I've been playing Final Fantasy lately and noticed how certain archetypes are incredibly underutilized or underrepresented. It's always the same core "Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, etc..." lineup but you rarely ever see things like Dark Knights, Dragoons, Dervishes, any kind of Wizard/Mage archetype that isn't a carbon copy of itself with a new coat of paint.
I suppose you might consider subclasses as the substitute but that in itself is the equivalent of mixing Pepsi with Coke, giving you a watered down experience on both.
And really the same goes for races too. You'll see Humans, Elves, Dwarves, and whatever else, which is all well and good except they end up being almost identical to humans. Sure they might change around a few statistics and make them run faster/slower or be shorter/taller but... that's it? This is really the best you could come up with?
I like classless systems or point buy Build-Your-Own-Power systems but they don't execute the job 'right'. They lack the handcrafted intimacy that comes from a group of people building something from the ground up and usually break the game when vast quantities of unchecked autism is applied.
So what is there?
What's the gold standard for character creation?
And why is it so many systems fall short?
Try 3.5 for class diversity, and Conan 2d20 for classless
Bear in mind a couple of things.
>Race
You can't put too much weight on race, because it culls the very concept of character in the crib, at least, it culls a lot of good character ideas. Having some be naturally quicker or stronger is fine, or more resilient to poisons and sickness, or able to adjust to the dark faster, fine too. The problem comes when Kitsune is the best race, because it has more speed, dodging, can magically turn invisible as a natural talent, magically charm men as another natural talent, turn into a small fox, talk to animals, see in total darkness, sense magic, and know four spells just for being a Kitsune.
>Final Fantasy
>but you rarely ever see things like Dark Knights, Dragoons, Dervishes, any kind of Wizard/Mage archetype that isn't a carbon copy of itself with a new coat of paint.
Dark Knights, Dragoons, Dervishers, and pretty much all FF alt classes, are basically slight variations of the basic classes. Even 5e's archetypes are more diverse than anything mainline FF has made. Well, maybe FF14, I don't know, I don't play MMOs.
>And why is it so many systems fall short?
This is begging the question. "So many systems" don't fall short.
I know you're begging the question, because if you'd played something other than DnD, you would either be giving some examples of games systems that do fall short, or you wouldn't be making this thread.
It makes me think you just wanted to post that fricking anime girl again.
Do us a favor, tell us which games let you down, before we recommend them by mistake, like
probably already have.
>maybe FF14, I don't know, I don't play MMOs.
FF11 had one the oddly deepest class systems in any game. Installing the game was the first hurdle, the next was figuring out what to do and the final one was getting your head around how the Jobs worked.
Puppetmaster and Blue Mage being standouts.
Races are fine to be weighty if they're balanced. That's why Humans are often the worst and boring, because it's just "average". But if a Kitsune from your example hall all that then the Dwarf should be tougher with more HP, stronger, naturally deal more damage, maybe even be able to turn into stone, meld with stone, and so on. I mean eventually there will be too many abilities, but you can have them.
For FFXIV, you have your five major thing. Tank, Healer, Melee DPS, Physical ranged DPS, and Magical ranged DPS. The only really different ones are Dancer, which is all about combing steps (kind of reminds me of a PF2 Monk, not gonna lie, where you take your stance, flurry of blows, and do something else, be it move or something related to the stance), and Summoner, which is more or less all about the Carbuncle doing stuff for you, and the other summons are just visually different spells with effects. The rest are not really that different from anything seen in a LONG while.
The last good ones before then were Gambler, which would ne a nightmare to do on tabletop (have a deck of cards, have a coin, have dice, each have their own spreadsheet), Geomancer, which could be cool but also put a lot of pressure on the GM to keep the battlefields diverse, Mime, which would be annoying since you'd have to keep giving the player monster attacks, and Arithmetician/Calculator, which would require way too much meta knowledge and mathematics to be well designed in tabletop.
