"Classless Class" - Classes as starting templates with open-ended development

[Jack7]

I don't mean "classless" as in "lacking class," but in terms of alternatives to the class system that D&D in every edition has followed. I've dabbled in the past with the idea of a jack-of-all-trades class called the Polymath or Adventurer, but what I'm looking for is less of a jack-of-all-trades and more of a design-as-you-go approach.

We all know how the traditional D&D class structure works in any edition: You choose a class during character creation which both A) is a template representing prior training and background, and B) forms the direction that your character will develop in (with the possible exception of multiclassing and some customization possible due to feats).

I've been mulling around with an idea that, in the above formulation, re-visions classes as only the first part--the starting template--but not the latter part. A player would still choose a class for their character during creation, but it would only represent their "starting package" - essentially their previous training, with possible customizations due to background, culture, theme, and of course race. But at that point, well, the PC is free to develop pretty much as they want to, with some limitations of course. Some thoughts on that (this could work for any edition, but I'm using 4E in my ruminations):

- The PC starts with access to only one or two power sources. Every 4-5 levels, they can "open up" a new power source if it fits the storyline and the DM is in agreement.

- Feats and Powers would have prerequisites, whether mechanical (e.g. in order to have Y power, you must have X power already), or story-based (e.g. in order to open up the shadow power source you must have had an experience of contact with the Shadowfell).

I realize that this approach would essentially be a more open-ended and "powerful" version of multiclassing/hybriding and has the potential to be way out of balance with the traditional character classes; it may be that this would only work the way I want it to work if it outright replaced the traditional class structure, although my preference is for it to be an add-on rules option for every character. In other words, some players would want to just follow the normal developmental pattern of their class, but others would want to customize as they go.

So what do think? How to make it work? Has anyone done something similar?

I essentially allow 3 different ways of doing this. What you describe is very similar to one of the ways I use. It doesn't become unbalanced because everyone is relatively easy to kill. Like a real person.

Training and skills and capabilities and even game "powers" definitely improve survivability. But if everyone is relatively easy to kill it's awful hard to get unbalanced.

 

[LurkAway]

Even if the "paladin" is presented as a black box class, you can tear it apart and rework it if you want to. What I am advocating, however, is that careful use of options will allow people to make the most common desired changes to the paladin without having to tear it apart and rebuild it. That's what "dials" do if designed properly. You just flip it, and it works, without you needing to understand all the nuances.

"Modular" D&D is a means toward allowing more flexibility to attract a wider audience, and give people a more satisfactory experience. It is not, in my view, an end of itself. I see Lego as modular as an end in itself, where a great deal of the point is pulling things apart and putting them back together. People that want the simple game do not want to have to put the game together themselves.

The way I remember a Lego boxed set, there would be a picture of a space ship on the front and maybe instructions on how to build that ship. So first I built that ship and played with it. Later I built other kinds of things. The Temperature of the Rules L&L article asked if a modular D&D would offer a pre-built Lego toy or just a box of pieces with a picture of the suggested Lego toy.

Does a game like Hero or GURPs offer the equivalent of a complete paladin class which can be torn apart and reworked, or does it just offer the pieces?

I agree Lego is modular for modular's sake, and perhaps the analogy fails on that end. I don't picture a design-as-you-go class being modular for modular's sake, but being modular to integrate with story-based character development. I don't know where is the sweet spot between fine modularity vs a few dials, but I think the Essentials method of swapping out a power here and there for another power wouldn't quite satisfy a story-based design-as-you-go character. Being highly theoretical of course...

 

[Ferret]

So what do think? How to make it work? Has anyone done something similar?

This run down might help inform your choices, it looks like a pretty inclusive list of character development systems.

Infact, this looks like what you want:

Class for starting skills, points thereafter A few games use template style character generation, but it's open points thereafter. Classic Battletech RPG 2E is the primary example, with Cyberpunk 2020 being the second one, but d6 system (including WEG Star Wars), and Shadowrun also allow it (but don't require it). It makes for fast, carbon copy character generation, but with the ability to add what you need later.

 

[Hassassin]

Unless I misunderstood the OP, I think it would be easier to start from the other direction.

1. Create a good point buy system. This is mainly for DM's.
2. Create fairly rigid classes that use the point buy, but offer a small benefit over it. This is the "basic set".
3. Optional: Create more flexible classes based on the point buy, but offer a marginal benefit over it. This is the "advanced ruleset".
4. Very optional: Allow experienced players to create characters using the point buy system. They require DM approval.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I agree Lego is modular for modular's sake, and perhaps the analogy fails on that end. I don't picture a design-as-you-go class being modular for modular's sake, but being modular to integrate with story-based character development. I don't know where is the sweet spot between fine modularity vs a few dials, but I think the Essentials method of swapping out a power here and there for another power wouldn't quite satisfy a story-based design-as-you-go character. Being highly theoretical of course...

I agree with that. Lego is too fine-grained on the options, but Essentials (and 4E and 3E in general) are too coarse, for what we are talking about in this topic.

The 4E templates are about as close as I can think of to the right approach. You want to avoid fiddly effects when adding on the modular pieces, but you also want those modular pieces to seriously matter.

I think designers often wimp out on making the pieces matter because they know full well that some person is going to complain within five seconds of publication that his perfectly reasonable concept can't be handled in the system. If you take the 4E wizard, and put serious heft on the staff, wand, or orb implements (i.e. whole sets of powers or special abilities exclusively reserved for a given implement), then something in the staff the mainly orb guy will want--and with some justice, most likely. That is the main drawback with classes, after all, and this kind of "option" just compounds the problem.

On the other hand, if a "wizard" can also choose to be either "minor nobility" or "sage" or even "soldier", then those can have a substantial effect on his characterization and adventures, without touching directly on his ability to cast arcane spells.

Modular pieces really shouldn't overlap very much.

 

[Mercutio01]

I like the way Pathfinder has handled this, to an extent, with archetypes. I've made two different monk characters, a Monk of the Empty Hand and Sacred Mountain (since the archetypes don't overlap) specializing in improvised weapons and being a frontline melee combatant, and Flowing Monk specializing in soft-styles and Combat Maneuvers. The base class, monk, is the same, but the characters are as different from each other as a fighter is from a barbarian or a sorcerer is from a wizard.

I think this is about as close to the ideal class-based system with options that I've come across.

 

[Ringlerun]

Rolemaster