"In my game the Mental Attributes are..."

[JonSetanta]

(rubs hands) With a Lil homebrewing, a scaling feat for unarmed strikes could be made...

I saw that movie, I know that fight scene. Fuck off. He is not a goddamned Monk. What is this, Fate/Grand Order?

Oh c'mon. Now you're making me nerdrage, my sister in law plays Fate GO on her tablet for like 6 hours a day, I've never played it and I know ALL ABOUT IT.

So, my joke about Sherlock being an INT Monk aside, he's probably an INT Rogue (massive skillset, Sneak Attack, Stealth, Knowledge) with some kind of fistfighting ability slapped on the side.

[Foxwarrior]

Doesn't Sherlock have a famous line about how he needs to conserve his skill points for only the skills he needs most?

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Neo Phonelobster Prime, there is a major problem with the freedom of point buy systems that don't enforce stereotypes at all:

So... if you can learn a thing that belongs to a class (that doesn't exist in that system) and you call yourself another class (that doesn't exist in that system) while learning that thing that would be bad because... you are defying the stereotype of that class... that doesn't exist in that system in the first place?

A classless system is a classless system. The whole damn point is that if someone wants to build a character that raises the dead, seduces through magical song, and hits things with a great axe, no one cares and there are NOT formal classed stereotypes you are stepping on the toes of.

Now I think classless systems still need some structures or limits to enforce more mechanically rounded character's in other ways, but lack of thematic restriction is pretty much the entire point of going that direction.

And looking at that Kaelik post from... was that even this thread? It looks more like a criticism of a particularly open option within a system pretending otherwise to have classes. And while complex tabletop games we expect to sink large amount of time into SHOULD have customization options within classes, they also should have limits set somewhere or else the class mechanic is rendered redundant and counterproductive.

But that clearly doesn't apply to classless systems. That's the whole point of classless systems.

[Foxwarrior]

He's a fool for not using this scene instead.

Is this a 4e let's play?

[Foxwarrior]

A classless system is a classless system. The whole damn point is that if someone wants to build a character that raises the dead, seduces through magical song, and hits things with a great axe, no one cares and there are NOT formal classed stereotypes you are stepping on the toes of.

You say that, but Shadowrun has way more stereotype enforcement than D&D...

But yeah, I kinda just wanted to make more people read Kaelik's fun post, the element I think is actually relevant here is the "you totally could have picked up [ thing that synergizes well ], but you chose not to for some arbitrary and definitely not in-character reason." An annoying thing about Champions was that I wanted to make a wizard who cast weird spells only and try to fit them to the situation, but he's free to just make up the perfect spell for any problem according to the point buy cost limitations, so playing the character I actually wanted was kinda sandbagging/basketweaving (the distinction gets a bit vague when you can do character creation-esque acts mid-session) super hard.

[JonSetanta]

The Kaelik quote was in response to me proposing a warrior-class ability that has a limited area effect and allows the user to teleport-without-actually-teleporting as part of the attack action, and I believe Kaelik was against it since it didn't fit the role.

[Kaelik]

The Kaelik quote was in response to me proposing a warrior-class ability that has a limited area effect and allows the user to teleport-without-actually-teleporting as part of the attack action, and I believe Kaelik was against it since it didn't fit the role.

It was actually in response to your Modify Memory sword strike that cuts the memories out of people's head, and then your extremely stupid defense of that by saying it was an optional choice for the fighter to learn.

[JonSetanta]

Then why did you mention teleport?

[Whatever Jr.]

Then why did you mention teleport?

do you understand what analogies are

[JonSetanta]

do you understand what analogies are

Yes. But anything smothered, dripping, drowning in sarcasm is lost on me.

[Kaelik]

do you understand what analogies are

Yes. But anything smothered, dripping, drowning in sarcasm is lost on me.

The post Fox quoted wasn't sarcastic. It was just an argument that featured an analogy.

[deaddmwalking]

Doesn't Sherlock have a famous line about how he needs to conserve his skill points for only the skills he needs most?

