Alright Veeky Forums, in your opinion, which tabletop RPG system has the most flexible character creation system?

Found the newfag

Y'know what, you're right. I want to play a character that, at level one, can make dragoon leaps, fight effectively, and sneak attack; what OGL class would you recommend that gives all that at first level?

>Even then LOL, class based systems will never count for flexible character creation compared to non-class based.

Ever notice how you people can't actually provide any evidence or basis from it other than LOL smug anime reaction image?

the amount of painful generic sameyness in non class based RPGs fucking kills me

What the fuck is a dragoon leap?

>the amount of painful generic sameyness in non class based RPGs fucking kills me
This is because you are unable to imagine a concept unless the system forces you to.

not OP, but yes you can have dragons as party members in MM VIII

Speaking of the MM series, what system would work best for running a game in that world. Just about any generic fantasy will work for most of it (elves, goblins, fighters, whatever), but it also has aliens, space ships and ray guns.

Gu-
Yeah

Not really, you can beat the game with pretty much anything. You can even solo it as long as you manage to get immunity to the few conditions which insta-kill you if you're solo, like paralysis.

>painful generic sameyness in non class based RPGs
You're probably the kind of person that say everyone with a military background is the same character, or having a rifle makes the character the same as other with a rifle.

Two wildly different people can have a rifle. Not inherently saying you, but I see people all the time that only think of characters as being different when there's a large disparity in equipment or race. Like those faggots that specifically don't want to play a human because humans are "bland".

>This is because you are unable to imagine a concept unless the system forces you to.

user used ad hominem! It wasn't very effective....

This, desu

However, there is something to be said for no-class systems often having a tendency towards single optimal builds, so if you are in a group that power games hard it can feel like the list of "acceptable" builds is quite short. But there the problem is with the group not the game.

pointing out his fallacy and not addressing his point is itself a logical fallacy, you're not doing any better

He didn't make a point to address. The logical fallacy was all he said.

Logic is the process, not the conclusion.

>You're probably the kind of person that say everyone with a military background is the same character, or having a rifle makes the character the same as other with a rifle.

Yeah, no, I was a 68W, I'm quite aware that's not remotely true. I'm amused, but very surprised, that this is being used as an argument *against* class based RPGs rather than *for* class based RPGs.

>I see people all the time that only think of characters as being different when there's a large disparity in equipment or race. Like those faggots that specifically don't want to play a human because humans are "bland".

This also reads like an argument against classless rather than classed systems.

With class based systems rather than just skill & talent based systems, there's inherently more variety possible, simply because you can append any skill & talent system you want onto a class based system anyway.

This, presumably, sounds like I'm equating more variety = better. Obviously, one of the RPGs that has the most variety around is something like Unearthed Arcana 3.5e and all the fixings, where you have race, subrace, template, social class, contacts, reputation, honor, skills, feats, flaws, traits, and more, and you have hundreds or thousands of ways to make "pretty normal guy who shoots/stabs people," whereas most White Wolf mortal types are going to be limited to "well put dex/str 5 and melee or firearms 5."

Neither is particularly desirable to me, and 3.x makes a mockery out of the class system, but it is varied, and beyond a doubt I find classless systems to be the most painfully, boring, samey systems around.

>However, there is something to be said for no-class systems often having a tendency towards single optimal builds, so if you are in a group that power games hard it can feel like the list of "acceptable" builds is quite short. But there the problem is with the group not the game.
You have this is class based games too, you know. Actually, it's much worse.

>With class based systems rather than just skill & talent based systems, there's inherently more variety possible, simply because you can append any skill & talent system you want onto a class based system anyway.
Nigger what?

>pointing out his fallacy and not addressing his point

Hm? Reread his post, he didn't have an associated point.

>Nigger what?

Any system can have more variety added to it by tacking on more subsystems, although adding more subsystems won't always increase variety. There isn't really a successful argument to be made that classless systems have more variety than classed systems, nor does this mean variety is intrinsically good.

I do however almost universally prefer the way classed systems necessitate characters to have more variety than classless systems, and tire rapidly of the sameyness of classless systems. As they're generally made as a reaction to D&D rather than with an eye towards playability, their playtesting and design is generally less rigorous, and they usually haven't really managed to progress past towards the absolute lowest common denominator of "spend XP on number to raise your value" (White Wolf, WEG, etc).

>Any system can have more variety added to it by tacking on more subsystems, although adding more subsystems won't always increase variety. There isn't really a successful argument to be made that classless systems have more variety than classed systems
Nigger, WHAT? You would literally need a new subsystem or subclass or whatever for every single possible variation in order for a class-based system to have as much variation as a classless system.

Memes aside, have you literally ever looked at GURPS

>Nigger, WHAT? You would literally need a new subsystem or subclass or whatever for every single possible variation in order for a class-based system to have as much variation as a classless system.

Hm, nope. That does not follow at all, your entire point is bogus.

Having a given subsystem (for example, classes) does not preclude having skill points or any other number of subsystems or methods of advancement. All a class system is at its core is a system for either determining a package of starting parameters for your character AND/OR that you purchase as a unit.

There may be or may not be a great deal of customization within the class system.

There may be or may not be a great deal of customization without the framework of the class system.

