I've always been partial to "specialist" classes with a narrow focus (or classes that have the option of narowing their focus) - so specialist wizards, clerics with particular domains, assassins, monks etc - as opposed to "generalist" or versatile classes that can do everything or at least a broad range of things.  I like it when my characters are really good at a particular thing, even if it means they're handicapped in other ways.  For all that some of them pose serious balance issues for 3.X/Pathfinder and contribute to issues of "rules bloat," Prestige Classes appeal to me for this reason.

EDIT: nice to see another CBGer here beejazz

Quote from: Black Vulmea;697321AF asked for the "type" of classes you like. Some of y'all are missing a much more interesting question.

AF wrote about classes which start off mundane but gain supernatural powers. I wrote about broad archetypes which are readily re-skinned in many ways. What other approaches to class design do you like? Lots of special abilities, or just a few? Front-loaded or zero-to-hero?

C'mon, think bigger. The intrewebs doesn't need another 'wutz yer favuhrite class?' thread

Front-loaded, lots of special abilities. I like if the class abilities are a bit tweakable so that characters of the same class can vary a bit.

Broad archetypes are good; I think the Rifts approach where you have different classes for very slightly different characters (e.g. two 'doctor' classes, the noble Body Fixer and the evil Cyber-doc, and two scholar classes Rogue Scholar and Scientist) gets a bit fiddly.

Quote from: dragoner;697393Classes, levels and alignments I always found restricting, too narrow of focus; however in D&D I usually liked the fighter classes followed by thieves and assassins. Now, after too much being used to the chargen mini-game and having a developed character background, it would be hard to go back.

Whereas I am the exact opposite! In my case, restrictions breed creativity. It's the reason I have always found the Paladin class so fulfilling; the mandate to play Lawful Good, and to fit in with the rest of the party, has brought about the most interesting and enjoyable characters that I have ever played!

Personally I like the Magic User, Monk and Bard from AD&D and the Sorcerer from later editions.

I also liked the Psionic from Dragon and especially the "Make your own Class" article.

For one of my RPG book projects though one of the goal requests for the license was a classless system.

I prefer a small number of very broad classes (fighter, magic user, rogue, etc) that a player/GM can customize conceptually on thier own w/o rules glut or overlapping niches.

I really dOnt like classes with videogame names that increase the level of jargon separating the game from everyday conversation.

I prefer the Cunning Charmer. Outsmarts situations and people.
It can be a rogue, a fighter, a priest, a wizard, whatever but that is my prefered Archetype.

Next is the Warrior Poet.
Noble and self sacrificing but with a hint of melancholy. Doesn't have to be but usually is a fighter class of some type.

Next would be the Utterly Ruthless Bastard.
Self serving but not necessarily Evil will never give quarter and will follow up on any scheme with ruthless zeal tot eh utmost of their abilities.
Can be any class.

Finally the Scatter Brained Genius
Usually a magic using class, (or knowledge class in mundane games) this character finds it hard to focus on any one thing because everything is so interesting. Will reel off the answer to the puzzle the party have been toying with for 2 hours but wouldn't have been paying attention because the mosaic seems to be early Noldar which is terribly unusual because of course they so seldom worked in stone and especially this far north, in fact I can only think of one early Noldar group the Cilmante that ever ventures beyond the Anduin....

I can and have played any and everything but these are 4 of my favourite types of characters.

Quote from: Steerpike;697421EDIT: nice to see another CBGer here beejazz

Likewise. Vreeg hangs out around these parts occasionally as well.

Light infantry. Fighter/thief in AD&D terms I suppose. Someone who's mobile and hard to kill.

Quote from: Daztur;697465Light infantry. Fighter/thief in AD&D terms I suppose. Someone who's mobile and hard to kill.

Oh I like this.

I've had several people talk to me about fighter thieves lately, and I'm looking at the character concept with renewed interest.

I've never much cared for the 'zero to hero' thing... or maybe I just don't like the broad assumption that games should feature mechanical character progression. Sometimes I want it, sometimes I don't. There are lots of settings/genres that I don't think need it... Westerns, Superheros, Scifi, Horror... even a lot of fantasy stuff.
So something like Traveller suits me well... the progression 'fiction' is left mostly to the character generation mini-game, which creates a background story for the PC as well.
Do the Mongoose version and its offshoots retain that feature of the original?

Quote from: Simlasa;697470Do the Mongoose version and its offshoots retain that feature of the original?

Mongoose expands it, and includes some things like connections, where you create connections with other players and gain a skill. There are also events, with a bunch of cool events tables to roll on (often more skills).

Quote from: Jacob Marley;697427Whereas I am the exact opposite! In my case, restrictions breed creativity. It's the reason I have always found the Paladin class so fulfilling; the mandate to play Lawful Good, and to fit in with the rest of the party, has brought about the most interesting and enjoyable characters that I have ever played!

One of my first D&D characters was a paladin, and due to my poor English at the time I thought a paladin was a soldier from the rhine-palatinate, like a landsknecht. Then came the incident with baby orcs and me not killing them and losing xp for it because it violated alignment. Just shows everyone's experience is different though, I am glad you had fun.

Quote from: Benoist;697467Oh I like this.

I've had several people talk to me about fighter thieves lately, and I'm looking at the character concept with renewed interest.

Its a nice trope but one D&D does badly because of the way combat works.

Watched Snow White and the Huntsman the other day. The Huntsman is a great Ranger PC. Light armour, tough, good wilderness skills etc.

In D&D though a fighter in leather armour might have 12" movement but as soon as his armour is magic so does the guy in chain or plate. The lightly armoured fighter basically becomes a heavily armoured figther with a bad AC

Better rules on parry, innate defence, penalties for heavy armour, more advantages for mobility can all help to fix it but they push D&D in funny directions.
At the moment you can only really achieve it through setting where you pass in world laws regulating heavy armour etc.

Quote from: Jacob Marley;697427Whereas I am the exact opposite! In my case, restrictions breed creativity. It's the reason I have always found the Paladin class so fulfilling; the mandate to play Lawful Good, and to fit in with the rest of the party, has brought about the most interesting and enjoyable characters that I have ever played!

A common fallacy in such debates, used to argue against point-buy systems, is that no one would choose such restrictions unless they were compelled to do so.

Want to play an ecclesiastical knight (or priest, for that matter -- the code is one and the same) in my campaign?  Great!  You're allowed.

:banghead:

This actually had the potential to be an interesting discussion for a change. Instead we get more of the same, 'I like paladins!' and 'I hate classes.'

Thanks for fucking this thread in the ear, gang. Well done.

Quote from: RavenswingA common fallacy in such debates, used to argue against point-buy systems, is that no one would choose such restrictions unless they were compelled to do so.

Want to play an ecclesiastical knight (or priest, for that matter -- the code is one and the same) in my campaign? Great! You're allowed.

Ravenswing, do you feel anything is gained by making the benefits and drawbacks of a code of conduct more mechanical as in D&D?

EDIT: Oh, didn't mean to perpetuate a stale debate.  Sorry, still new here