RPGs where initial class has no significant impact?

[Zeus]

When someone dropped a roofie in my coffee and I wrote a ten-page rant about Red Dead Redemption, Clockwork Knight said something that got me thinking about character classes in general:

Yeah, but these aren't real classes, just extra outfits with a broken skill attached to them.

For those who missed it, the Expert Hunter outfit gives the character a 2X bonus on the amount of skins and hides from hunting. It's not much, to be sure, but it's a lasting effect throughout the game.

Contrast that with:

RPGs where your starting class determines only your starting weapon and a few bonus points in a given set of skills. After that, there's no multiplier to, say, learning magic over melee. It only takes a couple of levels worth of skill points to make your character more of a warrior than a wizard, and after that, there's no penalty for having originally decided to be a wizard.

Then there are games where class really, really matters. This is true of old (pre-3rd edition) D&D games, where Clerics simply could not use edged weapons, and there was no way in hell you were going to convince a wizard of donning chainmail.

Games like Oblivion seem to be somewhere around the middl. For the sake of argument, ignore the custom class feature. Let's say you start out as a Battle Mage. While it's possible to decide early on you'd rather be a Cat Burgler, and all you have to do is practice the skills necessary for a life of crime, there'll always be a bonus on warrior and wizard skills, and the prime requisites of a Cat Burgler will always advance at 1/2 the speed of the Battle Mage's prime attributes.

Can you guys think of any other RPGs where your starting class Determines only a slight initial bonus, and after that you're free to change your class without any penalty or lost multipliers?

 

[Droog White Smile]

Re: RPGs where initial class doesn't have a significant impa

Can you guys think of any other RPGs where your starting class Determines only a slight initial bonus, and after that you're free to change your class without any penalty or lost multipliers?

The Divinity games.

 

[Fezzik]

Dungeon Crawl: Stone Soup doesn't make gameplay too dependent on which class you choose. The major gameplay differences are from choices of race and religion.

This system works pretty well. It lets the player customize his character as he sees fit while also giving choices along the way which can significantly change gameplay (like different religions). If a game doesn't have any major branches in character development like that, then there is a danger of the character development becoming boring or grindy. So unless the character system is done particularly well with many ways to change the gameplay arc along the way, it might be good to have your choice of class have a big effect on gameplay.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Demons' Souls only distributes your starting stats and gives you some equipment and maybe a spell based on your chosen class.

Well, that's more of an action game though.

I guess the fallout games. Tagging a skill really only determines what you'll max out the soonest, and even then only if you choose to as you level up. Though your base stats are pretty much set in stone after creation, so your ugly boxer is never going to have certain options dialogue wise, and your diplomat will always have the tensile strength of play-dough.

 

[SkeleTony]

In Natuk & POWS your character class determines from which starting skills you can dump a good amount of points into and also how easy/hard it is to raise all other skills, but otherwise you are able to raise any skill if you really want to. A half-troll warrior CAN raise his magic skill but he will be dumping twice as many points into doing so(at least), compared to just raising his weapon/bullying/repair type skills for example.

Might and Magic 6-9 allows most classes to learn most skills but certain skill ranks(i.e. basic, expert, master and Grandmaster) can only be learned by certain classes. Other than that you can raise any skill as far as you want(i.e. an archer could raise his "Bow" skill up to 23 AND achieve "Grandmaster" level with the bow while a Ranger could also raise his bow skill to 23 but only achieve "Mastery" with the Bow).

 

[mondblut]

Thunderscape. The "classes" are only examples of starting skill distribution.

And a shitload of completely classless games, of course, from Fallout to Avernum.

 

[spectre]

Might and Magic 6-9

That's just a bad example. Having all knights party is totally different than an all Druid or all Sorcerer party.

 

[deuxhero]

System Shock 2 only has a high cost for obtaining the first level of an ability. Other than that, the classes all cost the same to get stuff.

