Supplement/sub classes too busy(?)

[machfront]

One thing that's long irked me about the Supplement/AD&D 'sub-classes' or any classes outside of the 'core four' or original three is that they're just so busy.
There seems to be so very many moving parts to them.
Too many advantages. Though that's balanced by their disadvantages, that just adds to all that...that..stuff.

It's one of the factors that keeps me waffling over 'should there be classes for this or do backgrounds/etc. suffice?'.
On the one hand, I'd like to have a ranger or bard that's only as briefly detailed as, say, the cleric. I'd like to have included most of the things that are part of the class as originally detailed and as given in many folks' recent takes on the class, but to be much more succinct.
Probably the best I've seen is the Brave Halfling Publishing take on the Ranger and Bard for core Labyrinth Lord (part of a series of extra LL stuff, called 'Delving Deeper' before the game of the same name was proposed and prior to Goblinoid Games publishing the AEC).

On the other hand, part of me says 'why worry?' and given especial note to backgrounds and/or specializations, etc.
(but then the plate and shield fighter with some other background is far and away better off than the fighter who can track and hide, but can't tramp around with the aforementioned armor, which gives cause for a distinct class and AARRGGHH!)
I realize finding the balance is mostly a matter of taste, but like many things I imagine there are other factors or qualifiers I'm not weighing or am failing to see.

Am I stressing over this too much?
Am I nutty? Seeing things that aren't there? Failing to see something?
Are you as weirded out by this as I am?

[Deleted]

I'm not a completely against the sub-classes, but I'm not a fan of them either.

As a referee, I like to see players "grow" their character as a special concept through their play. You want to be a paladin, smiting evil and all that stuff? Show me! Play a virtuous fighter who smites evil and protects the poor. I'll reward good play.

The trouble with my approach (in some players eyes) is this. They want to know exactly what benefits and drawbacks they will have as a PC. So, one type of player really likes my approach, others don't.

[cadriel]

I talked a bit about this on my blog yesterday, as a total coincidence:
initiativeone.blogspot.com/2013/05/holmes-on-options.html

In theory I like the sub-classes but I'm currently running Swords & Wizardry Complete and I'm finding them a bit off. I think it's useful to consider exactly what options you are offering and tailor them simply to the game, rather than coming up with a whole ton of rules off the bat.

One thought might be using the Monsters & Treasure "human" types as extra classes. For instance, you could have a relatively simple berserker class that gets better hits but wears lighter armor; maybe at higher level their "ferocity" is useful against types other than normal men. But really the sky should be the limit for character types, with the proviso that characters "begin relatively weak and work up to the top."

[DungeonDevil]

I think it's a matter of nomenclature. It would have been far better for EGG and Co. to have used some phrase other than "sub-class", e.g. "optional roleplayed customisation" or suchlike, emphasising the implementation of gradual, organic character development over time, and not just a list of perks and tables with levelling-up bennies. Similarly Hit Points should have been given a less abstract name and Armour Class, too, now that I think of it. Once those terms became embedded in the game, it was impossible to change them.

(By the thread title I thought someone was proposing a fun, new game called...

SUPPLEMENTS & SUBCLASSES!

1 core PC class and 10,001 subclasses for your interminable chargen delight!

[Finarvyn]

May 21, 2013 3:33:11 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

As a referee, I like to see players "grow" their character as a special concept through their play. You want to be a paladin, smiting evil and all that stuff? Show me! Play a virtuous fighter who smites evil and protects the poor. I'll reward good play.

This is pretty much the way I do it. I think that a lot of players choose a subclass just to get groovy bonuses instead of because they want to run that type of character. I'd rather have them play what they like and then I can reward good play with bonuses.

One thing I pondered a few times was going the "prestige" class concept. Once a character hits 4th level (or whatever benchmark pre-determined) they could switch to the subclass with DM approval. So, for example, perhaps a 4th level fighter might be allowed to switch to a 4th level Paladin if he is deemed worthy. Or instead the DM might rule that a 4th level fighter would gain the powers of a 1st level Paladin on top of his regular 4th level fighter stuff. I've tried it both ways before and can't decide which of the two options I like better.

