"Classless Class" - Classes as starting templates with open-ended development

[Mercurius]

I don't mean "classless" as in "lacking class," but in terms of alternatives to the class system that D&D in every edition has followed. I've dabbled in the past with the idea of a jack-of-all-trades class called the Polymath or Adventurer, but what I'm looking for is less of a jack-of-all-trades and more of a design-as-you-go approach.

We all know how the traditional D&D class structure works in any edition: You choose a class during character creation which both A) is a template representing prior training and background, and B) forms the direction that your character will develop in (with the possible exception of multiclassing and some customization possible due to feats).

I've been mulling around with an idea that, in the above formulation, re-visions classes as only the first part--the starting template--but not the latter part. A player would still choose a class for their character during creation, but it would only represent their "starting package" - essentially their previous training, with possible customizations due to background, culture, theme, and of course race. But at that point, well, the PC is free to develop pretty much as they want to, with some limitations of course. Some thoughts on that (this could work for any edition, but I'm using 4E in my ruminations):

- The PC starts with access to only one or two power sources. Every 4-5 levels, they can "open up" a new power source if it fits the storyline and the DM is in agreement.

- Feats and Powers would have prerequisites, whether mechanical (e.g. in order to have Y power, you must have X power already), or story-based (e.g. in order to open up the shadow power source you must have had an experience of contact with the Shadowfell).

I realize that this approach would essentially be a more open-ended and "powerful" version of multiclassing/hybriding and has the potential to be way out of balance with the traditional character classes; it may be that this would only work the way I want it to work if it outright replaced the traditional class structure, although my preference is for it to be an add-on rules option for every character. In other words, some players would want to just follow the normal developmental pattern of their class, but others would want to customize as they go.

So what do think? How to make it work? Has anyone done something similar?

 

[LurkAway]

- Feats and Powers would have prerequisites, whether mechanical (e.g. in order to have Y power, you must have X power already), or story-based (e.g. in order to open up the shadow power source you must have had an experience of contact with the Shadowfell).

I like the idea, but I assume it changes the nature of what levels means in D&D. Often times, levels are mostly abstractions that have little or no correlation to what happens in the adventure. For example, you could gain climbing skill points without ever doing any climbing in the adventure or have time to train in climbing "behind the scenes". I think a "classless" class would make demands of adventures that are meaningful to player's interpretation of their character development. Again, I really like the idea, but I don't think it's for everyone.

For example, in another thread, I theorized that "Maybe you allow the player to choose 2 bundles/add-ons with each level -- every level, it is recommended to pick up one Combat bundle and your Class/Power Source bundle, but a player might choose something else (with appropriate limitations). Maybe the DM hands out bundles depending on what you experienced in the narrative. Maybe if you completed an adventure without any combat whatsoever, you don't get to pick up a Combat bundle at all." But this didn't seem to gain any traction in the thread.

Story-based class progression, for better or worse, also makes it matter what the PCs do in the adventure. I had theorized "if a scrawny rogue is hanging back at every battle and allowing everyone else to do all the fighting, does he get xp towards a Combat Level? If a fat scholary wizard never helps anybody around the dungeon and keeps a nose buried in his book, does he get xp towards an Adventuring Level?".

Those questions only apply if gaining of feats and powers is story-based. I guess a system might suggest but not enforce that the story be meaningful to design-as-you character progression.

 

[Mercurius]

Yeah, I thought of that. I believe classic Runequest and Call of Cthulhu take a similar approach in that you can only advance a skill if you use it.

I'm mixed on this because your scrawny rogue could be learning more about combat simply by watching, or if a PC never fights within the span of a level they could still be training, practicing their swordsmanship, etc. Not to mention that sometimes skills jump a notch in development when you rest them for a couple days.

I like your "bundle" idea. That might be another optional approach. My hope is that if Mike & Monte really follow the "complexity dial" principle in 5E design, these sorts of approaches will be quite easy to institute, even within the same campaign. One PC could advance through "bundling", another through the open-ended development I'm positing, and yet another through traditional class advancement. Of course designing all of this so it is at least relatively balanced and modular is the hard part, but that's why those guys are paid the big bucks!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I've done something similar for homebrew, D&D-ish systems--not finished, but enough to think it is a viable route. I don't like it for standard D&D though, as it seems a bridge too far.

The two main roles of classes in D&D are niche protection and ease of building and leveling characters. Feats, skills, etc. have compromised that last one, but it is still hanging on. (I'd like to see it uncompromised.) But niche protection really is a central D&D-ism that classes handle very well.

About as far as I would go would be a variant on "bundles" that I've discussed here before, basically making every character a multiclass of more narrow, targetted classes. But even that I think, while fitting my preferences very well, is not the center of what D&D should be aiming for.

I do have a sneaking and horrifying suspicion that the fighter class is a huge bottleneck to elegant design in D&D. If it could be dropped and/or replaced, with "using weapons and armor" being moved into feats, skills, or elsewhere, it might open up the rest of class design to work better.

 

[LurkAway]

Yeah, I thought of that. I believe classic Runequest and Call of Cthulhu take a similar approach in that you can only advance a skill if you use it.

Now that you mention that, yes, I remember that being true for Call of Cthulhu... although the advantage of CoC is that there are a lot less skills to keep track of. I don't know about Runequest. With complex D&D classes, that could mean a lot of record keeping, but seems doable with simple classes?

