Deconstructing class abilities for purchase with XP

As posted on the ENW front page, the "Buy the Numbers" PDF product has been released. I didn't know such a thing was in the works, but it would seem to answer the question I've had for a while, "Why doesn't someone deconstruct the d20 D&D character design system?" You know, make it easier to pick and choose the abilities you really want when you're multiclassing instead of investing in an entire level of a class that means nothing to you otherwise.

The product blurb reads as follows:

Tired of multi-classing, just to get one ability from a certain class? Perhaps you wanted to be a Rogue with a few spells, but the ‘singing’ Bard was not appealing. Maybe you wanted to be a nature warrior, but did not desire all the spells from the Ranger class? Have you ever wanted a mage who could rage?

Have you ever thought it was silly to adventure for weeks and weeks without ever showing improvement, but then you hit a ‘magic’ number of xp and ‘BAM’: all of your abilities increase? ...

I don't want this to spin off into a product review thread (which would mean it needs to go elsewhere on the board). Instead, I'd like to discuss the viability of such a system that would allow the experience-point "purchase" of a single BAB bonus, for example, or spell-casting level without all the extras. Is it a Bad Thing or a Good Thing?

Driddle said:

Is it a Bad Thing or a Good Thing?

Click to expand...

It's hard to achieve a balanced character (ie the Skills and Powers rules). I personally would love to chuck the archetypal classes and be able to totally customize a PC by simply buying skills, abilities, hd, etc. I'm probably going to buy this product, but I doubt I ever use it. My players don't handle change well, and asking them to throw over the "fighter/wizard/rogue/cleric" way of thinking would probably give them aneurisms.

I came up with a system like this a long time ago for 3rd edition. Can't remember what I did with that doc. It wasn't that to come up with, if I remember, although I am not a "balance" nazi like a lot of players are. Worrying about balance so much makes the game too much like a videogame for me. If you are trying to simulate a world with game mechanics, there just isn't any real balance. There are just some people out there that are naturally better than other people.

I don't know much about this product, but Four-Color to Fantasy similarly gave costs to 'super powers,' making them easily purchasable in small bits. Some super powers are mighty energy blasts, but other are just things like bonus feats or uncanny dodge.

If this kind of advancement is what you're looking for, I think you might be best served to check out a different kind of game. West End Game's new D6 rules should be exactly what you're looking for, if they use even the smallest vestiges of the D6 system that they did for Star Wars, before Wizards of the Coast picked up the license. Additionally, they're printing all of those rules slightly adjusted for either fantasy, adventure, or sci fi in a new printing (although not, apparently, a new edition) of the original rules.

Nary a class or template to be found--free form advancement to your heart's content!

But I warn you, it's HELL on GM/DMs. *shudder*

Having a partially done product on my server that had a similar aim of deconstructing the classes I was drawn to purchase this pdf today. I think balance certainly is a concern whenever you start thinking about people build characters buffet style.

Following the philosophical style of argument I would suggest that IF

the current rules are balanced
there is a 20% multiclass penalty in some cases
The penalty is designed for balance to keep people from cherry picking

Then picking your abilities, skills, and feats without the penalty MUST by definition be unbalanced. Of course you COULD argue against the idea that the current rules are balanced (people do all the time) but I think otherwise the argument is logically sound.

Personally, I think it would be much harder to track a character designed under such an open system and I would always be leary that it might be abused by unscrupulous players.

Well, I'm the author of the product in question, and having worked with the system detailed therein, here's my answer:

It's both a Good Thing and a Bad Thing.

It's a Good Thing because it allows a player to execute exactly the concept he has for his character - without having to track all the stuff he "doesn't want" as well (the stuff that "happens to come with" the class levels he chooses). It's a Good Thing because it allows for the creation of things that don't fit neatly into the classic "class/level" system of D&D (everyone knows about the problems of the necromancer as a wizard being less effective than a cleric). At the end of the day, it means literally any combination can be pieced together, so it adds flexibility. It also adds a beautiful touch of the unknown - just because you're 5th level and you just saw the BBEG rage like a barbarian, you might also have to worry about him sneak attacking you and channelling negative energy and throwing "inflict wounds" spells at you before dropping a fireball. There's no longer the ability to say, "he's got to be a 6th-8th level cleric so he'll have this mix of abilities."

