Classes or Skills?

Fair warning: This post is very long, and gets rather unfocussed towards the end. I've been gradually getting the ideas together over the course of writing this, which makes for a rather disorganised read. The good news is, at least I now know more or less what I mean!

Over the weekend, Captain Ric and I were chatting about Nutshell Fantasy, and he noted that the way the game is structured would mean that it could quite easily eliminate classes - just give out extra feats for "more hit points" and "higher defences" and so on.

Which is quite right... but I'm not going in that direction.

Now, the thing is, I have no great preferences for class-based or skill-based games. I've run both, I've played both, both have certain strengths and weaknesses, and I don't really have any strong preference.

But Nutshell is intended to be a "D&D-replacement" game, and one of the key features of D&D (for me, at least) has been the use of classes. And so, they remain.

For what it's worth, if I were doing a similar game for "Game of Thrones"-style fantasy, or for horror, or modern, or most sci-fi, I would almost certainly go skill-based. Although for "Star Trek", specifically, I would probably use classes, with one class for each uniform colour.

(Which brings us to another question: why "Nutshell" Fantasy? Well, one of my goals while doing all this is to extract the kernel of a game engine that is suitable for reuse in a variety of games and for a variety of genres, in much the same way that the basic d20 system does. It's just that D&D-style fantasy is the game in which I have the most interest right now, and so it's the one that's driving the process...)

Anyway, having decided on having a class system, the next question becomes: which, and indeed how many, classes are to be in the game?

My thinking on classes is that there are two options: either you have a small number of broad and customisable classes, or you have a lot of small detailed niche classes. Either of these approaches will allow the game to handle a wide range of archetypes. But trying to combine the two tends to result in a bit of a muddle, as suddenly the 'big' classes swamp the space allegedly left aside for the 'little' classes, rendering them useless (and annoying any players who take those classes).

My preference at this point, and one that I've held for a while, is that I would prefer to see fewer bigger classes, each of which covers a fairly wide range of archetypes. Indeed, it's probably best if the classes overlap to a certain degree, so that the question of what class a given character 'should' be need not have a single, definitive answer. It's likewise probably a good idea if the game include some mechanism for either (or both) multiclassing or cross-training, further expanding the range of supported characters.

Now, in terms of the specific classes, I'm once again looking to D&D for guidance. Pretty much from the start, that game has included a set of 'big four' classes: Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard. (Those are, of course, the current WotC-approved names. The Fighter used to be Fighting Man, while the Wizard was previously the Mage, and before that the Magic User. Meanwhile, the Rogue used to be the Thief, and actually didn't appear in the very first versions of the game!)

Widening the lens just a little, and taking the classes from the first PHBs from each edition, we add a number of classes: Assassin, Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Illusionist, Monk, Ranger, Paladin, Sorcerer, Warlock, Warlord. (2nd Edition also included Specialist Wizards, generalising the rules for Illusionists, and also Specialist Priests, of which Druid became an example.)

And looking further afield also, there have been a great many classes added. Now, it's fair to say that many of these are dross and can be ignored (Thief-Acrobat), while others are very setting-specific and can be ignored (Samurai). However, there are a few that are worthy of at least consideration: Artificer, Cavalier (or Knight), Favoured Soul, Mageblade, Scout, Swashbuckler, and the psionic classes (Ardent, Psion, Psychic Warrior, Soulknife, Wilder).

Bouncing all of that around, my inclination is to go for five classes, as follows:

Fighter

The classic. This is the straight-up warrior, the guy who uses the big weapons and armour, does lots of damage, absorbs lots of damage, and generally adventures by sheer force of arms.

The Fighter can be customised in a variety of ways, allowing it to stretch to cover various other concepts:

• By picking up primal powers, and especially focussing on rage, we get the old Barbarian class.
• By focussing on mounted combat and the leadership of men, we get the Cavalier.
• By focussing on the leadership of men, we get the Warlord.
• By picking up 'signature item' powers, we get a "cult of the sword"-style Samurai.
• Likewise, versions of the Paladin, Ranger, Psychic Warrior, and Mageblade can be constructed by taking appropriate divine, primal, psionic, or arcane powers. However, these might be better handled by another class...

Scoundrel

The guy who lives by his wits, the scoundrel tends to be lightly armoured and fast moving. He succeeds by being where the enemy weapons are not, and may well have picked up a few tricks along the way...

Like the Fighter, the Scoundrel can be customised to cover several existing classes:

• By selecting the right stealth-based powers, the class makes for an ideal Rogue or Assassin, of course. (And the Soulknife is little more than a psionic-themed Rogue, while the Ninja is likewise some sort of mystic Rogue.)
• By selecting music-based powers and inspirational abilities, the scoundrel becomes the Bard.
• Select physical adept powers, and the scoundrel becomes a Monk (which may not feel like an ideal fit, but that's largely because the Monk class is so poorly named).
• As mentioned under 'Fighter', the Ranger is perhaps a better fit as a scoundrel, picking up wilderness survival skills. Likewise, the Scout is just a slightly less martial Ranger.
• Conversely, a scoundrel who focusses on melee combat and movement abilities becomes a Swashbuckler.
• As with the Ranger, the Mageblade and the Psychic Warrior may be better fits as scoundrels, built by focussing on arcane or psionic powers, respectively.

