Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1088158That's why I'm listing this a flaw inherent to leveling systems.

D&D and its derivatives suffer from a severe case of monster bloat due to imposed quotas, both those imposed by the leveling system itself and by a desire to have as many monsters as possible. When monsters are being written to fill quotas rather than as labors of love, the quality suffers. Creative and inspiring bestiaries like the Creature Collection series are few and far between (given the expense in making them), while first party bestiaries and monster manuals often feel like shovelware.

While you can create multiple versions of the same dragon for different CR brackets, the problem is that all too often they feel homogeneous and uninspired (Pathfinder's mythic monsters suffer this problem in spades). However, this approach is actually quite rare for monsters other than dragons because other monsters generally don't have age categories or some other easy means of representing advancement (hence the name Dungeons & Dragons). A more common approach is to write the other versions as being different monsters with different backstories to make them feel fresh, but this generally results in the monsters being redundant due to the imposed quota (e.g. humanoids like goblinoids and beastmen originally being created to fulfill a hit dice quota).

So you just have one Dragon that only high level characters can fight?  And other monsters mechanically like Dragons but called something different for low level characters to fight.

Or Goblins for low level, Orcs for low to medium level, Bugbears and Ogres for medium level, Hill Giants for medium to high level and Giants for high level.

Quote from: Shasarak;1088230So you just have one Dragon that only high level characters can fight?  And other monsters mechanically like Dragons but called something different for low level characters to fight.

Or Goblins for low level, Orcs for low to medium level, Bugbears and Ogres for medium level, Hill Giants for medium to high level and Giants for high level.

As estar succinctly explained, this is a relic of D&D descending from wargames and being more of a combat scenario generator than a role-playing game.

Although D&D takes inspiration from the works listed in Appendix N, it's more of its own thing than a game that can replicate the experience of role-playing a character in one of those stories. (Not that this prevents most players from thinking that D&D does replicate those experiences because of its advertising as the world's premier fantasy role-playing game.)

Myths, fairy tales, and fantasy fiction not influenced by D&D generally don't operate on the logic that characters and monsters have clearly defined power levels. There may be disparities in capabilities, but there isn't some ten or twenty point scale that neatly ranks all characters and monsters.

But I'm digressing. This topic is about how typical class design is needlessly inflexible and this leads to class bloat, power creep, etc. Criticizing leveling systems is a whole other can of worms.

Quote from: Chris24601;1088190And that latter one is precisely the problem with most editions of D&D. The high Dex fighter gets gimped by the mechanics.

In a RPG campaign why are you limiting yourself to the mechanics? If a fighter has a high dexterity and you think it effects a situation then rule accordingly irregardless whether the rules are silent or contradict what you think on the issue.

Quote from: Chris24601;1088190And that latter one is precisely the problem with most editions of D&D. The high Dex fighter gets gimped by the mechanics.

So now the rhetorical you thinks that classic D&D RAW doesn't represent high dexterity fighter accurately?  What can one do about this.

I am going to assume that we are going to stick with the D&D system. Of course you can write a new system like Perrin did with Runequest or St Andre did with Tunnels & Trolls. But for this exercise we are not interesting having to write an entire new system.

The first place is to start is why D&D works the way it does in regard to high dex fighters?

The interplay of a combat round is represented by a pair of dice roll that doesn't represent either side making contact with a weapon but whether either side kills one another*.

So right out of the gate D&D doesn't address the question "Do I hit the target". Only the question whether I kill the target. With this abstraction it was decided that Strength was more important to determining whether a target was killed in melee. That Dexterity was more important for ranged combat.

The key sticking point is the assertion that Strength is always the primary modifier when it comes to determining the target is killed or not in melee. Does this make sense for say a dagger, a shortsword, or a rapier. I think the case can be made that for these weapons dexterity is a more important factor on whether you kill somebody with one of these weapons in a round of melee.

In fact in later editions, the designer thought this way and added the idea of finesse weapons.

So what about the other aspect of a high dexterity fighter? Like being able to hit specific things.  Well we know that in D&D, you are given a 50/50 chance of killing a person with no armor and average dexterity. So that your starting point.

