A Different View of the Game

[justanobody]

No, not necessarily for that reason.

So they didn't understand the reason behind the different ranges for many people I talked to

[emphasis mine]

Hm. . .

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

1- advocating a good reason a classless system could work.
2- 3rd and 4th with class-based systems have the same progression range for levels for every class, and 3rd caused bloat in attempt to give a reason to have different classes via special options to differentiate them, and 4th is going to head in that same direction.

Under a classless system having level ranges wouldn't have classes to worry about, and would work better because of that fact due to the fact that you can pull abilities from any class archetype without having to build each class around some universal XP range system that could cause problems later.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

Something to note: a point-buy system has to be balanced very similarly a class-based system has to be balanced. You can get the same phenomenon in both: if there's something which is 'under priced' (for a class-based example, the 3.x wizard or cleric), it will cause the same problems in both systems. Actually, a poorly balanced point-buy system where there is some ability which is worth more than what you pay for it could be even more unbalanced, since nothing bars every player from buying it.

Just saying that a point-buy system doesn't inherently remove the need for balancing. Both point-buy and class-based theory have the potential to include elements which make the balance of the game easy to break. If the system is designed well, whichever paradigm it follows, it will make it more difficult for players to break the balance.

 

[justanobody]

But it easier to fix a point buy system where you can shift the points needed instead of having to rebuild the ability itself.

Would a ability that lets you do 1 damage 5 times a turn be equal to an ability that lets you do 5 damage once a turn?

I would say yes, even if one chooses NOT to use all 5 chances for each 1 point of damage done to only do say 2 or 3, because they still had the option to continue. Nothing is gained form saving uses as the turn would "recharge" the ability.

It just means you don't but too much crap into something and let things be built by the players.

You could easily make a sword or axe nothing but names, and buy the damage amount you want to do and the weapon itself is aesthetic.

You get a magic fire sword +1 and you don't pay for it in the point buy, but it works with the system itself to add +1 units of fire damage to the normal damage you do and whatever bonus your ability scores may offer, which could also be increased through point-buys.

It is a lot easier to build a classless system than a class based system, just more little parts you have to work with to do it, and to remember to make everything as basic as possible and let them be added to other things like the fire sword example here.

 

[Remathilis]

Basically, 2e had something along these lines. I seem to remember a table where with XP you could "buy" certain aspects of other classes, like spell casting ability, fighter THACO, etc.

Oh that wonderful table in the DMG. Less said about that...

More to the point, isn't this the EXACT rationale behind Player's Options: Skills & Powers?

A character gained Character Points (CP) by race and class to spend on class abilities. While still slightly less flexible than true classlessness (IE you were still a wizard or a thief) you could customize your PC the way you wanted to. It came at the expense of other class (or race) abilities though.

Wanted a ranger who couldn't dual-wield but could use a bow awesomely? Done.

Want a fighter who fights in light armor well? Give up your followers.

Want a mage who casts in armor? Okay, but your going to have less spell school access.

Same with races. Want an elf who isn't a bow-master but can identify magic items? Or a dwarf who is not adept at dodging giants but deadly with an axe? Both are possible.

As a bonus, humans got 10 CP but had no starting racial features. That's 10 free points! Spend them on racial traits (that +5% XP looks niiccee...) or save it for classes!

In addition, you could get CPs (up to 25) for flaws (such as nearsighted or powerful foes hunting you) and CPs could be spent on weapon and non-weapon proficiencies (and thus you gained some every level, but they couldn't be used to buy new race/class features.)

It was a great idea that suffered some, ah, balancing problems. It was perfectly possible to min/max to hell with S&P (such as an elf ranger with a 14 THAC0 with his bow at 1st level) and some class features were basically "free" CPs (really, who kept followers the minute you could trade them for some other cool feature?)

Still, a better balanced version of S&P would allow some basic class model (warrior, wizard, priest, rogue) but the ability to detail (or min/max) the character you want. In fact, I'm sure Mr. M. Morris (aka Spoonybard) might still have his greatly revised DUSK versions of S&P classes kicking around somewhere.

Might be a good compromise of classless flexibility and D&D traditional "roles" (whatever they may be).

 

[El Mahdi]

One of the problems I see with the point-buy concept is that a player pretty much has to optimize their character. If they don't, they will be relatively weaker than the rest of their group, possibly significantly weaker. Although I can see a point-buy system being more versatile option wise, and definitely getting the exact concept one is looking for, at least one advantage to a class system is that they are essentially balanced between eachother. Even though there is variation with Feat and/or Powers selection, the basic class abilities keep everybody on the same basic level (at least between 5th and 10th level in 3E).

 

[justanobody]

Only if you want to play the best damage dealer do you need to optimize. Combat is not the only part of the game.

Monsters would also be built with the same ideas in mind as well.

 

[RFisher]

Make BAB and the saves skills. Make a single, generic class. Turn class abilities into feats. (The generic class stuff in the UA can be handy here.) Steal the spell casting stuff from d20 CoC.

One of the problems I see with the point-buy concept is that a player pretty much has to optimize their character.

The fundamental problem with any point-buy system is trying to put a single point value on an ability. There are too many axes to ever really get it right. Even worse, one axis is “How (and how often) does this GM/group use this ability?”

Once you realize that and are willing to accept that even the best point-buy system is going to be far, far from perfect; any other concerns don’t really seem as important. (^_^)

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Only if you want to play the best damage dealer do you need to optimize. Combat is not the only part of the game.

Monsters would also be built with the same ideas in mind as well.

The problems happen when one player optimizes and causes an arms race. Either that player dominates gameplay, or everybody starts optimizing. It doesn't have to be combat optimization, as 3E spellcasters can be built to trivialize noncombat situations. Its not difficult to dominate both combat and noncombat simultaneously with a 3E Wizard. Monsters make this arms race even worse, as if you bump the monsters to the point where they can threaten the optimized character, the monsters stop being something the unoptimized characters can survive.

Optimization and system mastery are inevitable. Its only a bad situation where optimization can change how the game plays.

 

[justanobody]

The point it you cannot optimize for everything. So one player will not be doing it all. That is how the system would be made to prevent that crap.

HP costs, AC costs, damage costs, to-hit costs, you cannot buy everything, and neither can anyone else.

The problem is not that people can optimize, but that they do. Players try to do better than the other players like some dang competitive sport rather than work together. That is the only problem with optimization, is those that do it.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The point it you cannot optimize for everything. So one player will not be doing it all. That is how the system would be made to prevent that crap.

HP costs, AC costs, damage costs, to-hit costs, you cannot buy everything, and neither can anyone else.

The problem is not that people can optimize, but that they do. Players try to do better than the other players like some dang competitive sport rather than work together. That is the only problem with optimization, is those that do it.

You can optimize for (nearly)everything, at least at higher levels (11-13+). Its called the 3E Wizard. The spells can render all else irrelevant.

As for the problem, I disagree. There is a third part of your statement that you've left out, and that is the impact of that optimization. When optimization can result in an Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit type situation:[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw]YouTube - Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit[/ame] the fact that you can do this is worse than the fact that some people do it. When the difference between optimization and non-optimization is the difference between Hero and Hero+1, the fact that some people optimize has little impact on the game.

We are playing a niche hobby. Players, even bad/jerk players, are valuable. A lot of us don't have enough players to be that picky. It is important for a game system to be able to handle bad/jerk players without falling apart, since the scarcity of players in our hobby often forces us to deal with them.