There's other video games with good classes that could translate. You don't see stance that often in tabletop RPGs for example. You don't see trap placers either, mostly because they don't really work.
>You don't see trap placers either, mostly because they don't really work.
what shitty games are you pla-
>pf2
aaahhhhh I see
>The problem comes when Kitsune is the best race, because it has more speed, dodging, can magically turn invisible as a natural talent, magically charm men as another natural talent, turn into a small fox, talk to animals, see in total darkness, sense magic, and know four spells just for being a Kitsune.
Oh no it's a banalcegay
>Not bait, I swear!
fpwp
>classless
frick classless systems. DCC has a lvl 0 system and my gm is fascinated by it, and it fricking sucks
play weeb systems, seems like that's what you want
pathfinder (both editions) are kind of okay?
Because final fantasy is gameified, there's little justification for making a fighter and dragoon whole separate classes rather than making a dragoon a subset to fighter.
> any kind of Wizard/Mage archetype that isn't a carbon copy of itself with a new coat of paint.
Literally red,blue, and black mages, I know there are differences, but they're as minor if not more as the differences between a sorcerer, wizard, and arcanist
Red and Black mages are already much more different than Sorcerers, Wizards and Arcanists, purely by virtue of their spell selection being geared differently, and red mages having a split focus on melee combat oftentimes too.
Blue mages are more akin to druids honestly, completely fricking different.
Traveller.
Accept no substitutes
Lifepath RPGs in general
Classless systems are a lie.
How so?
Rather than being strapped into whatever progression the company made, ai get to design my own, specific to this one character.
OP stated he didn't like classless systems since they are easy to autist cheese your way around. Not to say GURPS isn't great, but it's obvious OP wants something else.
I would suggest maybe some sort of "railroaded" GURPS which includes a lot of the GURPS stuff, but ties certain skills and abilities to each other so they are less likely to be cheesed. If OP does want a classed system, that is.
Whether OP wants something else is unreleted to the claim
>Classless systems are a lie.
Which is disproven by pointing out classless systems are real and distinct from classed systems. Which I did in my reply.
For OP?
Yeah, the GM could quickly put abilities into techtrees, or make everyone use templates or similar.
They aren't a lie since there's no class to choose from.
>plate armor covers everywhere except the crotch
I'm not sure if this is better or worse than chainmail bikini.
>What is cavalry armour
morons gonna moron, I guess
The artist was willing to do away with functionality and have armour against her bare thighs but didn't follow through with the lapse in logic consistently, drawing a cloth layer underneath the plate for her arms and torso and therefore deprived me of a perfectly good view of her armpit.
There's MAID and then there's a whoooole Desert Bus stretch of nothing.
MAID only has six classes though? Cool, heroine, sexy, e-girl, pure, and boyish. Any combination of two of those six traits. I would hardly call it robist, if anything it's rather limiting
Character creation is fun and you'll end up with characters you want to play. It also successfully sets the tone for the game in general.
Which can't be said about the other systems.
Most classes in Final Fantasy would fall into subclasses/prestige classes in a lot of systems. Paladin, Dark Knight, Dragoon, Samurai, Monk, etc. are all basically just varieties of Warrior. Even within Final Fantasy games, they're usually differentiated primarily by some kind of gear restriction and having some gimmick command.
>And really the same goes for races too. You'll see Humans, Elves, Dwarves, and whatever else, which is all well and good except they end up being almost identical to humans. Sure they might change around a few statistics and make them run faster/slower or be shorter/taller but... that's it? This is really the best you could come up with?
To be fair, what are you really going to do about that? It's just the nature of these sort of games with the layer of abstraction between what's happening in the game world and what's happening at the table. You can play a talking cow instead of a humanoid and the gameplay still won't be all that different from a regular guy most of the time aside from being locked out of certain actions due to lack of hands. And there's not much you can do to change that without risking making the system very unwieldy very quickly.
FF3 was fun.
