Author Topic: An idea on multiclassing.  (Read 66127 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Prime32

  • Administrator
  • Organ Grinder
  • *
  • Posts: 7534
  • Modding since 03/12/10
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #300 on: October 13, 2008, 05:09:41 PM »
Quote
(and as stated I'm a pessimist, so I'm more prone to skepticism than you might be on what's worth investing time.)
That's not skepticism, that's cynicism. I'm a sceptic, which means I was sceptical about the complaints as well.

As for finding few articles singing its praise...well, if it is better, or even "does this well", why the hell not?
You never find more articles praising than complaining about anything, especially if it involves change. It's human nature.

Quote
As for 4e and wizards with "a little bit of fighter skills": That might not be a bad thing. But the other mechanics (marking people, it sounds like, is...ill handled. Good idea? Yes. Just not well executed beyond any issues of mechanical balance, if even there.)
If you want to find out the good parts of 4e, I recommend starting a new thread. Just remember that many of the people who dislike your idea also dislike 4e.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2008, 05:14:18 PM by Prime32 »
My work
The tier system in a nutshell:
[spoiler]Tier 6: A cartographer.
Tier 5: An expert cartographer or a decent marksman.
Tier 4: An expert marksman.
Tier 3: An expert marksman, cartographer and chef who can tie strong knots and is trained in hostage negotiation or a marksman so good he can shoot down every bullet fired by a minigun while armed with a rusted single-shot pistol that veers to the left.
Tier 2: Someone with teleportation, mind control, time manipulation, intangibility, the ability to turn into an exact duplicate of anything, or the ability to see into the future with perfect accuracy.
Tier 1: Someone with teleportation, mind control, time manipulation, intangibility, the ability to turn into an exact duplicate of anything and the ability to see into the future with perfect accuracy.[/spoiler]

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #301 on: October 13, 2008, 05:18:55 PM »
It is "I am skeptical that the company that produced this crap (3e/3.5)" will magically figure out how to produce something good."

As for articles praising vs. complaining: Now that is cynical.

As for 4e: I see a lot of people who dislike anything that might possibly limit their options...at all. Option limiting is not treated as "it might have some reason, what's the reason?", its treated as if it was Contrary to All Gaming.

Instead of arguing that there might be a reason that some individual hobbit might be a knight, I'd like to see a bit of open mindedness as to why "no, there are no such things" might be true, instead of insisting that its reasonable to permit PCs to be something unique solely because the player wants to do that thing, no matter how valid any reasons against it are.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #302 on: October 13, 2008, 05:25:44 PM »
One of the basic principles of game design, especially when talking about a role playing game that inspires creativity, is that the purpose of the rules is to facilitate more creativity.  Removing said customization and creativity is failing as a designer.

So yes, loss of that is just a bad thing.

Now, some other principles are required.  Game balance is critical, for example, and simplicity is important, so sometimes you have to remove options in the name of balance.  But 4E made a horrible mistake by removing far too many options and too much creativity (much like what you're trying to do) and that really kills it as a game.

And yeah, your statement that their can't be hobbit knights demonstrates one of the primary flaws in your thinking.  If someone else would have fun playing a hobbit knight, then hobbit knight should be a balanced and viable option.  Games that arbitrarily say "no, no hobbit knights" fail as games, because the ego of the designer is getting in the way of the fun of the players.  Just because YOU can't imagine it doesn't mean the player and the DM can't.

By the way, one of the reoccuring characters in my campaign, who I also play sometimes, is a Halfling Paladin.  He's the only Paladin I can stand to play, and he's awesome.  Not just powerful (he's hardly Druid levels of powerful), but awesome.

