User, "classes" are in and of themselves bad game design. Why do you still use them?

I don't, I also don't use loli's or shota's.

Now stop shit posting.

>Freelancer class
>lets you obtain skills/feats/etc. from any class so long as you have any prerequisites once you reach the level that they would be granted

Their all CHILDREN for fuck sake.

I use lolis and shota in my "My First adventure" campaign where the players will play the children of great heroes going to a literal themepark dungeon run by kobolds, goblins, and such with a non-lethal damage enchantment spell. Here the young adventurers will get to wander around and cut their teeth on a taste of their parent's lifestyle ranging from fighting monsters, disarming traps, collecting loot, and so on. but beware the rival adventuring party made up of school bullies.

Classes are fine, levels are bad game design.

>being a freeform shitter
OP is clearly that which was promised, the faggot king.

much easier for me to audit and make sure the little shit isn't cheating, I've got one player whose really bad about that.

>Implying it's anything but the Necromancer
Your taste is as bad as that class.

>tfw you realize duelist's shield is not a shield

I've run plenty of games where the PCs are children going trick or treating in magic costumes or trying to get their dog back from goblins or adventuring for a magical ingredient for the cake they want to bake their mother. But they're never 'loli' or 'shota' because those terms have disgusting sexual desires attached to them that don't belong at my table.

So you're a degenerate pedophile?

That would make a fun cartoon

All of my go

...ddamned money. Take it.

What the fuck quick reply box.

anti loli and shota GM here. Even my games where players are children can be hyper lethal. Had on little girl melt alive from a giant worms acidic saliva. You probably don't want to watch my games in any form.

...

>Implying that there is anything more cute than the shaman

fuck off shill.

Hybrid Class Systems are the greatest.

Take for example Legend of the Five Rings. Nearly all PCs are classed as Bushi (Warriors), Shugenja (Wizard/Priests), Courtiers, Monks, or Ninja. But two characters of the same class can be vastly different. A Crab Bushi will be tough as nails and wield heavy weapons while his Scorpion counterpart will be a swift fighter based on feints and trickery.

Hell, even within the same school you can end up with very different characters that fill different niches. I once played in an all Scorpion game that had four Bayushi bushi that all played significantly differently. BB1 was a more social character and essentially was a Bushi/Courtier. BB2 was bodyguard who focused more on defense with a side of explosive offense. BB3 focused on stealth and poisons making him a Bushi/Ninja. And BB4 specialized on chain weapons and hindering rather than killing his opponents. It made for a very entertaining group where everyone had a role and performed them well.

Well, I'm not really into the loli/shota sex either. here it's more meant to just refer to age category.

Gravity Falls and Miyazaki films make me want to create a strange, wonderful world for children to have adventures in.

Your ideas sound fun too.

Buuuut this is why I pitch the themepark idea. Just to at least start with a place where the heroes don't need to worry about real horrible deaths.

Just being too humiliated by their rivals to continue and going to their parents and going home.

>the duel disk IS a rapier
Oh, shit, she means business.

>fisher's bait

Classes aren't necessarily bad design, they just aren't a favorable trade off to pursuing the design goals you value user-kun

also

S
H
A
M
A
N A M A H S

A

C U T E
U
T
E

"Fischer" looks like a dickhead.
No doubt its the most unbalanced class

Agreed. But my players and I also like the risk of things going to shit in a hand basket and the risk of character death.

the melting happened later in the campaign. They had gotten lost in the desert after escaping from slavers. Shit went south.

because I'm a shit tier game designer?

My experience with people who don't like the class system has taught me that they are stubborn, combative people who are inflexible in what they want to play, independent of what the setting or system is. Classes make it easier to never have to run games for these people.

I don't because I play G.U.R.P.S.

>"classes" are in and of themselves bad game design.
How so?

>levels are bad game design.
How so?

Legitimately wondering how a Bomber class would work, AOE and ranged blaster martial? Basically pathfinder's alchemist class?

