Thoughts on fixed class equipment vs equip whatever systems?

[levgre]

Fixed Equipment can allow more variety in class/character strategy and theme. However it is unrealistic.

While free to choose equipment allows more choice and strategy theoretically, often the skill systems or class traits limit your characters to 1 or 2 preferable weapons anyways.

A skill system could be generous with skill distribution to facilitate the use of multiple weapon types, though.

 

[deama]

I'd prefer a system where you could equip any armour, but depending on the armour, you would get increases/reductions to attributes. E.g. light armour would decrease endurance and armour, but increase stamina/strength.

 

[Luckmann]

Fixed classes are gay, and subsequently, class-reliant gear is equally gay.

 

[Lurker47]

I'd prefer a system where you could equip any armour, but depending on the armour, you would get increases/reductions to attributes. E.g. light armour would decrease endurance and armour, but increase stamina/strength.

And if it was a lighter version of fixed class equipment, armour less in line with your class would have stronger penalties but still provide some benefit.

 

[frajaq]

Fixed Equipment can allow more variety in class/character strategy and theme. However it is unrealistic.

Can you explain what do you mean by unrealistic? How is this an issue

 

[JarlFrank]

It's retarded when your wizards can't wield swords for no good reason. Hurr durr how do I use this? Just point the pointy end at the enemy and stab, how is your intelligence 18 when you can't even figure that out.

 

[Lurker47]

Fixed Equipment can allow more variety in class/character strategy and theme. However it is unrealistic.

Can you explain what do you mean by unrealistic? How is this an issue

It's retarded when your wizards can't wield swords for no good reason. Hurr durr how do I use this? Just point the pointy end at the enemy and stab, how is your intelligence 18 when you can't even figure that out.

Everyone should be able to use just about everything. Just not very effectively.

 

[JarlFrank]

What I do like in D&D is how heavy metal armor is going to interfere with your wizard abilities. In Baldur's Gate playing a fighter-mage dual or multi class lets you equip heavy armors but wearing them gives you a spell failure chance.

That's good.

Just plain not being able to wear the armor at all because for some reason you never learned how to put clothes on or something is not good.

 

[Grampy_Bone]

I like systems that are open and modular enough to allow anyone to use anything with the proper stats/skills/feats. If a game is going to restrict item usage based on class, it should be a class feature that could potentially be available to other classes, instead of a purely arbitrary restriction.

An example would be in 2E D&D, wizards can't use swords, period. In 3E D&D, wizards don't start with the sword proficiency, but they can still take it if they want to via feats. That's better.

 

[*-*/\--/\~]

Arbitrary restrictions based solely on class are stupid. Such things can be handled in much more subtle and elegant way by a set of bonuses, penalties and reasonable physical requirements - want your wizard in full plate? Sure, go ahead... but don't expect much success at spellcasting, not to mention you will probably drown on the first body of water you fall into. Not being able to use a longbow because my str 8 halfling is just too weak and small is much more acceptable than "This item requires level 13.".

 

[YES!]

Fixed Equipment can allow more variety in class/character strategy and theme. However it is unrealistic.

While free to choose equipment allows more choice and strategy theoretically, often the skill systems or class traits limit your characters to 1 or 2 preferable weapons anyways.

A skill system could be generous with skill distribution to facilitate the use of multiple weapon types, though.

This is the one of the worst reasoned explanations I've ever seen. I'd love to have you list some examples of games backing up your assertions.

 

[gestalt11]

Its incredibly stupid. It can serve a systematic purpose, but its so stupid that its hard to bear. You can use this 2 foot long blade but NOT this 3 foot long blade, because reasons. You are an expert in marital weapons but you can't use this dagger that everyone in a medieval setting would be carrying around and using for everyday tasks.

It just gets really dumb, its like trying to tolerate that professional wrestling is real.

 

[levgre]

Fixed Equipment can allow more variety in class/character strategy and theme. However it is unrealistic.

While free to choose equipment allows more choice and strategy theoretically, often the skill systems or class traits limit your characters to 1 or 2 preferable weapons anyways.

A skill system could be generous with skill distribution to facilitate the use of multiple weapon types, though.

This is the one of the worst reasoned explanations I've ever seen. I'd love to have you list some examples of games backing up your assertions.

It's pretty obvious, but I'll explain it some.

If only certain classes/characters use long reach weapons like spears or bows, and only certain ones use heavy armor, then those classes fill more distinct roles. They won't let you just have a bunch of heavily armored bowmen or spearmen, instead forcing you to have front line tanks.

It's not only RPG games that do this. Fighters/beat em ups, actions games, shooters, etc., they very often restrict characters to single or narrow weapon/armor type. MOBAs also do, even if you can carry a sword accessory when you really only attack with a bow or gun.