JaronK

RobbyPants

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 7139
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #303 on: October 13, 2008, 05:27:24 PM »
Is this some type of glass-ceiling thing?  So long as what the player wants isn't impossible (playing a flying person in a non-magical world, having guns in a world set in the past, etc), I don't see why you need to limit them.  What if that hobbit wants to be the first hobbit knight?  Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it can't be done.  Why can't the player play something interesting if it's possible?
My balancing 3.5 compendium
Elemental mage test game

Quotes
[spoiler]
Quote from: Cafiend
It is a shame stupidity isn't painful.
Quote from: StormKnight
Totally true.  Historians believe that most past civilizations would have endured for centuries longer if they had successfully determined Batman's alignment.
Quote from: Grand Theft Otto
Why are so many posts on the board the equivalent of " Dear Dr. Crotch, I keep punching myself in the crotch, and my groin hurts... what should I do? How can I make my groin stop hurting?"
Quote from: CryoSilver
I suggest carving "Don't be a dick" into him with a knife.  A dull, rusty knife.  A dull, rusty, bent, flaming knife.
Quote from: Seerow
Fluffy: It's over Steve! I've got the high ground!
Steve: You underestimate my power!
Fluffy: Don't try it, Steve!
Steve: *charges*
Fluffy: *three critical strikes*
Steve: ****
Quote from: claypigeons
I don't even stat out commoners. Commoner = corpse that just isn't a zombie. Yet.
Quote from: CryoSilver
When I think "Old Testament Boots of Peace" I think of a paladin curb-stomping an orc and screaming "Your death brings peace to this land!"
Quote from: Orville_Oaksong
Buy a small country. Or Pelor. Both are good investments.
[/spoiler]

Prime32

  • Administrator
  • Organ Grinder
  • *
  • Posts: 7534
  • Modding since 03/12/10
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #304 on: October 13, 2008, 05:29:39 PM »
"No hobbit knights" should be part of the setting, not the rules. I mean, in Eberron halflings ride dinosurs.

"No hobbit knights" seems far more restrictive to roleplaying than the "example dwarf names" the guy on that site was complaining about.

I mean, seriously, if it's in the rules, that means that no-one can ever play a hobbit knight in any setting, regardless of how appropriate that would be, without changing the rules. And some DMs are psycho when it comes to changing the rules.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2008, 05:32:11 PM by Prime32 »
My work
The tier system in a nutshell:
[spoiler]Tier 6: A cartographer.
Tier 5: An expert cartographer or a decent marksman.
Tier 4: An expert marksman.
Tier 3: An expert marksman, cartographer and chef who can tie strong knots and is trained in hostage negotiation or a marksman so good he can shoot down every bullet fired by a minigun while armed with a rusted single-shot pistol that veers to the left.
Tier 2: Someone with teleportation, mind control, time manipulation, intangibility, the ability to turn into an exact duplicate of anything, or the ability to see into the future with perfect accuracy.
Tier 1: Someone with teleportation, mind control, time manipulation, intangibility, the ability to turn into an exact duplicate of anything and the ability to see into the future with perfect accuracy.[/spoiler]

woodenbandman

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2188
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #305 on: October 13, 2008, 05:30:12 PM »
Plus one! I had a player who wanted to play an Asherati cleric who wanted to suck the world dry. There were no such thing in the campaign until that point, but the character was kinda cool (I summarily banned it because it was my first time and I couldn't deal with leadership/legacy items and shit like that), but the point is that it can be fun to introduce new things.

Ubernoob

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
  • Happy Panda
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #306 on: October 13, 2008, 05:32:32 PM »
Uber: Yeah, its stupid and ignorant not to max out the benefits your character has from a given set of points, never doing anything that would be an inefficient use because the character knows exactly what they're doing in all ways and never, ever would spend points on something that sounded appealing/useful from the information they know (but isn't the best use).

Right.
For the last time:
Characters have no idea what levels, feats, skills, and classes are.  The character is a character.  Only the player knows what is on the sheet.  The character simply is.  Do you have a little bar over your head that says what class you are?  I don't.
Ubernoob is a happy panda.

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #307 on: October 13, 2008, 05:35:24 PM »
As for 4e: What I'm trying to do is remove "I want to be a guy who has excellent skills at combat but is also a rogue and that makes me a ninja!"

Being competent is a reasonable achievement. Medium BAB should be (as stated earlier,  :fo to WotC for not making it so) "competent". Good is "excellent".