 

[Murk]

Re: RPGs where initial class doesn't have a significant impa

Can you guys think of any other RPGs where your starting class Determines only a slight initial bonus, and after that you're free to change your class without any penalty or lost multipliers?

The Divinity games.

In Divinity 1 your class determined your health, mana, attack rating, amount of damage done, and I think armor based on the formula of Attribute times Multiplier - where the multiplier is dependent entirely on your class.

For instance, for every point of intelligence put in a mage would get 6 mana where-as a warrior would get 3.

donno how it is for Divinity 2... but other than attributes - actual skills are indeed entirely independent of class based progression other than the 'special ability' each class has.

Diablo 1, I believe, was entirely based on how you allocate your stats and only your starting stats were different. Though I'm not sure if health/mana had different growth rates based on class as they did in Divinity 1.

 

[Jim Cojones]

Re: RPGs where initial class doesn't have a significant impa

In Diablo your class determines: hp/mana gained per level/attribute, attack speed with different weapons, casting speed and maximum level of attributes. The last one is quite harsh, e.g. sorcerer have max of 45 strength while warrior starts with 30 at 1st level and can have 250 eventually.

 

[Murk]

^ Guess it pretty much was the same as DD1 then.

I want to say Bloodlines has a system where class doesn't matter but in its case 'clan' takes the place of 'class', really, and clan definitely matters as it decides what 3 disciplines you'll have.

It would be somewhat silly to have a class-less RPG that features class at all in it...

 

[DraQ]

Re: RPGs where initial class doesn't have a significant impa

Diablo 1, I believe, was entirely based on how you allocate your stats and only your starting stats were different. Though I'm not sure if health/mana had different growth rates based on class as they did in Divinity 1.

You're completely wrong.

The classes in Diablo 1 had vastly different attack speeds with various weapons, casting rates, formulas for calculating health, mana, AC, weapon damages, etc., as well as starting and max values of attributes. Sure it was often beneficial to minimage with a rogue or warrior, to grab a bow with warrior or to bash some heads with a sorcerer, but those were always support activities.

 

[mondblut]

It would be somewhat silly to have a class-less RPG that features class at all in it...

As a quickstart guidance for noobs, or as a sort of pre-action character background - why not? It is, in fact, the most logical way to put it. You have a "class" roughly defining your starting abilities as a result of something the character was doing prior to you taking over - and from then on, he develops in whatever way you deem fitting.

In best chargen systems, such as in Darklands, Twilight 2000 or Megatraveller 2, this was taken to the extreme - you could spend the whole lifetime of character picking him "classes" for the next few years of his life until he collapses of old age.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Oh the fun onf Twilight 2000 and creating a Vietnam-vet!

 

[Murk]

Re: RPGs where initial class doesn't have a significant impa

The classes in Diablo 1 had vastly different attack speeds with various weapons, casting rates, formulas for calculating health, mana, AC, weapon damages, etc., as well as starting and max values of attributes. Sure it was often beneficial to minimage with a rogue or warrior, to grab a bow with warrior or to bash some heads with a sorcerer, but those were always support activities.

Yeah... I read (and responded) to Jim's post which was basically the thing.

As a quickstart guidance for noobs, or as a sort of pre-action character background - why not? It is, in fact, the most logical way to put it. You have a "class" roughly defining your starting abilities as a result of something the character was doing prior to you taking over - and from then on, he develops in whatever way you deem fitting.

Sure, this seems fine -- its definition of "class" is very different than class-based RPGs but I see where you're going with that. I was just imagining a situation in which you have an arbitrary title of 'warrior' but allocate your character points as you want.

This brings to mind the Gothic games which had your class dependent more on which faction you joined than anything else.

 

[Murk]

New question on the topic of class based gameplay that I don't think warrants a new thread -- How specific do you like your classes to be?

Personally I like both systems provided they make sense in the setting - in a game like Fallout or Arcanum where you control one character and the rest are allied/influenced but not directly controlled by you having a classless system makes sense as you may need to have access to skills/abilities that "rogue" or "cleric" may not. In party based systems lie most D&D cRPGs I prefer classes that are somewhat more rigdid and strict in what they allow a character to do.