I can dredge up examples of where fixed equipment is done well later if you want, but there's literally hundreds of mainstream RPGs that limit equipment types to create more variety between classes.

Fixed Equipment can allow more variety in class/character strategy and theme. However it is unrealistic.

Can you explain what do you mean by unrealistic? How is this an issue

As others mentioned ITT, it's unrealistic when a wizard is completely unable to use a sword, or even more blatantly, a knight is only able to use a 2 hand sword and not shields/hammers/axes etc.

 

[PulsatingBrain]

Someone with a strength of 1 should not be able to swing a huge warhammer. Beyond super simple thinjgs like this I much preferto be able to essentially equip my character however I like

 

[Mastermind]

What I do like in D&D is how heavy metal armor is going to interfere with your wizard abilities. In Baldur's Gate playing a fighter-mage dual or multi class lets you equip heavy armors but wearing them gives you a spell failure chance.

That's good.

Just plain not being able to wear the armor at all because for some reason you never learned how to put clothes on or something is not good.

wizards not being able to wear heavy armor and coming up with a contrived lore reason to do so is retarded. i don't mind class restrictions as long as they don't insult my intelligence (and "mages can't make gestures properly in heavy armor" insults my intelligence). Just make heavy armor focus entirely on physical attributes that make sense (IE: improved defenses, maybe add some momentum to melee attacks) and have mage robes that provide enchantments which improve spellcasting. then the wizard has a good tactical choice that isn't an arbitrary restriction.

In one setting I designed wizards tend to wear robes because there is more space for them to cram enchantments on (although the more enchantments a robe has the more willpower you need to handle them, so there is still a maximum limit). You can still put enchantments on heavy armor (albeit fewer and/or less potent ones) and are not otherwise penalized for wearing it while spellcasting specifically, though it does slow down your general movement.

 

[J1M]

I prefer interesting choices, not superfluous ones. Equipment restrictions are just part of the equation.

 

[YES!]

It's pretty obvious, but I'll explain it some.

If only certain classes/characters use long reach weapons like spears or bows, and only certain ones use heavy armor, then those classes fill more distinct roles. They won't let you just have a bunch of heavily armored bowmen or spearmen, instead forcing you to have front line tanks.

It's not only RPG games that do this. Fighters/beat em ups, actions games, shooters, etc., they very often restrict characters to single or narrow weapon/armor type. MOBAs also do, even if you can carry a sword accessory when you really only attack with a bow or gun.

I can dredge up examples of where fixed equipment is done well later if you want, but there's literally hundreds of mainstream RPGs that limit equipment types to create more variety between classes.

If most of your explanation regards other genres you posted in the wrong forum. There is a large reason why 2nd edition to 3e expanded versatility and removed artificial nonsense, or placed it behind bottlenecks. The same goes for any system improving upon itself for adults and their hobbies. The older thinking beings get, the more stock they place in function over form. While those unable to mature into thinking beings, who still see an apple for a simple piece of fruit, or view what was dear to them in childhood in the same simple light, will choke on their crises of life with more meaningless nothing appealing to the eye and those of simple mind only.

Fixed equipment has never been done well and will never be done well. This is fact that becomes more apparent the more into systems you delve. It is 100% analogous to fixed class attributes where int does for mages what strength does for warriors. It is the a far more stripped down illusion removing that of choice instead of adding to and compounding it. It is the epitome of console streamlined bullshit for retards and children. Any rpg that takes this method as a core principle isn't.

And this isn't saying that there aren't exceptions, as there are always exceptions. Such as a decent class system adding a specialized weapon class such as psiblade. Also, though I do not think rpgs should aim for complete realism, the fact remains there is no soldier throughout history that was only trained in one weapon or weapon system type. But this is getting off focus.

There are a million ways to approach rpg systems, and restrictions certainly have their place in serving complexity. But complete and across the board restrictions means the complete and across the board removal of complexity. That is something for consoles and the kids and retards that prefer them.

I'd be very interested to hear what you believe to be good rpg systems that used heavy or total restrictions.

 

[adrix89]

If a game has classes it is a game that embraces restrictions. Otherwise you get jack of al trades super mini-max.
A soldier is given the advantage of defense thus the heavy armor. It's as simple as that.
This advantage and disadvantage sum up to give rise to tactics.

 

[YES!]

If a game has classes it is a game that embraces restrictions. Otherwise you get jack of al trades super mini-max.
A soldier is given the advantage of defense thus the heavy armor. It's as simple as that.
This advantage and disadvantage sum up to give rise to tactics.

There is a huge difference between heavy or full restrictions and a complex system utilizing specific restrictions. D&D is the most popular class system. There is no class in 3e or higher editions of D&D that can't heavy armor. There is no class than can't use any weapon. Some do it better and some do it worse, or decide to not do it at all. Choice. Decisions. Planning.