All characters archetypes are derivatives or a mixture of the following:
>Action man
The warriorish archetype, the protagonist of myth, the bravery animus.
>Lateral thinking man
The trickster/joker, the wise man, the scoundrel
>Exotic abilities man
The mysterious figure, the mastermind in the shadows, the miracle man, the stranger.
Last game I played a broodmother where I frick monsters have their children and then command my children to launch my plots. So your system is bullshit.
>Literally describes the "exotic abilities man" case
If the three options are
>face problems head on
>face problems through cleverness
>face problems through anything else
Then yeah, your categories are cover all cases and are perfectly useless.
IDK which game you're talking about, but that sounds like one of the Forbidden Builds of Pathfinder, the cleric/evangelist of Lamashtu.
sounds like one of the cursed Path in shadow of the demon lord, there is one called Mother of Monster which does exactly that
Also one where you can be a shit-o-mancer or one based on fricking people.
>shit-o-mancer
Did they really? I know Schwalb likes his Schidt, but...
Interesting hypothesis, but it has a gaping hole in it: the cowardly village idiot. He doesn’t fit anywhere in your lineup.
Fits the "lateral thinking man", the fool is just the inexperienced wise man
Ah, so it’s just a thing that’s completely the opposite of what it says it is. Got it. And I expect the lazy noble is just a lateral thinking man too, because a noble is just a rich scoundrel.
In case it isn’t obvious, this is sarcasm.
>thread speaking about PLAYER character archetypes
>HAHA BUT WHAT ABOUT THESE npc ARCHETYPES? I AM SMART
I don’t play d&d or it’s like, so I’m generally used to more flexiblility in terms of what kind of characters are viable at the table. Besides
This idiot’s gong on about the hero’s journey now, like it’s something inherent to rpgs. So which is it? Ganker, or /tg/?
>This idiot’s gong on about the hero’s journey now, like it’s something inherent to rpgs. So which is it? Ganker, or /tg/?
First of all rpg archetypes come from literature archetypes which in turn are from folklore archetypes, second of all rpg have emergent storytelling and character development so yeah, of fricking course you can apply the hero's journey to ttrpgs homosexual.
>nooo these archetypes don’t count because in muh stories they sometimes become other archetypes
Kek, alright buddy
Try to make a coherent sentence homosexual because i cannot follow your nonsensical strawmanning.
I would spoo feed, but you wouldn’t get it because you don’t actually play games, as evidenced by the ludicrous idea that emergent storytelling inevitably leads to the hero’s journey.
You're a literal mongoloid. The hero's jurney is an emergent pattern that exist even irl, it's not a mere literature construct. The fact that i should even fricking explain this shit to you is inconceivable, i'm literally playing chess with a pigeon here. Ok, be my guest, shit all the game board, you win.
I’ll give you this, it’s a pretty good (if pointlessly broad) way to categorise *most RPG characters. I just like exercising my ability to give the hoof to so-called “complete” systems.
>The hero's jurney is an emergent pattern that exist even irl, it's not a mere literature construc
... and you dare to call anyone moronic?
>Bro it's just a coincidence that almost all adventure tales from fricking Gilgamesh epic to modern literature follow the same pattern
>Also totally a coincidence that this pattern fits perfectly the structure of the individual growth
>Yes it's not like these stories come to be out of romanticised spontaneous experience and get passed on as tales
OK, so I know you aren't trolling now, you actually believe this, so I'll do my best, but I have a feeling I'm not going to do so well, so hear me out.
>Bro it's just a coincidence that almost all adventure tales from fricking Gilgamesh epic to modern literature follow the same pattern
>Almost all
That part is incorrect because it's hyperbolic.
>Also totally a coincidence that this pattern fits perfectly the structure of the individual growth
This isn't even true for the vast, overwhelming majority of real people. For example, a guy at the gym's status quo would be somewhere in act 2 of the Hero's Journey, pushing on through ordeal is a gain-maniac's everyday.