We also know that the pair of rolls that make a combat round between two opponents abstracts the tactics, experience, and techniques of each. That it represent their "best". So anything else would have to be not as good.

Think about it, why in fencing disarms not a primary attack? Because it difficult to deliberately disarm an opponent. Not only that when the opponent counters your disarm attempt they can still focus on attacking you. So over the long run, you will wind up losing as the opponent get more attack opportunities**.

A way I found that is elegant is to allow combatants to specify a result other than to kill (i.e hit point damage) and allow the target a saving throw. If the save fails the adverse result takes hold***.  Another commonly used technique is to impose a penalty. Of course then you can allow dexterity be used as a modifier.

In either case the normal combat procedure is clearly the "best" way to kill the opponent but now you have a consistent procedure for when disarm attempt is called for despite the difficulty.

Wrapping it up
So what does the above has to with the OP and the inflexibility of class and level. Because the same process of reasoning applies to class as it does combat. In the original campaigns 1st level represented the normal experienced individuals. A Hero was worth 4 combatants and thus became 4th level.  

The original campaign had fighter and wizards at first. Not because they are niches to be filled but rather they were recurring character types in the novels, and films that inspired the campaign.

The cleric got added because one of the bad guy players managed to get himself turn into a Dracula style vampire and started kicking ass. The question got raised "Why isn't there a Van Helsing". Add in a few other bits like Bishop Turpin from Charlemagne's Paladins and you get the D&D cleric. And so on with the other classes. Some distinct character type from fiction served as inspiration.

However it didn't results in dozens and dozens of classes during the original campaigns because as it turned out you got a lot of flexibility from having certain attribute score, picking certain weapons, having different tactics, and different magic items.

Then this leads to "Where are the rules for this?" Well the rule is that the players described what they were doing as their character and Gygax or Arneson ruled accordingly. Because both were experienced wargamers, they knew the difference between using a pike and a longsword. Attacking a group of monster from the flank, versus the front. And so on. They ruled accordingly.

For example using OD&D, if the party attacks a group of orcs from the flank they are going to suffer a negative modifier to their morale roll. Since I know from my reading of history that 25% casualties  is when morale start to become significant. It far more likely that the orcs will break and run sooner if attacked from the flank as opposed from the front.

Hence if you want to "fix" classes then the starting point is to go back to do what the original campaigns did. Look at the setting and ask yourself whether the classes represent how it works within the campaign. If not then change them to suit.


* One hit = 1 kill was found to be uninteresting so 1 hit was expanded to 1d6 damage and 1 hit to kill was expanded to 1d6 hit points. I am opting for kills to illustrate the kind of abstraction D&D combat represents.

** What I found from my own experiences and listening to other is that more spectacular maneuvers like disarms are generally result of an opportunity rather than something that is deliberately forced.  The opponent makes a mistake, has a misstep or whatever and now you have a shot at knocking the weapon out of their hand. So it may work better if you use critical tables (hit or miss) to add in some of the nuances to a campaign using the D&D system.

***Saving throws get better with level and higher hit dice. Which fits with the idea that more experienced combatants are less prone to tactics like disarms or being knocked out with a single blow. And saving throws were introduced to give players a chance to escape something really bad happening to them. I think being disarmed qualifies as something really bad so I felt my idea fit with the rest of the system.

So, wall of text that basically invented things I never said.

My OP here was how I tackled class design in the system I'm writing to make it more flexible (you know, the point of the thread).

You replied that going super-simple like OSR D&D could do the same thing by, apparently, just ignoring the mechanics.

I replied to why I found that solution unsatisfactory by giving specific examples of things it didn't emulate well and gave examples of systems I did play that did emulate the feel I was looking for with their mechanics (4E and before that Palladium Fantasy); though not perfectly, hence my own system.

QuoteIn a RPG campaign why are you limiting yourself to the mechanics? If a fighter has a high dexterity and you think it effects a situation then rule accordingly irregardless whether the rules are silent or contradict what you think on the issue.

