Do prefer games with or without classes?

>In a classless system, everyone will generally be around the same relative strength level regardless of how they spend their resources. Also, because each PC is around the same relative power level
user, that is demonstratively false in a number of classless games because at that point, power is determined by what options you choose, and if Option A is stronger than Option B/C/D, the powergamer is going for Option A.

>In a classless system, everyone will generally be around the same relative strength level regardless of how they spend their resources.

This has not been true in any classless system I've played, be it SR, WoD, M&M, SW or even FATE.

Even if we accepted that it is theoretically true, in practice it turns out that designing a balanced class based game is easier than designing a balanced class-less game.

Classless any day

At the same time, even if option A is stronger than option B/C/D, there's nothing someone from utilizing options B/C/D in a way that manages to defeat option A anyways.
>Even if we accepted that it is theoretically true, in practice it turns out that designing a balanced class based game is easier than designing a balanced class-less game.
That's why you don't try to make classless systems balanced, you focus on giving players a bunch of options that are powerful and interesting to use so that once everyone is overpowered, the game balances itself out anyways.

I mean, an option being broken becomes much less broken if everyone has access to it.

Without, at most having careers that can be easily mixed with other specializations, like FFG Star Wars

>I mean, an option being broken becomes much less broken if everyone has access to it.
You mean everyone playing with the same over powered build? That's not what I'd call balance, user.

>I mean, an option being broken becomes much less broken if everyone has access to it.

Everyone can take the broken class with the broken option as well.

Sorry, your arguments are just retarded. There's benefits to classless systems, but inherently being more balanced is not one of them.

Now you're just confusing. You complain about power gamers choosing the same option and now you're complaining that everyone has the ability to choose the same option?
>Everyone can take the broken class with the broken option as well.
Choosing an option that can be splashed into your overall character concept is not the same as being forced to take on X levels of a class just to gain access to the one ability that you actually want.

Just because every clan decides to take dots in Celerity and Protean doesn't mean that a Brujah is going to function the same as a Gangrel.

I've only ever played class-based systems but lately I've been growing more and more annoyed with them due to playing 5E. And the thing is, 5E tries to be flexible about classes by including various archetypes per class, but it only makes the limitations more palpable, all the more the more new archetypes they add. They overlap more and more but never actually touch. Why is it that as a Rogue I can't multiclass into an Arcane Trickster starting from 3rd level, but I can multiclass into Wizard? Why is it that there are two classes with a "Scout" archetype to represent ranged ambushers, but they both have a completely different skillset? Why is it that if I think a certain class feature would fit my character, I have to take the entire class with it?

Mechanically it's all fine, provided the classes are balanced, but from a roleplaying point of view it feels annoyingly restrictive.

>Just because every clan decides to take dots in Celerity and Protean doesn't mean that a Brujah is going to function the same as a Gangrel.

And just because everyone is a "class with feature X", doesn't mean everyone will have the same stats/feat/spells/traits/flaws either.

Alternatively, yes, if you put the same dots in everything, mechanically you'll be the damn same aside from one of you being angry and the other a furry.

>And just because everyone is a "class with feature X", doesn't mean everyone will have the same stats/feat/spells/traits/flaws either.
Which can easily be applied to classless systems.
>Alternatively, yes, if you put the same dots in everything, mechanically you'll be the damn same aside from one of you being angry and the other a furry.
Which can easily be applied to class systems.

Yes! That's the point! That a broken options availability doesn't excuse the option being broken!

I like what Dark Heresy 2e has. Your character is a sum of a birthplace, background and specialization. You can still get most of the skills and talents no matter what, but some are just more expensive for you

Part of the reason why magic is so broken in D&D is because of how much emphasis the game puts on it and how the Wizard has access to the most spells that each can perform the widest array of abilities at no extra cost.

If everyone had access to magic, it wouldn't be nearly as broken as it actually is since everyone would be allowed to interact with it the same way.

>If everyone had access to magic, it wouldn't be nearly as broken as it actually is since everyone would be allowed to interact with it the same way.