Pretty much:

His ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge. Of contemporary literature, philosophy and politics he appeared to know next to nothing. Upon my quoting Thomas Carlyle, he inquired in the naivest way who he might be and what he had done. My surprise reached a climax, however, when I found incidentally that he was ignorant of the Copernican Theory and of the composition of the Solar System. That any civilized human being in this nineteenth century should not be aware that the earth travelled round the sun appeared to be to me such an extraordinary fact that I could hardly realize it.

“You appear to be astonished,” he said, smiling at my expression of surprise. “Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it.”

“To forget it!”

“You see,” he explained, “I consider that a man’s brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones.”

“But the Solar System!” I protested.

“What the deuce is it to me?” he interrupted impatiently; “you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work.”

[deaddmwalking]

A classless system is a classless system. The whole damn point is that if someone wants to build a character that raises the dead, seduces through magical song, and hits things with a great axe, no one cares and there are NOT formal classed stereotypes you are stepping on the toes of.

In a point based system, you always have the issue of a character choosing to do these three things versus another character that chooses only to do two of them. If you provide the points sufficient to do these three things well (and/or have limits about improving another ability such that they MUST maintain parity in three) there is the issue of someone choosing four things; or five things.

Classes offer an easy way to ensure that a character gains a suite of related abilities that ensures they stay relevant compared to people with the same points value (level).

From a player perspective, they also offer a quick way to build/evaluate options. Given a list of 10,000 options, figuring out which combination I want to make can create 'analysis paralysis'. I think lots of options are good! But making sure they're easy to digest is also important. Especially when the options include a combination of adequate offense; adequate defense; adequate exploration functions; adequate social interaction powers, etc. If those aren't broken into separate menus there is frequently the issue of a character that puts all of their resources in one place. From a design perspective, you're certainly setting yourself up for a much harder time.

I think you need to think very hard about virtually every sentence of that text there and consider what it is you really want out of your game and what game mechanics you actually need to have.

Because almost all of it reads like you are presenting contradictory goals and methods.

You do not seem to like classes or grouped stereotypes of options at all. You very much seem to be describing things you want which would be massively better supported without classes or base attributes.

You also seem to be entirely pleased by arbitrarily tying multiple unrelated roles together in "Rogue" like Sniper and Two Weapon duelist (why on earth would you put those in the same class as separate build paths in a same system?) but then seem to think that it is exclusively base attributes that mean you can have three subtypes of guy who punches people in a guy who punches people class.

This whole section stands out from your other text as not belonging to someone who knows what they want or how to get it.

We currently have the following classes: Berserker, Knight, Rogue, Warrior, Mystic, Wizard. The first four are primarily defined by a fighting style; berserkers get rage which apply to melee attack and thrown weapons; rogues get Sneak attack which applies when a target is flat-footed or flanked by 3 or more enemies (the rogue and two buddies). All four of those classes have a very different 'combat schtick', so they play differently, but you can use the same chassis for any number of builds. The wizard is a specialist, but Necromancers or Thaumaturgists or Elementalists play by the same rules; they just access spell lists differently. The mystic is the newest class we've added, and it was specifically to deal with magic in a different way (and potentially reduce the decision-points for a new player). While wizards choose which spells they know and potentially have to consider all of the available spells, a mystic binds a spirit and gets access to the spells it knows. Compared to a wizard they have some ability to empower spells above their normal caster level (expending the bound spirit in the process). Again, they play differently from the wizard.

I do not like 'classplosion'. I think that the bandit, brigand, desperado, highwayman, outlaw, pirate, raider, robber all probably share a feature in common (they like to surprise people and take their stuff) and that our Rogue has abilities related to surprising people (and killing them) that benefit each of those roles. If I play a Rogue and I know that 'surprise people and deal extra damage when you're successful' comes with the class, I can then tailor it to any of those 'variants' by choosing skills/talents/equipment and/or spells that allow me to fulfill those roles.

