Mine is what I call the "transition" class. The transition class is something like the ranger in 3e, a character who starts out relatively mundane but moves toward supernatural power at higher levels. You could also see the 3e assassin and blackguard as this.
Classless.
My favorite classes to play are fighter and magic user, with clerics not far behind. I'm not sure what that says about me, but there it is. Also, there is no particular class of the AD&D 1e core game I'd rather not play at all.
I think the reorganization of classes in UA was shit, but now I can see the classes in there (Cavalier, Barbarian, Thief Acrobat) being of some use at the game table, if only as NPC classes.
It depends on my mood, but I think the most common are:
shapeshifter druid
thief
fighter
So I guess you could say I mostly prefer classes that don't rely on powers or superhuman abilities most of the time, but rather how a "regular dude" can interact with the game world.
Broad archetypes.
The Strong Hero in d20 Modern can be a South African mercenary, a Burgundian halberdier, a NYPD beat cop, a samurai, or an Imperial grenadier guardsman. That, to me, is a useful class.
Depends on the edition and setting, but can't go wrong with fighter or with thief. I do like rangers as well and wizards can be fun. For rangers, something about getting to choose an enemy you really hate and gain bonuses when fighting still makes me smile. It would be hard for me to commit to a favorite class. Though the OP did say "type of class". I think I tend to lean on classes that are mundane, whose abilities are not powered by the supernatural. However, rangers and wizards are still plenty fun.
Broad archetypes for me as well.
AF 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
zero to hero I don't mind in fantasy, but I find out completely jarring in supers.
I'm partial to classes that map directly to something which actually exists in the setting.
E.g. I'm running Rifts at the moment; there the Cyber-knights are an actual order of do-gooders, and dog boys are a race of mutants engineered by the Coalition.
Quote from: Dan Vincze;697346I'm partial to classes that map directly to something which actually exists in the setting.
E.g. I'm running Rifts at the moment; there the Cyber-knights are an actual order of do-gooders, and dog boys are a race of mutants engineered by the Coalition.
Would it be fair to say that these are examples of, or at least similar to, race-as-class?
Paladin and Sorceror types. sometimes both at once.
Quote from: dragoner;697311Classless.
+1. I don't want a game designer telling me what I can play and what abilities I can have. I'd like to do that for myself, please.
Now if it's "what's your favorite archetype," I tend to play wizards or edgy rogues.
Quote from: Ravenswing;697385+1. I don't want a game designer telling me what I can play and what abilities I can have. I'd like to do that for myself, please.
Now if it's "what's your favorite archetype," I tend to play wizards or edgy rogues.
Classes, 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.
I like warrior, rogue, "mundane" classes of all kinds. If I'm going to have an overtly fantastic character I like a somewhat more focused shtick than D&D's Swiss army casters. Necromancers, shape shifters, hypnotists, cyborgs, and the like all appeal to me.
My gaming has all been one shots for a while, so zero to hero or not isn't something I'm really worried about at the moment. And I like having options when building, buttons to mas in play, that kind of thing.
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 :)
Quote from: Steerpike;697503EDIT: Oh, didn't mean to perpetuate a stale debate. Sorry, still new here :)
Same here. Sorry about that.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;697348Would it be fair to say that these are examples of, or at least similar to, race-as-class?
Dog boys: yes, they're grown in a lab, and they all get basically the same military training to go with their mutant abilities.
Likewise, baby dragons are available as a racial class. They're born dragons and learn dragon-like skills and powers throughout their rewarding careers as dragons.
Cyber-knights: no, they're presented as humans, albeit psychically gifted ones, who've received a great deal of training and a few nifty implants.
Quote from: Dan Vincze;697513Dog boys: yes, they're grown in a lab, and they all get basically the same military training to go with their mutant abilities.
Likewise, baby dragons are available as a racial class. They're born dragons and learn dragon-like skills and powers throughout their rewarding careers as dragons.
Cyber-knights: no, they're presented as humans, albeit psychically gifted ones, who've received a great deal of training and a few nifty implants.