On the flip side, what about stories that start in media res? What about stories without a happy ending? Oh, they're all bad aren't they because they don't follow the Hero's Journey, gotcha.
>That part is incorrect because it's hyperbolic.
A figure of speeches
>This isn't even true for the vast, overwhelming majority of real people.
Incorrect, people preceed at different pace during the journey
>For example, a guy at the gym's status quo would be somewhere in act 2 of the Hero's Journey, pushing on through ordeal is a gain-maniac's everyday.
Yes, you're just focusing on a specific moment, so?
>On the flip side, what about stories that start in media res?
It's just non-linear storytelling. Usually you get or infer the rest over the course of the story.
>What about stories without a happy ending?
Success is not a given, that doesn't negate the pattern until that point.
>Oh, they're all bad aren't they because they don't follow the Hero's Journey, gotcha.
Stop acting like a condescending prick if you want to actually discuss homosexual.
>A figure of speeches
So, like I said, hyperbolic.
>people preceed at different pace during the journey
>you're just focusing on a specific moment, so?
Do you know what the Hero's Journey is? Key to it is the Hero's initial reluctance, for one, and you don't need a mentor to want to improve yourself. Most gym goers are self-motivated, for a consistent example - yeah personal trainers are a thing, but they don't fill the same function as the mentor in the Hero's Journey.
>[in media res] just non-linear storytelling. Usually you get or infer the rest over the course of the story.
Yeah, and it usually isn't a Hero's Journey story. In media res typically infers that the central character isn't on a Hero's Journey type story, and this is because the part before the in media res introduction doesn't include the elements critical to the Hero's Journey style. "John became a soldier because he always wanted to" doesn't resemble reluctance, doesn't include a mentor, and the 'stepping over the threshold' part of the Hero's Journey is the 'trease' or 'reward' part oh soldier John's story.
>Success is not a given, that doesn't negate the pattern until that point.
Do you know what the Hero's Journey is?! It includes a return to the status quo! It includes a rise from the darkest moment! It includes a calm, return to good resolution! You can't throw out "Hero's Journey is true even for real life" and then selectively decide that only half of it is, what the frick, dude?!
>Stop acting like a condescending prick if you want to actually discuss homosexual.
Earlier, you said to another anon that you were playing chess with a pigeon when talking to him. You don't want people to condescend you a little bit, then maybe, just maybe, don't throw stones in glass houses.
I'm fine with you calling people moronic, by the way, just try not to b***h about it when someone calls you a moron back.
R-moron.
>So, like I said, hyperbolic.
That doesn't imply falsehood as you were trying to
>Do you know what the Hero's Journey is?
Yes, do you?
>Key to it is the Hero's initial reluctance, for one, and you don't need a mentor to want to improve yourself.
The mentor figure is an archetype in itself, it exists also as the personification of your past experience (senex), so there's always a mentor
>but they don't fill the same function as the mentor in the Hero's Journey.
Why not?
>In media res typically infers that the central character isn't on a Hero's Journey type story, and this is because the part before the in media res introduction doesn't include the elements critical to the Hero's Journey style.
There isn't a focus on but you imply the "hero" bg by little bits during the stories (eg: conan)
> "John became a soldier because he always wanted to" doesn't resemble reluctance, doesn't include a mentor, and the 'stepping over the threshold' part of the Hero's Journey is the 'trease' or 'reward' part oh soldier John's story.
But implies all of the above, and you know that john story wouldn't be otherwise
>Do you know what the Hero's Journey is?!
Again yes
>It includes a return to the status quo! It includes a rise from the darkest moment! It includes a calm, return to good resolution!
The return to the status quo is not the end of the journey, in fact the "end" coincides with the "begin". Not succeeding in the journey would only indicate being struck (sometimes for good hence tragedy) in a specific stage
>Earlier, you said to another anon that you were playing chess with a pigeon when talking to him.