Your problem is that you assume because a system features class based progression or beginnings that that is all it can possibly have, which is an obvious error in logic.

Nothing about having class based character development, however, forbids you from having any amount of non class based character development.

That's the fundamental error in thinking with classless types. Defining a style of system by what it omits rather than what it includes isn't the most versatile way to begin.

Ignore first post, came out completely wrong.
>Any system can have more variety added to it by tacking on more subsystems, although adding more subsystems won't always increase variety. There isn't really a successful argument to be made that classless systems have more variety than classed systems
The only way for a class-based system to allow as many combinations and possibilities as a classless system is if you either have a nonsensical amount of classes or a complete lack of restrictions leading to having classes in name only. What you're saying is literally "if I have more restrictions I have fewer restrictions".

>All a class system is at its core is a system for either determining a package of starting parameters for your character AND/OR that you purchase as a unit.
Uh, no. Sorry, but, that's completely incorrect. "Class-based system" does in fact not in any shape or form mean "having starting parameters". Morrowind does what you're talking about, come with prepackaged classes, but it's in no way a class-based system, because those classes don't in any way restrict you, in fact you can even customize new "classes". What limits you is how only the minority of skills you choose will make you level up, but that is unrelated to class: you can have restrictions which are unrelated to classes. D&D is a class-based system, because it limits your possibilities depending on what class you pick.

AD&D. Greyhawk and Mystara have that shit built in.

Mutants and Masterminds, preferably 3e.

>The only way for a class-based system to allow as many combinations and possibilities as a classless system is if you either have a nonsensical amount of classes or a complete lack of restrictions leading to having classes in name only.

Unfortunately, you're being myopic again, because that just plain isn't true.

>is if you either have a nonsensical amount of classes or a complete lack of restrictions leading to having classes in name only.

Neither of these is correct. You can have a system with classes that are as rigidly defined or as loosely defined as you like, and that doesn't inherently reduce the variety possible within a system.

The problem you're running into is that you keep bullheadedly insisting that the moment you incorporate classes into an RPG, it means "All within the class, nothing outside the class, nothing against the class," and you're not listening.

A class is, at its core, a package that contain a limited range of stuff that you must purchase as a unit (to some degree) and that, one assumes, offers some incentive for doing so. That's it.

The incentive may be stuff you CANNOT get in any other way, or it may be stuff that is simply more efficient, especially if you like the other stuff a class offers.

Either way, the existence of a class based starting package, or class based advancement, in no way prohibits that there be non class based starting packages or class based advancement.

The one thing I can think of is mounting a horse as it gallops past you.
But that wasn't a thing.
the French tried

>Class-based system" does in fact not in any shape or form mean "having starting parameters".

Nope. Work harder on your reading comprehension, my friend (assuming you are being truthful and not merely strawmanning me)! I said it can determine a package of starting parameters. I haven't played that series since Daggerfall, but if its the same, your "class" stuff is largely subject to total customization and you're free to design your class however you like, with no particular advantages for using a stock one. For the same reason, if I understand GURPS correctly, templates are just examples and offer no mechanical incentive to play ball with them over any other combination, only fluff. I don't consider total customization to be a desirable point unless you are shockingly good at balance and writing fluff, which I make no assumptions about.

However,

>because those classes don't in any way restrict you,
>What limits you is how only the minority of skills you choose will make you level up, but that is unrelated to class: you can have restrictions which are unrelated to classes.

Tragically, you are moving the goalpost. Redefining terms to help you win is bad play, and so your points on these matters ("its class based, but its not class based because I have decreed classes can only restrict!") can only be disregarded. Try again!

Final Fantasy thing. Leap into the air, where the enemies can't hit you, then drop down and hit them on the next turn.

From just 3.x (I don't view the OGL bit as relevant), an apprentice (or gestalt if you like UA) warblade|rogue or sneak attack fighter|swordsage.

I wouldn't be surprised if Pathderp's analogous stuff had similar options.

Oh, so you're trolling. Never mind then.

You didn't pick up on the fact when the nigga dropped this gem?

"With class based systems rather than just skill & talent based systems, there's inherently more variety possible, simply because you can append any skill & talent system you want onto a class based system anyway."

>The incentive may be stuff you CANNOT get in any other way
>in no way prohibits that there be non class based starting packages or class based advancement
okay

Definitely GURPS, you can make anything.

"My feelings are hurt, therefore you're trolling." How about no.

Yes, adding more systems increases the potential variety. Think about it. This doesn't imply that busier = better, but that's not the discussion at all.

Keyword is "may," depends on the RPG. However, a non controversial example is, you may have to be a vampire to get vampire powers, and if a system is otherwise classless but features vampire abilities you can advance, bam, its a class.

Class based systems are terrible. They are designed to create caricatures of stereotypes right out of the gate, and it doesn't help that they're almost exclusively defined by their combat applications. And on top of that, you're playing some form of D&D so you may as well do yourself a favor and pull the trigger to end it all.

Wow that was a whole lot of non arguments, well done. I shall now go play my game that has an x splat, y splat and z splat and celebrate the fact that I am not limited by classes.

Also

>using combat as the central balance point is bad, despite combat is virtually the only time where you have to take "turns" and despite that some PCs being unsurvivable basically writes off combat for their characters participating in it at all, and no element of most games is similar in that respect