However the question I want to ask is less "which of the two do you preer" but rather how much overlap you like -- how specific do you like your classes? How open ended do you like them? Do you prefer for unlimited overlap in what can be done -- i.e, a big burly warrior who is also able to cast magic or do you like there to be certain limitations in just how big of a sword a mage can wield for no reason other than being a mage? How about something inbetween? Or perhaps you don't actually have a preference and can roll with whatever so long as it works well?

 

[Phelot]

It really depends. If its, like you said Fallout were I have one character to control then I like a high level of customization though I still don't like the idea of a "max all skills" jack of all trades. I don't mind having strict class rules with a party based game.

To be more in depth though, I'd say that my dream system would be selecting a class that allows easier increase of that classes particular skills while still having the ability to learn any other skill at least with a penalty. I don't see why a warrior couldn't learn lockipicking other then if his stats make it more difficult.

 

[Murk]

I too dislike a master of all trades but don't mind a jack of all trades approach. Gothic 3 for instance let you be an ubermensch in all three combat disciplines simultaneously where-as gothic 1, 2, and risen required you more or less to dedicate yourself to one particular discipline and possibly pick up a second as a backup.

Part of me has been re-thinking certain archetypes tho, and this was what I truly wanted to get at -- how steeped in the traditional D&D class archetypes are we?

The classics are... what? Warrior, Rogue, Priest, Mage? And the remaining classes being variations there-of with bard being a mix of three and paladin being a mix of two... but what about doing away with all that and instead allowing individual growth in each class archetype? From what I have read Dragon Age seems to present this idea but I do not know how far it takes it...

The idea I was getting at was picking a class archetype - like say 'Rogue' then being given different types of 'Rogue' to develop (examples being the standard sneaksman/thief, under-handed street fighter, quick witted grease-man [guy who gets out of situations], etc.) each that would have a certain set of either unique skills or abilities but also access to the main rogue skill-list/bonuses.

 

[mondblut]

The classes are mostly a function of approach. When you encounter a problem, you can deal with it using brute strength, finesse or intellect, and that's it pretty much. The standart class archetypes are just expanding on those, each built around a way of problem-solving. Naturally, some of these ways (i.e. "finesse") aren't as one-dimensional, but the attributes involved (precision, agility, stealth, cunning etc) are not as commonly used individually and synergistic enough to be lumped in together.

A cleric is somewhat a latecomer in there, but then again, "beg a god to solve a problem for you" does make a sense as a fourth unique way of dealing with challenges. As long as god answers, of course.

And the only fifth way that comes to my mind is solving challenges with coin, but that hardly fits the adventuring theme. Imagine a rich heir going down into a dungeon and handling out cheques to orcs and giants and dragons so they would leave him alone, let alone getting xp for that.

So you can shuffle and rethink archetypes as you will, but you will always end up with "strong guy", "agile guy" and "smart guy" and hybrids of those, no matter the details. Think of not what they are but what they do.

 

[Phelot]

Well, I think it damages replay value and the overall balance of a game to allow a player to excel in all skills and classes during one play through. All in all, I'd say games have broken free from the D&D system. Is that a good thing? I don't know since I can appreciate different systems for what they are.

I do like the idea of different "sub classes" which I feel as though I've seen elsewhere but can't quite place...

Anyways, I like the idea behind having class restrictions but offering a staggering amount of different specialized classes, not necessarily "epic" classes that can only be unlocked after x amount of levels, but specialized classes from character creation. As you mentioned, different types of rogues, thieves, pickpockets, etc etc.

 

[Murk]

Ahh, Mondblut the Utilitarian -- I do like your style, even if I sometimes disagree with what you have to say.

While you're right that regardless of what character class, skill, ability etc. you use that you ultimately end up solving things in a very specific and numerical fashion -- but that is not a question of class progression so much as it is a question of whether individual abilities and skills are unique.

