Mixing class abilities in a class based system: Does this defeat the purpose?

[ForeverSlayer]

D&D has always been a classed based system, but 3rd edition began introducing abilities from classes that other classes could take. From then on we have seen class abilities being crossed with other classes and I feel this defeats the purpose of having a class based system if every other class can take abilities from other classes. One of the things I don't like with Pathfinder is other classes, such as the Magus, are able to take Fighter only feats. I would like for 5th edition to keep abilities tied to the specific classes they were designed for, in my opinion, I think this keeps classes unique.

 

[Celebrim]

D&D has always been a classed based system, but 3rd edition began introducing abilities from classes that other classes could take. From then on we have seen class abilities being crossed with other classes and I feel this defeats the purpose of having a class based system if every other class can take abilities from other classes. One of the things I don't like with Pathfinder is other classes, such as the Magus, are able to take Fighter only feats. I would like for 5th edition to keep abilities tied to the specific classes they were designed for, in my opinion, I think this keeps classes unique.

A class based system doesn't have just one purpose. Among the reasons you might have a classed based system are:

a) Easy to grasp archetypes or roles.
b) High balance between classes.
c) Enforced character breadth.
d) Regular predictable progression of abilities.
e) Easy mix and match to the desired setting.

One of the problems with a class based system is that it limits freedom to design your character the way you want. By creating classes that exist halfway between two existing archetypes, you reduce the gaps the system might have been the player's imagination and the available roles. Of course, this - like any other design choice you make - comes with tradeoffs. One of the great things about classes is that they come in discrete packages. If you don't feel the Magus is right for your game, you don't have to allow it. Some other story-teller might in fact decide wizards are out and magi are in, and that might be right for them.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Only if the purpose is niche protection.

Which I don't think it really is.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I think classes are, now, for just hanging a bunch of related abilities together to make a PC that is recognisable to the player. And making it simple to start, to a beginner. Also classes are DnD, without them it really starts to stop being DnD.Full point buy/mix and match systems are ripe for min/maxing, as pointed out by the guys on the recent video with the point that making a class is much an art as a science.

I think the most important 'purpose' of all the rules is to make fun RPGs. If mixing and matching is fun, then do it. But DM beware of the previously mentioned min maxing.

 

[Lanefan]

To answer the question in the thread title: yes it does defeat the purpose, when overdone.

There has always been a bit of overlap between some classes, but at one time there was also some discrete things some classes simply could not do, some examples:

Fighters (and Cavaliers) could not cast spells
Wizards of any type could not heal
No classes other than Thieves and Assassins had access to thief skills without magic
Clerics could fight but were very restricted in their choice of weapons

Over time these and other class restrictions seem to have become more and more blurred, which to me defeats not only the point of a class-based system but also somewhat wrecks the idea of the party's total being greater than the sum of its parts.

Lanefan

 

[Ahnehnois]

What the heck. Let's have a poll.

 

[diaglo]

To answer the question in the thread title: yes it does defeat the purpose, when overdone.

There has always been a bit of overlap between some classes, but at one time there was also some discrete things some classes simply could not do, some examples:

Fighters (and Cavaliers) could not cast spells
Wizards of any type could not heal
No classes other than Thieves and Assassins had access to thief skills without magic
Clerics could fight but were very restricted in their choice of weapons

Over time these and other class restrictions seem to have become more and more blurred, which to me defeats not only the point of a class-based system but also somewhat wrecks the idea of the party's total being greater than the sum of its parts.

Lanefan

to answer the question. no.
and Lanefan gives part of the anwer above. although, he is forgetting things and thus drawing a bit off conclusion.

Cleric, Fighting Man, and Magic User were the first classes to use as guidelines. you could always create your own class.
thus Supplement I introduces Thief. it also introduced a Fighting Man who could turn like a cleric and cast like one too later in his adventures.
how did this come to be? through play. someone wanted it. so someone wrote it up and presented it to their referee. Gary or Dave...
viola. a new class.

edit: the druid is an example of switching classes. it was NPC only and used magic user stuff. before getting shifted to cleric and being made a PC class. witch doctors and shamans kept the NPC side in 1edADnD 1979

 

[steenan]

I agree with the OP that free multiclassing defeats the purpose of a class-based system.
[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] listed five possible reasons for using classes. IMO each of them is defeated by being able to multiclass freely.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

No, it's not badwrongfun to allow class abilities to mix.

I do think it needs to be done carefully, though, to avoid diluting the strengths of niche protection in a class-based system. I personally prefer a game start with minimal mixing, then introduce it only in limited forms.

IMO, 3E failed at this, as later supplements rendered some core classes moot when too many abilities were spread around or superceded.

 

[billd91]

A little niche protection is fine, but I think classes should overlap in capabilities to fill those niches so that player groups aren't put under too much pressure to limit their character choices. That's why I don't see anything wrong with a magus having access to fighter-only feats as well as a limited selection of wizard spells. That's one place where one archetype overlaps niches covered by two classes.

Overlapping classes is one way to prevent overuse of multiclassing.