What happens with 3.5 is that someone ends up writing a really cool class ability for a specific version and since it is a class ability it is not available to anyone else. Rig Monkey is a pirate ability that allows you to retain Dex to AC while climbing or balancing (and climb with one hand). If I'm playing a 3.5 Rogue and I'm spending a lot of time on a ship, that might be a useful ability that I want for my character; but not by taking 10 levels in another class! To ensure that we have the ability to customize our characters in that manner we have Talents - many of these help translate your base class into the archetype you envision. A rogue would be a fine chassis for a 2-weapon duelist, but it would also work for a sniper; they'd just choose different talents that are relevant for their build. A knight could ALSO be an archer, and would benefit from some of the same talents. But their abilities don't rely on stealth or surprise - even with the same exact equipment and talents, the two characters would feel very different.

I know exactly how I could distinguish three types of boxers and it's not JUST attributes; but rearranging the attributes to better support each concept is part of it. Every boxer combines punishing blows, avoiding their opponent's jabs, and the endurance to outlast an opponent; I could emphasize each aspect in greater or lesser degree by assigning attributes that represent it; then further refine the concept by adding talents that take advantage of those choices.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

In a point based system, you always have the issue of a character choosing to do these three things versus another character that chooses only to do two of them.

No, you don't.

In any system you might have that issue if you don't have specific limitations to prevent it. ALL character build choices in all systems that offer them are options that could stack up or spread out.

Class systems usually use classes as one thing to limit excessive specialization, not that classes do that automatically if you don't design them correctly. But there are measures other than that you can take and which you might need to even in a class based system as long as you get to make any character build decision ever other than just your single choice of class.

Classless or points build systems can be more susceptible only because they remove one potential means of limiting the specialization problem, and also because most game designers are dumb asses who don't even know that such a problem exists or think that even trying to do something limiting it is somehow below them.

But, if you think the specialization problem is unique to point based systems... and all you need to avoid it is have classes at all... you are as dumb as those guys are and will eventually get similar results.

Given a list of 10,000 options,

Don't be needlessly hyperbolic.

All four of those classes have a very different 'combat schtick', so they play differently, but you can use the same chassis for any number of builds.

How about 10,000 then?

At a more sane amount of "a lot but lets not go crazy here" that number of "any number of builds" is enough to have basically equal levels of complexity and risk of specialization traps as any actual sane classless system would have.

I'd be a bit more forgiving and let you say the class mechanic is helping you out at least a reasonable amount. But I don't know what it does. I just now that it DOESN'T, apparently, entail any certainty as to what your base attributes are by class and you seem to like Single Ability Dependency... which kinda IS the specialist problem in practice so...

I think that the bandit, brigand, desperado, highwayman, outlaw, pirate, raider, robber all probably share a feature in common (they like to surprise people and take their stuff) and that our Rogue has abilities related to surprising people (and killing them) that benefit each of those roles.

But, as you have established, you think that a character that exclusively stabs people with two daggers and has completely different base attributes to a character who exclusively shoots things at long range should both be in the same class together? Which I'm going to suggest is a bad idea, and I'm going to ignore your excuses about "well they share ONE mechanic in common!".

So sure, a brigand and a bandit, even a pirate can be in the same class. But maybe you need to come to a more reasonable dividing line where a light rebranding and a swimming skill isn't considered to be equally significant to being utterly different characters in equipment, range, base attributes and role.

I know exactly how I could distinguish three types of boxers and it's not JUST attributes; but rearranging the attributes to better support each concept is part of it. Every boxer combines punishing blows, avoiding their opponent's jabs, and the endurance to outlast an opponent; I could emphasize each aspect in greater or lesser degree by assigning attributes that represent it; then further refine the concept by adding talents that take advantage of those choices.

That's a very long and weird way to say that you don't know how to differentiate between subclasses/builds/themes without using Base Attributes.

Which is an odd thing to say. Since every single optional choice in a system can be used to differentiate builds/whatever.

But hey, you want to claim that because attributes work like every single other optional choice in this respect then they MUST be a part of differentiating builds... and...