That is, the whole idea of having different classes and sub-clases would be to ensure that each (sub)class would do something different than any other.

For instance I gave 3 types of rogues as an example. One is the sneaky stabby type (finesse), one is the clever kind (intellect), and the other is the street fighting type (strength/finesse). All three covered, yes? However each of these three would play out differently than say a warrior because their very function is different, regardless of whether or not their attributes overlap. Two of those rogues can handle battle to varying degrees, one is not even cut out for battle but occasionally gets dragged in -- a warrior on the other hand is set for battle regardless of their schtick, and for that, their function differs even if only slightly (at first!).

Warrior basics are... Guy who takes hit, Guy who gives hits, and archer? This would be Strength (tank), Finesse/Strength (skilled fighter), and Finesse (archer) respectively, right? Those three character may solve their problem with "attack till other guy falls down" but how they can go about attacking changes drastically based on battlefield presence, configuration (who's standing where), and what environment they're fighting in (open, closed, etc.). Archers won't make much sense in a building where-as a tank would be somewhat useless when surrounded in a large open space, where-as a skilled warrior who specializies in dealing damage instead of taking it would require either a one on one battle with a strong opponent or a group battle with weak opponents, etc.

If we want to argue reductionism then we might as well not even bother talking about cRPGs as ultimately it just comes down to "numbers in my favor" vs "numbers not in my favor", and that particular (non)game is called algebra, and it is not very fun (unless you're Helton or Mathboy).

 

[Murk]

Well, I think it damages replay value and the overall balance of a game to allow a player to excel in all skills and classes during one play through. All in all, I'd say games have broken free from the D&D system. Is that a good thing? I don't know since I can appreciate different systems for what they are.

I agree entirely that a new character TYPE is just as important to the re-play as taking different routes/choices in the gameworld. This is something that I liked about Gothic/Risen as joining a different faction would have different quests and also different character development, tho they primarily kept it to "how you do damage" instead of how your very character functions - but then again, those were action-RPGs and so it was to be expected.

I do like the idea of different "sub classes" which I feel as though I've seen elsewhere but can't quite place...

Anyways, I like the idea behind having class restrictions but offering a staggering amount of different specialized classes, not necessarily "epic" classes that can only be unlocked after x amount of levels, but specialized classes from character creation. As you mentioned, different types of rogues, thieves, pickpockets, etc etc.

I've always been somewhat confused by the way classes often playout, caster types ALWAYS get a better deal because of how many more tactical solutions they have available to them - especially so in D&D incarnations. These non-caster classes and subclasses would, in my hope, me given a set of skills that allows them to be just as tactically versatile in combat and out of combat that they can carry out more than a single routine of action. Fighters need to stop being meat shields, roughly put, and if giving them abilities that doesn't realistically make logical sense but does make them mechanically more relevant is the answer - then so be it. Tho I'm not thinking jRPG like "blade beams" and what have you.

 

[mondblut]

For instance I gave 3 types of rogues as an example. One is the sneaky stabby type (finesse), one is the clever kind (intellect), and the other is the street fighting type (strength). All three covered, yes? However each of these three would play out differently than say a warrior because their very function is different, regardless of whether or not their attributes overlap.

At best, the strength type would play as a nerfed fighter with some equally nerfed thiefly abilities. The intellect type would play as a nerfed wizard with some equally nerfed thiefly abilities. Or as a nerfed "rich heir". At worst...

Warrior basics are... Guy who takes hit, Guy who gives hits, and archer? This would be Strength (tank), Finesse/Strength (skilled fighter), and Finesse (archer) respectively, right?

Here, you said the dreaded word. This overspecialization is the WOW road, and we all know how much it fucking sucks. It means "tanks" just sitting there doing nothing but taking hits because, you know, actually fighting is detrimental to their sole function - taking hits, whereas ideal "DPS" is a naked fairy who can't survive being slapped on his shoulder; and so on.

