D&D General What do you NOT want systems for?

[Lanefan]

At the risk of angering the entire Enworld community, I'd love to see Multiclassing go the way of the Dodo.

Or, if Multiclassing MUST be endured, I'd like the following rules:

1) You can only have 2 classes. No Fighter 3/Rogue 3/Sorcerer 1/Druid 2.
2) At least one of the classes needs to be Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, or Wizard.
3) When you Multiclass, you must continue taking levels in the 2nd class until your 2 class levels are equal. After that, neither class can be more than 1 level off from the other class (optional)

Completely on board with 1) above; and see below for an expansion.
Not so sure about 2) but I would add in that the two classes must be from different groups (e.g. if you're a Wizard you can't then multi with another arcane caster class).
Not on board with 3). I'm a fan of having the two classes advance independently (I don't at all like WotC-edition additive multiclassing and far prefer the 2e method), and I'm fine with a character being, say, Fighter-6/Rogue-2 as long as that division reflects how the character is being played, i.e. mostly as a warrior with just a little sneaking etc. now and then.

But - and this'll get unpopular quickly - I'd also add:

4) A multiclassed character doesn't get the same benefits from either class as does a single-class character. For example a multi-class caster might not have as many spell slots at, say, 7th level as a single-class 7th-level would. Some martial feats wouldn't be available to multi-class Fighters. Multi-class Rogues would lose a bit off their skills. And so on; all to reflect the idea that a multi-class character is a jack of all trades and master of none.

Oh, and:

5) If you're going to be a multiclassed character you pretty much have to start out that way. No picking up a new class out of nowhere when you bump a level; to gain a new class takes at least a year of training.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah and as usual you and I both run the game similarly in practice! But I'm confident in my reading of the post until contradicted because I have come across the suggestion @overgeeked appears to be making countless times over the last 30 years. And at least in those other cases, people were literally advocating to remove social skills and stats entirely from the game, and force it to be 100% RP, and I just don't think that's fair in a game which lets you not have to do the same for other skills/stats.

I don't advocate for removing social stats as I'm firmly in the camp that holds your stats should inform your roleplay. But I do advocate for removal of social skill rules.

Why? Because roleplaying social interactions are the one aspect of the game that doesn't need to be abstracted by the rules or game system: we can do these interactions in real life at the table.

Pretty much everything else does require abstraction, because we can't functionally do those things in real life at the table; and those abstractions use skills, stats etc.

 

[Tonguez]

We dont need a Random Harlot Table
nor a body function frequency list

 

[Vaalingrade]

Why? Because roleplaying social interactions are the one aspect of the game that doesn't need to be abstracted by the rules or game system: we can do these interactions in real life at the table.

What about people who don't, aren't comfortable with it, or want to play a character better at it than them.

You don't make the barbarian 'wrassle the DM to prove they can fight.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Whilst I don't mind some skill rolls for social situations, I don't want the whole thing covered by some abstracted "social combat." To me roleplaying these moments is one of the most fun aspects of the play, so I don't want to replace them with cold mechanics. And yes, this might mean that some players are "more skilled" is this aspect of the game than others*. But some players are also more skilled in tactics, and this gives them an edge in combat situations. I don't think entirely eliminating the player skill is either possible nor desirable.

(* However, I try to judge DCs more based on what was said rather than how it was said.)

 

[Vaalingrade]

(* However, I try to judge DCs more based on what was said rather than how it was said.)

That does... not fix the problem. Do you know any socially awkward people? They don't know what to say half the time and that's half the problem.

The socially skilled players just get a free boost that others can never match or get recompense for.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That does... not fix the problem. Do you know any socially awkward people? They don't know what to say half the time and that's half the problem.

The socially skilled players just get a free boost that others can never match or get recompense for.

And like I said, more tactically skilled players are better at the combat minigame, people that are RL better at problem solving are probably also better at solving fictional problems. You cannot eliminate the player skill as long as the players have any agency. Every time a decision matters, people have to use their real brains to make that decision.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Mmm, good old fashioned unfairness.

I like how this is where player agency matters, when it's actually hurting players. That and the antagonistic dichotomy of Skilled Play and Roleplaying. You can play a combat monster or a spellcaster without having to be able to do that in real life, but talking? Nope. You better be naturally gifted in speech if you want to be a diplomancer.

 

[Thunder Brother]

I hate hate hate inventory systems that primarily use weights. Give me slots or something similar.

It's fine in a video game where the game can do the math quickly and easily, but on paper it feels like tedious bookkeeping.

 

[Thunder Brother]

Mmm, good old fashioned unfairness.

I like how this is where player agency matters, when it's actually hurting players. That and the antagonistic dichotomy of Skilled Play and Roleplaying. You can play a combat monster or a spellcaster without having to be able to do that in real life, but talking? Nope. You better be naturally gifted in speech if you want to be a diplomancer.

What, you don't also ask your players to perform a long jump in person every time their character jumps a ravine? Or take a trip to your local climbing gym when they attempt to traverse a cliff?