Thread 96734153

Do you think that class-based RPGs should try to accommodate the "generic wizard who does generic magical things" class concept, or do you think it is too generic an idea, and that the game should force the player to narrow it down?

Putting aside the very obvious example of D&D 5(.5)e and its wizard class, D&D 4e, Pathfinder 2e, and 13th Age 2e all have a wizard that specializes in a mix of raw damage blasting and hard-control debuffs (with the occasional buff). Daggerheart likewise has a wizard class. An indie title, level2janitor's Tactiquest, has the Arcanist as a catch-all magical caster with a broad repertoire of spells suitable for different occasions.

Other games have a different approach. Draw Steel has the elementalist, focused on the physicality of elemental magic; and the talent, a psionicist who specializes in more intangible effects like time manipulation and telepathy. Tom Abbadon's ICON has no "generic wizard who does generic magical things" in its noncombat classes or its combat classes, specifically to force the player to narrow the concept down, whether for noncombat functions or for tactical combat role.

>>96734153 (OP)
Neither. It entirely depends on what the game is going for. Requiring it to be one or the other is ridiculously authoritarian.

>>96734153 (OP)
In spite of trying to shoe-horn MtG into the D&D system, Forgotten Realms is held as the default setting and all the classes are built with that in mind with the other settings adding their own conceits that are only reflected in subclasses or character options.

>>96734153 (OP)
As the other anon said, "should"? Not really.
I do like the concept of having a generalist magic user of sorts.

>>96734153 (OP)
>"generic wizard who does generic magical things"

>has the elementalist, focused on the physicality of elemental magic

This, to me, comes down to how the universe is "coded". D&D does narrow it down into the schools. The way you interpret "generic wizard things" is how the D&D school operates.
Instead of being flavored/colored like "Fire" magic or "Water" magic, the general method/role of magic is described like Divination or Illusion. In D&D you probably see a lot more crossover between schools than an elementalist preferring a particular element because instead of learning how to control a particular element, you are learning individual spells that suit your fancy. The D&D wizard is built to be a tool kit and isn't confined one or two elements.

Its subjective. Stop making retarded nogames threads

>>96734153 (OP)
I think it doesn't fit with the design purpose of classes in most systems using them, which is typically to provide consistent boundaries, a guaranteed set of abilities a party is expected to need, or both. That is, systems "should" decide on something that's "The Job Of Wizards" and ensure all Wizards are operating in that space by some mix of barring them from others and guaranteeing competencies within it, but instead due to the too-few "buckets" of early D&D we got stuck with pouring in arbitrary magical bullshit.

In D&D proper, save 4e, this has startlingly well kept some carve-outs leaving niches for the Cleric, Fighter, and Thief for efficient problems-per-day, but routinely becomes narratively overbearing in comparison due to such an incredibly broad set of tools to affect the world with they can pick from almost fully as they please.

>>96734153 (OP)
I'm of the opinion that specialist mages are more thematically interesting, on top of just being easier to design. Having a dedicated necromancer, illusionist, or pyromancer are much stronger as class concepts. It doesn't need to be overly narrow, but being thematic and having limitations is a positive.

If somebody wanted to have a generalist mage, a system with multiclassing has an easy answer to that, where the versatility would come at the cost of delayed progression, in the same way that a warrior+thief might. But the versatile generalist needs to have tradeoffs.

>>96734153 (OP)
I think a more important detail to focus on is making sure every class represents the ubiquity of magic implied by the limits, or lack thereof, of selecting magic classes and the limits on how many magical foes and NPCs the GM can include in a given campaign.
If there's no limits to either of these things, that's a major implication that magic is literally everywhere, and there shouldn't be a dedicated wizard class; everyone should have magic to some degree, or at the very least have effective defenses against magic, and the "trappings" of magic should be easily recognized by anyone.
It makes the world feel alive and lived in, as opposed to just being a slapdash cobbling of pop culture references to cast a net to as wide a customer base as possible, without any attempt to make anything fit together, and telling the customers to make it work somehow.