Now sure, one should not remove something simply because one dislikes it anymore than necessary (if you're designing a setting, whether or not anyone wants to play a drow should not add drow to every setting)...and that's not my goal.

I don't like horse archery, but I'm not against Mounted Archery (though I'd make it work differently, that's another story).

So...stop assuming that I'm out to remove everything I dislike. There are lots of things I dislike that do have a place, and some things I like that really don't.

Robby: Why can't "It's not." be stated against something?

Sure, one should not confuse "it's never happened before" with "it never will", but saying "there are no dwarven sorcerers because dwarves never have an innate talent for magic" is perfectly legitimate.

Now, "no dwarven wizards", when wizard is something that theoretically anyone smart enough can learn...that's probably pushing it.

My view on firsts and uniques and so on with PCs is this:

"I want to play one!" does not mean you should be allowed to. Nor does the fact it is unique mean that it should always be banned.

So its a "Some things just don't exist here." thing, and a "it is rare beyond rare for the norms to be completely shattered." thing.

Uber: And since when does "class" mean nothing that the character can sense? Is it impossible to tell that someone is a champion of Pelor, which happens to mean the Paladin class?
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

woodenbandman

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2188
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #308 on: October 13, 2008, 05:37:02 PM »
Quote
Uber: And since when does "class" mean nothing that the character can sense? Is it impossible to tell that someone is a champion of Pelor, which happens to mean the Paladin class?

Or any other class.

Ubernoob

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
  • Happy Panda
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #309 on: October 13, 2008, 05:38:11 PM »
Uber: And since when does "class" mean nothing that the character can sense? Is it impossible to tell that someone is a champion of Pelor, which happens to mean the Paladin class?
Because 3E does jack shit to make classes exclusive.  "Champion of Pelor" could be any number of classes in 3E.  In a game with classes actually designed well champion of pelor may mean something.  In 3E that is just RP and totally worthless in terms of guessing a person's ability.
Ubernoob is a happy panda.

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #310 on: October 13, 2008, 05:39:09 PM »
Only because the game is badly designed (this appears true beyond 3e) and makes it so that being a paladin is probably the worst way to represent a character who is a champion of Pelor, instead of being the class for people who are such.

As for a game with classes actually designed well: That's the goal. Make it so that being a Paladin means you are that champion. Not just a collection of semi-related and gimped abilities, which seems to be the tradition of the game for some reason that can only be called one (or more) of stupid, obnoxious, irritating, and unfair.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

Ubernoob

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
  • Happy Panda
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #311 on: October 13, 2008, 05:41:43 PM »
Only because the game is badly designed (this appears true beyond 3e) and makes it so that being a paladin is probably the worst way to represent a character who is a champion of Pelor, instead of being the class for people who are such.

As for a game with classes actually designed well: That's the goal. Make it so that being a Paladin means you are that champion. Not just a collection of semi-related and gimped abilities, which seems to be the tradition of the game for some reason that can only be called one (or more) of stupid, obnoxious, irritating, and unfair.
Duh

Now can we please get you playing 4E and stop whining about 3E?
Ubernoob is a happy panda.

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #312 on: October 13, 2008, 05:43:13 PM »
No, because 4e appears to be a bad system for its own reasons.

Can you just ignore this thread and any related if you don't want to actually contribute anything to it? Are you forced to read this thread whenever you enter the site and can't close it until you've posted something?
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #313 on: October 13, 2008, 05:46:57 PM »
Only because the game is badly designed (this appears true beyond 3e) and makes it so that being a paladin is probably the worst way to represent a character who is a champion of Pelor, instead of being the class for people who are such.