The homosexual in question wasn't articulating for shit so that reply was deserved
>I'm fine with you calling people moronic, by the way, just try not to b***h about it when someone calls you a moron back.
>R-moron.
If you want to genuinely discuss i'm perfectly fine holding back the R-card.
>The homosexual in question wasn't articulating for shit so that reply was deserved
>If you want to genuinely discuss i'm perfectly fine holding back the R-card.
Fair enough, but try not to be surprised when you make hyberbolic claims, which elicit those kinds of responses.
Oh, feel free to call me a moron, though, I'm arguing semantics on a blue board.
>The mentor figure is an archetype in itself, it exists also as the personification of your past experience (senex), so there's always a mentor
The mentor in the Hero's Journey implies that the *crucially* reluctant Hero is given some kind of reason to adventure, by someone or some great entity. Some decide to rephrase this as "Supernatural Aid", which fits into stories that don't have a literal mentor - as you suggest - but in doing so, they retain the part where the *crutially reluctant* Hero is given a reason to leave his comforts behind.
This means it's not just the personification of your past experience, but a specific turn from humble griller, to adventurer at the advice or plight of someone else.
There are many stories that altogether bypass this step.
>There isn't a focus on but you imply the "hero" bg by little bits during the stories (eg: conan)
>But implies all of the above [about john], and you know that john story wouldn't be otherwise
It often doesn't, that's the thing. You can insist that it does if you want. John joined the army because he always wanted to. That's what you get for his bg. The story starts by suggesting he's lived a status quo typical of Act 2 parts in the Hero's Journey, or trails and tests, which is not how the Hero's Journey works, and thus, John's story isn't a Hero's Journey story.
>The return to the status quo is not the end of the journey...
Having fragments of the Hero's Journey in a story doesn't make it a Hero's Journey story, that's akin to saying you have a car when all you have is a chassis.
>There are many stories that altogether bypass this step.
Bypassing means only that it isn't the focus of the story, not the it doesn't exist altogether. Look, what i'm trying to convey is that a significant deal of adventure tales (calling back my "hyperbolic" almost all) can be fit in the metamyth structure BECAUSE the metamyth cycle itself is archetypical enough to emerge through real life experiences. I'm not advocating the notion that the metamyth is the ONLY structure for a story (eg: "The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman") but the hero journey obviously is expedient in the ttrpg discorse (hence my post in trying to explain the cowardly idiot archetype inside the broader one i formulated) because of the character development.
>Having fragments of the Hero's Journey in a story doesn't make it a Hero's Journey story, that's akin to saying you have a car when all you have is a chassis.
Point is that being the metamyth a cycle it's easy to infer that a specific moment in time of a tale could be part of said cycle.
OK, I can grove with that. My retort here is lame because I'd be mostly arguing semantics and nitpicking language you're using, but I think we're more or less on the same page now, so, coolbeans from me.
There are at least two clearly structure and clearly distinct Hero's Journey narratives in existance.
Campbell fails on the most basic parameters and pretty quickly sold out to Christian Supremacy when he started making money by insisting that everybody is Jesus and the Joker from Batman comics is a Trickster archetype character.
>follow the same pattern
Pattern recognition was a mistake.
Put me in the screencap.
Also, thread is bait by OP, because OP still hasn't told us what his issue is with character creation in the games he's played.
It's about character creation and archetypes, things npcs has in common with pcs and you can turn 'npc classes' into 'pc classes' anyways, it's the magic of good systems or homebrewing.
I think you have to read some literature about archetypes in order to understand what i mean buddy. Eg: The hanged man and the fool in the tarots are necessary associated with precursion of wisdom (change of prospective and out of zone of confort). The cowardly idiot character will follow the hero journey through lateral thinking (it's a coward so cannot face problems directly). The fact that he's also an idiot means he will have to struggle more to make the journey.
Name five works with cowardly village idiot as central character.
