Biggus Geekus: D&D Only Needs Two Classes
When I saw the video title I initially interpreted it to mean that a fantasy game rooted in pseudo-European trappings would work just fine with only two classes, something I could agree with, especially if we're talking wizard and warrior. This is because clerics have no business as an adventuring class, and rogues are somewhat less distinct conceptually, at least when the edition/system doesn't arbitrarily restrict skill usage.
And I'm not even talking about the obvious stuff such as climbing and sneaking: even in the context of modern locks, lockpicking is a pretty simple affair. I can't really think of any skills that should be wholly or even largely restricted to a rogue, and it's because of this that we'd also considered removing that class. Though, I think it would still work by just making them more reliable with skills than everyone else, both via baked-in in class features and Talents.
We'll see.
Anyway, it was apparently more about being able to categorize different classes into either a fighter or wizard archetype, though I recall at one point Joe adding something like a "hybrid" as a third possibility. While you could technically do this, I don't find it particularly useful or interesting, though I suppose it depends on what you think or want a given class to do.
For example, in the video I mention that we're working on Oriental Dungeons & Delvers, and how that sort of setting would require a separate class for a fighter, wizard, martial artist/monk, and something that can deal with spirits. Joe thinks that you can just label a monk as a fighter, and a shugenja as a wizard, though these are...inelegant comparisons.
While a fighter and a monk both focus on fighting things, they approach it in very different ways. Or, rather, they typically approach it in different ways. A fighter archetype would cover something like a samurai, archer, or maybe even a non-magical ninja if you are able to get away with light or no armor and can sneak about. Monks are, again, typically, wildly different, employing numerous supernatural abilities that you don't normally see from fighters.
For example, in Dungeons & Delvers the fighter is expected to wear the best armor he can, and use the best weapons he can. The monk gets fewer WP and VP, and while his unarmed strike isn't initially as potent as even a short sword, it does increase over time and he can use Ki points to activate various abilities, and it's because of these and other abilities such as an inherently scaling Armor Class you can't just make the monk into something like a "fighter Talent tree/group" and call it a day.
Similarly, there are thematic and mechanical differences between a wizard and a shugenja. Or, more specifically, with the way Melissa and I would design both, there are thematic and mechanical differences, such that you can't just divide both into Talent trees/groups and tuck them all under the wizard umbrella.
First, wizards would rely on Wisdom, while shugenja would utilize Charisma since they need to implore spirits for aid. Second, they would have different resources, Willpower and Boon respectively, which would be utilized and recovered differently. Finally, while some spells might more or less overlap, there would be major differences. As an example, just check out our bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, and wizard classes in Dungeons & Delvers (you can also go to Bruce Lombardo's channel and watch his videos if you want to see most of them for free).
Now, could you just make a wizard archetype and just make the wizard, shugenja, cleric, druid, psion, etc into essentially Talent trees/groups? Maybe, but I don't think it would be very satisfying or interesting. With separate classes you can also grant class specific abilities at specific levels for further nuance.
For example, in Dungeons & Delvers fighters get Weapon Specialization and Multiattack 2 at 5th-level, rewarding a character for sticking it with that class long enough. Barbarians get passive DR, and can make a powerful attack that inflicts bonus damage, and both the DR and bonus damage scales every 5th barbarian level. Clerics get the ability to pray for bonus Favor at 5th-level, as well as swap our Miracle access.
Now, I had considered a classless system where you gain these things once you get a certain number of Talents from a specific class or archetype, or maybe these options "unlock" when you do, but then you lose out on other things like the fighter's Damage Bonus, which grants a bonus to damage with all weapons and is also gained at specific levels (which helps a fighter remain more competitive).
It's probably still doable (especially if you just have them unlock once you buy enough stuff), but there are other differences in our classes as well, such as a wizard being able to re-roll Drain dice at specific levels, and rangers and rogues gaining bonus Skill Points. Personally, I think just keeping classes separate is a lot easier, both from a designer and player perspective.
As a designer I can just think of a concept, and create class features and Talents that support it. As a player, I don't need to worry about whether my Melee or Dodge skills are "high enough", and whether I should keep burning XP to increase them, something I would just do when playing in classless systems. That's another benefit of a class system: you level up, and all of your necessary parameters such as attack and defense automatically improve, as opposed to feeling like an "XP tax" that you need to pay in order to avoid lagging behind.