As for a game with classes actually designed well: That's the goal. Make it so that being a Paladin means you are that champion. Not just a collection of semi-related and gimped abilities, which seems to be the tradition of the game for some reason that can only be called one (or more) of stupid, obnoxious, irritating, and unfair.
[/quote]

That's silly.  Why should it be the goal of game designers to arbitrarily limit choice by saying "if you want to be a Champion of Pelor, you MUST be a Paladin with these specific abilities?"  Every game design treatise has said the exact opposite.  Maybe one person's idea of a Champion of Pelor is someone who has as much divine power from Pelor as they can get and heals people while destroying undead (Cleric 10/Radient Servant of Pelor 10).  Another might think a Champion of Pelor should be someone who charges into battle, keeping his friends alive as he smashes through enemies (Crusader 20).  Still others might think that a mix of martial and divine spellcasting would be best (Paladin 20).  Some might want a balance of the first and third options (Cleric 6/PrC Paladin 14).  Some might think that a character who spreads the word of Pelor while healing those who need it would be a great Champion of Pelor (Bard 20).  Others might say hey, why have divine power at all, a Champion of Pelor is a martial character who fights in the name of Pelor (Fighter 20, Warblade 20).  Right now, the game can handle that, though some balance issues need to be worked out.  However the particular player's concept works, 3.5 can support it.

Your idea, though, is to say "no, you have to be a Paladin.  That's it.  You're not allowed to be other stuff."  Every design principle says you're wrong.  You're like a chef who says "people should like spicy.  We should ban anyone eating food that isn't spicy, everywhere."  Well, a principle of cooking is that your food should taste good for the people who you're cooking for, and a principle of game design for RPGs is that a game should facilitate the character creation choices people want to make.

Why is it so important to your ego that other people playing games you're not in play your way?

And Elennsar:  4E is a bad system because, among  other things, it does classes just like you're saying.  Go play it, and learn why your ideas are wrong.

JaronK

RobbyPants

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 7139
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #314 on: October 13, 2008, 05:48:41 PM »
Robby: Why can't "It's not." be stated against something?
Well, it can be.  The thing is, you're one DM with presumabely several players in your game.  If you keep telling them "No, cuz I said so.", you're likely to piss them off.  No one likes arbitrarily being told "no".  If there's not a reason for it, then you'll simply come off as some egotistical jerk on a power trip.  That tends to lose players.
My balancing 3.5 compendium
Elemental mage test game

Quotes
[spoiler]
Quote from: Cafiend
It is a shame stupidity isn't painful.
Quote from: StormKnight
Totally true.  Historians believe that most past civilizations would have endured for centuries longer if they had successfully determined Batman's alignment.
Quote from: Grand Theft Otto
Why are so many posts on the board the equivalent of " Dear Dr. Crotch, I keep punching myself in the crotch, and my groin hurts... what should I do? How can I make my groin stop hurting?"
Quote from: CryoSilver
I suggest carving "Don't be a dick" into him with a knife.  A dull, rusty knife.  A dull, rusty, bent, flaming knife.
Quote from: Seerow
Fluffy: It's over Steve! I've got the high ground!
Steve: You underestimate my power!
Fluffy: Don't try it, Steve!
Steve: *charges*
Fluffy: *three critical strikes*
Steve: ****
Quote from: claypigeons
I don't even stat out commoners. Commoner = corpse that just isn't a zombie. Yet.
Quote from: CryoSilver
When I think "Old Testament Boots of Peace" I think of a paladin curb-stomping an orc and screaming "Your death brings peace to this land!"
Quote from: Orville_Oaksong
Buy a small country. Or Pelor. Both are good investments.
[/spoiler]

Prime32

  • Administrator
  • Organ Grinder
  • *
  • Posts: 7534
  • Modding since 03/12/10
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #315 on: October 13, 2008, 05:48:52 PM »
No, because 4e appears to be a bad system for its own reasons.

Can you just ignore this thread and any related if you don't want to actually contribute anything to it? Are you forced to read this thread whenever you enter the site and can't close it until you've posted something?

Yes :P But I seriously think that 4e fits what you want perfectly.


Quote
As for a game with classes actually designed well: That's the goal. Make it so that being a Paladin means you are that champion. Not just a collection of semi-related and gimped abilities, which seems to be the tradition of the game for some reason that can only be called one (or more) of stupid, obnoxious, irritating, and unfair.
Your arguments treat the game as if it is already like that. That seems to annoy people. A lot. You can't say "this is how the game works", nor even "this is how my fixed game works" until you have a working fix. In this case, your fix amounts to a complete overhaul of the system, which will probably end up closer to 4e than 3e.