No.

That's just silly.

[deaddmwalking]

I don't think 10,000 options is hyperbolic, especially when they're purchased individually. A hundred weapon skills and a few dozen armor skills; four or five hundred talents, twenty or thirty skills; easily 1,000 individual spells - and I'm sure that doesn't even begin to cover everything. If defenses (like saving throws) are there, and all the special abilities like scent or a breath-weapon there are potentially thousands more - plus all the class features that are now individually selectable.

3.x reduces the number of choices in part by bundling those choices together - you pick a race (which includes a half-dozen features), a class (which includes ~20 features), and very limited money greatly restricting equipment considerations.

[Foxwarrior]

Gempunks has over 600 spells, powers, playable creatures, classlevels, and items... I tried pretty hard not to write any redundant content. And yeah, I guess if you split off each one into the atomic unique parts for some insane reason, I guess it might be closer to 1500.

It's hard to count them, but dnd-wiki has somewhere on the order of 5000 feats alone.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

That was obvious hyperbole, and notably hypocritical hyperbole.

Taking the same potential game system with the same final detail of character build and the same number of functional mechanics and either splitting or combining the "choices" only really changes the granularity and variety of potential character builds.

It doesn't change the number of mechanics you potentially have to consider individually as desirable or not.

When you tie a bunch of decisions into a bundle it's still a bunch of decisions, only now you also have to consider whether they are worth it collectively as well. A decision you do not make without the bundling.

Now. If the bundles are special and perfect and are all always equally good in net for all character builds, THEN while the actually complexity is still there you can offload a lot from the player using bundling because the player can just trust that designer "worked it out" for them in advance. The player gains some time and effort at the direct cost of how much they can customize their character, and probably avoid some trap combinations too.

But it's not going to be perfect like that is it? Not even close most of the time. Still. I'll give you a, potential, "good enough" or "sufficiently achievable" on Class bundling. But looking at the history of the mechanic I am NOT letting that fly on Base Attribute bundling.

And I am NOT letting your class based bundling mechanic have a freebie win at complexity choice for outcome trade off when you follow up with a claim that AFTER deciding your class in your system you STILL have enough choices left to create ANY NUMBER OF BUILDS in each of FIVE classes.

Hell a classless system can also just be considered a class based system with only one class in it. (knowing nothing else about a system that is actually one LESS choice you have to make) And unlike you I am not claiming my equivalent ONE class has ANY NUMBER of builds. But you are claiming it five times over! Five times infinity is a bit more complexity than 1 times any finite number.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You don't get to eliminate 10,000 choices AND have the same or more outcomes, much less ANY NUMBER of outcomes. You get to say, at best, that MAYBE if you work hard at it, your class based system can reduce the number of choices that have to be made by the player at the direct cost of the number of outcomes it can produce for the player. Even that claim is shaky. Even if it could work it may no provably be a good goal to have. But at least it is theoretically possible.

In the end it's one or the other. You don't get to look at me saying "I want more outcomes" and drop a scare crow made of 10,000 choices on my back then turn around and claim literal unlimited outcomes with less complexity for yourself.

*there was a bunch of talk about Mystic being new or something, not sure the relevance. So why not you can have five times any number for free instead of 6.

[Whatever Jr.]

a game should feature exactly as many classes as it has resource management systems.

If you have one system (like 4e's daily/encounter/at-will) then you should have one class. And yes, this is the same as a classless system, assuming similar rules are in place to ensure level appropriate defenses and skills.

If you have several resource management systems, which often comes up for spellcasters, then you need one class per system. It really doesn't matter if one character in a class focuses on ranged attacks while another in the same class goes melee, what matters is that you're writing their spells knowing that they're at-will, or per-day, or single use (potions), or any other system. Because you cannot write an ability without knowing what it costs the player to use it.

[Foxwarrior]

After Sundown works reasonably well with having a bunch of resource recovery systems, which are vaguely in the realm of per day or per encounter (with no expectation of number of encounters per day), where any power can be used with any resource system.

