A Different View of the Game

[MichaelSomething]

I'm no systems master, but splats didn't unbalance 3rd Edition, figuring out CODzilla/Batman wizards did. Many splats came out in an attempt to power up classes considered weak like fighter and monk.

 

[justanobody]

For the sake of this thread assume the core of a character is BAB, saving throws, ability scores, HP die, class special abilities (back stab, turn undead, lay on hands, etc) plus caster ability or not. (skip race considerations for now). Lets just call this Red Box Stuff.

When thinking along those terms, as far as character classes, all that the new D&D editions (since 1ed) have done is essentially add:

What? That sounds crazy to me.

I just want to encourage a discussion on a classless D&D based on the OGL.

I don't think classless D&D would work because it was pretty much founded on classes, but a fantasy based game using the OGL that is classless would be extremely possible and could be fun where the players do not have to worry if they have the right party make up, or who has to be the lame duck, or are they playing their character right.

What this essentially would mean, if I am understanding the OGL and its SRD, is you take the bits you want from the SRD, and add the rules for the classless ranks to it. Take say the abilities of the classes and git them in somehow as feats but have them open to any character to choose.

You will get some pretty strange combinations, and not really be able to define what a character can or cannot do, but this is only a problem if you want a rigid system that requires exacts to detail the combat or other interactions.

If you assume that under any and all circumstances a "kobold" will act in a prescribed manner, and can use abilities X, and weapons Y, or tiems Z; then the system will work fine because it has those options and doesn't need to be built to fit what the party of characters has or does not have for classes in a classless system.

Some many enjoy this being a "D&D" system, but I wouldn't; but that doesn't mean it couldn't be a good system.

So first what would you do with the class abilities and how would you let character grab these things to be able to make their own character, and would your system worry is one character able to do more than another because of "faulty player choices", that led to a character deficient in some area, or would the system say "Hey its yours to do what you want with your character and make it how you want to play it!"

So the very least you would have to do is throw out any sort of character optimization ideas and allow for crazy combinations of abilities to cast spells and use armor, while firing a bow.

I think a point system would work best, but if you also have a system built on races, you will need to assign points to the races as well to make their "package" be weighed properly with all the other abilities. Like the red-box set had elf as a class kind of.

So for an example:

-Start as a "Human" or just a being and if you don't pick a race package you default to a human.

-Start at level 1* with 1000 XP.
--This XP is the number of points you can spend to buy those abilities or races, or profeciencies, or whatever!

-As you reach a new level you can psend more XP on new things "unlocked" for the level such as racial abilities, more powerful other abilities, or upgrades to your abilites.
--XP only means to level what abilities you can buy with points and lower. Once you are level X you don't lose XP on it, or abilities you have spent XP on. So once level 2, you are level 2 and don't go backwards again. Any unspent XP is just your points to spend on buying new things and they rollover to the next levels, so you can save them if you want for a later time.

Example character and thrown out points cost.

Level 1 with 1000:
Elf package: 500
Bow: 100
Arcane magic use: 200
Light armor use: 200

What comes in the Elf package is just arbitrary for the numbering of the points cost, and some races could cost more or less depending on what they offer to the standard "nude" character race.

So this now Level 1 elf, can wear some armor, cast some magic, and use a bow and is out of points.

You can't sell back the bow later for a sword or trade it in, but you can buy sword use later.

This is how I would approach a classless system.

Seems looking below you actually had the same idea, where I saw your example, but missed it because no on else has ever agreed that XP could be used this way when I have spoke to them before. So you are on the right track already it seems and I wasted time even posting this and typing it up.



[/nothing to see here move along]

 

[Aus_Snow]

W&W is probably going to be great, if you like M&M (er, and fantasy) at all. It's a must buy for me, certainly.

But if you prefer to keep things closer to 3e-style play, you might want to have a look at Complete Control, which came out recently, from Dreamscarred Press.

Buy the Numbers is an earlier attempt to do the same thing, but CC has a bit more going for it, IMO.