It sounds like what Randy wants is already done in Dungeons & Delvers: you pick a class, get some stuff at 1st-level. Then you level up, pick a class, and get something from that class (generally a Talent), so abilities are gained more slowly and you have time to learn them. We have it set up so that when you multiclass into a new class, you don't get everything it does were you to have started as that class in the first place, so a fighter going into wizard just gets I think a few spells, as opposed to four or more. Another incentive for having that class from the get-go.
This for the most part functions similarly to what Randy was thinking, where getting abilities or feats or whatever from a class also grants set amounts of HP: in Dungeons & Delvers, if you level up in ranger, you get a set number of HP, pick your ranger thing, and you're good to go. Next time you level up, if you go into wizard, you get whatever HP the wizard gets, pick your wizard thing, and that's that.
This also means that multiclassing is a meaningful sacrifice, which addresses Randy's other concern where he doesn't want a character picking up abilities from another class and being just as good: every wizard level your fighter takes means that his combat skills aren't improving. Conversely, a wizard can multiclass into fighter a bit for some weapon stuff, and since we don't rely on math from 3rd through 5th Edition, where monster AC is assigned by Challenge Rating or level as opposed to common sense it's not a complete waste.
At one point Randy brings up the idea of specialities. I'm fine with this so long as they are groupings of Talents that you can pick from as desired, as opposed to something you get arbitrarily locked into as it makes no sense for a character to have to pick, say, Archer and be stuck with ranged weapon stuff, even if you don't use them or don't even want them, later. I'm not even saying that you should be able to swap it out, just that if you level up and pick one thing every level, you can just change your focus, or even dip into two or three areas to spread yourself out.
This means that if you branch out into ranged weapons and two-handed weapons, that you'll better at that than other classes, as well as fighters that focus on a weapon and shield build, but won't be as good as the guy that just picks and sticks with ranged weapons or two-handed weapons. Which, depending on how the math works out, is completely fine.
They eventually bring up the idea of having to gain renown and such to become a class such as a knight. I don't think the knight should even be a class, as it is a granted title and I can't think of anything specific that a knight should universally possess. Instead, I think any class should be able to become a knight, depending on your capabilities. Obviously, fighters make the most sense, but there's no reason any class wouldn't inherently be able to pull it off.
Paladins are different, and this depends entirely on what you think a paladin is and should be able to do, though if you're making them a fighter with divine magic I also think they are ill-suited as an adventuring class for the same reasons as the cleric. Our paladin doesn't really have any overlap with the cleric class, and since paladin powers are derived from being "super good" I think it still works as an adventuring class.
At 22 minutes Randy brings up the idea of a wizard never being able to specialize in a weapon. I disagree. I think a wizard could put the time in...so long as he puts his wizard studies on hold long enough.
Again, in Dungeons & Delvers fighters get Weapon Specialization at 5th-level, and I see no reason why a wizard can't also gain that by not gaining any wizard levels for five entire levels, which is a considerable chunk of his adventuring career, and by that point the 10th-level fighter will have improved Weapon Specialization and be making three attacks per round.
This is on top of his greater amount of HP, passive damage bonus, attack bonus, and Strength and Constitution save bonus. The 10th-level wizard will also have access to way more spells, 20 more Willpower points to play with, and a higher Magic Bonus, so his spells will do more. Oh, his higher wizard level means that he can also enhance them more.
As for adventurers knowing adventuring skills, this is easily resolved by using something like 3rd Edition's skill system and "taking 10". You define what skills characters can use without investing skill points (ie, "Untrained"), and then everyday activities that anyone can do just require a "10" or less to succeed at. Then you let characters just take 10 when not rushed or threatened, so they don't fail at routine tasks that they normally wouldn't.
For example, if Survival is a skill that could be used untrained, you can say that making a fire is a DC 5 or 10 Survival check, which means that any character can do so in normal circumstances. You can then make some applications of Survival require training, and/or make the DC higher so that you either need the points invested, or to get lucky.
Alternatively, in the Adventuring chapter you just make a non-exhaustive list of activities that most characters are presumed to be able to do, skills be damned.
In either case, this avoids giving characters "free" skills, and avoids having characters having to invest a point or two in a myriad of different skills to be able to perform very basic tasks, such as being able to get on a horse and ride it, cook at a very basic level, or even attempt to sneak around.
