Continuing on with discussion of character classes, I’m offering some thoughts on classes as I’m now crafting them. This approach could, of course, change as the voices in my head demand, though the chorus seems to have settled on this approach. ; )
Keeping with the thought that a Class is a broad, general archetype that can appear in many guises, structuring the many guises seems to be where the primary challenge of Class design can be found. The approach I’m taking involves Sub-Classes that provide specialization within the broader Class archetype, and then Kits that dress the character diagetically for play. there’s nothing really new to all this; I find that keeping it firmly in mind helps a good deal when drilling into the details of abilities, though, as shaping and reshaping classes can get messy.
The broad archetype of a Fighting Man, for example, covers a good deal of ground in possibility. Think of the many ways such a character could appear: a soldier practiced in fighting in tight formation as part of a unit; a skirmisher who engages in freewheeling melees without tight formations; troopers fighting from horseback; specialized hunters who seek out undead (or demons or other specialized foes) and eliminate them; warriors who range far and wide, running great distances, engaging in quick raids and retiring into the wilds to appear elsewhere before the enemy can fully respond; individuals fighting for spectacle and glory in front of crowds to earn coin…many ways to specialize in fighting.
Therein lies the heart of the Sub-Class. The basic abilities of a fighter, for instance, are expanded in terms that highlight abilities for a refined purpose. The troopers on horseback and the infantry on foot each fight, though the infantry would be lost on horseback and the troopers out of place on the ground. I view is as additive to the Class description–a Sub-Class adds capabilities to the general Class abilities. Where the Class provides some general fighting abilities, each Sub-Class then adds more specific fighting abilities plus any non-combat abilities that support its role in the setting and/or party. Craft all those abilities with an eye on how the class develops and the roles it expresses in play (per my previous post) and a well-rounded type of character emerges from the seas of possibility.
Kits, on the other hand, place characters in the setting by providing a background from whence they originate. A kit involves a base cultural foundation–say, a semi-nomadic, tribal culture–and then builds a setting-based description around that. The clothes commonly worn in that culture, the types of weapons traditionally used, what virtues are touted, how wealth is treated, and so much more can be expressed in a Kit.
While I’ve no interest in character backstories, I find that character backgrounds of this sort are quite useful and contribute a lot to play. Thus, any chargen subsystem I use will likely involve selecting a background Kit as part of the process in preparing a PC for play. Attaching a distinct meaning to being from the lands of the Sea Kings or some such helps a good deal with characterization and making PCs distinct.