 

[El Mahdi]

Thanks Merlin's Shadow and Aus Snow. I added both of those to my wishlist. I may need to pick up one or even both of them.

 

[joethelawyer]

Thanks Merlin's Shadow and Aus Snow. I added both of those to my wishlist. I may need to pick up one or even both of them.

Agreed. That Complete Control one especially looks like it is EXACTLY what I was Looking for, and have been since like 1988, when i first started thinking about this idea under 1st edition.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Warriors & Warlocks will not be a stand-alone game. In fact it probably won't contain many rules, and very, very likely won't be an attempt to convert D&D into M&M terms.

In M&M they put the vast majority of the rules in the one core book, and almost all the other books are simply advice on how to use the core rules to play the type of game you want.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I think that it is more possible to do this and keep things closer to 3E than people think. I agree with the OP that 3E dynamited the D&D class based system. The trick would be to devise a way to divorce character level and class level. You can purchase class abilities and powers by spending xp on classes, which you can level up. More powerful abilities will require more powerful classes, which cost more xp. But, your overall power level is based on your character level, which has nothing to do with your class levels but is based on your total xp. Character level would determine the power level of what you can spend xp on, and increase your numbers across the board in a manner similar to 4E's +1 per two levels mechanic.

The problem with 3E is that it was tied to the class and level system, where not all classes were equal. 12 levels of Wizard is more powerful than 12 levels of Bard. If 12 levels of Bard cost less experience points than 12 levels of Wizard, and if spending 100,000 xp on Wizard and Bard resulted in two characters whose overall level and power was the same, but the Bard character would have advanced further in his class(but not his character), you would have something.

The Final Fantasy Tactics series does something like this for character building, but isn't something I would model a game on.

 

[El Mahdi]

...The problem with 3E is that it was tied to the class and level system, where not all classes were equal. 12 levels of Wizard is more powerful than 12 levels of Bard. If 12 levels of Bard cost less experience points than 12 levels of Wizard, and if spending 100,000 xp on Wizard and Bard resulted in two characters whose overall level and power was the same, but the Bard character would have advanced further in his class(but not his character), you would have something...

I think the closest to what you're talking about, that I've seen, was AD&D with there different XP/Level progression for each class. Although I think that was something most people wanted to get away from, and liked about 3E.

 

[justanobody]

I think the closest to what you're talking about, that I've seen, was AD&D with there different XP/Level progression for each class. Although I think that was something most people wanted to get away from, and liked about 3E.

Only because so many people couldn't understand the reason for the different ranges at its basis was that the different classes earn XP for different things.

Not so much they didn't get that different things is how each class gets stuff done, but forgot that those things could be harmful when trying to make a linear progression for all classes where the person killing only gets XP for killing and will advance levels much quicker than the one getting XP for disarming traps. So they didn't understand the reason behind the different ranges for many people I talked to, and even when presented with what would happen giving all the same ranges still didn't see the problem when one class was 6 levels ahead of another and that character 6 levels ahead was complaining only that everyone else was too weak.

I personally despise that single level range because not all classes are equal, nor do or should they function the same way, as having them all with the same ranges for gaining levels would require a classless system. Then XP set for certain activities, or a party XP that grants each party member an amount of XP at a new level to buy new abilities with. So the party is level X rather than each member and when the party itself "dings" then you get more XP to spend, and personal levels mean nothing since you have no class anyway and can pick and choose what you want YOUR character to do.

This system will show the failings of any real party of characters that do not work together as a team.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Only because so many people couldn't understand the reason for the different ranges at its basis was that the different classes earn XP for different things.

No, not necessarily for that reason.

I personally despise that single level range because not all classes are equal, nor do or should they function the same way, as having them all with the same ranges for gaining levels would require a classless system

[emphasis mine]

Hm. . .

A surrealist drawing. . . of conclusions? Or, IOW, there's probably something I'm not understanding here. Care to elaborate?