It'd be _almost_ as broken, because useless trap spells, feats, races, etc. all exist and the rest of the game is still not made with everyone playing godwizards in mind. You just removed some bad options. It's like saying Legacy MtG is more balanced if you ban all the decks that don't win on turn 1.

>It'd be _almost_ as broken, because useless trap spells, feats, races, etc. all exist and the rest of the game is still not made with everyone playing godwizards in mind.
Yet the game also assumes that you have at least one full caster in the party, go figure.

I like playing classless games but if I'm GM or homebrewing I go for class with no multiclassing every time. The clarity of purpose and relative ease of balancing is just too attractive if my job is complicated.

I enjoy classless systems. Both playing and building. Players have more degrees of freedom to play how they want. Some tend to fall into clear archetypes but always with a twist.
Classes systems are good (I play 5ed regularly), but seem to make the game very mechanical (also tend to be combat focused).

Without.

i actually like constrained character roles as they reinforce team play.

From a fluff point of view i prefer classes with STRONG themes over no classes.

>It'd be _almost_ as broken, because useless trap spells, feats, races, etc. all exist and the rest of the game is still not made with everyone playing godwizards in mind.
Are you joking? The game stonewalls you hard if you try going into a campaign without a dedicated caster on board. If anything, the game wasn't made with everyone playing martials in mind.

>I especially hate the whole "Ranger kills a goblin deep in a cave, gets just enough XP for a new level and suddenly becomes a Warlock with an infernal patron" thing that often comes with it.
>often
You do realize that that's only a 3.PF/5e thing?

Classless because I prefer rare/weird character archetypes and class-based systems usually only get one or two of those unless they have countless of extra content like DnD. Spellblades, Punchizards, that stuff.
Also I dislike magically being unable to ever use X mechanic because it's the wrong class. I don't expect being able to do everything, but if my winning-at-all-cost rogue wants to try magic for some edgecase or just to see if he likes it, don't tell this selfish asshole somehow doesn't dare cross this unseen boundary.

You do realize that most games running atm are 3.PF/5e right? You do realize that most class based games borrow heavily from D&D right?

Classless, but with pre-built archetypes to allow for a jumping off point for players to tweak and customize. Class-based systems force players to go for stronger archetyping and cohesion, but classless allows you to go in with a strong idea and actually see it through without having to wait for builds to "come online". It also works far better in my headspace.
Classes in OSR games are alright though.

>You do realize that most games running atm are 3.PF/5e right?
So? What does that have to do with anything?

>You do realize that most class based games borrow heavily from D&D right?
But not from 3.PF/5e and about 95% of them don't have the problem you mentioned.

this. a la carte character progression is best.

I play mostly in classless or pseudo-classless systems, since my group will play anything under the sun that isn't vanilla D&D. While it is handy to have everyone be (for the most part) a jack of all trades with a couple fields of specialization, I find that systems with classes can do a better job of making everyone's character feel unique when done right. I'd really like to return to basic D&D one day to play around with it more.

What if the ranger actually finds a demon to make a pact in that cave?, Im not even trying to defend D&D but you just gave the example that is the easiest to justify

From a purely mechanical perspective, class-based systems are just a segregation scheme, and segregation massively changes how the designer can tune the power levels of different options. In a system with no segregation scheme, there is no mechanical reason for a player to not just pick all the best options. You can try to make everything have a cost appropriate for its power, but just being able to easily mix and match everything warps the value of different options.

I realize that RPGs are not competitive games, but we can learn a lot from competitive games about how they create incentives based on the power and thematic appeal of different options. They are essentially a demonstration of one end of an extreme. Ultimately, if you don't separate the options, it ends up shitting on the players that build for theme. A minmax build an just look over the build of a character that's built for theme and poach their best aspects. Of course, you can decide that everybody is expected to build for theme and to require that players do not powergame by fiat, but character building is part of the challenge of the game for some players. A lot of people go into a game wanting to build a character that can do something very well.

The important thing is that you have enough segregation to make the options interesting. This doesn't have to be a result of classes, you could have a five-stat system and restrict options based on where a player committed stats for example.

Classless.

