Combining And Splitting Classes

[Punkrabbitt]

Disclaimer: I have searched to make sure I haven't posted this before. If I have, I made an honest effort to look for it, and I give my apologies.

I have briefly mentioned in other topics that I feel kind of bad about demi-humans getting racial advancement while humans get more than a couple of classes all to themselves. As my home campaign developed, this was a non-issue, as we had no demi-humans in the world. My elves haven't made their appearance yet, but they are truly monsters, more like AD&D Githyanki than anything suitable as a player character. Dwarfs, gnomes, hobbits, orcs and other goblinoids just don't exist in our game world. As I have developed the world, it has become increasingly Irish-Celtic; the priestly class is totally unlike D&D clerics or druids, but does consist of three branches called druids, bards, and seers. Each of which is unsuitable for a PC within the campaign background.

So what all of this has left me with is essentially Fighting Men and Magic Users, possibly Thieves. So my thought has been to simply reduce classes to just Fighters and Casters, with "packages" or "kits" that can be tacked on to specify which direction it goes. Like Fighters could have Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, or Warrior options to customize the base class without worrying about separate experience tables or whatever. Casters could be Healers, Mages, Shamans, Sorcerors, or whatever like Fighters. And then Demi-Human can become its own class, with variations of Elf, Half-Ogre, or anything else.

Too many painkillers tonight? Or am I making sense?

[mindcontrolsquid]

No, the general idea does make sense. I feel as though such an approach benefits more from simplicity than added complexity. As such, I wouldn't subdivide Fighters and Magic-Users into niche categories; the appellation of "Ranger" or "Shaman" or whatever could simply be a matter of flavor and description rather than mechanical differentiation. That's just me, though. Once you get into that territory, it gets to the point where things start to become virtually classless, and that may not appeal to everyone...

[howandwhy99]

By my understanding Class doesn't refer to character abilities, but system. If you don't have a clerical system, then magic and combat are perfectly fine too. Switching out what class abilities a character might have is really only refocusing and rebalancing the class to the appropriate system.

Subclasses IMO are campaign specific and can really help define the world. They are narrower in focus than the core (e.g. Ranger or Paladin rather than Fighting-Man). Core classes offer more flexibility in advancement, but the subclasses require more specifics elements to exist in the world. Rangers bring a helping of Tolkien. Paladins highlight stuff like Alignment in the world.

If your world is Celtic, try looking at building custom subclasses like a Scottish Highlander (more primitive & barbaric), Celtic Bard (as a starting class, not F-M/Th), or Enchanter (Fey-based with glamours and the like). Then leave in core classes enabling broader focus for other players, but without expectation of specific designs to be in the world.

[premmy]

So, it seems to me like you're really adding 4-5 subclasses to every class, right? Now, there's nothing wrong with that, and there's one particular OSR system I really like and have played in a lot which does that (at least for Fighters), but here's a question: have you considered adding a simple skill system?

I mean, with this many subclasses, you've already reached a certain level of granularity - a level of "customising" your PC, if you will -, and it seems to me that adding a skill system at this point would give players a tool to further personalise and differentiate their characters (which seems to be a thing you're going for) without really making the game more "rules-complex".

You could check out the English abridged version of Sword and Magic, it sounds like you'd find some ideas or inspiration in it.

[Finarvyn]

Isn't that already the way OD&D works, with the sub-classes? I mean, Ranger for example isn't an actual class per se but instead is a sub-class of the fighter so that some things (saving throws, etc) automatically default to the fighter numbers unless specifically over-ruled by another table.

For example, Supplement II Blackmoor has a statement that a cleric with such-and-such stat qualifications can become a monk. That would imply a structure with four core classes and a bunch of sub-class options and not really a dozen seperate classes.

FIGHTING MAN
* Ranger
* Paladin

MAGIC-USER
* Illusionist

CLERIC
* Druid
* Monk

THIEF
* Assassin

The supplements (or Dragon/Strategic Review) put together a bundle of rules specific to an individual class. We could call that a "kit" if you like.

Or am I missing something?

[Stormcrow]

Yes, remember the origin of the word class. A fighting-man is a man who fights. That's really all it started as; it wasn't "man who has powers X, Y, and Z." It's just those fantastic characters whose professional focus is fighting.

A subclass is simply a class within a class. Rangers are a subclass because they're fighting-men who roam the wilds. A subclass is those members of a class with a special feature in common. Except for those special features, a member of a subclass is the same as a member of the class that is not a member of the subclass.

I never liked seeing the cavalier class separated from the fighter class in the Unearthed Arcana. I asked Gary about that once, and he said it was a matter of archetype. I just don't see it; a cavalier is still a fighter, whatever his behavior.

[rastusburne]

I've been thinking about the idea of "class" versus "subclass" a bit lately. With my White Box + Supplements campaign I have been adding a bunch of new classes which are derived from the four main classes. However, one thing I have often considered strange is that a subclass is generally "better" than the actual class. I have tried to flip this model around a bit, so that the core classes remain a viable and powerful choice, whereas the subclasses are centred around a particular flavour or divergence. For instance, I have a berserker class which gets a +2 to attacks and damage* but they cannot add their strength bonus to fighting as a fighter does. Nor do they get the extra attacks against mooks. I have removed any ability score prerequisites but maintained an xp bonus for high abilities. The "subclasses" often have higher requirements for an bonus xp.

So as not to be too tangential, I think the OP idea is good. I have done something similar in an abstracted way.



*the +2 to damage does not apply if the 3lbbs only are being used.

[sepulchre]

The basis of all of these characters (fighting men, enchanters, whatever) is Chainmail in which individual figures and units (List or Mass combat pieces)are static (no advancement required) regarding x,y and z abilities. "Advancement", i.e, earning xp, is a convention designed for the explicit purpose of "roleplaying" and the war game figure is recognized as a "player character" or otherwise a "monster", both conventions or definitions intended to meet said purpose. That classes are given abilities rather than skills is a vestige of the static quality of war gaming units. Hence, the class abilities which may be staggered by levels and acquired by experience actually reflect the implied abilities (rather than applied through experience points) of wargaming figures or units. A ranger is 1in6 to be surprised and 3in6 to surprise, no experience points required; in Deities and Demigods 0-lvl snow witches of the northern tribes may cast control weather when 5 are gathered for 1 day. In Gygax's Greyhawk glossography there are devotees of particular gods advancing 1 lvl as an assassin for every 6 lvls as a cleric, there are 0-lvl scouts given the same benefit of surprise as rangers, etc. Rather, consider your subclass like a monster/unit/figure, keep the mechanics simple and elegant, and worry less about xp. There are many kinds of "subclasses" to be invented in this way, all completely falling within the rules given the war gaming background of the game. Should one understand the game through this heritage, there are normal men who may take up arms and become fighting men while other normals may not, all may or may not have specific and static abilities like the snow witches (above), the ranger, or a normal man who surprises 3in6 and is himself surprised 1in6. That is to say, the variety of "subclasses" or even classes may be found even with just sticking with one class (say the fighting man) or no classes at all (normal man of noble birth who has taken up arms and might be a knight, or normal man and non-combatant who has taken up dweomercraft to become spell caster of sorts, like the witches mentioned above) and merely giving abilities you deem appropriate to the concept. Note: the implied or assumed character of abilities (rather than applied through levels of experience)greatly reduces the spectre of power-creep in the game.