Maybe you missed the part about "like to play" when describing the archetypes I enjoy? You don't get to make those sort of rulings as a player unless you're playing some story game nonsense. Sure, I suppose I could TRY to tell the GM of that AD&D game I was in once that "my character concept is that he's skilled enough at using his mobility and reflexes to evade and parry attacks, that even though I'm only in leather armor I should be as hard to hit as a guy in plate mail" but do you REALLY think that would fly?

Or I could do what I did and play Palladium Fantasy where my high PP and hand-to-hand skill gave me a high enough parry and dodge bonuses that I could just play the concept I wanted outright because the mechanics weren't fighting me.

4E also didn't fight the concepts I enjoyed; high Dex plus leather armor was right in the defense range range as a guy in scale armor and, as an added bonus, I could make a non-vancian wizard where their cantrips let them do something magical whenever they liked and they didn't need a crossbow once their few spells per day ran out. I wasn't a fan of the more narrative aspects of the system, but that's why I've been writing my own.

Not having to fight the system's mechanics to play what you want is a huge advantage. There's no need to bargain with the DM to play what you want to play, you can just say "I'm playing an XYZ" and be confident the default mechanics will support your choices instead of crossing your fingers that the GM will see things your way.

Quote from: Chris24601;1088323My OP here was how I tackled class design in the system I'm writing to make it more flexible (you know, the point of the thread).

You replied that going super-simple like OSR D&D could do the same thing by, apparently, just ignoring the mechanics.

And the point I been making that not necessary. Which is not the same as saying it stupid, useless, bad-wrong-fun or any number of equally negative view you have on my reply.

Nor giving examples in detail of how I addressed the issues raised by the OP, you and other, make what you like bad-wrong-fun.

It always an option to go the route of making your own system. And this thread started off with radically altering the class level structure to fix issue of flexibility. I have an alternative that I spent years using in actual play. An understanding of why my alternative works and just as important where it doesn't work.

The fact you are designing your own system is great. I hope it works out well.

Quote from: Shasarak;1088067How do you make a monster that is equally relevant at all tiers of play?

Mostly you end up with monsters with varying levels (if nothing else, NPCs with classes and levels like PCs; presumably members of player character races remain relevant at all levels). So orc hunters, orc warriors, orc war leaders, orc chieftains; or hatchling/young/adult/ancient dragons. OD&D wasted a lot of potential monsters just to have essentially the same monster at different levels.

You could have a doppelganger (fights with the same abilities as the character it duplicates) or undead that vary in effectiveness based on the life force of those around it (so automatically scales up against a higher level party). Or better, have opponents that cannot be dealt with in combat; the neutral ruler or noncorporeal spirit can be befriended or outwitted by low level characters as easily as high level characters.

Quote from: Shasarak;1088067How do you make a monster that is equally relevant at all tiers of play?  Having different levels of Dragons makes more sense then having one type of Dragon that is always challenging to fight at all character levels.

One way is to build your game more like Palladium... much flatter combat bonus math with improvement coming in the form of skills, durability from greater hit points and more damage from being able to make additional attacks.

So at 10th level (about 14th in D&D terms) one orc soldier wouldn't be too big a problem, but four or five would probably be able to match your increase in durability and damage from extra attacks.

This is actually the approach I took in my system. Attack bonuses and defense scores go about about 3 (on a d20) over 15 levels, but your hit points and damage dealt scale up steadily with every level. The result is a more linear rate of improvement where a low level monster might need a 12+ instead of a 10+ to hit you, but the damage it deals relative to your hit points goes from 40% to only 10% of your total at max level.* So while one wouldn't be a meaningful threat; 5 would be about the same level of threat to a max level PC as a single one would be for a starting PC. As a result, the low level opponents remain a threat regardless of level.

Conversely, powerful threats are dangerous because they'll take more hits for a lower level party to drop and their hits in return will knock a lot more off a PC with every hit (a level 5 opponent could drop a level 1 PC to zero hit points; and likely rack up a real injury; with a single hit on a crit... a level 7-8 could do it on a normal hit) making the fight a lot more swingy. But significant numbers of low levels foes can be a threat to them too; so they fight accordingly (ex. dragons keep to the air to keep from being swarmed and, if they're going to do something like attack a city or castle, do so at night so the cover of darkness and range of their breath weapons makes them harder to hit). If a low level party wants to go raid a dragon's lair they better plan to hire some additional muscle (which reduced the reward, monetary and XP, along with the risk) or they'll probably get themselves killed.

