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

[Dannyalcatraz]

What you're describing is basically one ingredient in what my (poorly expressed) vision for what 4Ed could have been had it been designed, not as the next edition of D&D and all the baggage that comes with that and what the system could have been at its unshackled maximum potential as a completely new FRPG.

 

[LurkAway]

Regarding niche protection, I think design-as-you-go character class could still organically maintain niche protection and be 'true' to D&D. First, the group starts with complementary starting packages. Some sort of talent tree progression or high/low cost buy system makes it most efficient for PCs to seek and grow in one niche. Maybe the chosen niche doesn't have to be obvious from the very beginning. Some PCs might dabble for a few levels before 'finding' themselves (ie., one group starts off as all fighters, but one is slightly roguish, another is slightly priestly). Jack-of-all-trade PCs, if such exist, might dabble for a lot longer. (Is that so un-D&Dish?)

Also, for niche protection, balance purposes and for a nod to realism, I'd like to see some abilities (trained or latent) that are only available in the starting package.

For example, fighter starting package = weapon master (ie., pick up a sword at 5 years of age and train for 10 years in various arms). A 2nd level non-fighter could learn to use a a new weapon during an adventure, but can't get fighter weapon mastery in one level.

Likewise, wizard starting package = arcane maester. A fighter PC could not take a month off from adventuring and learn to write a spellbook. However, during an adventure, that fighter might discover a simple but effective magical speech or rune magic that he can pick up.

Likewise, cleric starting package = church training and/or divine affinity. So a 2nd level cleric might dabble in fighter mode for the first few levels until she unlocks the divination path. A 2nd level fighter might also unlock a divination path based on a story plot, but won't have the same bonuses as the 1st level cleric who maybe never went to church but was unknowingly favored by a god since childhood.

Can this work mechanically, and is it D&D? I don't know, but I do think it's a lot more flavorful.

 

[Hautamaki]

In my homebrew system I have a system that I believe adheres somewhat to the design questions of the OP.

There are only 3 classes: fighters, clerics, and mages. But PCs are free to multiclass in any way they like. And within each class, there are a number of options they can choose from. For fighters of course there is the choice of whether you will focus on a hand weapon and shield, two weapons, a great weapon, throwing weapons, or ranged weapons. There are also choices for exotic weapon proficiencies and the ability to specialize in combat maneuvres (sort of like the 3.x feat system, but basically every fighter can do/attempt a mundane version of all combat maneuvres, and if a player finds himself using that maneuvre a lot he can specialize in it to get an improved version). For clerics there is the choice of which deity you worship, which in turn affects which prayers are available and how skilled you are at using them. For mages there is the choice of which lore of magic you want to begin with, which affects which spells are available.

Which equipment you are able to use is also of course dependent upon which classes you take.

There is no 'rogue' class because to me all characters should be able to shine in and out of combat. If you put players in a situation where their character is only able to shine half the time, they are going to be bored the other half of the time. Therefore all character classes have an equal amount of skill points to distribute among non-combat skills as they wish and of course wise player groups will make sure they assign skill points to create a well-rounded party as a whole.

There are also prestige classes available at higher levels which players can take a single level in once they reach prerequisites, for example Paladins must have at least 2 levels of fighter and 1 level of cleric, which give them access to unique powers or abilities only for that prestige class.

What it results in is a system in which players are given a few selection trees that allow them to infinitely but easily customize what kind of character they want to play. Of course this system does little to protect 'niches', but experienced players know that the best parties are parties with role-players in the sense that every character has a role to play, rather than all jacks-of-all-trades. Our gaming group party has quite naturally evolved into a group with a striker/controller (fighter w/ great weapon-mage w/ lore of darkness-cleric of Luna-Assassin), a ranged tank (3rd level fighter with shield and throwing axes and heavy armour, Swordmaster), a tank/striker/duelist/leader (3rd level fighter with great weapon and heavy armour and improved grappling, Weapons Master), a healer/buffer (2nd level cleric) and a controller/dps (2nd level mage w/ lore of darkness and lore of fire).

 

[Bluenose]

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.

Not precisely. In 2e Runequest (and I believe most versions of CoC), if you use a skill successfully in an adventure, you can mark a check box beside it. Then, once the adventure is done and you're able to rest and think about it, you make the rolls to try and improve all the skills involved. Note, you need to roll higher than the current skill rank to improve (there are modifiers), which makes advancing harder as you become more skilled.