I have not yet read any system that presents the same kind of deep dungeon-delving style as D&D while also being classless.
GURPS is too weird and complex and if I was going to fully learn it I would use it for something else entirely than dungeon-crawling.
Runequest is classless, but the combat is very deadly and debilitating and it seems like getting in a knife fight with one orc puts you out of commission even if you win, which isn't something I'm interested in. It's also way too focused on skill percentages.

I don't really mind classes anyway. I don't have the freedom to build whatever I can think of, but it's still fun.

Savage Worlds. Although if you're expecting hitpoints and being able to tank a small army of kobolds with sticks you may be slightly disappointed.

Is it better than Dungeonworld or Strike!?

Depends on what you're going for. Combat is a lot bloodier and swingier and leans more towards Strike!-style tactics, it is obscenely easy to learn (bigger dice better, try to roll over a 4) and weaponry and gear matter a lot more than those games. Dungeon World largely doesn't care what implement you deal your damage dice of pain with, whereas weapons and physical might in Savage Worlds are the difference between pinging two d4s at someone or some nice big d10s.

That sounds sweet. Id play bb3

DW yes, Strike maybe, haven't read that one

this.

Savage Worlds is loads of fun and it's fucking dangerous.

>G.U.R.P.S.

The duelist has one of those Yugioh things on her wrist.
>:(

>fisher class
>a class dedicated to catching fish

Why?

fishing is fucking hard, man

I had a fun GURPS campaign once. It took some effort. I played not-Eddie Valiant and we went through the plot of Gunslinger Girls because only the DM had seen it.

What are you talking about user that's a Fischer class not a Fisher class.
Completely different.
Shaman a cutest

So, like in gurps with templates, classes should be a guidelines rather than something you're stuck with?

>class that can hook the mage, locking him down and reeling him closer every turn
>when he finally nets the fucking caster he grabs it by the gills, poses for a painting, then gets to town gutting the little bitch mage
>stuffs the little witch and mounts it on his wall
>can summon a fucking battleship even on dry land
>has charms and shit to cause typhoons because fishing is more fun that way
>great survival skills
>has pocket sharks
>went toe to toe in the ring with a dire mantis shrimp and lasted forty rounds
>forty days and forty nights ain't nothing.

Bump for interest...

How so?

What do you mean? I am simply asking for the user to explain their position.

Pretty sure it's because that poster put dots in GURPS.

>GURPS is too weird and complex
What?

Not that user, but probably because it's way too digital compared to "it costs this much to increase this stat by one more, if you have enough XP you can increase that stat at any time" type arrangements like in WoD games.

Better for showing a gradual improvement of characters rather than having their XP turn over enough to increase a level and half a dozen, not neccesarily related, things all suddenly improving about a character in one discrete chunk.

The flipside to that is you can often make "CR" equivalent systems that make it easier for GMs to build "balanced" or "challenging" encounters (though at the same time, CR systems almost always fail at the most unexpected times and in the least expected way, if they work at all to begin with, and they often breed complacency and laziness in GMs, who become overly reliant on them and blame players if their "balanced" encounter is too strong/weak for the party)

Agreed. She's the only one wearing pants so is the least lewdly dressed, thus the cutest.

Cannot unsee now

That's not an argument for why it is inherently bad design though. At least not unless you can put forth an argument why it is always preferable to have smaller increments of increases in singular aspects rather than improving generally at regular intervals.

The thing is, levels are ok for adding a buffer against player stupidity.

XP-spending allows for continuous character improvement over time, as well as allowing players to focus said improvements on what needs to be improved. A player who is particularly shit or just not mindful at all of their character build can make extremely bad choices and effectively fall behind the rest of the group, one of the most damning of which is spending too many points in one area and ignoring other key sections of their character build.

Levels provide digestible chunks that give decent improvement across the board. It focuses character improvement and also makes it easier to plan around as builds are far more predictable.

>levels focus character improvement

Meant generalizes

Because I play games with actual player bases.

>user, "classes" are in and of themselves bad game design. Why do you still use them?