>>96734153 (OP)
Why the fuck are you playing games with classes?

>>96734873
There are many reasons for people to run into a brick wall or fall down rabbit holes in point-buy.

>>96734979
Not in good systems.

>>96734868
Players having a character generation option does not necessarily have to be tightly connected to the prevalence in the general population, nor does prevalence of magic among foes necessarily track with its prevalence among the populations player characters are drawn from.

Additionally, players being able to choose various magical power sources despite rarity in their characters' source populations establishes an exceptional baseline while also justifying some impermeability between roles to greatly ease balancing efforts by reducing combinatorials.

>>96734985
There is only so well a system can design against decision paralysis and combinatorial complexity producing deeply unintended results. Relying on end users to remove options until they can wrap their head around it is not "a good system", it is a half-made development kit being falsely advertised as a finished product.

>>96735035
What do you mean by unintended results? Provide examples.

>>96734265
>It entirely depends on what the game is going for
/thread
I think for the sake of balance it is better to narrow it down but for power fantasy games then it is fine to just have a master of magic

>>96735035
Well?

>>96734873
Because having a team of specialized characters is more fun than everyone being a pile of generic good stuff.

>>96735077
Right, and you can make specialized characters in classless games, and it's far easier to choose what to specialize in without having a bunch of shit you don't want tagged on because you were force to pick a pre-made class.

>>96735038
When all abilities are drawn from one fungible pool, each thing you can spend on acts as a separate degree of freedom with independent effects on outputs. In the simplest case of one point per option, you're dealing with a naked factorial scaling in which a mere ten points gives you over three million possible results. To navigate such explosively growing possibility spaces requires relatively advanced mathematics constructing the large polynomials of things that contribute to each game function, then navigating the N-dimensional maps for benchmarks of various output properties and cost schemes to find outliers.

This happens to be the EXACT kind of problem-solving that neural network algorithms were made for.

>>96735076
You are not entitled to being responded to in under ten minutes. Even NEETs are rarely patrolling a single site continuously.

>>96735083
No it is not, because you have to weigh up rather bare combinatorials to decide what to specialize in, how, and by how much. This produces VASTLY more dysfunctional trap options than even the worst multiclassing in any edition of D&D.

>>96735104
No you don't. All you have to do is choose the options that suit your character concept. A system doesn't have to have any dysfunctional trap options. Not every game is D&D. Some actually have competent designers.

>>96735107
>All you have to do is choose the options that suit your character concept
And when they are naked fungibility, that requires weighing up what is more and less suitable and how deeply you wish to invest in each. You seem to be completely unaware of the very freedom of options you insist upon entailing a cognitive load of actually shaping them so they're mostly decent and settling on something from among them.

>A system doesn't have to have any dysfunctional trap options.
There are 2,432,902,008,176,640,000 permutations for just 20 fungible choices (though AIUI this is technically most applicable to character progression). A single one of those choices being irrelevant for a campaign results in 95% of them spending something for nothing. It is simply not mathematically feasible to avoid without a ludicrous amount of effort crunching numbers to dial in a flat-enough plain of outputs.

>>96735165
So have you ever even played a classless game? According to your argument, it should be impossible to make a character.

>>96735167
I'm not saying that it's impossible to make a character, I'm saying that at the blunter end it's vanishingly unlikely to make a meaningfully above mostly-random crapshoot fulfillment of the priorities on the player's end and to design those issues away by any reliable procedure involves upwards of a decade in university level mathematics between the design team demanding expensive computation equipment to actually use.

It "feels" better because the system does not get in the way, something far more naturally fulfilled by ruleslight homebrew than GURPS. But if you want the system to carry the weight of structuring sessions and events so you don't have to offload critical fine-tuning on the end users with no assurance of any grasp on this and thus a significant risk of them being turned away because they fucked it up, the immensity of the combinatorics must be tackled with a hard solution that could genuinely involve goddamn AI companies.