* It should be noted that "hit points" in this case are entirely non-physical; stamina, morale and luck; and can be recovered very quickly (an hour or less depending on how much you want to push your deep reserves)... actual physical injuries, when they occur, fall under the category of "afflictions" which last for days or weeks (unless magically healed) and may even get worse if left untreated. Thus, the mechanics presume you'll be losing significant amounts of "hit points" in every battle, then either taking periodic rests or burning your limited deep reserves of endurance to refill them before your next battle).

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1087825One of the more annoying parts of elf-games in my opinion is that they tend to be fairly limited in their class options. After reading the Spheres of X books I can't imagine playing vanilla elf-games.

There are so many topics I could discuss: the Christmas tree effect, linear warriors quadratic wizards, weaboo fighting magic, yadda yadda. But I'll limit myself.

There are about four aspects of class design that I think could be used to inform customization options for games in the future: roles, spheres, traditions and power sources. I've synthesized these concepts from a variety of sources like D&D, PF, and the Spheres of X books (mostly the latter).

A role is the basic role that a character serves in a party. In early editions this was something like fighting-man, thief, magic-user and priest. In 4e it was called striker, defender, leader and controller. In Spheres of X these are called spherecasters and practioners classes.

A sphere is the capabilities that a character specializes in. In other words this is your spell list/school, martial maneuver list, class feature list, talent trees, etc. For example: healing, conjuring, fencing, beastmastery, etc. (The Spheres of X mechanics divide spheres into magic and martial. In contrast to traditional magic-user classes, spherecasters have to specialize in order to develop competence. Martial spheres include physics-defying effects, but these are segregated with a "legendary" tag in case the DM wants to arbitrarily gimp them compared to magic-users.)

A tradition is a layer of customization that gives the character additional flavor. For example: traditional classes/kits/archetypes/etc like wizard, barbarian, cavalier, etc would be examples of traditions. Traditions may be placed under the umbrella of power sources (see below).

A power source (or maybe "essence") is more fluff than crunch, but essentially explains where a character's capabilities come from. For example: martial arts, arcane magic, divine magic, psionics, primal spirits, phantasmal/shadow magic, etc. While the other aspects are more or less mandatory, this one is optional and arbitrarily defined.

I welcome any questions, criticism or advice.

"Role, Sphere, Tradition, ect." are all the same thing: what the character does. Classes, distinctive enough from each other, provide a clear line between what can and can't be done by each PC.

More flexible classes means "sameness". Martial casters and casting martials.

It's like Monopoly/Checkers where, regardless of the token you use, they all do the same thing (move around the board). Contrasted by Chess with its distinct pieces.

A/D&D is more chess like, but you want more customization? More than Pathfinder's legion of classes? :confused:

At what level of class customization would you be satisfied? Fighters who can pick pockets, cast Fireball and Cure Wounds?

Someone already hit the mark: PLAY GURPS.

It sounds clear-cut but you need to address if these 4 aspects are orthogonal (they dont influence each other). For if they aren't, the picture becomes much more muddy. Example: Is a particular sphere tied to a particular tradition (kung-fu sphere tied to monk tradition)? If they are related, it means you can't select one without impacting your choice in another aspect - and then what's the point to the categorization?

Quote from: Theory of Games;1088959"Role, Sphere, Tradition, ect." are all the same thing: what the character does. Classes, distinctive enough from each other, provide a clear line between what can and can't be done by each PC.

More flexible classes means "sameness". Martial casters and casting martials.

It's like Monopoly/Checkers where, regardless of the token you use, they all do the same thing (move around the board). Contrasted by Chess with its distinct pieces.

A/D&D is more chess like, but you want more customization? More than Pathfinder's legion of classes? :confused:

At what level of class customization would you be satisfied? Fighters who can pick pockets, cast Fireball and Cure Wounds?