It would take far more effort to turn 3e into this hybrid than 4e.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2008, 05:51:43 PM by Prime32 »
My work
The tier system in a nutshell:
[spoiler]Tier 6: A cartographer.
Tier 5: An expert cartographer or a decent marksman.
Tier 4: An expert marksman.
Tier 3: An expert marksman, cartographer and chef who can tie strong knots and is trained in hostage negotiation or a marksman so good he can shoot down every bullet fired by a minigun while armed with a rusted single-shot pistol that veers to the left.
Tier 2: Someone with teleportation, mind control, time manipulation, intangibility, the ability to turn into an exact duplicate of anything, or the ability to see into the future with perfect accuracy.
Tier 1: Someone with teleportation, mind control, time manipulation, intangibility, the ability to turn into an exact duplicate of anything and the ability to see into the future with perfect accuracy.[/spoiler]

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #316 on: October 13, 2008, 05:56:27 PM »
Being "other stuff" is being just that...other stuff. If you want to be one of the people Pelor picks to be shining exemplars of truth, justice, and the Lawful Good way, then the paladin class is that class.

If you want to be something else, then you're something else.

As for "other people playing games"...um, you guys are the ones insisting that what I'm doing should be changed. I'm suggesting an IDEA. Not a "all of you play this way because every other way is stupid."

You ask why I believe what I believe...and the answer is that I do believe it is better. Why would I propose doing something a certain way if I didn't think it was an improvement? To spam the site? To get insulted?

Sheesh.

All of what you're saying is making more interested in disagreeing with everything you say because you're doing the same to me, regardless of any possible merits of "only paladins are champions of Pelor" or the like.

As such, a recommendation that I try 4e is taken as a recommendation that I get cancer, but with the murderous aspect.

If you honestly don't like the idea of "if you want to be a CoP, then you're a paladin.", then don't use any suggestions that would make the game work like that. Don't insult me and insist that I'm forcing anything on anyone or expecting everyone to treat me as knowing some special truth or anything like that.

If you are interested in it, then stop attacking it as bad on principle because limitations are always bad and more choices are always better.


Uber: No, it doesn't. It might in this respect, but not otherwise.

It would take far less effort if you were less interested in treating what I'm proposing as bad on general principles and that the game should, regardless of any merits of limiting people in regards to classes, allow total flexibility.

Either disregard this if you disagree with the intents, thoughts, and goals, or actually help.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

Prime32

  • Administrator
  • Organ Grinder
  • *
  • Posts: 7534
  • Modding since 03/12/10
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #317 on: October 13, 2008, 06:04:19 PM »
As such, a recommendation that I try 4e is taken as a recommendation that I get cancer, but with the murderous aspect.
I assure you, I do not try to ruin the life of someone who disagrees with me on the internet (some of the others might :P). I suggest 4e because I genuinely believe you will have more fun with it, and for no other reason.

Quote
If you honestly don't like the idea of "if you want to be a CoP, then you're a paladin.", then don't use any suggestions that would make the game work like that. Don't insult me and insist that I'm forcing anything on anyone or expecting everyone to treat me as knowing some special truth or anything like that.

If you are interested in it, then stop attacking it as bad on principle because limitations are always bad and more choices are always better.
You misunderstand. More choices means that you can choose between "if you want to be a CoP, then you're a paladin" or "if you want to be a CoP, you don't have to be a paladin". More choices means we both win.

Quote
It would take far less effort if you were less interested in treating what I'm proposing as bad on general principles and that the game should, regardless of any merits of limiting people in regards to classes, allow total flexibility.
Again, this is not the part of the game. It is the part of the DM to decide whether or not hobbits can be knights.