>>96735250
Why do you think making a character is a random crapshoot? Or that it's difficult at all? Have you tried?

>>96734153 (OP)
Unless their magic comes at the cost of being slower, weaker, costlier, etc., I don't think RPGs should have generalist magic classes. In my experience, generalist magic classes often end up getting the best of all worlds with none of the downsides. Meanwhile, specialists are stuck with a narrow selection of magic, but still somehow end up being worse in their own specialty than generalists. I've never had this problem with classless point-buy RPGs.

>>96735294
Of course, generalist magic can be perfectly well balanced with every other option.

>>96735304
It absolutely can. But most class-based level-based RPGs in the style of D&D PF and so on don't. It's not that these systems inherently can't. They just don't. I don't know why. That's the problem. It utterly baffles me.

>>96735250
Well?

>>96735104
>This produces VASTLY more dysfunctional trap options than even the worst multiclassing in any edition of D&D.
In D&D, when you want to be good at something that isn't adequately covered by just one class, you have to jump through a dozen different multiclassing hoops trying to find all the limited bonuses and synergies to get what you actually want.
In classless systems, you just pump points into the one skill or trait you need and you're gucci. It's not that hard.

I wouldn't bother, he seems incapable of understanding such impossibly complex systems as "If you want to be good at martial arts, put ranks into martial arts". Clearly D&D 3.5 is much simpler.

>>96735254
>Why do you think making a character is a random crapshoot?
No, I said this:
>at the blunter end it's vanishingly unlikely to make a meaningfully above mostly-random crapshoot fulfillment of the priorities on the player's end
That is, the intentional design by most people in the face of combinatorics is not getting much farther toward their objectives in the possibility-space than a mostly-random crapshoot. Because it is extremely easy to end up with literally billions of finely-sliced permutations of the concept with widely spread fulfillment of the objectives, and the desired spread is unlikely to be well understood to approach. The procedures that can iterate towards this are heavily reliant on known benchmarks, which everything being fungible with everything make very difficult to establish as the contributing factors become long series of degrees of freedom.

>>96735337
This is /tg/, we can literally go to sleep for 12 hours with no posts and the thread will still remain for a response. Promptness is neither required nor deserved.

>>96735394
I don't care, there remain billions of times more mechanically distinct cripplingly overspecialized and generalized wretches in the point-buy system. It is also far simpler to remove the hoops with adding on a fungible pool of minor inclusions than to idiot-proof the combinatorics.

>>96735396
>I wouldn't bother, he seems incapable of understanding such impossibly complex systems as "If you want to be good at martial arts, put ranks into martial arts"
And when you want granularity in specific styles of martial arts or specific actions taken in hand-to-hand combat, the complexity balloons into billions of minutely different permutations of progression at just 13 options. How difficult do you think it is to design that to have a remotely reasonable RoI spread?

>>96735405
You're just saying word salad. Why do you think it's a crapshoot? Explain without being vague. Provide examples of it being a crapshoot in a game you've played.

>>96735413
No it doesn't. Martial arts covers every style. Combat stunts covers everything you might want to do. Clearly it's not difficult to design at all, since it's already been done.

>>96735405
You will respond instantly or die.

I would argue even in D&D sorcerers as a class have to specialize quite heavily already.

>>96735415
>Why do you think it's a crapshoot?
The term "crapshoot" is used with reference to a SEPARATE character from the one made by the actual player, representing a random sampling of the raw possibility space pertaining to the design goals of said character.

>Provide examples of it being a crapshoot in a game you've played.
No, because you are a retard who has twice misunderstood my basic sentence structure in the exact same way. Do you even know what combinatorics, factorials, or permutations are?