Pendragon, incidentally, does something similar with d20 based skills instead of d100. And since it also has opposed traits, you can sometimes end up with checks in both Energetic and Lazy, or Forgiving/Vengeful.

 

[Mercurius]

I only have a few minutes before phase 2 of a mega-meeting at work begins, but I wanted to dive back into this thread.

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.

I like that and it makes sense to me. Easier to advance if you use it, but you can still advance it.

What you're describing is basically one ingredient in what my (poorly expressed) vision for what 4Ed could have been had it been designed, not as the next edition of D&D and all the baggage that comes with that and what the system could have been at its unshackled maximum potential as a completely new FRPG.

Sounds interesting. What I'm wondering about is if 4E's "maximum potential" can be "unshackled" through 5E, and still as "Dungeons & Dragons." In a way I think the Holy Grail of D&D design is accomplishing two things at once: retaining and embodying that "classic D&D feel" in all its glory, but also allowing for as wide a variety of different approaches to game play.

Now obviously there's a point where something--if stretched far enough--is no longer in the same territory or category. We could posit all kinds of World of Darkness games, for instance, but I imagine that Dairy Farmer: The Milking or Yiddish Grandmother: The Kvetching are a bit beyond the borders.

This is not to get into another discussion as to whether or not 4E is "real D&D," but to question whether a game can offer a wide variety of play styles, including "classic D&D", and still be D&D. This goes back to my viewpoint that 4E would have been better served (and 5E hopefully will be better served) by not proclaiming that "everything is core" but instead the opposite: "almost everything is optional," with a relatively simple core default game that embodied a streamlined iteration of the game that stayed true to the D&D legacy, but allowed for different modular options, including a variety of themed campaign possibilities (one of which could have been "Warcraftian fantasy").

With regards to the idea of classes-as-starting templates, this could be one of the rules options that a 5E game could possibly use.

Regarding niche protection, I think design-as-you-go character class could still organically maintain niche protection and be 'true' to D&D....SNIP GOOD STUFF...

Can this work mechanically, and is it D&D? I don't know, but I do think it's a lot more flavorful.

Good ideas there, LurkAway. I think the key is to be able to re-create something very similar to the classic classes, but also diversify a bit.

One analogy that comes to mind is that of musicians. All things being equal, a musician who dedicates him or herself to a single instrument will become more proficient at a single instrument than the same musician learning multiple instruments. But that person is no more or less of a skilled musician on either path; they're just more or less focused in a single area or multiple areas.

In other words, all 10th level characters should have a similar degree of power and development, but there should be near countless variations and degrees of specialization. In most forms of D&D, the number of variations is a formula based on only a few factors: class, race, skill specialization, feats, powers, equipment...still quite a lot of variation. But the number of choices would be much greater if the later factors weren't all based upon the class.

I've got more to say but I'm going to be late for my workshop! It is one of those emotional processing gigs, so if I'm late I'm going to have to talk about my feelings about being late and how it effects the group!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

How hard to push niche protection is a valid question. But the more moving parts you have, the softer it will inevitably get. Even a social contract in the group to maintain it won't entirely survive. Nor do I think that D&D can be pushed much closer to Hero System or GURPS than 3E already did, without serious rejection from fans. At some point in that effort, the game starts using the D&D brand to compete with what Hero and GURPS already do very well. Classes in niche protection imply that there are some things you simply cannot do well, because you chose something else.

On using starting packages and then escalating from there, my concerns are more on the practical side. Varying costs for things depending upon where you start? Does "cross class skills" ring any bells?

 

[LurkAway]

How hard to push niche protection is a valid question. But the more moving parts you have, the softer it will inevitably get. Even a social contract in the group to maintain it won't entirely survive. Nor do I think that D&D can be pushed much closer to Hero System or GURPS than 3E already did, without serious rejection from fans.

But in a modular game (which seems to be the bandwagon right now), everything will get softer, not just niche protection, and the only thing left is the social contract (ideally guided by official advice).

We also know that just under 30% of Enworld users think that balance is not important at all, and 30% have a 'balanced' view of balance (whatever that means), and I suspect there would be similar ratios for niche protection. And on the Dear Mike & Monte thread, dividing classes into Combat + Social + Professional (or other variant) seemed rather popular. So I think there's some support for breaking down classes to a certain point.