It's a Bad Thing because it allows a player to execute exactly the concept he has for his character - without having to track all the stuff he "doesn't want." If multiclassing into ranger for 1 level under the 3e rules just to pick up "virtual Two-Weapon Fighting" appalled you, or if your players are the types that try to squeeze every last ounce of combat utility out of synergistic combinations, it's a nightmare, because a system like this is by its very nature easier to abuse - you can throw everything into optimizing a "min/max" character.

In short - the systems strengths are at the same time its weaknesses. It makes things much more unpredictable (good for GMs) and more exploitable by ingenious players (bad for GMs). I tried to emphasize this in the introduction and provided suggestions for variants along the way that (hopefully) can help keep abuse in check.

For GMs that trust their players, or for groups where min/maxing is not an issue, this might be a godsend. For groups where the GM and the players have an "adversarial" relationship - this is the book from hell. Either way, it probably requires more GM/player interaction with character generation/advancement and certainly requires a bit more bookkeeping on behalf of the characters when it comes time to do character advancement.

It's not for everyone, but I always liked the idea of giving the sorcerer the option to expand his selection of "known spells" or figuring out a way to accurately represent a talented savant with incredible expertise in a single field. This does that... but it IS quite vulnerable to a min-maxer. So I suppose everyone's mileage of "Good/Bad Thing" will vary based upon your individual tastes and your group's playing style.

--The Sigil

DSC-EricPrice said:

the current rules are balanced
there is a 20% multiclass penalty in some cases
The penalty is designed for balance to keep people from cherry picking

Click to expand...

In my defense, I did try to mitigate the effects of "cherry-picking" somewhat. Anything that "stacks" like BAB, Saves, etc. has a constantly ascending cost (as I'm sure you've noticed). In some ways, this probably helps maintain "balance" better than the current core rules (where I can just take a level of monk to get a +2 bonus on all my saves, for example). However, it is possible to "cherry pick" multiple "low-level" abilities from multiple classes. So while you gain some ability to "cherry-pick" not found in the core rules (certain class abilities, for instance), you lose some of your other ability to "cherry-pick" (stacking Saves, for instance). Does the net result equal balance? That's one for the philosophers.

Personally, I think it would be much harder to track a character designed under such an open system and I would always be leary that it might be abused by unscrupulous players.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree with you there, and have disclaimers to that effect in the work. Of course, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - it can also be abused by unscrupulous GMs to surprise their players ("he just cast a spell as an 8th-level cleric, then an 8th-level wizard, then he sneak attacked for 5d6 damage - what the freak level IS this guy, anyway!?!").

--The Sigil

The Sigil said:

In short - the systems strengths are at the same time its weaknesses. It makes things much more unpredictable (good for GMs) and more exploitable by ingenious players (bad for GMs). I tried to emphasize this in the introduction and provided suggestions for variants along the way that (hopefully) can help keep abuse in check.

Click to expand...

Hm. I'd expect there to be one thing not mentioned here - it makes things much more unpredictable (bad for GMs). Specifically, it sounds like you can toss the CR system out the window. Even with the normal classes, you can't use CRs without some forethought. If you broaden the spectrum of power that characters (or their antagonists) may have, I expect CRs become pretty much useless.

This is not a catastrophe, but it is something to keep in mind - a GM using such a product needs to take much more care in considering his encounters than before.

Umbran said:

Hm. I'd expect there to be one thing not mentioned here - it makes things much more unpredictable (bad for GMs). Specifically, it sounds like you can toss the CR system out the window. Even with the normal classes, you can't use CRs without some forethought. If you broaden the spectrum of power that characters (or their antagonists) may have, I expect CRs become pretty much useless.

This is not a catastrophe, but it is something to keep in mind - a GM using such a product needs to take much more care in considering his encounters than before.

Click to expand...

I just ordered the product, so I don't know how it works yet, but I would think that for creating appropriate encounters, you just need to go back to the total amount of experience the character has, cross check that against the original level advancement table.

For example, you have a character that has a mix of Wizard and Rogue abilities and he has a total of 3400 xps. He should be (if the mechanics for this are right) equivalent in power to any 3rd level character. He and the rest of the characters should be encountering 3 CR critters.

Thanks,
Rich