>>96735421
>No it doesn't. Martial arts covers every style. Combat stunts covers everything you might want to do. Clearly it's not difficult to design at all, since it's already been done.
Tell me what system you're referring to and explain to me how it manages a narrow range of effectiveness for points spent on the subject.

>>96735443
Do you? Because you don't seem to understand that they have nothing whatsoever to do with creating a character. There is no such thing as a character not made by a player. Every character made using the character creation rules is made by a player.

>>96735443
What do you mean by "narrow range of effectiveness"? You never mentioned that before nor indicated that it was a requirement.

>>96735447
>Because you don't seem to understand that they have nothing whatsoever to do with creating a character.
They do in describing the set of options.

>There is no such thing as a character not made by a player.
There is in the process of designing the game.

>>96735450
I don't care that you cannot identify the through-line of designing for a low skill floor by robust procedures clearing exceptionally bad or good combinations of options, answer the question.

>>96735467
No. Explain what you mean.

>>96735467
No, not in the process of designing the game. Not in any situation, under any circumstances, ever. Do not EVER talk back to me.

>>96735468
If you can't understand it from the very post you replied to, you do not have the faculties necessary to engage the subject I am actually talking about.

>>96735476
Glad you agree that there are no issues with classless games then.

>>96735474
Then you are simply incorrect, because whiteroom sacks of numbers rolling at genericons are utterly essential to dialing in the game math.

>>96735478
No, you just refuse to accept that having a lot of options could ever be a cause of problems.

>>96735484
Your position isn't supported by observation of objective reality.

classless better last post :)

>>96735530
Nah, class+level gets shit off the ground.

nah classless does class gets shit on :)

Why are class-based shitters so insecure? You guys look so fuckin pathetic LOL

>>96735474
You've really never randomly generated a character before? What are you, spunk?
That would explain why your attitude stinks of rancid semen, I guess, and the mental deficiency..
>>96735104
From a gamist perspective you're right. Variable abilities (like Knowledge ___ from 3e) are the perfect example of this, as they effectively give infinite possibility that collapses to a mechanical non-choice (either because the game assumes the GM will design around it, or reduces it to fluff).
Thing is though, pure gamism I only one axis of design. An unbalanced but flavourful game is no less of a game, it just has different priorities. Sometimes these unintended results of character creation might actually be paradoxically intended, as allowing the options to balloon into weird and suboptimal combinations might be an intentional design choice. There's a kind of meta game that lots of people like to play (OP is a great example), where you try to build the most powerful character possible. That game can't exist without suboptimal combinations.
Also, I do think you're overblowing how complex these combinations can be. We're not dealing with naked factorial scaling, but rather fractional factorials. Most games don't have their abilities chronologically build off others, so a character who put points into SkillA and then SkillB is indistinguishable from one who did that in reverse. You can still get a ridiculous amount of permutations, just thought I'd worth mentioning.
Reply within 3.001 seconds or the tazer on your balls will activate
>96735432
Shitoff, avatarfag.

Nope, you lose.

>>96736435
No, none of that actually comes up in a real game. You just choose options according to your character concept. Try actually playing games some time.

I really shouldn't be surprised so many of you would get this angry by a Touhoufag thread, yet I still am.

>>96736978
I'm guessing it's actually just bait. It was a good effort, especially with the aggressive need for responses, but >>96736906 is a little too far. No one's that obnoxiously ignorant, not on a board where shit like OSR and old d&d meatgrinders are common knowledge.

>>96735530
>>96735537
Classless with optional Templates as a quickstart to represent common character archetypes and Ability Packages to represent level-ups for players who are too retarded to make their own character or too power-gamey to be left to their own devices.

>>96737939
Or you can go the other way around with class+level baseline using a fungible pool for personalization with an optional rule for power-users to run pure point-buy that shows the behind-the-screen for the big interdependent blocks normally confined to class levels.