Someone already hit the mark: PLAY GURPS.

Most of the PF classes are basically variations on each other. They don't need to be separate classes. There's an entire series of 3pp books which condense all those classes into custom selected class features for a single class.

I tried to explain the distinction, but clearly you think my explanation isn't sufficient. If you want another example of how these things are distinct, then here's an overview for 4e's roles and power sources and here's the spheres of X rules for perusal.

I prefer not to deal with rules heavy games. That turned me off of Pathfinder long ago.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1088965It sounds clear-cut but you need to address if these 4 aspects are orthogonal (they dont influence each other). For if they aren't, the picture becomes much more muddy. Example: Is a particular sphere tied to a particular tradition (kung-fu sphere tied to monk tradition)? If they are related, it means you can't select one without impacting your choice in another aspect - and then what's the point to the categorization?

The meat of the sphere mechanics are the classes and the spheres. Traditions (and by extension power sources, which don't really exist in the spheres mechanics) are optional rules secondary to those, which exist simply for the GM to customize how things work in their setting or to enable character concepts.

Classes in the sphere rules are generic and role-focused in different ways than typical D&D classes. Approximating typical D&D magic limitations would involve taking a casting tradition like "wizardry" or "divine petitioner." Martial traditions, by contrast, provide some starting bonuses and enable character concepts.

I tried to recycle the concept in system agnostic terms, but it's better if you just read those rules for an explanation. Here's the spheres of X rules for perusal. Here's an overview for 4e's roles and power sources.

If the 4e system doesn't make sense, then there's someone trying to fix it. One of the points raised, that I heartily agree with and think applies outside 4e, is that some classes' power source isn't well-defined. What exactly is the difference between a druid and a cleric of a nature god, or between a cleric of an archfiend or evil god and a warlock who made a pact with an archfiend or evil god, or between a druid and a warlock who made a pact with a nature god?

The fluff distinction between druids and clerics (and warlocks, etc) only makes sense with a more coherent theology than D&D settings typically have. Scarred Lands made sense by having druids venerate the titans versus clerics venerating the gods (much like Eberron, it was a setting made with D&D tropes in mind rather than a generic fantasy setting bolted onto the D&D rules). A similar distinction (perhaps echoing the old gods versus new gods distinction in proto-indo-european mythology) is the only thing that makes sense elsewhere but it has theology baggage that typical D&D fantasy kitchen sink settings can't really do justice.

But I digress.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1088965It sounds clear-cut but you need to address if these 4 aspects are orthogonal (they dont influence each other). For if they aren't, the picture becomes much more muddy. Example: Is a particular sphere tied to a particular tradition (kung-fu sphere tied to monk tradition)? If they are related, it means you can't select one without impacting your choice in another aspect - and then what's the point to the categorization?

In the case of my design;

Backgrounds are entirely orthogonal. Any background can work with any archetype/class. A prime example of this would be an Arcanist Ravager. They have studied magic for utility purposes, but trust the reliability of steel and skill when his life is on the line. In the opposite direction would be the Military Interdictor. They rely on magic to win battles, but know you need a foundation of strategy and military discipline to win wars.

The Archetypes do limit you to selections within them; but once you've chosen Skilled or Spellcasting everything within the archetype is orthogonal. Any combat style can be used with any combat focus and any class. Likewise attack spells or weapon specializations can be used by any of the classes in their respective archetype.

For that matter, Species/Races are orthogonal to background and archetype/class as well. Sure, dwarves are better at the strong combat style and gadgeteering spellcasting path, but a swift warrior or primal spellcasting dwarf is only behind by 5% or so (or not behind in some aspects, but 10% behind in others) a species ideally suited to swift and primal selections... so you benefit from playing to a species' strengths, but not so much that playing against type is impossible or even hard.

Basically, if you follow the extremely basic guideline of "put best score in archetype attack stat and the next best in its focus stat" (or if you're randomly generating stats in order... choose the archetype and subtype options that line up best with your ability scores) you're all but guaranteed to end up with a playable character regardless of what you pick (or roll; I have a table for random species/background/class selections for those who want one or more of those to be determined randomly).

