Class concepts that you just can't work out neatly in DnD

[Nadaka]

snip...
It is like complaining that Vampire doesn't have rules for playing leprechauns.
snip...

But... World of Darkness does have rules for playing a Leprechaun in a game of vampires. Its called Changeling: The Dreaming.

 

[Pielorinho]

I don't like 'em. They're disgusting, and rumor has it they give you ebola.

All we are saying is, give peas a chance.

Moderator's Notes
There's been a bit of snippiness in this thread, which I would like to see not be repeated. Keep in mind also that political comments, even backhanded ones, are not appropriate for this board.

Daniel

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Class concepts I can't make in 3e? A ranger.

 

[Hussar]

Class concepts I can't make in 3e? A ranger.

Yah, but, then again, I thought we were talking about concepts that weren't useless?

*Zing!*

 

[GQuail]

Class concepts I can't make in 3e? A ranger.

ZING!

When I started my current campaign long ago, when dinosaurs ruled the earth, I had to consult the then-recent UA for the Expert Class for one PC who wanted to do something core D&D flops at: a skills-based character who isn't also either a musician or a thief. He wanted to be a weapon-crafting engineer type, not necesarilly magical (though he later multiclassed into cleric) and none of the core options gave him that.

It worked out OK, and the feat slots let him buy up a lot of generic stuff - but arguably, since he wasn't aiming towards a class with huge combat potential, he mostly had to stand at the b ack and and try (and fail) to shoot things with his crossbow when the worst came to the worst. He wasn't useless by any means - but ther'es no denying that it was only when he took Cleric levels that he gained a real role in battle.

As some others have said, D&D is very much its own genre, and osme of the "undoable" ideas are ones which are undoable because they don#t tend to the kind of adventures that Wizards, Clerics, Fighers and Rogues tend to go on. If your game requires an odd concept that breaks the system, it sucks - but I don't think it's fair to blame the system. There are, as others have noted, plenty of more purposefuly flexibile systems out there for such games.

 

[glass]

I'm not sure that many D&D players could actually handle such a system.

Or would want to.

I like D&D in in part because it is class based. If you are building classes from a menu, why bother with classes at all? Why not use the menus directly? And if you are doing that why not use a mature system that has always worked that way, like GURPS or HERO System?

EDIT: As several other have said more eloquently than I.


glass.

 

[Numion]

My thread "No love for the stupid wizard?" was inspired by this thread and the another one for smart fighter, both by Dirddle. Most of all I was trying to be funny, but also had a point in there. Should every concept be workable in D&D? Should the group accept a stupid wizard into their ranks?

Driddle already said that he finds it ridiculous if other players had say in someone elses character. I would find it ridiculous if an adventuring group accepted a useless EP smooch in their ranks when they constantly engage in mortal combat.

My opinion is that while D&D should offer reasonable amount of options for character building, it shouldn't bother to make every concept workable. i.e. there should be no perks, advantages or any other way that would make a stupid wizard as viable as a smart one.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Why do people who dislike classes play D&D?

 

[delericho]

Why do people who dislike classes play D&D?

Because they like everything else about the game? Because they can't find a group to play any other game?

 

[jmucchiello]

Honestly, I'm in favor of the idea, because it allows me, as THE GM, to design classes that fit well within settings I design. Class systems are great, because once made, a class serves as a kind of basic 'package' for Cool Stuffs the PCs/NPCs can do. That's handy, because that means I can stat monsters/NPCs more quickly.

However, a 'by the numbers' approach is good when designing campaigns and PC classes for them. I don't have to guess what percentage of a character's power is taken up by say, the monk unarmed damage progression, good saves, bonus feats, and suchlike. It's not something I would give to the characters, often, but I would like it for GM use, at least. Knowing the basic underpinning of class designs can tell me a lot about where balance is LIKELY to lay. Are players going to try to break the system? sure. But as a GM, especially one interested in maintaining relative balance with or better balance than the current ruleset, I am not likely to make 'broken' PCs intentionally, except as thought experiments, and those 'broken' PCs are generally designed to test rules cases which might come up in play or in response to an argument in which both sides have some degree of support.

If I had found this thread early I would have recommended to the OP "Buy the Numbers" (as Croth did in the 2nd post). As the thread has developed, it has wandered into the domain of my own ancient product "Character Customization". That book contained a system where you created a 20 level class up front rather than using the pay as you go style of BtN. Personally a Class Construction system would make sense in the DMG. It wouldn't be as flexible as a pure point buy system but it would play to D&D's strengths better. The idea being that the DM creates a set of variant/"all new" classes at campaign start so you have the consistency within that campaign of knowing what iconic role(s) each class provides.