>>96734153 (OP)
It depends on your setting and game which you already know, as well as anyone with a first grade level of trading comprehension.
Please so posting the same 3 stupid questions.
Then play an actual game instead of tactical retard slop.
After you've done that for a few years maybe, just maybe, will you have questions worth being outside of >>/awg/ you insufferable bint

>>96738231
Isn't that the same thing

>>96735035
>100 player character wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks being in the same proximity as to form a party, fighting thousands of innately magical monsters and enemy casters within their active proximity wouldn't necessarily imply a high population of magic users among the people
I want whatever drugs you're on, so I can forget about my problems.

>>96737408
There's nothing ignorant about what I said. Refute it or shut the fuck up.

>>96737939
If your system was well designed, it wouldn't fall apart when players make intelligent decisions.

>>96738382
Having the rails be the default with the pure ala carte generation being the optional advanced material makes it VASTLY more likely to be used by the new users on both sides of the screen it's intended to solve problems for, and designing for it leaves behind a lot of structures to guide the ala carte usage. You can also introduce the fungibility piecemeal with options going the other way of LESS options for even quicker chargen.

>>96738575
I want the drugs YOU'RE on where you can get a hundred player characters in the same instance of a setting in the first place. And the innately magical monsters are incredibly rarely part of the population PCs come from, such that ancestry from them may be a distinguishing power-source.

>>96738608
And as previously mentioned, this metric of "well designed" is incredibly mathematically difficult. GURPS sure as fuck doesn't do it with its utterly habitual reliance on end users confining the options and vetoing the numerous abuses, while Mutants & Masterminds picked up a sub-community that shows off how absurdly distended the return-on-investment gets.

>>96738720
No, it isn't difficult at all, since it's already been done.

>>96738920
Then name the system. Oh wait, you can't, because actually doing it properly is far more than needed for cultists like you to plug the gaps with willful ignorance and shitbrew.

>>96739134
Oh wait, I can, and it's called Prowlers and Paragons.

>>96739202
>directly narrativist mechanics baked into the basic resolution
No, I don't think you can.

>>96739225
Yeah, I can. It meets the requirement of not falling apart when the players make good decisions during character creation. You lose.

>>96734153 (OP)
Here's how it could work well in D&D:
Arcane casters:
>You pick two (wizard) or one (other arcane) spell school to have access to
>Whenever you would gain access to a new spell level, you may gain access to additional spell schools instead
Divine casters:
>Increase the number of domain/circle/etc. spells
>Decrease the number of "selectable" spells known

>>96739258
>Here's how it could work well in D&D:
>Laughting J. Jonah Jameson.gif

>>96739242
>when the players make good decisions
This not being assured is my problem, as it introduces a significant skill floor requiring very complex math to balance to remove "trap" combinations of insufficient cost-effectiveness or time-consuming and necessarily unreliable explanation of what constitutes "good" decisions.

>>96739560
There are no trap options, and no complex math is required.

>>96738720
Fair point, regarding the usage by newbies.
>>96738602
Imagine actually having to function with such a low iq, would be enough to induce tards rage
You are pretending, right?

>>96739790
Concession accepted.

>>96739831
I'll take that as a yes, lmao

>>96739887
Yep, you conceded.

I think the troll is just hellbent on making touhoufag's threads unusable.
Dunno why you keep feeding him.

Awww lost the argument so he's throwing a tantrum, adorable

>>96740743
Oh, that makes a lot of sense actually
There was a guy being super pissy for no reason in the Colville game thread too

>>96738720
>GURPS sure as fuck doesn't do it with its utterly habitual reliance on end users confining the options and vetoing the numerous abuses
Eh, I'd rather a system acknowledge that some options can be broken in certain types of campaigns and give GMs the tools and guidelines to set limits and veto/require certain options depending on the type of campaign the GM wants to run. Rather than have a class-based system that's not exactly what the GM or any of the players want, but has no tools or guidelines to modify them, so the game snaps in half the moment you deviate from its expectations.

now he's replying to himself KEK

>>96741106
Why not simply not design broken options into your game?

