Dealing with Unnecessary Classes

[Dannyl]

I started noticing this problem back in 3.5, when Wizards begans publishing more and more different spellcasting classes. We already had the basics; wizard, sorcerer, cleric, and druid, which were followed by truenamer, binder, and shadowcaster. It is cool to have variety but to me it seems kind of forced and silly. The problem was compounded in 4E, when difference classes, although they use the same power source and arbitrarily cast different spells, although they still basically do the same thing.

Nothing makes this more clear than the silly differences between wizard and sorcerer. I get the idea behind the two, but on a level of game mechanics there is close to no real difference between the two. Of course, this is not limited just spellcasters. Same applies, possibly even more so, to melee classes, such as fighter, barbarian, and ranger, just give some examples. They all have something they use to hit the other guy with.

I do not really blame WotC for this, since, lets face it, they need to make a profit out their products and one of the best ways of doing that is to published half a dozen accessories with different classes in them, and of course, a series of accessories to give those classes more options; paragon paths/prestige classes, spells, feats, etc.

I, however, have been envisioning weeding the garden a bit, so to speak.

I would like to combine all spellcasting classes, or at least most of them, into one class, and all melee classes, to one class. E.g. all sorcerers, wizards, clerics, and druid would just be classes "wizards" or "sorcerers," or any other name you want. That would mean managing a joint spell / power pool would be a lot more uniform, balanced, and not to mention easier. It would also stop the different classes from reinventing the wheel. Right now, there are plenty of examples of two different classes basically having the exact same ability, with maybe flavor differences in damage and what not.

For example, in 4E you can actually build a two weapon fighter that looks and acts exactly like a ranger. It just is not called "ranger."

The flavor to each class would come from the exact build, the choice of class features, and lore. You could make a wizard and make it act like a druid, if that was the sort of spellcaster you wanted to play.

Any thoughts or experience from this type of class system?

 

[Dethklok]

With D&D, it's tough to manage.

You can come up with systems for it, but what I've seen done is to start with a template that gives number of hit points, weapon and armor restrictions, and so on, and then adds different spell abilities - you can't build clerics effectively from a wizard template that way.

A more agreeable method might be to allow a character to choose also weapon kits, armor abilities, hp, and so on, in a way that truly builds the class. But these class-building methods often turn out awry as munchins figure out how to abuse the chinks in an otherwise reasonably well intentioned system.

You can, of course, compromise by having a few different classes, and then allow modification from there; that way your base is large enough to prevent the need to do things like build thieves from a fighter template, but each class is still broad enough that it isn't difficult to properly balance the different options. So for you, this is my recommendation: Warrior, Wizard, Priest, Rogue, adjust to taste.

That stated, however, I believe that the best way to do this is to switch to a skill system completely. Classes can still quite easily exist in a skill system as a set of skills - in my personal system I have a classic warrior that is good at melee, archery, and wrestling, as well as alert for danger and disciplined for long gruelling marches and keeping watch during the night. But these skills can be learned singly by anyone. As long as each skill in the system has roughly equal breadth and usefulness, any imaginable class can be created, although (and this is really the best bit) there is no need for classes at all once a person learns the system. You just play the character you want. Unfortunately, D&D isn't a skill-based system, so this option isn't practical without picking up another rpg entirely.

 

[GMMichael]

If you're not a DM, you don't need to, or have the ability to, deal with it. If you are the DM, you can just tell players to keep it in the core rules.

However, in an ideal roleplaying world, you'd need more than a spellcasting class and a weapon-swinging class. You'd also need a problem-solving class, since some people use their minds instead of swords and sorcery. Then you could let players cross-class to their hearts' content.

Or do what Dethklok and I do - let skills handle the job. Let the players buy whatever characters they want, but make sure they each have the same amount of currency. If one player ends up buying a better character than the rest, maybe help the other characters along with magic items.

For the record, I'm in the camp that says Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard are all the classes you need, along with a little flexibility and imagination. Want to make a cool class from another book? Multiclass your way there.

 

[Dannyl]

If you're not a DM, you don't need to, or have the ability to, deal with it. If you are the DM, you can just tell players to keep it in the core rules.