You really have to work to make a gimped character (ex. using your lowest score for your spellcasting stat, next lowest in your focus stat and putting the two highest and two lowest in the same "defense groups" and picking skill proficiencies that key off your lowest stats); it's almost impossible to do by accident.

Quote from: Shasarak;1088230So you just have one Dragon that only high level characters can fight?  And other monsters mechanically like Dragons but called something different for low level characters to fight.

Or Goblins for low level, Orcs for low to medium level, Bugbears and Ogres for medium level, Hill Giants for medium to high level and Giants for high level.

See Fantasycraft.

You can reduce a monster down to a pile of modifiers, and slide it up and down a scaler that allows you add numerically weighted abilities *on the fly* that you can re-skin as needed.

You can literally challenge 15th lvl PC's with 1st level Goblins. You can invent a description of a new kind of goblin using goblin base stats and with zero-effort, turn it into something totally unexpected to challenge your PC's with.

This can only happen if your system is balanced by ability not just by class-assumptions. All sub-systems have to support this design concept at inception.

Quote from: tenbones;1089044See Fantasycraft.

You can reduce a monster down to a pile of modifiers, and slide it up and down a scaler that allows you add numerically weighted abilities *on the fly* that you can re-skin as needed.

You can literally challenge 15th lvl PC's with 1st level Goblins. You can invent a description of a new kind of goblin using goblin base stats and with zero-effort, turn it into something totally unexpected to challenge your PC's with.

This can only happen if your system is balanced by ability not just by class-assumptions. All sub-systems have to support this design concept at inception.

It's so frustrating that a design philosophy which feels like it should be a key foundation in elf-games only shows up in fairly obscure retroclones.

Also, Fantasycraft lets you play as a literal dragon (and not some pansy dragon furbait) starting from level one, so it's automatically awesome.

Quote from: tenbones;1089044See Fantasycraft.

You can reduce a monster down to a pile of modifiers, and slide it up and down a scaler that allows you add numerically weighted abilities *on the fly* that you can re-skin as needed.

You can literally challenge 15th lvl PC's with 1st level Goblins. You can invent a description of a new kind of goblin using goblin base stats and with zero-effort, turn it into something totally unexpected to challenge your PC's with.

This can only happen if your system is balanced by ability not just by class-assumptions. All sub-systems have to support this design concept at inception.

I thought sliding scale monsters were exactly what BoxCrayonTales did not want to do.

To be honest I have not seen a situation where 1st level Goblins can challenge a 15th level Party that did not hinge on triggering a lava trap or some such idea.

Quote from: Shasarak;1089079I thought sliding scale monsters were exactly what BoxCrayonTales did not want to do.

To be honest I have not seen a situation where 1st level Goblins can challenge a 15th level Party that did not hinge on triggering a lava trap or some such idea.

That's not exactly what I said. I said there was a choice between two unpleasant options forced by the limitations of a leveling system. Either 1) design the monsters to scale with level, or 2) create new monsters for every challenge rating. Option 1 has the benefit of reducing monster bloat, since basically every monster can be reduced to sets of recurring archetypes, but it has the downside of potentially going in the other direction and being too homogenous; but by the same token it keeps monster families like goblinoids and beastmen relevant at all levels. Option 2 ultimately results in absurd degrees of monster bloat, but in the short term it means you have more options. Basically two ends of a sliding scale, with no correct point on the scale because every point has benefits and drawbacks.

In real life there's no such thing as levels. The world's strongest body builder could die from a simple snake or spider bite. This generally remains true even in most fiction about monster slayers. A fairytale hero could kill a giant with one arrow yet still be stung to death by a mundane scorpion. Obviously that doesn't happen in D&D. Probably my favorite exploration of this is a D&D/Harry Potter crossover fanfic where a D&D character speculates that Earthlings don't have Will saves.

And I'm starting to digress into martial/caster disparity again. Next I'm going to start arguing that martials should be allowed to train their pneuma/orgones/other Western equivalent of ki/qi. I'm stopping now.