>>96741116
Because sometimes they're not broken. What's broken in one campaign is perfectly balanced in another.

>>96741106
It really depends on what you're looking for and what the game wants to be: a tightly designed singular experience, or an open-ended toolbox (or anything inbetween).

>>96741154
Of course, since it's possible to create a game with options that are never broken, we should.

>>96741154
Don't feed him, he's just here to shit up the thread

>>96741188
Trolling and spamming are against the rules.

>>96741212
Big if true

All classes should have been able to choose a grab bag of powers based on a thematic list, like Wizards do. It would open up a lot of design space and remove the retardation like Battle master Fighter being the only martial class that uses combat maneuvers.

>>96741336
>I'll take Feats for 200, jerry

>>96741349
Not quite, since feats have asinine requirements. Feat chains are a bad idea for a fantasy superhero game. Spells just ask that you be the right level and it being on your life of approved powers.

>>96741349
Which feat is comparable to force cage or plane shift or greater planar ally?

>>96741374
Wait really? Even in 5e? I thought that was only a 3e thing...

>>96741106
>Eh, I'd rather a system acknowledge that some options can be broken in certain types of campaigns and give GMs the tools and guidelines to set limits and veto/require certain options depending on the type of campaign the GM wants to run.
My preferences for the game being a specific thing discussable with online randos and working out of the box press me to insist otherwise. It's not like you can't print multiple games for the same system to separate the options that would cause problems if usable together.

>Rather than have a class-based system that's not exactly what the GM or any of the players want, but has no tools or guidelines to modify them, so the game snaps in half the moment you deviate from its expectations.
...And you can't have those tools and guidelines why, exactly? You present a false dichotomy of either "point-buy relying on the end user to finalize" or "class+level straightjacket", but you CAN balance to avoid such (I argue it's unreasonably difficult given the math) and even D&D itself has had some class design advice and options for large non-class power budgets.

>>96741380
Leadership. Unlike Planar Binding, its servants do not technically require pay and will do more than one thing for you before needing another slot and payment to bring in another, constraints that ignoring in the whiteroom did terrible damage to the perception of comparative costs in 3.X played as intended (as opposed to hammering abuses to turn off GP and XP costs imposing any limits).

The dearth of options up to par with top-level spells attenuating rapidly as levels increase is not inherent to the structure, something that is incredibly commonly missed in game design discourse. It's somewhat implicit in feats typically having far more uses available, as having at-will or short-cooldown effects on par with something the other guy gets 1-3 of per day causes issues, but it's not like NO feats had internal usage restrictions even without tapping other subsystems.

>>96742848
>even D&D itself has had some class design advice and options for large non-class power budgets
It does? I know there was a section on designing custom classes in the 5E DMG, but the advice it gave was straight dogshit.
The closest I've seen to actual workable custom class design rules was a third-party supplement, which was Anime 5E.

>>96742848
Yeah the point is that there are no feats on par with magic, try to keep up

>>96742848
>It's not like you can't print multiple games for the same system to separate the options that would cause problems if usable together.
That's precisely what many generic systems (GURPS, FATE, PbtA) do, though. You have the main books that are generic system toolkits, supplemental books that are genre/setting guides, and then stand-alone books that are dedicated to playing a specific type of game within the system.

>you CAN balance to avoid such (I argue it's unreasonably difficult given the math)
I somewhat agree, the class structure means that there SHOULD be tools and guidelines that are even easier to work with than in classless RPGs.
But in my experience, they're rare in class-based RPGs. When I see them, they often exist for RPGs that are only one step away from being classless RPGs, like the 40k RPGs or Cyberpunk 2020/RED. I've never once seen official homebrew rules in adequate enough detail for D&D or any of its derivatives.
I need something that explains how each of the classes came to be, every step of the design process, and what alternatives may be taken or part interchanged and how that might impact the game, so I can extrapolate enough to make my own stuff. In D&D's case, there used to be some stuff almost approaching that back in AD&D. But modern D&D? lol. lmao.