In 2nd Edition Dungeons & Delvers clerics won't be an adventuring class, and characters will be able to pray for minor blessings and such. A common one I can see is fighters praying for victory in combat, or for keeping someone alive who is dying. These attempts require a Charisma-based Prayer check, with succeed granting some sort of bonus, failure doing nothing, and a critical failure imposing a penalty.
You also get a cumulative penalty on Prayer checks the more you do it, and this can be offset by donations to a temple and performing certain services and actions that benefit the god of the setting. You can also gain a bonus if you do a bunch of stuff in line with what the god would want, which lets you hit the really high DCs.
But most of the really powerful Miracles require clerics to try, and doing so in a temple grants a bonus due to Astral Resonance, so there's a reason to go there and ask for help.
All of this is different from what happened in Clash of the Titans. I don't recall Perseus praying for any of the magic items that were given to him, and similarly the GM can just say that this or that god just gives the character stuff, including blessings and the like. It's just that when the character wants something for whatever reason, that requires a check unless it's something the god was going to grant anyway.
On the topic of Resurrection, in Dungeons & Delvers it requires a lot of Favor depending on how long the character has been dead. Clerics can get access to this Miracle early on, but it costs 7 Favor and the target can only have been dead for a day, and maximum Favor is your Wisdom + cleric level so most clerics would need to be 5th or 6th-level to even try, and that assumes no Favor has already been spent.
At around 40 minutes they compare high level fighters and wizards. My response to the issue of linear fighters and quadratic wizards is that it can be easily avoided by simply not letting wizards do a bunch of crazy crap on a whim, to which Joe said D&D already does that and he's half right, because I'm talking about after the wizard loads up his spells for the day.
You can resolve this issue by reducing their available magic power, and/or giving spells longer casting times, coupled with the option of spending more magic points in order to speed up casting. One or both of these forces the wizard to better manage his magic, instead of having access to some meteor swarms, summoning spells, teleportation, fireballs, etc, all at once, all usable as a single action.
In Dungeons & Delvers, wizards can unleash some powerful attacks, but will quickly burn through their magic points (especially since it costs more points to scale a spell up), and since all spells utilize the same magic point pool, they can't just unload a bunch of meteor swarms and then fallback to less powerful but still devastating auto-scaling magic.
I also hated the monk until we created one for Dungeons & Delvers. That one is awesome and effective.
You can let players make choices every level, or nearly every level, without overwhelming them by not making every choice very complicated and limiting it to perhaps one choice per level. This way the player chooses something, and then has an entire level to internalize it, assuming it even has any complexity at all. Some choices can just be "+1 to damage with a two-handed weapon".
Another way is to group Talents into categories, so if a player wants to be an "archery fighter", he can just look at all the "archery" Talent groups/trees. Of course, if a class gives you something like an extra attack at a certain level, then you don't need to give the player a choice at all: that's pretty awesome all by itself.
At around 50 minutes Joe asks the question as to what issues is Randy trying to solve. Randy seems to have a difficult time answering, but I'll answer at least some of what Dungeons & Delvers was intended to and did solve:
- Nonsense pseudo-Vancian magic.
- Every class utilizing nonsense pseudo-Vancian magic.
- Every class drawing from the same list of spells (which might be divided sort of into arcane/divine).
- Armor somehow just deflecting attacks without absorbing any amount of damage.
- Hit points trying to be too many things at once, when they are clearly only doing one thing (meat points).
- Lack of character customization.
- Overreliance on x times per day mechanics for virtually everything, even if it makes no sense.
- Lack of mechanics being supported by flavor (largely a magic issue).
- Overreliance on magic to get by (not only includes clerics and healing, but classes like the ranger also having magic baked in).
- Overreliance on gold, so copper is worthless, and silver nearly so.
- Odd quirks such as all potions being magical in nature, all scrolls disintegrating on use, wands and staffs being basically x shot magic items.
- A lot of boring monsters that rely on pseudo-Vancian magic, such as giants and dragons.
- A lot of generally boring monsters.
- Mechanics that are poorly written and/or effectively worthless, such as grappling.
- Treasure being pretty much just cash and magic items (ie, no monster parts and such).
- Alchemical items that rapidly become worthless and useless.
- An anemic crafting system that characters needn't bother with because you can't do anything with it, anyway.
- Magic items everywhere, all the damned time.
- Boring magic items.
- Monsters being named after something from mythology, but completely changed and/or more boring (ie, kobolds, gorgons, devils, angels, dragons, etc).
Leave a Comment