[waysoftheearth]

Check out Talysman's 50 word ranger here

[Falconer]

I’ve found that my chasing “elegance” or “balance” has never made the game more fun for my players. Believe me, I understand 100% where you’re coming from. But, in the big scheme of things, 0e/1e “fiddly bits” really aren’t ever that cumbersome, and they’re always thrown in with some literary precedent in mind, rather than with the goal of elegant design. I appreciate that. And the added “weight” is a small price to pay because, on the ground, while many players are content with a good old fashioned Fighting Man or Magic-User, others are just THRILLED to play an Illusionist or Werebear.

I disagree with Marv, who said, “I'd rather … reward good play with bonuses.” (I don’t disagree with that exact statement in a broad sense, just the sense in this instance of only awarding classlike bonuses if and when they are roleplayed well.) For me, if someone’s going to play a non-core class, I make it THEIR responsibility to keep track of all their special abilities and bonuses, because the players are responsible for cleverly using all their resources to defeat me. That lets me focus on the environment they are supposed to be playing against.

I do think a character who starts as a Fighter who later qualifies to become a Paladin should be allowed to become one (as hinted in Greyhawk). And I’m flexible in analogous situations.

[Deleted]

Shrug.

We made up some $h*t we thought would be fun. For instance, Joe Fisher was 17 or 18 when he wrote up the original Ranger class.

If you don't like something, make up your own $h*t you think will be fun. That's what the game's about, after all.

Me personally, I don't worry. Especially since in 40 years I've had exactly two people roll up a Paladin. Which, considering what a d**n powerhouse the Paladin is, is a good thing.

[Stormcrow]

May 21, 2013 4:33:14 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

One thing I pondered a few times was going the "prestige" class concept. Once a character hits 4th level (or whatever benchmark pre-determined) they could switch to the subclass with DM approval.

I like the way it's done in the Companion Set. When you reach name level your choice of what you do determines your subclass.

Fighters who build castles and rule domains are Lords, with all the privileges of land ownership. Fighters who do not rule domains are not Lords, but may swear fealty or make alliances to become a Paladin, Knight, or Avenger (depending on alignment and fealty). These titles actually replace the word Lord.

Clerics who build a stronghold and rule a domain are Patriarchs, and can rise in power in the church. Those who do not travel don't get a special name (I guess you still call them Patriarchs), and don't rise in power in the church, though they go on quests and gain a legendary reputation. Neutral clerics may become Druids, and get special powers and spells.

Magic-users who build a tower are called Wizards, but they may rule a domain or have the protection of another ruler. They may also build a dungeon beneath their towers to attract monsters and adventurers, whence the Wizard may collect magic, treasure, and useful monsters. Instead of building a tower, a magic-user may choose to become a Magist to a ruler. He handles the magical needs of the stronghold. A magic-user that does not settle is called a Magus. He has improved chances to find or attract magic, maps, and followers.

Thieves who settle get involved in the politics of the Thieves' Guild. He either joins an existing branch of the guild as a Master Thief, or he starts a new branch as Guildmaster. Thieves who don't settle at the Guild are called Rogues: they a nominal members of the Guild, and they have increased chances of finding maps and rumors, may seek information from the Guild, and may develop a reputation.

It's not really that Paladin, Knight, Avenger, Druid, Magist, Magus, Guildmaster, and Rogue are subclasses; they're really just alternate name level titles to Lord, Patriarch, Wizard, and Master Thief that represent the role the character is taking on. Not all the roles get magical powers, and they're not fixed like AD&D subclasses. If a Paladin decides to stop wandering the land righting wrongs, he becomes a Lord. If a chaotic Lord decides to leave his domain, make an alliance with a chaotic church, and go about freeing people from the rule of law, he becomes an Avenger. As the character's role in the world changes, so does his name.