Discworld's rincewind
A literal book case of "Lateral thinking man"
Yeah, I know. I'm a different anon from the moron you're arguing with
Cowardly, yeah. Village idiot definitely not. Dude would never have been able to survive as long as he did if he were a dumbass.
Cowardly especially comes into question since, well, most of the time he is, but as Sourcery and The Last Hero prove if push comes to shove and there's nowhere to run (which for Rincewind usually means the world is about to end) He actually WILL do something heroic.
You get four: Peanuts, The Light Fantastic/Colour Of Magic/Eric, 9, and The Lego Movie
I'd say at least one Shakespear, but the last time I mentioned Shakespear here, I got seven replies telling me that 'the Blacks' don't make literature and what have you.
That's a bard
>Shakespear
Is this a new expansion on the shakeweight or something?
I can’t, village idiots are abnormally brave. Turning moronation into strength is a class feature. You can’t be a coward, if you’re too stupid to register fear.
>but you rarely ever see things like Dark Knights, Dragoons, Dervishes, any kind of Wizard/Mage archetype that isn't a carbon copy of itself with a new coat of paint.
Can't you just do those yourself?
Point buy systems without classes are just the most fun and interesting. Traveler and other life path methods come in second place, then pseudoclass systems like Anima Beyond Fantasy and FFG SW, and then in dogshit bottom of the barrel dead last comes class based systems like DnD and Pathfinder, and then way past that is when you arrive at 5e.
Point Buy end up with people doing cheesy shit and trying to squeeze out every drop of minmax from their character. Ends up being mathfest more than anything which is not good. Minmaxing is the fricking devil.
Really just not true. If anything the problem with point buy is that people put so many points into "useless" things to flavor their characters. I find it impossible not to sabotage myself in combat if you give me as many options to invest in noncombat things as GURPS
QED.
I have, I enjoyed it a lot, although making a character higher than 1st and shopping for magic items was a chore.
Have you tried the GURPS?
my system but you'll need to wait a few years
A lot of people don't seem to understand what OP is getting at.
So let me explain using "Dragoon" as an example. A dragoon is a dragon slayer (Or dragon rider, or dragon slayer turned dragon rider depending on the game) with the signature ability of jumping really high with polearm weapons.
Now say there's a hypothetical dragoon subclass for a fighter in a generic TTRPG. Playing it will often feel like just a regular fighter with one or two special moves, and you probably have to get to higher levels in order to even use that special jump feature. But I don't want that, I want to go ALL IN on being a dragoon. I want every level to give me something involving draconic abilities or aerial combat, I want to be THE BEST at dragon slaying, THE BEST at dragon riding, THE BEST at fighting in the air. Not the best at fighting on the ground, but I get to use a few understated dragoon abilities because it's only a subclass and can't stray too far from the original concept.
If there's systems that do this well, Please point me towards them. I want to be proven wrong.
This is the issue I take with it. Every RPG follows the formula of a traditional fantasy base class, like Fighter - and instead of replacing the majority of parts and making an almost entirely new class, it's the complete opposite. A normal, boring, generic baseline Fighter with a couple gimmicks tacked on to grant the illusion of being different when in actuality is largely identical to every other Fighter ever conceived.
Trying to play a Dragoon will be relegated to the status of Fighter with a spear.
Trying to play a Dark Knight will be relegated to the status of Paladin with goth armor.
You aren't getting anything different in the way of an actual class. At best it's reflavored bullshit and at worst it's a handful of features that clash with each other in theme. Why can my Dark Knight cast Lay On Hands to heal people with his holy light and Smite things with his imbued power of goodness? Hell if I know.
It's all so washed out and lazy. I want a guy that summons legions of undead warriors, flings bolts of torrential shadowy energy, grabs people by the throat and drains the life from their bodies leaving them a dried out husk. Don't give me some half-assed reskin of a preexisting class. Give me something real. Something with effort put into it.