If 5E was modular and sold like Lego, the default suggested builds could offer niche protection (and probably are the official builds for tournament play, etc.) but each group can say 'to hell with that' and design-as-they-go like Lego building blocks (ideally, with official guidelines).

The question that I think everyone is asking: can D&D be taken apart like Lego and put back together again in different ways that work, and/or could 5E do that?

On using starting packages and then escalating from there, my concerns are more on the practical side. Varying costs for things depending upon where you start? Does "cross class skills" ring any bells?

Any problems with cross class skills are, I'd assume, related to arbitrary correlation between a rigid class structure (that the player is stuck with for the entire life of the PC) and certain skills that don't seem to have any or much relation to that class -- I don't know how relevant that is to more flexible class progression. Or is there something else you meant?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What I'm wondering about is if 4E's "maximum potential" can be "unshackled" through 5E, and still as "Dungeons & Dragons." In a way I think the Holy Grail of D&D design is accomplishing two things at once: retaining and embodying that "classic D&D feel" in all its glory, but also allowing for as wide a variety of different approaches to game play.

I honestly don't think so.

To me, taking the 4Ed mechanics to one logical extreme gets you a system that would be analogous to Mutants & Mastermomd's take on 3.5Ed. But in doing so, while you'd create a fairly robust system, it would be devoid of many of the features that make an RPG feel like D&D...just like M&M doesn't feel like 3.5Ed.

No niche protection, no real classes- characters simply have what their designers make them have.

 

[Fanaelialae]

This idea reminded me of the sphere grid from Final Fantasy X.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

But in a modular game (which seems to be the bandwagon right now), everything will get softer, not just niche protection, and the only thing left is the social contract (ideally guided by official advice).

...

If 5E was modular and sold like Lego, the default suggested builds could offer niche protection (and probably are the official builds for tournament play, etc.) but each group can say 'to hell with that' and design-as-they-go like Lego building blocks (ideally, with official guidelines).

The question that I think everyone is asking: can D&D be taken apart like Lego and put back together again in different ways that work, and/or could 5E do that?

Modular options need not be as fine grained as Lego to work. I'm saying that if you try to make them that fine, you are essentially making a D&D clone of Hero or GURPS, and you will fail. The first part I think is on firm ground if you did an objective comparison of how such a system would work. The second part is obviously opinion, though I'd like to think an informed one, having run highly D&Dish stuff in Fantasy Hero for many years, and a homebrew, half Hero, half D&D after that.

This is why I keep saying that for D&D, the options need to be carefully chosen. Picking one thing to vary means that the other stuff around it needs to be structured. Ever seen one of those kid circuit board projects? They make them two ways--ones where you touch every little piece, and ones where you have components that you place on the board, but inside the component is fixed. With the latter, you can make a radio or a buzzer or any number of electronic projects, but you can't rewire a part to support more current.

Of course, with a table top game, neither analogy strictly holds. Nothing is truly "black box". Even if the "paladin" is presented as a black box class, you can tear it apart and rework it if you want to. What I am advocating, however, is that careful use of options will allow people to make the most common desired changes to the paladin without having to tear it apart and rebuild it. That's what "dials" do if designed properly. You just flip it, and it works, without you needing to understand all the nuances.

"Modular" D&D is a means toward allowing more flexibility to attract a wider audience, and give people a more satisfactory experience. It is not, in my view, an end of itself. I see Lego as modular as an end in itself, where a great deal of the point is pulling things apart and putting them back together. People that want the simple game do not want to have to put the game together themselves.

Any problems with cross class skills are, I'd assume, related to arbitrary correlation between a rigid class structure (that the player is stuck with for the entire life of the PC) and certain skills that don't seem to have any or much relation to that class -- I don't know how relevant that is to more flexible class progression. Or is there something else you meant?

No, I meant that the handling time of such mechanics is unexpectedly prohibitive for what you get out of them. Cross-class skills are one of those ideas that seem so simple, and allow so much flexible detail. But as soon as you put in multiclassing, max ranks, etc., it is a pain in the behind. Widgets that cost different resources depending upon how and when a character buys them often have that property. I'm not saying that you can't ever use one. I am saying that I'd be highly skeptical about side effects and expect to check that during playtesting.