Similarly, the thing D&D does where different daily casters have different casting mechanics but share a spell list doesn't make every spell into an equally good pick for every caster type but it's close enough for like 80% of spells.

[OgreBattle]

a game should feature exactly as many classes as it has resource management systems.

If you have several resource management systems, which often comes up for spellcasters, then you need one class per system...

What do you think of games where attributes affect resource systems? Like "More of Attribute W will give you more spell points, but more of Attribute I gives your spells harder to resist". If things are balanced ideally you can have a "power" guy and "endurance" guy of the same class by different attributes.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

a game should feature exactly as many classes as it has resource management systems.
If you have several resource management systems, which often comes up for spellcasters, then you need one class per system...

What do you think of games where attributes affect resource systems? Like "More of Attribute W will give you more spell points, but more of Attribute I gives your spells harder to resist". If things are balanced ideally you can have a "power" guy and "endurance" guy of the same class by different attributes.

Does that necessarily mean you need separate classes for those mechanics, or can the "power" guy and the "endurance" guy operate off of the same class with different ways of altering their resource renewal/usage/whatever?
Let's say you have 2 dudes who use the Rage Bar class. One is our control subject, while the other has some kind of 'Slow Rage' feature that reduces the number of actions that add to the rage bar, but doubles their maximum amount? Maybe an 'Arcane Rage' feature entirely changes what actions piss you off, so physical attacks do nothing but blasting dudes with fireballs makes you stronger? I don't think these all need their own class.

[Kaelik]

Mechanical difference is important but not the sole thing, thematic difference is also important. If you are a class system there is a very good reason to have say, the Barbarian using a rage mechanic be a different class then the Ninja using a rage system where the rage is called "Poise" or whatever and the class has a completely different theme and different abilities.

[MGuy]

a game should feature exactly as many classes as it has resource management systems.

If you have several resource management systems, which often comes up for spellcasters, then you need one class per system...

What do you think of games where attributes affect resource systems? Like "More of Attribute W will give you more spell points, but more of Attribute I gives your spells harder to resist". If things are balanced ideally you can have a "power" guy and "endurance" guy of the same class by different attributes.

Say that you did want to assign one class to certain resource systems (I don't buy that this is something someone 'should' necessarily do but let's say you think the idea is neat) and then you wanted different aspects of the class abilities to be altered by attributes. What does that encourage players to do? It would encourage them to invest in multiple different attributes as they relate to the class and its abilities of course. Then there's how generally useful each attribute is. If you're using attributes then those attributes are going to be associated with things players can do in the game and so enhancing one will have implications beyond the classes. For the berserker they probably value having high strength in general over endurance IF they are forced to choose. They would probably lean toward strength (this is a guess as there are any number of things within a system that could effect the player's perception) due to factors that don't have anything to do with their abilities (consistent damage, being able to do strong man stuff is probably more interesting than tough man stuff, etc. This might result in there being more berserkers with higher strength in general than con.

That is just an example but I'd imagine that in most iterations of that you would end up with something like that happening.

[Foxwarrior]

Well, as the designer you should probably think about whether it's better to have Strength than Constitution, and adapt the resource system to make both options (and in-between) equally viable. And then players dump the other non-class-relevant stats in the strict priority list Neo PL Prime mentioned of course.

Then when you see a barbarian out in the wild, you can figure out whether they're a heavy hitter or impossible to kill based on what sort of resource management they're doing, or vice-versa (if this is the sort of RPG where NPCs and PCs use the same classes).

[Whatever Jr.]

Mechanical difference is important but not the sole thing, thematic difference is also important. If you are a class system there is a very good reason to have say, the Barbarian using a rage mechanic be a different class then the Ninja using a rage system where the rage is called "Poise" or whatever and the class has a completely different theme and different abilities.

At that point, you might as well have the two classes work at least slightly differently. Perhaps the Barbarians spend their rage points, while Ninjas need to keep building up poise to higher thresholds to unlock new Steps.