The problem is you're working within the bounds of both a tabletop game, and a game about combat. If it weren't for the visuals and flavor descriptions a Dragoon would feel like a varient fighter, in fact in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance it does. It uses spears instead of swords, gets a jump, and has breath attacks that generally aren't worth it.
With regards to combat, in most situations the thing that matters most is how good a character is at killing things. If martial in D&D feel same it's because attacking things is more generically efficient than the other options they have.
this is a d&d problem
there's more ways to differentiate melee fighters than just pure damage
>So let me explain using "Dragoon" as an example. A dragoon is a dragon slayer (Or dragon rider, or dragon slayer turned dragon rider depending on the game) with the signature ability of jumping really high with polearm weapons.
Incorrect. Dragoons are mounted infantry.
We call those cavalry.
Are you moronic?
in the real world yes but not the final fantasy version
Funnily enough, there once was a class dedicated to mounted combat known as the Cavalier, which is in fact what the Paladin reverts to whenever he falls in earlier versions of D&D. On the field, the Cavalier was pretty good at what you just described; riding things and stabbing them with a lance. But between the large stretches where the Cavalier couldn't get his mount and the fact that the Paladin could do everything else the Cavalier could do and more, they were seen as nothing more then a gimmick that got quietly retired by 4th edition, the difference in their abilities split between the Fighter and Paladin.
I imagine the Dragoon would fall into much the same problem.
I perfectly understand what you're all talking about and with what you're looking for, why not play one of those detailed FF made tabletop systems?
They actually have FF tabletop?
oh yeah there's lots of detailed FF tabletop out there and I've seen lots of posts and threads on this board about anons running FF campaigns (actual FF and not just FF themed to clarify)
all homebrew though, nothing officially made from SE if that's what you're asking
if you mean 5e homebrew im going to be very disappointed
nah as far as I'm aware none of these use 5e
ffd20 is one of the most common ones that gets mentioned for it's high level of customization and options available from character creation, jobs, and the campaign itself
other ones that get mentioned alot too are: FFd6, FFRPG 4e (has worldbooks for IV,VI and Tactics), Omega Fantasy I & II
if you want to see anons opinions of them you can easily search for these on the archive since they get mentioned a ton, there's even some FF campaign threads that get put up every now and then
HYTNPD&D
Cyberpunk2020 has one of the best character creation processes I’ve experienced. It provides you with so many opportunities for motivation and interesting events and does so well.
GURPS has a slow and tedious process, but if you know what you are doing you can make almost anything with it.
I know this thread is just shitty bait but
>hurr durr y no vidya classes
The thing about most classes that aren't the Fighter-Rogue-Healer is that they're just extrapolations or hybrids of that triad. Dragoons are dex based Fighter-Rogues (as opposed to Ninjas, which are Rogue-Fighters), Dark Knights are lifesteal based Healer-Fighters, and so on.
You can't really get this sort of granularity in Dindy because multiclassing isn't the primary focus of the system and doesn't produce classes from multiclassing, i.e. Ranger is it's own class rather than putting points into Rogue, Fighter, and survival skills. Certain JTTRPGs are better about this since their classes are typically "subclasses" that you take two or three of and decide whether you want to mix and match or triple down on one class.
For example, I made a "Death Racer" class in Tokyo NOVA by taking the Rider class (Kaze) twice and the Mech Pilot (Arashi) class once. While I focused on riding based skills from my two instances of Kaze, I also took the more destructive skills from Arashi. This way, my PC was a brash and violent racer who lived for speed but also (not so) secretly relished in the risk and destruction that one could only find in underground death races.
tl;dr: if you want class granularity, look into a system that has multiclassing built in from the ground floor instead of trying to backhack it into DnD.
>anon spends four paragraphs pointing out the obvious
And yet OP was too moronic to figure it out.
Bless his autism.
That's interesting, what systems do you know of that have multiclassing built in?
