deaddmwalking wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:50 am
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.