Champion

This is the class that "stands for something". Motivated by duty heavier than the armour he wears, this character also weilds mystic powers to defeat the enemies of his cause.

The Champion is perhaps the most limited of the five classes, in that there are actually relatively few existing archetypes to adapt. Still, it should be possible to customise the character reasonably:

• Classically, of course, the champion can be themed to oppose the undead and demons, modelling the Cleric. Alternately, a slightly more martial approach becomes the Paladin.
• Instead, focussing on primal abilities, and especially the hate based "favoured enemy" abilities gives rise to the 4e Avenger class.
• And finally, many of the suggestions for both the fighter and the mystic can likewise be used for the champion, creating a character more balanced between pure martial skill and pure magical might.

Mystic

This is the wild man of the woods, the slightly mad wielder of scary powers, but not the pure practitioner of those mystic arts. The mystic tends to dwell on the fringes of society, and as such needs to be equipped to protect himself where necessary.

Again, the mystic covers many of the existing archetypes:

• By focussing on primal powers, the mystic becomes a Druid.
• Focus on emotion-based psionic powers, and the mystic becomes the Ardent.
• Focus on more general psionic powers, and the mystic is a Wilder.
• Focus on arcane magic, and the mystic becomes a Warlock (Witch). Alternately, blend arcane and primal powers for a slightly different take on the Witch.
• Focus on divine powers, and the mystic becomes a Favoured Soul.
• Focus on physical adept powers, and the mystic represents a different take on the Monk (and perhaps a better fit than the scoundrel!).

Wizard

Literally the "wise man", the Wizard is the dedicated student of lore, of magic, and of other secrets - be they divine, psionic, or arcane. The wizard eschews the use of weapons and armour altogether, relying on others, or his prodigious magical might, for protection where it is needed.

The Wizard is defined by his use of magical power. It is the type of magical power that mostly defines the character:

• By specialising in a particular type of arcane magic, the wizard becomes an Illusionist, Enchanter, Diviner, or other specialist.
• By focussing on divine, rather than arcane, magic, the wizard becomes a learned, bookish priest.
• Alternately, focus on psionic power, and the wizard represents the Psion of 3e.

Other Notes

It is expected that any class will be able to learn some of the secrets of artifice. As such, there is no one class that is an ideal match for the Artificer - just as the existing Artificer can be made to fill almost any role! Thus, a Fighter might pick up some knowledge of artifice to model a signature item, or represent his skills as a master of the forge. A Scoundrel might learn artifice, and thus model a character like Jarlaxle - he doesn't create the items, merely find them... but he always seems to have just the right item available. And so on.

The distinction between Sorcerers and Wizards has been largely ignored. It is expected that each character who casts spells will have a choice to make - do they follow a path of formal learning (Wizardry) or do they follow a more haphazard path (Sorcery)? And I foresee no great reason that there should not be sorcerous Champions, Mystics, and Wizards (or Fighters or Scoundrels, for that matter), alongside the others.

At this point, I think it's worth taking just a moment to consider how all this relates to two particular adventuring parties: The Fellowship of the Ring, and the group in my current campaign. The first is, of course, iconic, so it would be a poor show if some of the characters didn't fit. Meanwhile, if the second can't be handled,that would be something of a problem.

Of the Fellowship, I figure Boromir and Gimli are clearly Fighters, Legolas is probably a Scoundrel with an archer build, while Gandalf is a Wizard. Aragorn could probably be either a Fighter, a Champion or a Scoundrel - I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that there are several ways to model that character. Likewise, I'd peg Frodo as a Champion, Sam as a Fighter, and Merry and Pippin as Scoundrels. I don't think any of those assignments is a horribly poor fit - it doesn't feel like I'm trying to force a square peg into a round hole there, at least no more than if I were doing the same exercise using 3e rules.

With the current group, I think both Avon and Jag would be Wizards (Avon being a classic arcanist, while Jag is a psion). Garret is quite clearly a Scoundrel, while Vixen is a Mystic (druid). Craetegus, were he still around, would be a Scoundrel (ranger). The one that's a bit tricky is Mondo, the artificer. Here, I'd be inclined to peg him as a Fighter, due to the recent redesign of that character for greater combat ability. However, he's something of a tricky one: Mystic and Wizard don't really fit, due to their heavy emphasis on magical ability, while Scoundrel is at odds both with his character and his heavy armour. Champion is a possibility, except that Mondo isn't really "standing for something".

Hmm... After all that, I guess I'll need to give the issue some more thought!