>>96743881
>pbta
>generic system toolkit

>>96745169
Sorry, neurons misfired. I was thinking of the sheer number of PbtA hacks, which made me mentally lump it with the others, even though it's as far from a toolkit as can be.

>>96741349
feats are usually passive bonuses and not things that they do in a fight

>>96742848
Still waiting on force cage and plane shift.

>>96742848
And leadership doesn't give you access to creatures with spell resistance, auras, and spell like abilities, so it's not equivalent.

>>96743805
>It does? I know there was a section on designing custom classes in the 5E DMG, but the advice it gave was straight dogshit.
3.5 has quite a bit more and back at the tail end of AD&D there was the Player's Option series that literally gave Character Points each level, in addition to the usual class features, to spend on quite a range of things.

>>96743840
Leadership is SUPERIOR to any singular spell unless you are intentionally exiting all intended play with NI resource generation beforehand. Because you can get a whole level-2 Wizard if you really want to.

>>96743881
>That's precisely what many generic systems (GURPS, FATE, PbtA) do, though.
Not so much with more recent editions of GURPS compiling like a decade of content accretion in the "main" rulebooks, though I'll concede that FATE and PbtA are good examples of that.

>But in my experience, they're rare in class-based RPGs. When I see them, they often exist for RPGs that are only one step away from being classless RPGs, like the 40k RPGs or Cyberpunk 2020/RED.
It is somewhat inevitable that any sufficiently developed custom class system will be amenable to removing the bundling and just taking the pieces one-by-one, unless you're doing something like "vertical slice" design that specifically avoids giving ala carte prices in favor of scaling ratios.

>I need something that explains how each of the classes came to be, every step of the design process, and what alternatives may be taken or part interchanged and how that might impact the game, so I can extrapolate enough to make my own stuff.
Though I've struggled to track down a PDF to check myself, Trailblazer has a lot of analysis and commentary on D&D 3.5's math to justify its changes that might be turned around, and then there's Eclipse: the Codex Persona that breaks down both 3e and 3.5 material into a point-buy framework... Then stuffs like half the book with new shit including completely different deity rules from the 3.0 Deities and Demigods.

>>96746434
Doesn't matter per the point about the structure not actually having anything preventing top-level-spell-equivalent effects.

>>96746450
You can get those out of Cohort LA and class levels and the reactivity advantage of not being locked to defining a single specific task upon the start of the service period is absolutely a routinely-useful one.

>>96746585
No, it certainly is not superior to most spells.

>>96746585
So the only way to compete with the wizard is to get a wizard? nice game LOL

>>96746639
No, it matters. Answer or concede.

>>96746639
So you can't, in fact, duplicate the spells with a feat then. Glad you agree.

>>96746858
Most spells are niche garbage specifically relying on the ability to change them out regularly to be worth anything.

>>96746863
A large part of the reason Planar Binding and the get cited as invalidating Fighters is because they let you call in a passable replacement, so I fail to see the issue with the mirror of the Fighter having a feat to call in a passable Wizard.

>>96746931
>>96746936
It does not matter that exact comparable feats do not exist in official 3.X material because the point in contention is not "do feats exist that are on par with spells?" but "can feats be a grab bag of powers based on a thematic list?" What intrinsic rails are there on the feat system that prevent Fighter Bonus Feats closely mirroring the value of Wilder's similar volume Powers Known progression from being made?

>>96746973
No, it matters. The point in contention is that feats are trash and only full casters matter, which is unconditionally correct. The difference between PB and leadership is that the spell doesn't require you to beg your DM for what you want or hope he gives it to you out of pity , just like everything else the fighter needs to be relevant. The spell just works. Better luck next time.