>Systems that allow you to create a complex character with many options unique to your PC (compared to other PCs) in only a few minutes are bad systems.

>Bomber is the cutest.

Would you a dancer though?

Pls no bully

Calm down Urobuchi.

I think the Doll Master could give her a run for her money.

Then again I might just have a fetish for girls with dolls.

Kek

Because I don't let some cunt I'll never meet who thinks he knows best tell me what I should and shouldn't do in my personal games.

because sometimes you just want to get the game off the ground and actually play instead of spending 40 days and nights trying to walk a dozen people through needlessly openended character creation.

gotta do something when you run out of baddies to kill

2Lewd4me.

we dont, thats why im publishing an open classless system next month

Overall a no-class system is indeed better but its also harder to learn (for new players) and takes longer to make a character overall, and its unneeded if the party is literally just going to basically play fighter, wizard, cleric & rogue anyways.

So class systems are good for simplifying the game.

Berserker & Paladin for mismatched comedy duo.

I do agree there should be a decent amount of customization, but predefined paths of character ability growth seems pretty useful to me

Depending on what they fight and how graphic, maybe

Just reach in there and grab a big worm user

Wouldn't Chaos Warrior and Paladin be even more mismatched?

I don't, I play Shadowrun, WoD, GURPS, and many other systems that are actually popular that all use a point-buy classless system. Class based systems should have been left behind in the 70's. Now each of those games have other flaws, but that is a topic for another thread.

Classes are not a bad design if multiclassing doesn't exist in the system.
>but muh freedums!
The point of having a class is to provide a use-ready package of character options.
It specifically takes away options so the user doesn't have to choose.
Basically, it's cruise control for cool, when you need to just sit down and play instead of fumbling around with character creation.
>but muh DnD!
DnD is a giant mass of horrible mistakes in game design. Stop adjusting your expectations so that everything fits DnD. Because it doesn't.
A good example of a good class game is Apocalypse World and its hacks.

I personally think that a class based system best used if you intend for the game to be balanced, although there is not clear example of that being put into use. The issue with classless systems is that there are choice which can make or break characters and eventually lead to a power discrepancy between the players.

>Playing naval based campaign
>Constantly fighting with mythical sea monsters ranging from krakens to white whales
>Can snag on to enemy ships and pull them in to rocks
It certainly has its niche. Plus catching and drying fish would reduce the price of supplies.

Is there a class-based system which legitimately avoids significant power discrepancies between players? I will concede that my sum experience with class based systems has been 3.5e, 4e, and 5e, and I don't think that you are lying, I am just genuinely curious.

>Is there a class-based system which legitimately avoids significant power discrepancies between players?
Uh, that's the entire point of MOBA games.
The players have to go out of their way to disrupt the balance so that they can win the match.
Anything competitive (i.e. non-cooperative) will have effort put into adjusting the power balance.

Sorry, I meant in tabletop RPGs.

Wargames and boardgames?
You have to make a distinction, mate.
DnD etc. are by definition cooperative games, so no one goes out of their way to establist perfect intra-party balance, because it's disruptive to the narrative flow upon which cooperative tabletop RPGs pride themselves.

There are a decent amount of RPGs with good intra-party balance, having or not having a class system doesn't preclude anything from that. Wargames (Sometimes) and board games are certainly balanced in the competitive sense, but none of them really have a class system as some RPGs do (See the OP).

>none of them really have a class system as some RPGs do
Units themselves are classes. What's hard to understand about it?
>but they can fulfill different roles on the battlefield!
So do various mages etc.

So chess is a class based system then? Each piece has a different role after all. What about the standard archetypes that pop up in supposedly classless systems then? I guess that definition makes sense depending on how you look at it.

5e is pretty balanced aside from a few corner cases desu

How do people feel about a "delayed" class system? Years ago I ran a homebrew where players would roll up a weak character, and depending on where they went with their stats, it would lead them into a class.
Being classes was only a session or two, and it was a long game. It's a shame that after that campaign I forgot to transfer anything from the computer all the information was on.

...