I have no problem whatsoever with a setting where hobbits cannot be knights (indeed, I would not allow them if I were running a Middle-Earth campaign). What I have a problem with is disallowing hobbit knights in all settings.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2008, 06:07:13 PM by Prime32 »
My work
The tier system in a nutshell:
[spoiler]Tier 6: A cartographer.
Tier 5: An expert cartographer or a decent marksman.
Tier 4: An expert marksman.
Tier 3: An expert marksman, cartographer and chef who can tie strong knots and is trained in hostage negotiation or a marksman so good he can shoot down every bullet fired by a minigun while armed with a rusted single-shot pistol that veers to the left.
Tier 2: Someone with teleportation, mind control, time manipulation, intangibility, the ability to turn into an exact duplicate of anything, or the ability to see into the future with perfect accuracy.
Tier 1: Someone with teleportation, mind control, time manipulation, intangibility, the ability to turn into an exact duplicate of anything and the ability to see into the future with perfect accuracy.[/spoiler]

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #318 on: October 13, 2008, 06:13:35 PM »
1) No, but its still being taken as meant with roughly the same amount of good will. You, not so much. At this moment? Jaron is definately seeming that way.

2) Not really, no. If you want to play something other than said Exemplar Etc. and call it "champion of Pelor", that's not necessarily a bad thing...but nor is saying that anything other than a Paladin is also other than a CoP.

3) Well, when "hobbits' exist in all settings, fair arguement. When I specifically said hobbits and not halflings/hobbits/whatever, then it should be obvious that I mean "hobbits, as in Middle-Earth".

Personally, I'd rather say that 90% of racial restrictions on classes are cultural, and 10% (if that) are racial. For instance, dwarves as written might well be magicless, but that's not to say you can't have a dwarven race that is. Just that this write up isn't.

Races by definition are setting specific. Classes, to a greater or lesser degree, are too.

So my stance is this.

A system trying to be generic (whether "all settings" or merely "all fantasy") should not have classes. Champions of Pelor having specific abilities makes sense in Greyhawk. But having that specific class might be totally nonsensical in my setting, and what works there is still totally out of place in Middle-Earth.

A system trying to be specific should and should limit them...not more than necessary, but they should be limited. It may well be that only humans and a few other races are Force-sensitive enough to be Force users (including but not limited to Jedi). I'm not sure it is a good idea to do that, but it should not be damned simply because it limits options.

Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

Prime32

  • Administrator
  • Organ Grinder
  • *
  • Posts: 7534
  • Modding since 03/12/10
Re: An idea on multiclassing.
« Reply #319 on: October 13, 2008, 06:22:35 PM »
A system trying to be generic (whether "all settings" or merely "all fantasy") should not have classes. Champions of Pelor having specific abilities makes sense in Greyhawk. But having that specific class might be totally nonsensical in my setting, and what works there is still totally out of place in Middle-Earth.

A system trying to be specific should and should limit them...not more than necessary, but they should be limited. It may well be that only humans and a few other races are Force-sensitive enough to be Force users (including but not limited to Jedi). I'm not sure it is a good idea to do that, but it should not be damned simply because it limits options.
This is what 3.5 already does. The classes in the PHB are pretty generic, designed to cover a variety of related concepts, and the campaign books add more specific ones. Some of the generic supplments "slip up" by including PrCs for Greyhawk gods, but the Greyhawk gods are also generic, and many of these classes say something along the lines of "If Heironeous does not exist in your setting, a member of this class could be devoted to a similar deity like the Church of the Silver Flame".
My work
The tier system in a nutshell:
[spoiler]Tier 6: A cartographer.
Tier 5: An expert cartographer or a decent marksman.
Tier 4: An expert marksman.
Tier 3: An expert marksman, cartographer and chef who can tie strong knots and is trained in hostage negotiation or a marksman so good he can shoot down every bullet fired by a minigun while armed with a rusted single-shot pistol that veers to the left.
Tier 2: Someone with teleportation, mind control, time manipulation, intangibility, the ability to turn into an exact duplicate of anything, or the ability to see into the future with perfect accuracy.
Tier 1: Someone with teleportation, mind control, time manipulation, intangibility, the ability to turn into an exact duplicate of anything and the ability to see into the future with perfect accuracy.[/spoiler]