Decline What's up with these characteristically weak classes nowadays?

[luj1]

In BG3 every class can disengage/hide/dash as a bonus action (like a Rogue), every class can use scrolls, even from other classes and levels, everyone can revive a comrade from a downed state, etc. Different classes have the same spells, with significant overlap. Clerics and Wizards both have Fireball, etc. You could have really seen the same in DOS 2. Just boring samey classes

Then in Owlcat games you have 50 bloat classes, like you have a Ranger, then a Ranger without Animal Companion, but with something else, or a Paladin with/without Laying on Hands, etc. Any lazy bum can make 400 classes this way. This is fake depth.

And this is really similar to Soyer's systemic symmetry and idiotic doctrine that every character can be built to learn whatever and be everything

My conclusion is that nowadays there are no actual "classes" at all. I will not even talk about Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk, whose RPG lineage is questionable. Seems like we are at peak retardation where human kind is bent on DECONSTRUCTING everything, whether it's in the real world like genders, traditions, rights, etc. or in a videogame world.

Lacrymas JarlFrank Dorateen Darkozric Ash Cleveland Mark Blakemore Gregz Chaotic_Heretic

 

[Vic]

 

[luj1]

I noticed that many studios are doing the same thing over and over and let's be real here, this is part of CRPG dumbification.

Classes are one of the essences of RPGs and the problem when you do this, is that you kill different playstyles.

Classes MUST be distinct or else character building WILL be shallow.

 

[None]

Then in Owlcat games you have 50 bloat classes, like you have a Ranger, then a Ranger without Animal Companion, but with something else, or a Paladin with/without Laying on Hands, etc. Any lazy bum can make 400 classes this way. This is fake depth.

Are you talking about archetypes? Those are basically kits.

 

[luj1]

I can understand that but there is still no practical difference between playing let's say a War Priest, Cleric, Inquisitor or Paladin.

 

[Cryomancer]

Those are basically kits.

Kits in ad&d imposes more advantages and drawbacks than any subclass in pf1e. Shadow mages in ad&d had two opposition schools, evocation and abjuration. And enemy get more or less saves depending on the light, from +2 to -4.




I really liked their new shadowcaster but the cass could have more drawbacks and hindrances.

Now a exploiter wizard just changes two features of base class. Thassilonian specialist, could be a feat "sin magic" which expands your spell slots but also the opposition school.

War Priest, Cleric, Inquisitor or Palad

Is to sell books. Only for that.

 

[octavius]

I think the word for it is "equity".

 

[Serus]

Those are basically kits.

Kits in ad&d imposes more advantages and drawbacks than any subclass in pf1e. Shadow mages in ad&d had two opposition schools, evocation and abjuration. And enemy get more or less saves depending on the light, from +2 to -4.




I really liked their new shadowcaster but the cass could have more drawbacks and hindrances.

Now a exploiter wizard just changes two features of base class. Thassilonian specialist, could be a feat "sin magic" which expands your spell slots but also the opposition school.

War Priest, Cleric, Inquisitor or Palad

Is to sell books. Only for that.

Certainly there are many classes in Pathfinder 1 or D&D3.x (don't know much D&D5 or Pathfinder 2 but i assume it is same) that exist mainly for that purpose. I'm just not convinced those mentioned above are the best examples, especially Paladin vs Cleric. One is a fighter with only a small of healing & spellcasting. This is still the case in those systems and is not the same as Cleric who just feel like another of wizard in some games/systems at this point. But yeah, there are many such classes and dozens of archetypes/kits/whatever.

 

[Semiurge]

Clerics with destructive spells is just wrong.

 

[Lacrymas]

I'd argue this was inevitable the moment the Paladin was introduced in D&D because it's essentially a Fighter/Cleric multi. These combinations of classes that became classes of their own justified sameyness across the board and now we've got the abomination that is PF 1E.

 

[NecroLord]

What do you mean?
You are the Dovahkiin, bro!!
Your hulking Two Handed weapon Barbarian has to learn to sneak around in shadows and pickpocket in order to advance in level!
Yeah....


This is fixed with the "Legendary" edition, you have to make your skill legendary, which resets it to its original value and you lose all the perks spent in it...
Devs, bring back classes and specializations!