Thank you for your replies, both of you, though I am a little baffled by this comment here. Not sure what it has to do with anything I said. For the background of my group, yes, I am the DM of my crew but I do not force my changes upon them, nor do I reserve the right for creative changes or additions to the game. If a player comes to me, saying they have come up with a cool new idea for a class, paragon path, a spell or a ritual, I will happily tell him to go for it. I will naturally review the final product and decline if I feel it is not suitable, as in too powerful, etc. In which case I give him suggestions how to fix it and wait until he comes back with another iteration.

The very purpose for this change, that I am planning, is to remove restrictions from the 4E D&D. I say 4E because that is the system we are currently using and which I think is best suited, from all the D&D variants. As it stands, the system restricts creative character creation and sets a lot of unnecessary demands upon the classes. E.g. the whole striker, controller, leader, and defender role division, which I think is the single most horrid design decisions WotC has ever made.

Such a role should be born from the choice of feats, class features, spells (aka powers) and playstyle. Not forced upon classes. E.g. I could very well design a wizard defender and basically any class has the capability to be a leader.

I do like the suggestion of progression through skills. I used to play Cult and have been looking at Mage the Awakening with rising interest, as they are / were systems where character progression was not a matter of level but what skills you picked and how many points you allocated to them.

But alas, D&D does not convert easily to that so it is not an option.

However, in an ideal roleplaying world, you'd need more than a spellcasting class and a weapon-swinging class. You'd also need a problem-solving class, since some people use their minds instead of swords and sorcery. Then you could let players cross-class to their hearts' content.

True, though problem-solving is not limited to class, is it? Any class is or should be capable of problem solving. The sword or spell is there simply so you can kill the stuff that wants to kill you. However, I do have to admit that the kind of problem-solving is not a big feature in D&D type systems because it uses a skill system that is utterly uninteresting or exciting. Especially in 4E where every trained skill is at the same uniformed level.

Here is where I would really like to add a new, better skill system that actually lets you allocate points into a wide range of skills, letting you excel at specific tasks, instead of letting you literally auto-win if you have a particular skill trained.

A more agreeable method might be to allow a character to choose also weapon kits, armor abilities, hp, and so on, in a way that truly builds the class. But these class-building methods often turn out awry.

I very much agree and this sort of gave me an idea to work with. You are right in that the more flexibility in character design you have the more vulnerable the system is to abuse. But I am fairly certain, especially if I use 4E as a starting point, I could make it very difficult to abuse.

This is the principle idea:

Upon character creation, first thing you choose is your power source. Lets call them martial and magic, for now. This signifies the type of character you are making; martial for melee or physical weapons type character (e.g. fighter, ranger, rogue) and magic for spellcaster (wizard, cleric, druid).

Next, like always, you allocate stats to reflect your choice of power source. Next you choose race and all that stuff, and then you pick your class features. Imagine class features like Channel Divinity, Aegis of Shielding (swordmage from FR), Sneak Attack, and so on and so forth, all in one big pool. You would maybe be allowed to pick 1-2 at 1st level and more down the path as you level up.

After that you pick your feats, skills, and powers / spells. All powers (including prayers, spells, exploits, etc.) are all in a single pool. Martial power source gives you access to martial powers and magic for magic. If, like so many D&D players do, you like to keep divine, arcane, and psionic abilities separate, you could further divide magic into those three power sources. Though I do not think it is necessary. Particularly in 4E where every class already has the capability to use powers that invoke healing surges.

That is the essential system that removes classes and all their restrictions and lets you, basically, design whatever type of character you want and it would also be fairly balanced, since class features and powers have universal pools where you can easily balance them together. 4E already does a very good job of that.

 

[Dethklok]

Looks doable. On the subject of abuse, I'll add that it isn't really a problem with a strong DM at the table. Abuse only really shows up in settings where people don't know one another, there are a lot of players, or the DM doesn't have the personality to say no. If you're the one instituting these changes, everyone is clear about the system you're using, and you're able to stay on top of things, I wouldn't worry too much about what your players do with the new rules.

Good luck!