I'm mixed on this because your scrawny rogue could be learning more about combat simply by watching, or if a PC never fights within the span of a level they could still be training, practicing their swordsmanship, etc. Not to mention that sometimes skills jump a notch in development when you rest them for a couple days.

I guess. Although one assumption is that PCs are always training behind the scenes in their respective skills, and that's not what matters per se because most NPCs in the fantasy/sci-fi/action genre train and practice and fight for months and years and remain ordinary 0-level soldiers. Arguably, there's some sort of fantasy logic in play, that you can train in arms or study arcane lore for 6 years and not gain any hit points, then go on an adventure for 3 days and suddenly gave a level and hit points. I think the PC is gaining like a destiny token every time they overcome a heroic challenge, and that's what gaining XP in that respective skill is all about.

 

[LurkAway]

I do have a sneaking and horrifying suspicion that the fighter class is a huge bottleneck to elegant design in D&D.

Can you elaborate on that? I'm curious what you mean.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Can you elaborate on that? I'm curious what you mean.

I'm not Crazy Jerome but I remember my older brother saying to me in the 1st edition days that I should always pick fighter. "If the only thing you can do is fight, you can do anything." By that he meant that if I made sure to survive the melee combats I could develop my character in any way I felt like role-playing wise. No one was going to stop me role-playing break ins or singing odes. However the combat rules would stop me (abruptly) from playing fighter with subpar fighting skills.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Can you elaborate on that? I'm curious what you mean.

Maybe. Huge caveat -- it is a suspicion, a little bit of logic with a lot of intuition. Take these "points" in no particular order:

• Conan is the prototypical D&D fighter. Besides his strength and skill with weapons, his distinguishing characteristics are "barbarian"--and later skilled pirate and sort of skilled ruler.
• Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser are close behind. The Mouser is at least half rogue (probably along with Cugel the Clever, the inspiration for "use magic device" in 3E). But even Fafhrd is cat quick and capable of real thievery. It is only being big, strong, and good with bow and sword that makes us think of him as a "fighter" at all.
• And so on, with many literary fighter examples. (Pick any you want.)
• Weapons are like perception skills and gold pieces in many fantasy games. Everyone wants them at least a little, and often need them to function.
• I keep coming back to Dragon Quest, where weapons are separate, and the "Military Tactician" profession (the DQ equivalent of "class") is more about directing fights than necessarily being the best warrior.
• If rangers, barbarians, paladins, etc are in the game and present, and have the option to be good with weapons (via class or feats or whatever), what is the niche of "fighter" that needs to be protected?
• If that last one doesn't make any sense, stat the Fellowship of the Ring in 1st ed AD&D. terms.
• A niche defined needs to be narrow enough to leave room for other niches, but broad enough to be worth defining as a class (i.e. it will get used significantly). Maybe the "fighter" is really supposed to be a "weapon master".

I'll think of 20 more after I hit submit. But maybe that gives a sense of what I mean.

To a lesser extent, one could make the same objections to wizard, cleric, and rogue (roughly in that order of importance, too). After all, "cleric" in D&D is such a mishmash, with different gods imposed haphazardly on top. And it is not uncommon for people to want "enchanters" or "conjurers" specialists instead of broad wizards. One of the power problems with wizards has always been the scope of their powers. Rogue is probably the first class to be true to a niche--especially in its first "thief" incarnation. What did "rogue" do to the "thief" to make it more palatable? Added weapon ability. However, my suspicion is that if weapon use is picked up elsewhere, "thief" works again, "cleric" becomes nothing but "priest of a god", and "wizard" becomes a jack of all trades arcane loremaster, to fit the name.

 

[Baron Opal]

I seem to recall that original rules for Tekumel basically had two classes; warrior and magician. Either your temple taught you magic, or your clan paid for your warrior training and gear. (Gross over-simplification, but at the heart...)

You could be sneaky or bold as brass. So rich that golden khitars fell from your pockets or you scraped ch'len hides to earn your weaponry. Male, female, high clan or low, the key difference is whether or not you could cast magic. Everything else was just details.

Blue Rose also had the Warrior, Adept, Expert triad. I have some issues with that, since I consider "skill monkey" a mechanic not a theme. But, it seemed to work well enough.

For a 4e consideration, one thing you could do would be assemble a list of the racial powers and class features. One is racial / biologic and the other cultural. So, the mountain folk are a hardy race (dwarven package). Those that live in Magicburg know many tricks (Wizard cantrip feature), but those in the Five Falls area are agile (thief feature).

Or, something like that.

 

[Stormonu]

I very much like the idea of a class being a "starting package", and you develop your abilities and skills from there as you so choose. Perhaps some limitations or restrictions to prevent too much jack-of-all-trade characters; If you start with the fighter class package, learning spells costs double or triple, for example - but it's not impossible.

As for "must use a skill to advance it", I'd prefer to see a system that makes advancing a skill you've recently used easier, but not impossible. You swung a sword in the last fight? Raising your BAB costs 1 then, instead of 2. Climbed the sheer wall to get at the villain on the 3rd floor? Then a rank in Climb costs 1 instead of 2. This would promote characters using the skills, but not prevent them from attempting to raise a skill they feel they really, really need.