Classes are great as a sort of prepackaged character so you can try out new roles you haven't played before. Class-based systems have always been so rigid though, you have to mold your character completely from their mechanics or try to fit your square character peg into their round hole. Over time, there's also so much more fluff and mtg card ability descriptions that come along with deciding on a class.

Newer systems also have much better support for adding a mechanical effect onto an original character trait rather than the other way around.

I prefer without, but that's mostly because I want more versatility in building my characters and not just segregating them into pigeon holed roles.

>Ultimately, if you don't separate the options, it ends up shitting on the players that build for theme.
How so?

I like my games like Karl Marx and your mum. Totally clasless.

>Ultimately, if you don't separate the options, it ends up shitting on the players that build for theme. A minmax build an just look over the build of a character that's built for theme and poach their best aspects.

>But not from 3.PF/5e
Most borrow from 3rd/3.5 which has the same problem.

>and about 95% of them don't have the problem you mentioned.
Name a few that don't.

Wow, you explained nothing twice, don't you feel smart?

Classless unless you are doing crazy stuff like 4e. That game is fuuuun.

It depends.
I prefer game without classes, but careers (where you can go into any career anytime you want and there is no level) or race/clan/species that defines the character and are very flavorful (like VtM) are fine.

Fuck, with all the memeing going around I don't even know if this post is genuine or if it's a bait

It assumes one wizard who also spends some slots on blasting.

I've been running 4e as my primary game for years now. I use it because I do not believe that having good combat detracts from any of the puzzle, roleplaying, or creativity aspects, and 4e is the only system I've played that has good combat mechanics.

The memes are pretty much exclusively a result of bad marketing from wotc and shilling for pathfinder. It's corporate faggotry disguised as culture.

So it assumes everyone is trash.

it's a great game for a primarily combat based campaign, and sure, it's a lot of fun to play. my own complaints with it more boil down to the fact that I believe that PCs and their enemies, whether monsters or NPCs, should use the same rules. if you're DMing a campaign about a necromancer with a big undead horde, the players should be able to, somewhere down the line if they wish, raise a bunch of undead using the same rules. 4e and 5e focus far too much on "balance" and more often than not they fail on that front anyway and not enough on providing rules that actually work both ways. How do the players raise a big undead army in 2e, AD&D, 3.0, or 3.5? cast animate dead etc, same as the BBEG. how do they do it in 4e? can't lol, ur tha gud guis. how do they do it in 4e? cast animate dead, on the same corpse, every single day, to keep it from reverting, because the BBEG certainly has a small army of necromancers each maintaining 4 to 7 zombies each and doing absolutely nothing else with their spells.

The options that fit the theme you have in mind won't always be the best options. Powergamers will pick the good options that fit your theme, and the good options that fit other themes, and will therefore be better than you.

(continued)
Two more points I wanted to add.

#1: 4e was really designed for the digital age, and a lot of people really didn't like that because the system assumes you will use a printer for a lot of things in order to make the gameplay faster.

#2: part of the marketing problem in 4e was a tone-deaf presentation. It doesn't play like WoW in any way, but it borrowed enough from its presentation to alienate the playerbase.

Basically it's the A&W third-pound burger. A superior product destroyed by bad marketing and not connecting with the customer.

With classes. I play with a bunch of casuals pretty often, and without the guidance of a class, they tend to have a completely awful time forming a cohesive idea for a character. It almost always results in them just self-inserting, and that has its own host of issues.

2nd 4e bit was 5e, i'm just an idiot who can't fingers my typing board

>Ideally.
Without.
>Realistically, considering my players.
With.

You explained yourself three times and yet have somehow managed to miss the point every step of the way. I'm asking you to give me EXAMPLES of such an event occurring so I know what exactly you're talking about.

Because the way you described it, it seemed as though the power gamer is just taking random abilities from his party members without either spreading himself too thin or ending up with a frankenstein's monster of a character that any decent GM would audit almost immediately.

So please, in your next post, please give me an example of how this sort of thing can occur to the detriment of the game, because it sounds like bullshit to me.

Why the fuck would you have the same access to spells as the necromancer lord?

He's a goddamn necromancer lord, a lich, and if the DM is feeling vindicative, possibly also a dragon or a lesser devil or something.