[simonw]

I like options therefore I like classes. I use to come up with new classes all the time. However, I like simplicity too. You can do a lot with the four core classes. Something I would do is say to a player if he wants a ranger-type fighter, let him have a generic "outdoor skill" (allowing him to track, hunt by stealth and forage), balanced out by saying he can wear chainmail at best because he hasn't trained to be a knight - but he's still essentially a fighter. Non magical bards you can do with thieves by finding out what minstrel-like skills your player thinks his bard should have and swapping out a few of the thiefly abilities to compensate.

[scottenkainen]

I feel for you, Mach. As a D&D player, the sub-classes are fine, but as a D&D connoisseur, I find the inelegance as bothersome as it does you. Not long ago I was wondering if the sub-classes' special abilites could be pared down to three each, but for the thief in particular that is very hard.

~Scott "-enkainen" Casper

[gronkthebold]

May 21, 2013 9:34:09 GMT -6 simonw said:

I like options therefore I like classes. I use to come up with new classes all the time. However, I like simplicity too. You can do a lot with the four core classes. Something I would do is say to a player if he wants a ranger-type fighter, let him have a generic "outdoor skill" (allowing him to track, hunt by stealth and forage), balanced out by saying he can wear chainmail at best because he hasn't trained to be a knight - but he's still essentially a fighter. Non magical bards you can do with thieves by finding out what minstrel-like skills your player thinks his bard should have and swapping out a few of the thiefly abilities to compensate.

This is definitely how I would handle it if I disallowed sub-classes but your players were very persistent in playing the archetypes those classes represent. Simply swap one or more defining abilities for another one or more (at the DM's discretion) without any unnecessary rules bloat or class imbalance. Nicely simple and not too cumbersome for both the player and the referee.

[talysman]

May 21, 2013 4:43:05 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Check out Talysman's 50 word ranger here

I feel almost exactly the same way as machfront about the busy-ness of the subclasses, specifically the way they become a large list of powers. I consciously designed the Hunter (non-magical ranger) for exactly that reason: to pare everything down to a succinct description.

I've been doing the same with a number of classes, clone and original, with some tentative class-building rules I've been working on. Basically, my vision is that every class has more or less two class features, maybe three in a couple cases where two of the features are weak. In some cases, it's a matter of summarizing multiple powers under a broad multi-purpose ability; in others, like the paladin, I offload most of the abilities to the holy sword.

It winds up a lot like simonw's approach. The way I see it, I'm still operating under a four-class system (plus standard rules for hybrids;) I'm just re-skinning powers to match a class concept.

May 21, 2013 9:37:32 GMT -6 scottenkainen said:

I feel for you, Mach. As a D&D player, the sub-classes are fine, but as a D&D connoisseur, I find the inelegance as bothersome as it does you. Not long ago I was wondering if the sub-classes' special abilites could be pared down to three each, but for the thief in particular that is very hard.

My approach to the Thief was to summarize thief abilities as surprise attack, stealth and manipulation (or maybe "cunning".) The stealth ability affects anything having to do with avoiding notice: move silent, hide in shadows, stealthily reach into someone's pocket, or noticing quiet/hidden things (Hear Noise.) The manipulation ability affects using things in clever ways: pick locks, remove traps. Climb and Decipher Scrolls can either be ignored, or considered to be part of manipulation (finding tiny cracks for climbing, deciphering tiny clues to figure out a treasure map or magic scroll.)

A benefit of this is that you can expand stealth and cunning to other unlisted scenarios, like tinkering with machinery.

[Koren n'Rhys]

I like lots of option for my players - and they certainly want them!

Talysman's ranger and thief (see link above) are an awesome take on a minimalist write-up for Delving Deeper/OD&D, and one I'd like to see use more, and try to emulate myself, now that he's shown how nice it is.

You can make these a stand-alone class (or subclass if you prefer), even if you just note to use X experience table, Y attacks and Z saves. You can tweak those and provide customized advancement tables. Or, you could add an experience cost to the base class - for that ranger, use Fighter but base XP costs +10% (or more if the additional abilities warrant it) for example.