If we want to argue reductionism then we might as well not even bother talking about cRPGs as ultimately it just comes down to "numbers in my favor" vs "numbers not in my favor"

No game should really be bothered with anyway since we know we will eventually win.

Certainly, it's all about having numbers in our or not in our favour, but we CRPGers take our dose of crack from having several pools of numbers to choose from at our leisure :D Several different yet widely applicable ones.

 

[Murk]

At best, the strength type would play as a nerfed fighter with some equally nerfed thiefly abilities. The intellect type would play as a nerfed wizard with some equally nerfed thiefly abilities. Or as a nerfed "rich heir". At worst...

Maybe, maybe not - I mean, this is a theoretical game that doesn't exist. There is no way to know how things would pan out...

But the idea I had was that the street fighter is a subpar fighter who is very good at interupting his enemies and while a tank type of bruiser may pulverize him in battle he won't get much of a chance because the other guy is throwing dirt in his eyes, dropped caltrops, and keeps running away everytime you get close - likewise, the dirty fighter is good at keeping a wizard at bay because he keeps mucking with his concentration and knocking the dried newt's eye out of the mage's hand. Point is he has a specific set of skills that allow him to disrupt and interfere with his enemies buying time for his party, and if need be, he's not bad at throwing down either... just don't send him up against an archer, a gunner, or a skilled fighter.

Here, you said the dreaded word. This overspecialization is the WOW road, and we all know how much it fucking sucks. It means "tanks" just sitting there doing nothing but taking hits because, you know, actually fighting is detrimental to their sole function - taking hits, whereas ideal "DPS" is a naked fairy who can't survive being slapped on his shoulder; and so on.

I do agree with this and I named 3 fighter archetypes that I have found, not that I enjoy. If given some time I guess I could come up with some Warrior archetypes and some subsequent branching subclasses.

No game should really be bothered with anyway since we know we will eventually win.

Enjoy the ride, etc.

Certainly, it's all about having numbers in our or not in our favour, but we CRPGers take our dose of crack from having several pools of numbers to choose from at our leisure :D Several different yet widely applicable ones.

Most definitely agreed here.

 

[mondblut]

I do agree with this and I named 3 fighter archetypes that I have found, not that I enjoy. If given some time I guess I could come up with some Warrior archetypes and some subsequent branching subclasses.

That wouldn't matter. Overspecialization is overspecialization.

Several different yet widely applicable ones.

This is the key. The more narrowly specialized a class is, the less often it is useful. There is practically nothing you can't overcome by beating it with a large blunt object or "applying dexterity" to it, but if a character excels solely at shooting a bow or picking locks, his usefulness is extremely limited. Take combat - a plain, general purpose fighter is useful always, unless he lacks a weapon with enough magical plusses (solved by acquiring such a weapon) or a creature completely immune to physical damage is met (happens once-twice per game at best). And even then he can sacrifice himself as a meatshield for those who can actually do damage. Now, take a narrow missile specialist, and consider a vast array of possibilities that render him useless, from close quarters ambush to strong wind. Same happens outside of combat - a general purpose "thief" can sneak into a house, notice a patrol and hide from it, cut a guard's throat and pick a lock of a treasure chest, while narrower "assassin" or "burglar" could only do 1-2 of these tasks of a mission.

Having a character stand yawning and picking his nose most of the time is *not* fun, and that's what overspecialization brings. Either that, or you'll have to invent all kinds of stupid and illogical "feats" making everybody play as a variant mage with an exclusive set of spelllike abilities, and/or copypaste abilities, such as barbarian having "crush", fighter "bash" and knight "smash" all doing exactly the same.

There is a reason RPGs are played with a party whose standart lineup is, well, fighter-cleric-mage-thief. In a game with overspecialized classes a party would have to be 10+ characters to cover all abilities, and 3/4 of them will be utterly useless at any given time. This may appeal to hardcore replayfags who get a hardon whenever a game has 90% of its content locked at any given playthrough, but I am not one of them.