In an actual good system a soldier can decide on multiple different armor types with various restrictions and benefits. Or possible future benefits. Or benefits and restrictions coupled.

You build a soldier to be defensive. You seem to like systems where I have to too. I think they are retarded and for retarded people and lack any complexity. Why should soldiers be defensive? I want an offensive soldier - maybe a paper tiger.

All the fun in character development is having a strategy that is eventually realized. Strategy is the big and long term picture. Your preferred system does not have any. Every game has tactics, whether they are simple as hold A for a strong attack or tap it for a weak attack, or as advanced as can be realized in DOS 2.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

What I do like in D&D is how heavy metal armor is going to interfere with your wizard abilities. In Baldur's Gate playing a fighter-mage dual or multi class lets you equip heavy armors but wearing them gives you a spell failure chance.

That's good.

Just plain not being able to wear the armor at all because for some reason you never learned how to put clothes on or something is not good.

I always thought "muh warrior mage" was traditionally an archetypal symbol of decline...

Because of:

If a game has classes it is a game that embraces restrictions. Otherwise you get jack of al trades super mini-max.
A soldier is given the advantage of defense thus the heavy armor. It's as simple as that.
This advantage and disadvantage sum up to give rise to tactics.

Which is why most single character cRPG tend to end up on the mockery side of prestigiousness.

Though to the topic, no, there's no need for restrictions, but I'd rather have restrictions than have a game imply I can wear anything and then, later in the game, gate me off of it from strength value or some other similar aspect. The concept of checks and balances works ok, such as a wizard having robes provide more benefits than wearing metal armor, but however you balance it, unless the metal armour is in some way extremely punitive then people will just forever go with warrior mages, cos... why the fuck wouldn't you... If the metal armor is extremely punitive then no-one would choose it anyway, so what's the difference.

 

[Lurker47]

Though to the topic, no, there's no need for restrictions, but I'd rather have restrictions than have a game imply I can wear anything and then, later in the game, gate me off of it from strength value or some other similar aspect. The concept of checks and balances works ok, such as a wizard having robes provide more benefits than wearing metal armor, but however you balance it, unless the metal armour is in some way extremely punitive then people will just forever go with warrior mages, cos... why the fuck wouldn't you... If the metal armor is extremely punitive then no-one would choose it anyway, so what's the difference.

Well, that's just a problem with balancing in general. Off Classing shouldn't really be specific penalties like "more chance to fail a spell" (since that's extremely detrimental to the core class that you're playing), just a divergence in playstyles through indirect means. A gimped warrior mixed with a gimped wizard is not fun to play. Slowing a mage in armour is more ideal since warriors tend to have certain perks that minimize this kind of effect and a mage's speed isn't a vital aspect of them but that's still not a balance that'd I rely upon.

Here is my ideal example of how to do it: a warrior/mage mix would have a good portion of essential skills from the mage, a good portion of essential skills from the warrior, and then a mix of whatever from as far down possible that'd help support each other alongside some new skills. A mage could still frost bolt or whatever but they aren't going to play like a mage because their toolkit encourages a different type of play. A mage would have to choose to level into a hybrid early on in order to wear heavy armour.

Really, looking at offclassing as just "a wizard in heavy armour" is boring and trying to balance that kind of thing is frustrating. It should be based around your levelling first, not your gear choices; if you've gained the ability to wear heavy armour as a wizard (or, at least effectively), you should be forced into a light subclass. Anything else would be OP or tedious.

I'm not 100% sure on this system, I just think I'd prefer it to more vanilla "you're tankier but suck more at your job" kind of balancing. Actually divergent playstyles seem a lot more preferable to statistical fuckery.

 

[Zed]

I think class-only unique items are cool. Paladin-only übersword, etc.

 

[Bohrain]

Fixed equipment tends to have the issue that ingame reasoning for restrictions insult the player's intelligence to the point disrupting the suspension of disbelief.
Stats tied to class and reasonable amount of difficulty is usually enough to incentivize certain choices in order to enforce class themes. I'm more inclined to the latter, though single character games tend to have the issue that a single way to approach the enemy tends to be the most viable, which leads to one armor type dominating others.

A more valid complaint would be the system not allowing much playstyle variety because of how the gear system works. And that itself could be further pursued to the question whether you are looking for maximizing the amount of ways to viably a single class, or making as many party compositions viable as possible.

 

[Jokzore]

Class-locked equipment only really makes sense in a multiplayer game. Its the only thing that prevented my romanian nasal-infected guild master from nicking all the shiny whenever a boss bit the dust.

 

[Iznaliu]

I think class-only unique items are cool. Paladin-only übersword, etc.

I think it's better if there are disadvantages for not being the right class rather than having an outright ban.