How would you prefer D&D class abilities to be handled?

[Greg K]

You probably disagree then, because I'm pretty sure that's not what he meant.

Yeah, I know that we didnt' agree.

In OD&D/1E/2E (pre- kits and players options) characters are "built" primarily through roleplaying and adventure (aka, background), not mechanics. The mechanical differences within a class are minimal or nil, but no two of them are the same person regardless..

Yep. Of course, the lack of mechanical differences is one of the reasons I (despite starting with Holmes basic) and every other gamer I personally know eventually stopped playing pre 3e DND .

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Simplicity. The game mechanics of the character's class(es) provide some archetypes and standard in-class abilities and after that they mostly get out of the way. The character is "fleshed out" by its role-played personality and in-game actions, rather than by its mechanics, putting more focus on play after roll-up and less on "build" at roll-up.

Everything else being discussed here seems to be variants on making a too-complicated system different, but still just as complicated.

Well it's just not a shallow subject to explain what I like about even just the class structure of 1E/2E, much less what I like/dislike about ANY given edition, but "simplicity" is probably a good place to start.

The original presentation of the game - the way the whole thing was structured - was to distill archetypes into classes. The way I see 4E being presented is quite far from that. In 1E a wizard didn't have the job as "controller" - his job was whatever his spell choices made him out to be. Same with any other class. Most everybody I knew played clerics as "defenders" but that certainly wasn't the only thing you could do with them especially if you didn't want to accept that as the job being dictated to you.

1E/2E was ANYTHING but perfection, but just because 3rd edition was released doesn't mean that previous edtions lacked any merit, just as the release of 4th doesn't mean that it, and it ALONE, is to be viewed as superior in all ways to all players. If anything the release of 4E has shown me that not only is that not the way _I_ cared for D&D to go, but that 3E really took the game in the wrong direction. Mechanically, yes, 3E was vast improvement, but the idea that the game was about some kind of number crunching contest where there was actually even a winner, and the winner was the player who came up with the superior build...

Really, I find it hard to explain why I despise the concept of a character "build" so deeply except to say that IMO it just is so not the point. I don't begrudge anyone their enjoyment of that aspect, but it's just alien to me. I strangely managed to play 25+ years of fantastically enjoyable D&D while suffering under the delusion that my creativity as a player was NOT stifled because I had no choices in making a build-your-own class, the inability to use book after book to individualize my character, or even that I only chose from an insufferably small list of just 6 races.

I've come to believe that the less players are made to be concerned with spending time "building" their characters the more time they are likely to devote to PLAYING their characters, interacting with the others at the table which is what _I_ enjoy most about the game and what I always thought WAS the point. That way players spend their efforts DOING with their characters instead of PLANNING their characters with gameplay only being the occasional proving ground that their choices are "correct" or superior to those made by other players.

That may not be how it is - but it IS how I percieve it. 3E and now particularly 4E actually have made the "simplistic" 1E and 2E structure and "limitations" of classes more appealing to me, both as a player and DM.

 

[avin]

OTHER - I like classless systems such as GURPS for playing.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Of course, the lack of mechanical differences is one of the reasons I (despite starting with Holmes basic) and every other gamer I personally know eventually stopped playing pre 3e DND .

It's also the reason many of us prefer pre-3E to 3E or 4E. It's about the level of detail you want, and where you want it. Mechanically many prefer just a few broad strokes before sitting at the table (stats, class, race, done). It's not the careful choosing of feats and skills they want, but the game itself - the roll of dice and the riposte of rapier and wit. Spending more than 5 minutes on making the character is a drag.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Grazzt]

It's also the reason many of us prefer pre-3E to 3E or 4E. It's about the level of detail you want, and where you want it. Mechanically many prefer just a few broad strokes before sitting at the table (stats, class, race, done). It's not the careful choosing of feats and skills they want, but the game itself - the roll of dice and the riposte of rapier and wit. Spending more than 5 minutes on making the character is a drag.

Different strokes for different folks.

This.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I like the talent tree system from Starwars. I was hoping that it would be imported into 4E, but it wasn't for whatever reason.

As I mentioned in Najo's other thread about powers, this would have been my favourite option (the SWSE version, not the d20 modern version).

I prefer it because I think it

a) gives a much wider variety of class powers from the start
b) much easier to include a new, balanced talent tree
c) supports multiclassing very well (especially in the way prestige classes can borrow other classes talent trees where appropriate

I think the talent tree is a really nicely granular approach.