Imagine for a moment that you DIDN'T play all the other D&D's... how the fuck does it make sense that your character who is NOT a thousand year old undead-necromancer-also-possibly-dragon-or-maybe-a-demon-I-don't-know has the same option for spells?

Classes are a good tool for beginning roleplayers and for balancing the more gaming oriented systems. Otherwise i prefer optional templates.

What boom has rules for raising an undead army?

What if this is is not an instance of npcs using different rules and instead we interpret the rules as implying that an undead army is usually impractical? In this interpretation, the villain isn't as much using different rules, but rather doing some thing that usually isn't possible.

Pardon my phoneposting I'm dictating the post while driving to my tabletop job. I meant to ask for the book that has an undead army spell.

I am not saying that any given character should possess the skills and power of any given BBEG.
I am saying that any given character should be able to aspire to attaining such a thing, and should be able to either a) point to the rules he needs to use to attain it should the character live long enough or b) be able to research the necessary spells.
>Why the fuck would you have the same access to spells as the necromancer lord?
let's take one particular necromancer lord for example. Szass Tam, who has built himself a giant undead army. How has he done this? if we look into Unapproachable East, we see that there is a spell called Dread Warrior, all the rules for it, and the caveat that it is believed to exist only within the spellbooks of high ranking red wizards of necromancy. it is further hinted at that Szass Tam is using Spellstiched awakened undead to cast it without having to pay massive xp penalties. That right there is good world building, when your enemies understand the rules of the game in much the same fashion that we understand the laws of physics. compare to 4e or 5e, where it is simply a matter of dm fiat at all times. why does the necromancer lord have a big army and crazy HQ bonuses? uhh, because he's an Elite Controller and I refluffed the advised abilities for him/because he's a necromancer lol of course he's got undead?

>how the fuck does it make sense that your character who is NOT a thousand year old undead-necromancer-also-possibly-dragon-or-maybe-a-demon-I-don't-know has the same option for spells?
see my initial explanation above. It's not about giving every character the same shit as every enemy, it's about a rules system which is both coherent and internally consistent. If your players have the goal of becoming a necromancer lord, it should be mechanically feasible that they succeed without the DM having to completely rebuild the rules.

Without.

It's genuine. 4e is some of the purest fun I've had in an RPG.

Not really. Without them being attached to classes, each ability can be weight against others independently.

I agree with the idea of same rules, but feel that in practice it falls apart in terms of design.

For example:

If I was making a fantasy system, I would want there to be room for evil necromancers to summon an undead army. However, I don't want to actually design all the magic required to do such a thing and have it be technically available to the players. Instead, I'd just put in a McGuffin that allows for undead creation and tie some evil shit to it.

I loved the low to epic campaign I played in. The only problem for us was the one busy player with family, who was clearly overwhelmed by all the conditions and powers and options and needed to constantly refer to other what he should do in combat. But otherwise it was very nice.

>4e is the only system I've played that has good combat mechanics.
4e had terrible combat mechanics.

To be fair, by D&D standards, 4e was actually pretty decent at what it did.

providing that manner of rules reciprocity is what created the rules bloat that people shit on 3.5 for unintended stacking, poorly proofread or completely untested rules(have a look at how many of those were published by Paizo) etc It's both a very good thing in that it creates a system that can be used for an incredibly broad range of scenarios and campaigns, but yes, it does fall apart under its own weight in terms of game design. I'm willing to sift through it and do a bit of reconstruction, which is why I love 3.5 and why after 3 years of running Dark Heresy, rogue trader etc, my players practically begged for a return to 3.5.

I could see that. But it's a pretty low bar.

Guess we disagree?

Fwiw, the other systems I've played enough to form an opinion of are exalted, rifts, 3e, fate variants, and 5e.

I guess I give 5e a pass for it's simplicity. Bounded accuracy is a nice idea too.

Classless is best, it normally encourages you to make a character instead of a combat stat block.

It's just smoke and mirrors. Yes, the options actually have rules for them, but actually giving them to players would break the campaign anyway. All they are good for is being able to stroke yourself over how good the world building is because they attach some meaningless numbers to a McGuffin.