 

[Piotrovitz]

And this is really similar to Soyer's systemic symmetry and idiotic doctrine that every character can be built to learn whatever and be everything

Not to defend Soyer, but both Pillars are the opposite of what you're ranting about - you have only several specialized classes that all play very differently and have little overlapping similar skills.

Also, the problem of everyone having access to everything is not tied only to class bloat of modern games.
This goes way back to any cRPGs that allowed rampant multiclassing. Take Wiz 6-7, where you're running with a party full of fighter/ninja/ranger/alchemist/priests/whatever munchkins throwing critical blows and nuclear blasts left and right.

 

[Lacrymas]

Not to defend Soyer, but both Pillars are the opposite of what you're ranting about - you have only several specialized classes that all play very differently and have little overlapping similar skills.

This is not the case. There are only 3 (tentatively 4) classes in the game - melee martial, ranged martial, spellcaster (and tank as the 4th, but it's very sus). You quickly realize there aren't enough good feats to differentiate the classes and everyone ends up playing like everyone else in one of the 3 categories.

 

[just]

classless > everything else

 

[jackofshadows]

BG3 could use some restrictions for sure but otherwise has plenty of class identity moments. You should've known if actually played it.

As for Owlcat games - yeah, at such point you better off with classless system instead of a situation where some "classes" are barely distinct from each other. You could even possibly attach to it say the same prestige classes by reaching specific bars and getting unique bonuses.

As for your conclusion - not everyone like you is ready to play the same fucking games for 20 years straight. No one is getting your precious old titles form you, let the devs experiment and make new things ffs.

 

[Parabalus]

Not to defend Soyer, but both Pillars are the opposite of what you're ranting about - you have only several specialized classes that all play very differently and have little overlapping similar skills.

This is not the case. There are only 3 (tentatively 4) classes in the game - melee martial, ranged martial, spellcaster (and tank as the 4th, but it's very sus). You quickly realize there aren't enough good feats to differentiate the classes and everyone ends up playing like everyone else in one of the 3 categories.

Might as well apply that to the IE games.

 

[Lacrymas]

Might as well apply that to the IE games.

Not really. While there isn't a lot of differentiation between Fighter, Paladin and Barbarian, the spellcasting classes have strong identity (wiz vs sorc not so much, but that's another problem). On top of that, you have multi and dual classing.

 

[Peacefriend]

And this is really similar to Soyer's systemic symmetry and idiotic doctrine that every character can be built to learn whatever and be everything

Has he ever actually said something like this? It doesn't sound like something he would say imo.

 

[Gilius Thunderhead]

I'd noticed some of those things with DOS1, which was one of the reasons I got bored pretty quickly with it. I don't mind classless if it encourages specialization, in fact I prefer that. Classes that don't mean anything and just add metagaming overhead for no apparent benefit seem like the worst of both worlds.

 

[Parabalus]

Might as well apply that to the IE games.

Not really. While there isn't a lot of differentiation between Fighter, Paladin and Barbarian, the spellcasting classes have strong identity (wiz vs sorc not so much, but that's another problem). On top of that, you have multi and dual classing.

How does multi and dual classing add differentiation? Makes no sense.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

A lot of the classes in BG1 and 2 were shitty too, it's part of adapting the system and sacrificing things. But since BG3 is many babby's first CRPG, they think it's something they did first.

 

[Lacrymas]

How does multi and dual classing add differentiation? Makes no sense.

It differentiates your party members from one another even more. I highly doubt anyone is going to say that a Thief/Cleric multiclass plays the same as a Barb/Druid dual class.

 

[Parabalus]

How does multi and dual classing add differentiation? Makes no sense.

It differentiates your party members from one another even more. I highly doubt anyone is going to say that a Thief/Cleric multiclass plays the same as a Barb/Druid dual class.

In your world where Ciphers play the same as Barbarians they will.

 

[Gilius Thunderhead]

If you're gonna have multiclassing, just remove all the rules and turn into a kind of "job system" where you can switch at will at any level. Everything else is metagaming bloat where you have to use a spreadsheet in advance. It truly puts me off like nothing else.

 

[Lacrymas]

In your world where Ciphers play the same as Barbarians they will.

Where have I said this? Ciphers are obviously part of the caster category and Barbarian in the martial melee one.