I would then have included something strongly based on the SWSE 'force' powers for handling magic - enabling magic to be different and yet balanced with the talent-only classes, supporting dabblers and experts equally well.

(SWSE had problems with relative power of skill based use of the force at low levels and high levels, but that could have been resolved in a number of ways).

This would give clear class archetypes (for those that like to see that), plus massive amount of customisability within a class (for those that like to see that) and easy and flexible multiclassing (for those that like to see that).

Plus future development can easily be done via new talent trees.

(for my money the 4e classes/powers are too inflexible, too samey, have too limited a choice and pigeonhole characters too much)

Cheers

 

[Darrin Drader]

I prefer the 3.5 method, with the option of substituting in alternate class abilities from other sources.

 

[aurance]

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I prefer the class abilities be kept simple and straightforward a la 1e, and let the differences between characters of the same class come out via personality and in-game actions rather than mechanics.

I don't feel that there's a dichotomy here - nothing prevents you from having distinctive characters from a combination of both in-game actions and mechanics.

 

[Najo]

I've come to believe that the less players are made to be concerned with spending time "building" their characters the more time they are likely to devote to PLAYING their characters, interacting with the others at the table which is what _I_ enjoy most about the game and what I always thought WAS the point. That way players spend their efforts DOING with their characters instead of PLANNING their characters with gameplay only being the occasional proving ground that their choices are "correct" or superior to those made by other players.

That may not be how it is - but it IS how I percieve it. 3E and now particularly 4E actually have made the "simplistic" 1E and 2E structure and "limitations" of classes more appealing to me, both as a player and DM.

Thank you for explaining. From my own perspective, I think the more ways the game can be enjoyed in the "right" way and it if brings different players and play styles together is good.

I come from the camp that as a player I enjoy my character's personality, background and goals but I also enjoy tweaking the character mechanically and getting a fun playing character built.

As a DM, I love creating mystery, excitment and entertaining my players and care less about the rules unless a rule can be tweaked or created to add to the story. If a rule takes away from the storytelling, then it gets thrown out the door (as long as this doesn't cheat the players of their choices).

I can understand the perspective (and have played this way) of rules are just a framework for story and character development and the less rules the better. Heck, the majority of my 4 year Dark Sun campaign was mostly political and story driven, with my players even having a stand off with a gith tribe for a whole session that one dice was never rolled and the game was awesome.

I think that there is a place where rules tweaking and roleplaying come together. Its best when the rules give players enough tweaking, with out it getting in the way. I agree that 3.x lost sight of this.

Anyrate, I am rambling a bit. Just sharing my own two cents and I completely see where you are coming from and appreciate you sharing.

On a side note, I've ran DM and player improvement workshops and classes in our store, and the bottomline most important element that came out of everyone was character backgrounds/ preludes being the most important part of the preperation for a game. Especially when those histories are created together with ties between the characters.

On another note, we found that when you out a roleplayer in with an open minded group of hack and slay gamers, the Hack and slay gamers end up roleplaying.

When you put a hack and slay gamer in with a group of role players, the H n' S gamer ends up becoming a roleplayer.

Usually, the hack n' slayer is just not exposed to story driven D&D is the issue.

On a final side note, a hack n' slay gamer does not equal a power gamer, and a power gamer can be a roleplayer (which is where I would likely put myself when I play). I think the reason play styles vary so much and groups conflict though is because role players tend to stay with there group and do not congregrate between groups much, but that is a whole other topic.

 

[Najo]

As I mentioned in Najo's other thread about powers, this would have been my favourite option (the SWSE version, not the d20 modern version).

I prefer it because I think it

a) gives a much wider variety of class powers from the start
b) much easier to include a new, balanced talent tree
c) supports multiclassing very well (especially in the way prestige classes can borrow other classes talent trees where appropriate

I think the talent tree is a really nicely granular approach.

I would then have included something strongly based on the SWSE 'force' powers for handling magic - enabling magic to be different and yet balanced with the talent-only classes, supporting dabblers and experts equally well.

(SWSE had problems with relative power of skill based use of the force at low levels and high levels, but that could have been resolved in a number of ways).

This would give clear class archetypes (for those that like to see that), plus massive amount of customisability within a class (for those that like to see that) and easy and flexible multiclassing (for those that like to see that).

Plus future development can easily be done via new talent trees.

(for my money the 4e classes/powers are too inflexible, too samey, have too limited a choice and pigeonhole characters too much)

Cheers

I am going to say that I agree with Planesailing here on every point.