Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LurkAway" data-source="post: 5763820" data-attributes="member: 6685059">I like the idea, but I assume it changes the nature of what levels means in D&D. Often times, levels are mostly abstractions that have little or no correlation to what happens in the adventure. For example, you could gain climbing skill points without ever doing any climbing in the adventure or have time to train in climbing "behind the scenes". I think a "classless" class would make demands of adventures that are meaningful to player's interpretation of their character development. Again, I really like the idea, but I don't think it's for everyone.For example, in another thread, I theorized that "Maybe you allow the player to choose 2 bundles/add-ons with each level  -- every level, it is recommended to pick up one Combat bundle and your  Class/Power Source bundle, but a player might choose something else  (with appropriate limitations). Maybe the DM hands out bundles depending  on what you experienced in the narrative. Maybe if you completed an  adventure without any combat whatsoever, you don't get to pick up a  Combat bundle at all." But this didn't seem to gain any traction in the thread.Story-based class progression, for better or worse, also makes it matter what the PCs do in the adventure. I had theorized "if a scrawny rogue is hanging back at every battle and  allowing everyone else to do all the fighting, does he get xp towards a  Combat Level? If a fat scholary wizard never helps anybody around the  dungeon and keeps a nose buried in his book, does he get xp towards an  Adventuring Level?".Those questions only apply if gaining of feats and powers is story-based. I guess a system might suggest but not enforce that the story be meaningful to design-as-you character progression.</blockquote>

Verification