 

[Nytmare]

I myself have been fiddling around with a classless "lite" system for the past year and change. Mechanically the game is going to operate almost entirely off of Obsidian skill challenges, which means that all the combat options basically get boiled down to "what do you want your weapon to be called, and how far away do you want it to work." Magic is (in the process of becoming) a spell list-less system more akin to Mage than D&D.

I started off branching things off of power sources, but at least in the current version that's been left on the curb and the motivating factor is more what you want to consider your primary and secondary stat to be and what your skill choices are. The power sources ended up not having any kind of mechanical ties to what choices the players could make.

 

[Meatboy]

If this is just for you and your group go for it. 4e makes this kind of thing super difficult. I find its the toughest edition to house rule, especially when it comes to classes. Even with your friends you run the risk of creating overpowered combos once you get a few levels in. On a side note how would paragon paths work?

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=6747102]Dannyl[/MENTION] Sounds like you want a three class system (like in True20 or Dragon Age...maybe originally in Unearthed Arcana) with easy multi-classing.

 

[GMMichael]

True, though problem-solving is not limited to class, is it? Any class is or should be capable of problem solving. The sword or spell is there simply so you can kill the stuff that wants to kill you. However, I do have to admit that the kind of problem-solving is not a big feature in D&D type systems because it uses a skill system that is utterly uninteresting or exciting. Especially in 4E where every trained skill is at the same uniformed level.

...

After that you pick your feats, skills, and powers / spells. All powers (including prayers, spells, exploits, etc.) are all in a single pool. Martial power source gives you access to martial powers and magic for magic. If, like so many D&D players do, you like to keep divine, arcane, and psionic abilities separate, you could further divide magic into those three power sources. Though I do not think it is necessary. Particularly in 4E where every class already has the capability to use powers that invoke healing surges.

Well, "problem solving" was my catch all term for negotiation, disguise, lockpicking, deciphering, etc. It's not limited to a class, but if those are skills, some classes are better at skills than others.

It was my impression that 4E had already reduced everything to "powers" anyway. So I don't expect it to be a big jump from using a 5th-level Encounter power for fighters, to instead taking a 5th-level Encounter power for wizards. As a non-Forry player, I'm probably wrong.

 

[Dannyl]

Looks doable ...

Thank you.

I started off branching things off of power sources, but at least in the current version that's been left on the curb and the motivating factor is more what you want to consider your primary and secondary stat to be and what your skill choices are. The power sources ended up not having any kind of mechanical ties to what choices the players could make.

Yeah, the power source is not really a mechanical factor in the game. It simply acts as a divider and prerequisite to what kind of powers the player is capable of using.

If this is just for you and your group go for it. 4e makes this kind of thing super difficult. I find its the toughest edition to house rule, especially when it comes to classes. Even with your friends you run the risk of creating overpowered combos once you get a few levels in. On a side note how would paragon paths work?

I am unsure what you mean by 4E being so difficult to modify. Personally I find it the easiest of all the D&D systems to change and alter. I am still a little undecided with paragon paths. As a concept, I have nothing against paragon paths, as they are small and easy to create, allowing for variety and themes in the campaign world, but in the end they are largely only made up by three simple class features and three powers. Epic destinies have the same problem, except an epic destiny is kind of like a plot device in a bottle.

Going to have to think on it for a bit. For now, I have been working on writing the rules down, tying the pieces together and getting everything needed to work for character creation, so I can start play testing with my crew.

Sounds like you want a three class system (like in True20 or Dragon Age...maybe originally in Unearthed Arcana) with easy multi-classing.

Yeah, someone mentioned that it was a lot like Unearthed Arcana, which it is

Well, "problem solving" was my catch all term for negotiation, disguise, lockpicking, deciphering, etc. It's not limited to a class, but if those are skills, some classes are better at skills than others.

Traditionally, in D&D yes, some classes, particularly bards and rogues have been the jacks of all trades; the ones with the most skill points and thus been able to perform more problem solving challenges but I don't really agree that is how it should be. I do not understand why class a should have more skill points than class b. Any character could have learned to pick locks or disguise themselves. It is should be more a question of background; what did the character spend his youth doing?