I seem to have settled into a B/Xish level of game, liberally pulling from the RC (my "Core" rulebook) as well as LL and it's many resources. These same minimalist subclasses still work there, though. I despise percentile skills and dropped those long ago in favor of d6 or 2d6 skill advancement. Of course, Talysman's take on DD thief skill advancement has me rethinking that now...

EDIT: Ach. Getting these all mixed up. While Talysman's ranger is uber-light, I was thinking of Ilvarin's in the same thread as a decent level of detail for my tastes. And the advancement scheme was from WaysoftheEarth. Apologies, gents. So many great ideas floating around...

[zeraser]

I'm perfectly happy in a post-Searchers of the Unknown world in which characters have no mechanical distinctions between one another except level, how many HP they roll, and what equipment they're carrying - no classes, no races, and an infinity of possible backgrounds, nationalities, cultures, fighting styles, deities, etc. However, this way of thinking does little to satisfy that other game of D&D, the one we play by ourselves when we imagine how our next character will navigate the complicated monkey-bars of spells, ability scores, thief skills, and so on.

It's perfectly suited to players who only want to think about D&D when they're sitting at the game table, in other words. If you want to tinker with classes, on the other hand, then by all means - make a bunch of classes. Just be clear about the fact that you're not only feeding your players' in-game behavior but also your own desire to tinker with classes, which after all is your inalienable right.

[geoffrey]

I'll let my players play anything, but it's their responsibility to have the scoop on their character and to keep track of things.

In practice, about all they actually play are the following:

1. fighting-men
2. magic-users (with plenty of new spells)
3. fighter/magic-user combos with liberal multi-classing rules

Add in a great big dollop of Judge Fiat. ("You want to try to sneak-up on the guard? Hmm. We'll roll 12-siders. If you roll higher, you succeed.")

The above covers all the character types in classic swords & sorcery fiction, which is the sort of thing we like.

[talysman]

May 21, 2013 12:45:11 GMT -6 Koren n'Rhys said:

EDIT: Ach. Getting these all mixed up. While Talysman's ranger is uber-light, I was thinking of Ilvarin's in the same thread as a decent level of detail for my tastes. And the advancement scheme was from WaysoftheEarth. Apologies, gents. So many great ideas floating around...

Yes, my advancement change for the DD Thief was to add a +1 if the the Thief's level is higher than the level of the target. My actual version of the Thief is, as I mentioned above, three abilities (surprise attack, stealth, cunning) with a bonus equal to the Thief's HD. Target number is 5+ on 1d6. So, a little less detail than Ilvarin's Ranger, more in line with my Hunter.

[oldkat]

Thorkhammer over at DF has this: www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=61529

see his 3rd post for details on downloading it.

[Finarvyn]

May 21, 2013 7:07:43 GMT -6 Falconer said:

I disagree with Marv, who said, “I'd rather … reward good play with bonuses.” (I don’t disagree with that exact statement in a broad sense, just the sense in this instance of only awarding classlike bonuses if and when they are roleplayed well.)

I do think a character who starts as a Fighter who later qualifies to become a Paladin should be allowed to become one (as hinted in Greyhawk). And I’m flexible in analogous situations.

Perhaps I should explain a little more. I don't mean that if a fighter (for example) character is played mostly paladin-like that I might give a paladin power or two. I mean that they have to start as a "core four" character but if a fighter acts like a paladin long enough I may say "congrats ... you are a paladin" and they would get to play the fighter as per paladin rules from that point on. Of course, they can also lose that advantage and fall back into fighter-dom if they don't continue to act right.

I guess I'm thinking of "A, then B" rather than "B, then A." Sub-classes presuppose you start with the cool stuff and will act correctly, but threaten to take away the cool stuff if you mess up. I'd rather encourage players to earn the cool stuff.

You may still disagree with me, however. That's okay.