D&D 5E two things about D&D that could be more interesting

[ExploderWizard]

Your class is not a job, it is what your character is.

D&D classes were designed as strong archetypes, that is why there were only three of them at launch. These archetypes aren't an occupation, they are the core of a character. An OD&D fighting man is so much more than simply a swordsman. There are many men at arms who soldier for a living but the fighting man can potentially fight with the strength of many men.

A magic user isn't simply, a caster.He or she is wizard commanding powers of nightmare and legend. A cleric is a devout holy man or woman who wields the powers given by the gods themselves and makes monstrous undead fear them.

These are not typical occupations such as a blacksmith or a carpenter. A class represents so much more than a job.

Of course nowadays the designers have made classes more like jobs because there is class for just about everything. Once everything is subdivided into hyper focused areas of specialty then yes, classes can seem more like jobs.

 

[Lehrbuch]

Runequest managed to do ala carte just fine.

I'm not sure that it did actually.

Although, it's been more than 20 years since I've played Runequest, my memory is that there was degeneracy in skill selection and scores. Players could pick a wide variety, but players usually did pick very similar things, because they were the viable/useful ones. Certainly, Stormbringer had this problem.

On the other hand, this isn't a massive problem. But, then again neither are the perceived bad things about classes, IMO. They are just different systems.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Runequest managed to do ala carte just fine.

It was a tad organic, too, in that you advanced at the skills you actually used, so sometimes a character would not go in exactly the direction you intended.

 

[Shiroiken]

Different game systems do well with different things. That doesn't make something wrong with the game.

The class system is built into the core idea of what D&D is, so 5E has to have classes. Unlike many of the previous incarnations, thanks to Backgrounds, Skills, and Feats (if available) you are less limited by your class. Additionally, Bounded Accuracy is designed to allow any character to attempt just about anything (barring Class Features and such). This also brings up the important point, that your character should be far more than just their list of abilities: they are fictional representation of a personality (i.e. your character is more than just a piece of paper with numbers on it). If you feel your character limited by your abilities, your issues are probably not system related.

It would be possible to add levels of failure to 5E as a house rule. A simple method would be to add Critical Success/Failure to ability checks and possibly Saving Throws. You could add degrees by determining how much off the DC you are, but Bounded Accuracy may make this fiddly if you use increments of 5 (increments of 3 might be better if you want more degrees).

 

[devincutler]

I'm not sure that it did actually.

Although, it's been more than 20 years since I've played Runequest, my memory is that there was degeneracy in skill selection and scores. Players could pick a wide variety, but players usually did pick very similar things, because they were the viable/useful ones. Certainly, Stormbringer had this problem.

On the other hand, this isn't a massive problem. But, then again neither are the perceived bad things about classes, IMO. They are just different systems.

Actually in RQ (and BRP) you got access to pretty much every skill and it was what you chose to use that mattered. But I found, in playing RQ, that PCs took on ala carte roles that did not mean they all ended up with the same skills. The Lhankor Mhy priest had lots of knowledge-type skills (called Lore skills). The Humakt had combat skills. The Chalanna Arroy had herbalism and healing skills. Et al.

But, in the classless game, I also find that optimization is much less prevalent and important. A game like RQ successfully, IMO, encouraged character development as opposed to statistics development.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Your class is not a job

I very much agree with this. Some examples. one of my players is playing a fighter with the background of Spy (Criminal variant). If you ask here what her profession is, she will say spy not fighter.

Same goes for my Mercenary Veteran Barbarian. His profession is not that of a barbarian, but of a mercenary. Even were he a Mercenary Veteran Wizard he would still be a professional mercenary. Though his approach to his occupation would be vastly different.

 

[Lehrbuch]

Actually in RQ (and BRP) you got access to pretty much every skill and it was what you chose to use that mattered.

Yes, the players choose which skills to put points into during character creation. And the ones that are used in play are the ones that increase, and the ones used in play tend to be the ones that the PC is better at anyway, because you don't want to fail.

So, while it is theoretically possible to have vastly different choices, my memory is that in-practice there are one-or-two "sensible" combinations (of things that are useful in adventures) which account for most of the skill selection, with only a handful left over for "unique" characterful-choices.

But maybe I was just rubbish at playing Runequest as a teenager in the late 80s. I know that, today, if I play such a game I wouldn't care about "sensible" combinations, so would be less likely to fall into this degeneracy trap offered by BRP type systems.

Also, although, also a BRP game Call of Cthulhu, didn't seem to suffer (in my experience) so much from this, even when I was a stupid teenager. Perhaps, because of the nature of the investigative style of adventures in CoC a wider variety of skills end up being useful, but also because CoC was a bit more restrictive than other BRP games around skill selection based on profession. Or perhaps, simply because in the face of eldritch horror all skills are equally irrelevant.

 

[Schmoe]

Edit: I just saw that you only want to read from people who have the same opinion as you. So I've deleted my post.

 

[PatriotofKarrnath]

Actually in RQ (and BRP) you got access to pretty much every skill and it was what you chose to use that mattered. But I found, in playing RQ, that PCs took on ala carte roles that did not mean they all ended up with the same skills. The Lhankor Mhy priest had lots of knowledge-type skills (called Lore skills). The Humakt had combat skills. The Chalanna Arroy had herbalism and healing skills. Et al.

But, in the classless game, I also find that optimization is much less prevalent and important. A game like RQ successfully, IMO, encouraged character development as opposed to statistics development.

This was a major reason we are going to dump 5e after this adventure concludes, the only thing that seems to matter are stats. everything is linked to them so tightly that it feels way too simplified.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The class system is built into the core idea of what D&D is, so 5E has to have classes. Unlike many of the previous incarnations, thanks to Backgrounds, Skills, and Feats (if available) you are less limited by your class.

Just to be clear: The 1e survival guides and 2e have optional non-weapon proficiencies, which are essentially Skills, 3e has skill ranks, 4e had skill training. 1e has a random secondary skill option that was a bit like a Background, 2e has Kits that were a bit more like a Background, 3.5 has some specific feats that were a bit like backgrounds, and NPC classes if you /really/ wanted to delve into your history as an Aristocrat or Commoner or whatever, and 4e had, well Backgrounds. 3e has Feats, by default, no opt-in required, as did 4e (arguably too many of them). And, 3.5 has Prestige Classes, LA races, and templates, while 4e had Themes, Paragon Paths & Epic Destinies.

So, really, 5e, as befits a broad-appeal compromise edition, is closer to the middle of the pack in terms of options to transcend the traditional limitations of class. Late 2e, 3.x/PF, 4e & Essentials have more customization options, while early 2e, 1e, 0D&D, and the BX/BECMI/Cyclopedea prong of the two-prong strategy have fewer.