without compromising balance in any way, you should feel free to go do that. And we'll be happy to tear it to shreds and laugh at you when you think you're done. But those of us with less faith in our own perfection will spend some time considering how to make the design easier and mitigate the damage done by any mistakes we happen to make, thanks.

So. In short you are terrified of the synergy monster and will try to eliminate it at any cost even at the cost of choice and player satisfaction.

HELLO 4th edition design methodology. You think it might be too hard, you don't have numbers or reasoning to back it up, you don't even TRY it you just wholesale remove a massive and desirable part of the game.

You are terrified of the synergy monster. Well I'm not. If you are so terrified of the synergy monster how the hell can you justify ANY customizable choice at all? Choices within a class list here comes the synergy monster! Choice of Race and totally fixed class, Synergy Monster! Having more than one ability from any source no even if with totally fixed lists as long as there is a DIFFERENT fixed list available SYNERGY FUCKING MONSTER.

If you aren't prepared to actually deal with something as basic and malleable as synergy get the fuck out of game design you useless coward.

People will pick the same class. People will choose bad synergy. The only people you can make happy is the people who want variety.

I mean how little manning up do you have to do to face the facts as K presents here and try and deal with them as they are, not as you pretend they are to try and feel safe from the Synergy Monster?

[PhoneLobster]

If, like Surgo and Phone Lobster, you don't value the type of variety that allows a character to be something fundamentally different from the other things they can be, then of course classes are just a slap in the face.

But what does this "be" business of yours mean. I'm noting the use of something vague and amorphous here and that stinks of bad argument.

Because after all if you are offerring choice within a fixed and isolated class lists what does "Being" and Ice Wizard entail?

If there are 1000, hell even 10 different combinations of Ice Wizard, even just 2 or 3 alternatively themed variant builds, you AREN'T describing your character in one word and you aren't building your character with one choice.

Your description of your uber awesome protected uniqueness is no more meaningfull as a classless character's player saying "I selected all of my 10 abilities off the 40 ability Ice themed list".

Ie "Be" doesn't mean much and the majority of your "Be" and desire for uniqueness and identifiable roles breaks down more and more with the introduction of ANY choice.

That should be a hint that it is a bad influence on the direction of your design and should at least be heavily compromised.

[Username17]

But what does this "be" business of yours mean.

Hard example: Gothic Horror.

In a classed system, you "are" a Werewolf or a Vampire or a Leviathan (or whatever). That's what you are. And there are inherent things about that (special powers, weaknesses, and identifiable in-character traits) that other characters can't and won't have unless they have made the explicit declaration to be the same kind of supernatural creature.

In a classless system, everyone just has supernatural powers, and there's nothing predictable or unique about being a vampire because vampirism is just something the player announced as a Magical Teaparty overlay over the universal "supernatural creature" rules that everyone is using.

In a classless system the player can't know what a "werewolf" is capable of, because there's nothing to demarcate a werewolf from anything else. A player therefore can't take ownership of the werewolf type in that game because there isn't one to have.

To be in a category, that category has to have boundaries. Otherwise you're not in it. Or you're both in it and not in it, which is just like not being in it.

If you give everyone a master ability list and throw the flood gates open, then presumably everyone is going to be unique in that no one will have exactly the same power set, and everyone will write their own backstory which will presumably not be the same as anyone else's. But there's also nothing to belong to. When you take the structure away you gain freedom, but you fucking lose structure! I don't understand why you are having a hard time understanding this extremely simple and self evident fact. If "vampire" doesn't mean anything on your character sheet, then declaring yourself to be a vampire doesn't have any meaning.

-Username17