That is a good point. I think a problem with magic in games (I don't know about tabletop since I've never played them) is that the player wants to be "leet" through magic, and so any restrictions have to be either minimal, or decrease over time (as you level up). I think the way a lot of magic is handled in books, for example, is generally better. It is able to be both an elite, super weapon, but have severe limitations on how it is used and what it can do before killing the wizard (or whomever). I'm thinking of something like the Earthsea stories where magic can be incredibly powerful, but the characters can kill themselves by trying to cast spells, and it is a very real issue. So they don't just go around using magic for everything because that isn't a good idea.

I think game lore does to some degree support this, at least in some cases. I'm thinking of The Witcher and Mass Effect as both having lore-limits on magic (or biotics in ME's case) but that those limits are not imposed (or only imposed in a limited way) on the player and playable characters. Because if in ME you could only use biotics for a minute or two without passing out it wouldn't be fun. But it would be "realistic."

Something like the Paladin in D2, which I am now using... It is so much fun running around in hell, trying to avoid demons, because all your abilities, are auras!

But they can.. they have daggers and quarterstaves, a sling .. it's not as if they have to entirely abstain from melee.. but when it comes to cross discipline.. then no, I agree with the limiting.

A person with no skills at all but exclusively uses magic damage and self buff spells to enhance her/himself...

this allows a person to not have to specialize... rather the only specialization is which type of spell to use or magic to imbue into a chosen weapon. It frees the player to use what ever weapons is best in the situation... need a throwing spear that does cold damage? DONE a thrown rock that cause ensnaring roots? done... gotta troll and need to blast it with fire dual daggers with a high fire proc and you sneak behind him on moss covered shoes. Of course you'll have an AC boosting spell on..

but to make this class not so over powered the buff on self are "concentrated" spells that can only be 3 deep or so... like you can only hold 3 spells on you at any one time... as for weapon spells they are a limited number of procs... say you make it proc 10 times for 1 dmg or you can have 1 big proc for 10 dmg... of course all spells are outside of combat, cant start trancing out in a fight (but why not allow a roll to see if it'll happen) if you fail an attack of opportunity is given to any monster/npc on instance

as the user increases in levels the self spells get combo effects to scale with encounters.. no more picking str dex or agi now its a combo spell freeing up 2 unused spots for other buff spells...

There's a pretty severe problem with this kind of character: it is boring to play. Sure, combat prowess is great, but very rarely is it worth losing off-combat abilities. I made for D&D a War Hulk with 74 strength at level 18 (an ancient golden dragon has 47) but never played it because it cannot use any wisdom, intelligence or charisma-based skills apart from Intimidate. In off-combat situation your allies must do everything without you, and combat is no fun if you can enter the fray and club the living shit out of anything too slow, stupid or asleep to get out of the way.

That was kinda how reckoning ended up, Good attempt for a new IP.

always having to decide which buffs to have on per situation or not having the buff to "save the day" is fun to me... your like a bard a jack of trades a wide skill set that can be used in a variety of situations ... sort of like a druid... not a cleric but good enough in a pinch..
i play for the "Role Play" who cares if its not fun its about the experience... we have 2 paradigms of enjoyment... i played a half-orc with a wis of 4 and int of 3 and i once got angry and fought a tree... and the tree won, BUT during the fight we had enough firewood to camp for 3 nights straight and repair some weapons... i lose very battle but im a great dmg soak and can hold agroo.. most fun i ever had RPing

Hello,

classbased systems are shit. In reallife you can specialize in more then one art or technique. Take highly trained commando troopers as excample. They are good in athletics, well trained in firearms, can operate modern military equipment, can parachute, can use most modern military vehicles, can give first aid on the battlefield, read a land map, have basic or advanced tactical training and they are good with the ladies. Without this kind of jack-of-all-trade training they would be mere men with guns.

In most fantasy or scifi rpgs the heroes are fighting for survival of their world, land, nation whatever. Who would not send the best trained fighters they had for the job. It would be insane to not sent commandostyle stealthing Warriormages with basic healing abilities. To place limits on what you can learn as a Heroe in a game is just lazy design. And very boring.

So i prefer classless systems like elder scrolls or fallout. Learning by doing without limiting my abilites as player. If i invest time to become a demigod, then please let me do so :).

Have a nice day.

This is actually something I have put a lot of thought into as I have tried to focus my programming skills into the creation of a CRPG and I find the classic RPG tropes to be inadequate. I dislike classes because they force the player to make a huge decision about the gameplay mechanics before they start playing the game. The classless systems work better at the beginning of the game but quickly start forcing the player to grind their way to god mode. The Elder Scrolls are a perfect example, you get to the point where you can't advance you character unless you start using skill outside of you "class". The level scaling only exasperates this problem. I felt there had to be a better way, skip to the bottom if you don't want to sit through my crazy rambling.



Instead I have opted for an Attribute based system. There are several attributes but they fall under the 3 classic categories; they are Physical, Social and Magical.

Physical Attributes describe the physicality of the character, they are things like Might and Endurance. Physical Attributes govern skills used in combat. Social Attributes, such as Charisma and Perception, describe how the characters manipulates the world around them and covers skills like Speech and Stealth. That leaves Magical Attribute to cover all the Magic Skills oddly enough.

At character creation the player distributes points amongst the attributes, just like every other RPG ever made, and this determines their "class". Skills are raised by using them, but how quickly they raise and how high they can go is entirely dependent on the number of attribute points in the governing attribute category. This way a "wizard" who ignored Physicality and put all points into Intelligence and Wisdom will still be able to pick up a sword, and can even increase their skill with it but not very quickly and not by very much. If you want your wizard to be less "squishy" you can transfer some of those points to the Physical Attributes but then your magical abilities will never become as powerful as they could have been.

Each of the attribute categories also has a Null Attribute. Instead of investing in Magical Attributes you could use some, lets say 5, points to purchase the Anti-Magic Attribute. You are now have zero magical capabilities/weaknesses. You are a skeptic, you don't believe in magic and cannot use it at all, but it also has no effect on you because it's all a bunch of superstition. Magical fireball don't hurt you but magical spells can't heal you either. Weak healing potions are ineffective "snake oil" and the most powerful of healing potions are no better than basic medicines though they do help, a little. Anti-Physical characters are just spirits in a material world. They cannot wield weapons or armor but cannot be harmed by them either. Anyone choosing to be Anti-Social will never engage in dialog and never barter, they are so hideous and smelly that no one can go with out noticing them. This is your crazy old hermit type who finds what they need and throws away what they don't.

There are also antagonistic skills which allow you to only use one at a time. Say a wizard wants to specialize in Necromancy, they get to the point where they can kill everything in a room by filling it with poison and then resurrecting all the victims into an army of undead minions, but if they are hurt personally they are inept at casting a simple healing spell on themselves. If they want to get better at Restoration magic then they can keep using it and level it up to the point where they can completely revive a fallen ally, but they must sacrifice all their Necromancy powers to do it. Warrior types will have an easier time going from wielding a dagger to a sword than from dagger to war hammer. This allows a player to essentially respec their character if they don't like the choices they originally made, but not in a manner that allows them to tailor the character for each specific quest right after it is given.



TL;DR

I feel that a system like this would offer full flexibility in skills and equipment to the new player. It is not until the player advances they start getting less choices of how they play so that they grow into a strict limiting class only in the later game.

That right there is why ive always loved Bethesdas stance on games... Be who you want to be... Mage Knight Apoc has the same credo... what you do determines who you are... and how hard your willing to train to get there!