>>96747004
The point in contention is not about how the system is under solely official material. It is about how its structures COULD BE used. I repeat:
>What intrinsic rails are there on the feat system that prevent Fighter Bonus Feats closely mirroring the value of Wilder's similar volume Powers Known progression from being made?

>>96747056
No. The point is what I said it is. It's not up to you. Better luck next time.

>>96747059
No, the point is what >>96741336 said that >>96741349 brought feats up in response to, as that is what your list of spells in >>96741380 was responding to. Yours was not the initial post of the subject, and so you are not who defines the point of the overall conversation.

>>96747201
Wrong again. The determination is mine alone. My authority is greater than yours.

>>96747205
It is not greater than those who posted in the reply chain before you.

>>96747211
It is.

>>96734873
I'm not a communist

>>96747233
>he who must say "I am king" is no king
Threadshitter, if you had any less authority we wouldn't have to suffer your written word.

You lose.

>>96734153 (OP)
>Do you think that class-based RPGs should
Die
They sure as hell should die
It's a bad game design that is build on a flawed concept and teaches all the worst behaviour to players.

>>96734379
And? It's a thread asking for opinions, ideas, and engagement. The topic being subjective is irrelevant.
OP, amidst sucking hordes of cock, very clearly said
>Do you think
Which is inherently a matter of inquiry to opinion.

>>96738575
Anon is explaining tht players are inherently freaks, outsiders, weirdos, heroes, or just generally exceptional exceptions.
Because they're all inherently weird, what the players do/don't play as doesn't necessarily have to have any bearing on what's actually the norm in that society. Players can make their characters in accord with the norm for the character's society, but they don't necessarily have to.
This isn't a super hard concept to grasp.

>>96734153 (OP)
WWN is interesting because it has specialists and then it has the High Magician, who gets... Everything else.

Which is actually very different from getting everything.

>>96735432
>puckee spamming his commission again
https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/xvg8w7/kacey_affeton_young_sorceress_by_kartstudio_art/
https://desuarchive.org/_/search/filename/Jailbait_sorceress/
>53 times

classless better last post

>>96747718
>Dead thread about a non-subject
>NOOOO! IT'S NOT SHITPOSTING AND FURTHER MURDER OF THE BOARD! IT'S VALID DISCUSSION!
Which explains the only thing discussed is the fact how fucking blatant it is, and it can't get more than a single reply (directly to OP), with nobody discussing anything.
You are the reason why this board is a hollow husk. I hope at least you get personal gratification of the fact.

>>96749894
fuck your board and fuck you :)

classless better last post

>>96753918
Okay.

mald :)

classless better last post

Jesus christ

classless better last post

if classless is better for fantasy games why is ff5 so much better than FF2?

it isn't, last post

>>96754922
FFT is better than both.

classless better last post

classes are better

classless better last post

I like skill trees as a concept, but never as they actually are.

classless better last post

>>96760654
Class skill floor best

classless better last post

>>96734265
I don't like posts like this. They're low effort and contribute nothing to the discussion and exist to give the poster a sanctimonious sense of satisfaction.

>>96762315
ok, so what gives you that sense of satisfaction?

>>96762315
Dude asked for opinions. I gave him my opinion. So, what, just because I don't call him a faggot it's somehow sanctimonious? Should I have pointed out that requiring a game to be one thing or the other is like requiring (you) to be either a knobhead or a fuckface, when you clearly function very well as both?
Eat my entire ass, fatty.

I win.

>>96734153 (OP)
>Basic classes, fast character build, quick start games
Fire wizard, water wizard, illusionist, necromancer, etc.
>Highly customizable classes
Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard.
And I'm not sure the cleric needs to be the cleric instead of whatever you want to call a half-caster.

classless better last post

Lads is he winning? Hard to tell from here

classless better last post

>>96762315
As opposed to the scintillating intellectual discussion going on above your post?

>>96767306
If there's a winner, is there also a prize?