A Question Of Class

As I mentioned in my last gaming article, I've got the bug to torture some RPG players again. Since that last article, I've done a whole lot of research on how I wanted to go on a number of topics, and I thought I'd share.

Before I lay out which system I've decided I wanted to use, it's probably best to explain how I came to that conclusion. As I stated in the previous article, the "feature creep" that's inherent in the basic structure of D&D is something that I've always hated.

Don't get me wrong, I loved getting my issue of the Dragon every month and finding a new, unique class to think about...but that's just it. Think about, never play. As a player, either already had a character I liked. And, besides, my DM would never let me play one of these new non-Lawful Good paladin variants no matter how I pleaded. As a DM, the topic never actually came up. At the end of the day, every class is just a variation on three basic classes (yes, there are four in D&D, we'll get to that): warrior, mage, rogue, so why complicate the issue?

"Um, stupid, yeah...hello? Clerics?" Nope, haven't forgotten the cure-carriers that cut their meat with maces. My problem with clerics is I think most people misinterpret what clerics are supposed to be. For most people, a cleric is a priest, and they concentrate on the fact that they case spells. But, the reality is they're supposed to be the warrior-priest. In D&D, clerics are supposed to be more akin to the Knights Templar than Friar Tuck.

Rightly or wrongly, that's how I've generally seen them played. Given that they're a warrior who casts spells, clerics are nothing more (to me) than a fighter/magic-user multiclass with some weapon restrictions and a lower XP requirement for advancement. If a cleric could ever cast anything but Cure spells (again, few have in my history), they'd be a formidable class, but they're not played to their potential so why bother?

"Druids?" Easy: mages with a restricted spell list and the ability turn into animals. In fact, most extra classes that are made up are simply variations on the base classes that add some kind of magical ability to make them interesting. Paladins are fighters who can cast spells and lay hands. Rangers are fighters who can make friends with animals and kick giant ass (and eventually cast spells). Bards are thieves who can charm the pants off the ladies. Or, guys, if that's what you're in to. Monks are...a whole other animal...

I know, I'm oversimplifying here, but that's the point. If I cut down to three base classes, and from that can create a cleric-like creature by simply having the player multiclass, why do I need a cleric class? I don't, so they're gone. I will avoid discussing the fact that in the campaign world I'm putting together, there's no gods anyway, so they're doubly pointless. :)

This isn't about me being against classes. I like classes, I just don't need so many of them. Classes make it easier to explain to fellow players what your character's role in the party is. When I tell other players "My cousin, Joe, played a paladin named Luckfudge, and it was the best-played paladin I've ever seen", they know that I'm talking about the restrictions placed on paladins and what I mean by that simple sentence. Their only follow up is "Luckfudge??"

Now, granted, trimming out all other classes and using multiclassing to make up the difference, you do lose some of that. But, Luckfudge was about role-playing. The restrictions aren't really placed on the character so much as on the player themselves. Joe knew better than to say "I'm going to slowly cut the throat of the orc's wife until he tells us where the camp is". He also knew that if someone else in the party said it, his only response should be "I'm attacking his character if he tries that."

Trust me, you did NOT want to be on the wrong side of Lucky.

But, those are decisions made by the player based on the restrictions placed on what the character code do. A good role-player doesn't need those restrictions spelled out for them. If Joe played a magic-user/fighter with a code of honor, he'd get most of what he could do as a paladin.

Let's also not forget, my plan is to recreate more the feel of playing old-school D&D (red boxers represent!) than AD&D. Most of my playing has been with AD&D, but I'm good with taking it further back. My goal is to induce role-playing over roll-playing. When your character is defined more by the way it's played than what the numbers on the page are, it becomes very difficult to fall back to the easy route. Lucky would be Lucky, no matter what his character sheet said.

So, given that, and a few other things, the game system that most fits what I want is Lamentations of the Flame Princess (yes, that's the name of the game). It's gained a lot of reputation since its debut, and not all of it has to do with the soft-core, grindhouse-style porn that graces its interior. I grabbed the free no-art version, so I've never seen the fun stuff, unfortunately. Overall, it's deservedly well-received as a well-constructed OSR retro-clone. It even has demihumans as classes!

I won't be doing demihumans as classes, though.

Trimming down to just three core classes was 2/3 easy. Fighters represent everything that has as its major job requirement "Must be able to knock things down through brute strength. Brains optional." Magic-users, um, use magic, and can stand in for clerics, druids, sorcerers, witches, or wizards. It all depends on the source of their magic and how they wield it, which is a role-playing decision anyway and is a whole other article.

But, thieves, that's a different story. I won't go into the permutations that I came up with, suffice it to say when I saw Whitehack I was enamored of his interpretation, "The Deft". It's essentially any class that depends on knowing how to do things (aside from cast spells and knock things over). However, while Whitehack is a neat hack I will be borrowing from, The Deft was not what I was looking for. It's TOO open-ended.

LotFP's Specialist, now there's my thief/bard/ranger!

Once I read through and saw the elegant simplicity with which the author had differentiated his four classes (in a nutshell: fighters are the only ones who get higher combat bonuses as they go up, everyone can try basic thief skills and such, but only specialists get bonuses as they go up, etc), I knew this is what I wanted to base my game around.

Of course, I'm going to have to pull it apart because he's got those stinky clerics in there, not to mention the demihuman classes (ick), but as far as mechanics go it's pretty much what I was looking for.

With all of this in mind, I've got the core of what players would need to build their own class. There's a lot of other material I haven't covered, but trimming down to three base classes is a fairly radical enough change for a single article....

...but, once we get to the campaign world, I'll introduce you to the fourth class that all player-characters will be required to multiclass with. :)