>what systems do you know of that have multiclassing built in?
see
>For example, I made a "Death Racer" class in Tokyo NOVA
>I made a "Death Racer" class in Tokyo NOVA
>in Tokyo NOVA
>Tokyo NOVA
Hope this helps~!
You only know of one? That's surprising considering how much praise you gave the category.
I know more, but I'd need proof you aren't just a particularly moronic chatbot with nothing of your own to contribute before I waste any more time on you.
I'm not a moronic chatbot, I'm desperate for a good fantasy TTRPG without the issues I have with DnD or Pathfinder.
Since you'll likely ask what specifically I don't like about them, the major factors are the strictly limited casts per day with magic and the limited options for blending different types of magic.
oh so you just want to cast infinitely and combine thematically inappropriate magic together? rules exist for a reason you know. you might as well go and play pretend by yourself.
I want to combine themes into a coherent whole and cast magic as if it's through my own effort instead of a battery operated device. I don't see you bashing spellswords, and softer limits doesn't mean no limits.
I don't know what this new troll of claiming homosexuals are chatbots is and I've never touched the FOTM chatbot craze myself, but if you never bother giving other examples you may as well not have any.
You've yet to convince me you aren't a chatbot. Even ChatGPT is able to go into more detail than that.
>It's always the same core "Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, etc..." lineup
Is your entire sample D&D and Pathfinder by any chance?
>threads been up for almost a week
>still no one has addressed the issue
I literally gave you an answer and you blew it off with ChatGPT ass reply. Get fricked.
That post wasn't even me and I still can't comprehend what brainrot could lead you to believe I'm a fricking chatbot
Are you surprised? OP didn't even point to any system he had a problem with, so for all we know, OP is a liar who has NO issue with ANY character creation in ANY game. In fact, I'm keen to bet that this is true, because he hasn't made a complaint about any specific system, hasn't sung the praises of any specific system, hasn't mentioned anything he would do or try as a suggestion -- actually, the one thing he did mention was Final Fantasy, so he's a Gankertard, coming here to dip his sack on our corpse.
And to top it off, he's even using the same anime girl image he's been using for almost a year to post eaqually vague threads with round about the exact same question about 'what system does x right' at the end, when we don't even know what he's looking for.
You know what? I bet you are OP, and you saw your thread was on the last page, so you bumped it like a fricking homosexual so your parasitic thread could suck a little bit more life out of /tg/. I've decided that you're doing it on purpose. Frick, I should have known from the start.
actually it was I that bumped it with
this reply which was deliberately moronic and hostile to keep the thread going until i woke up the next day
it's a moronic question
of the FF games, half of them do not have explicit class (job), most of the remainder allow and expect you to change class frequently. being able to equip a new class like it's a sword is functionally identical to classless.
what you want is something that gives you a jillion silly options so you can have the fun of finding *your* broken combination. play dungeons the dragoning
Dragoons are a shitty localization that was necessary due to character limitations and just sticked.
What they're supposed to be, and still are, are 竜騎士 or dragon knights.
Dragoon is great tho. I love calling em dragoons.
It's a funny cross-language play on words and lends the class a unique identity. Dragon Knight sounds like a prestige class from D&D.
Misinterpretation or not, we need classes that aren't reflavored Fighters.
to me, shadowrun 4th edition is near perfect at chargen.
no other system made me realize this close what i have in mind.
Unironically, D&D 5e.
Making characters and fantasizing about how fun it'll be when you get to use them is more fun than actually playing the game.
Certified chatbot thread
At this point I'm wondering if YOU'RE a chatbot
>videogames
Frick off vtard.
>Sure they might change around a few statistics and make them run faster/slower or be shorter/taller but... that's it? This is really the best you could come up with?
Something as simple as giving a race an extra sense tends to break the shit out of many scenario and campaign designs.
Yeah, Final Fantasy really sucks. Has since it left the NES, honestly.