First, I'm not the same user as the first two times.

Let's say you're playing Shadowrun. You want your Street Sam to be more than a murderhobo, so you put points in driving skills, which means you have less points to use in combat skills, and spend some money on a decent apartment, so you have less money to spend on cyberware. A powergamer doesn't care if his character is just a murderhobo, so he can use all of his points in combat skills, and all his money on cyberware. The other user is implying that class systems force abilities on you that are less effective, but more flavorful.

>but actually giving them to players would break the campaign
>inserting players into a campaign rather than building a campaign around your players and their plans and actions
If your players tell you that their character's goals revolve around becoming powerful necromancers, that IS the campaign.

>exalted, rifts, 3e, fate variants, and 5e.
Never played Rifts, but out of those you might very well be right.

They don't even have to be less effective, the point is just that they come in packages that can have unique limitations

Like... from what I remember, the most minmaxed cyberpunk adept build actually uses cyberlimbs/vat grown muscles instead of using the much more expensive passive strength enhancing abilities because they have them just as available as the street sam, effectively becoming street sam+ in the process (this despite the system actually trying to limit this interaction in some manner).

If it was an actual class based system where maybe you'd have to spend a feat on stronger 'ware UNLESS you are a street sam whose speciality is getting all 'wared up, you'd not have these interactions and you could even design much stronger and even more flavorful stuff available for both sammies and adepts, without having to fuck around with the whole essence thing.

For the record, if interested, I think The Sprawl does class based cyberpunk really, really well for one.

I'm interested what your choice of superior combat mechanics is.

I can guarantee people will shit on it, but I can also promise you that I won't because I'm going to sleep.

I like stimulationist combat. And for that nothing is better than Hero System.

>stimulationist combat
Are you sure you didn't mean Heroin?
Because there are more accurate simulation systems out there than Hero.

Okay. I'd be more than happy to take a look.

Considering the Shadowrun is a game where combat is only like 1/3 of the shit that you'll actually be dealing with, I don't see how the dude spending his resources on being a murderhobo automatically makes him superior to the dude who actually bothered not playing to stereotypes.

I mean, having a dedicated getaway driver who can defend himself is useful, so is having an apartment where the group could potentially lay low between missions before they actually get their hands on a more secured location.

Not to say that being a combat beast doesn't have its perks but being a combat beast will only carry you so far without a group to offset the fact that magic can/will fuck you up, technomancers and the like will fuck you up, and a well placed shot to the gut will generally kill most things if your armor isn't good enough to soak all the damage.

>class based cyberpunk
why

Because they have no idea what the themes of cyberpunk are.

>implying class differences aren't intrinsic to X-Punk games

If more people understood what the "punk" meant in cyberpunk then that pun would be funny.

Going the 3.PF way of locking special abilities behind feats is by far the shittiest design choice you could possibly use when designing a game. It's just making a classless system that's pretending to be a class based system while carrying the flaws of both with none of the perks.

Without

>You play the same archetype that everybody else plays, possibly with the same race and character
>You get to customize your character however you want with the possibility of using archetypes
You tell me user, which one sounds best?

I could honestly see classes split via "suit" and "punk".

This. Classless systems give you the option of playing a "class".

Nah, being a suit is being evil. Punks are where you get the breadth of characters.

I think "Suits" would just be NPC classes.
Maybe some punk abilities that let you copy/pretend to have suit abilities.
>Take a will test to successfully pretend to not have a soul.

Or just remove classes entirely and construct NPCs based on stats and skills that would make sense for the character you are making.

I mean sure, if you want a classless cyberpunk setting.
But the point of the thought experiment is shoehorning in things that don't belong.

not all suits are evil. the President of the company i work for occasionally visits various stores without telling anyone, no young corporate suckups at his elbow telling him how intelligent he is, just him in a pair of jeans checking up on how everything is running.
>tfw he visits during one of our worst weeks, due to employee illness and seasonal rush
>tfw the fact that he's friendly just makes him more intimidating
>tfw his hand is more calloused than mine
>tfw now i idolize the suit at the top of the pyramid

The thought experiment runs against core themes of the style. That's a lame thought experiment.