In a Scifi game I made years ago I have a clone race. They all had exactly the same stats.
If you played an inhabitant of GR3X8 you got the same stats as all the other clones, you chose a skill module and well that was it.
Considering the rest of the system had a lifepath model it was a pretty major departure :)
Finesse classes. Less with the hotkeys and more with clever usage of what's available.
I also like classes with Soft Tethers, where they have to be self-restrained in behavior due to setting responsibilities.
Martial, none of that magic rubbish. Combat ready generalist, usually of the skirmisher/light infantry type.
I'm making a slight exception for our upcoming 13th Age game to play one of my other preferred types: a martial artist.
Quote from: Ravenswing;697500A 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.
Well, it's a good thing I didn't say "no one would choose restrictions unless compelled to do so."
Let me put it this way: give me a paper clip, a rubber band, and a box of matches and I'll come up with dozens of creative uses, and I'll be highly satisfied with the results. Put me in the Home Depot and I might come up with one, and, most likely, be disappointed with it. The problem with the Home Depot is that I have too many options available to me - too many choices! Instead of enjoying what I have, I focus on what else I could have done.
So, to answer the OP's question: a paper clip, a rubber band, and a box of matches is my favorite "type" of class.
My favorite type of class is one that evokes some quintessential figure from fiction, or a combination of such (much as the D&D thief puts me in mind of Grey Mouser and Jack of Shadows): Tarzan, Robin Hood, Sir Galahad, Conan, Solomon Kane, Cugel the Clever, and so on.
As a question of favorites, this does not imply a lack of appreciation for more generic types.
Most often I like martial classes with an emphasis in outdoorsy skills, so ranger. But I prefer ones without spells.
Divine I like the shapeshifting druid path.
Arcane I like sorcerers.
Quote from: Steerpike;697503Ravenswing, do you feel anything is gained by making the benefits and drawbacks of a code of conduct more mechanical as in D&D?
Nope, but I'm curious as why you'd presume that a point-buy approach would make things "more mechanical." It's a good deal
less mechanical. Looking at the Paladin class in the 4th edition Players' Handbook, by contrast, there are several
pages of mechanical: the stats you need to have, the specific spells from which you get to choose, the skills and feats you ought to pick ... and, curiously, the strong discouragement of trying to play an "evil" paladin.
That being said, I concede Jacob Marley's point: a lot of gamers do suffer from blown minds at being able to pick anything they want, and want to be told what they're allowed to play.
GISH, favorite DnD rendition? Would be Pathfinder's Magus and FantasyCraft's options. Followed by any F/M mix via Arcana Evolved and similar. Second is pure magic user in MERP/GURPS/Shadowrun/RM/AKS/DCC/AE.
I do assume you see a pattern and specific preferences?
I prefer either broad archetype classes or classes that represent something very specific in a setting. The "tough fighter" archetype covers a lot of ground. A different class for each fighting style is overkill.
In order for a class system to make sense at all, the class has to represent what a character IS instead of just defining what a character DOES.
I don't care for classes that are just collections of job skills. A class system isn't really needed for that. Just provide the skills and players can choose which ones they want to invest in.
Broad archetypes, with ability to customize within them. I love me some Elder Scrolls, but every character ended up feeling the same after a while when you have solely a skill based system.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;697839Broad archetypes, with ability to customize within them.
Have I mentioned that that is exactly how my heartbreaker ..... :)
I gravitate towards sword-fighting spellcasters in the tradition of Elric.
In ACKS these are personified by the Bladedancer, Elven Spellsword, and Zaharan Ruinguard.
Perhaps if the thread title had been something more like "what is your favourite application of classes in a game?" it might have compensated somewhat for the vast amount of posters who didn't seem to read the OP and just stopped in to name thier favourite class or type of characters.
Probably not, though.
Quote from: jibbajibba;697841Have I mentioned that that is exactly how my heartbreaker ..... :)
Dude, I have plenty of my own heartbreakers. No time to try out other peoples'. ;)
I honestly have no favorite class; maybe because I almost exclusively GM.