How would you prefer D&D class abilities to be handled?

[Najo]

What to you is the best way to handle D&D class powers? Do you prefer the 4e style of attack and utility powers? Do you like 3.x form of static class abilities? Do you like the Unearthed Arcana generic classes? What about simple class features of 2nd or 1st edition D&D?

Share what you like and don't like about certain class powers. How would you improve the one you prefer?

 

[Najo]

No replies yet? I feel so lonely in here...

 

[Loonook]

Personally I'm a fan of Modern as a generic system... so talent trees and small core class system combined with localized AdC/PrC would be my 'dream game' in most d20 circumstances.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[jmucchiello]

Actually I like what I call the Monte Cook style of class. Basically the class abilities are divided into 2-4 tiers by how powerful they are. From 1st to 9th level you might gain 2 to 4 of the least powerful abilities (at for example 2nd, 5th and 8th levels) out of a choice of 5-7 abilities. Then from 7th to 15th level you might gain 2 to 3 of the next most power abilities out of a choice of 4-6 abilities. And then there are the top tier abilities of which you gain 1 or 2 out of a choice of 4 or so. So the class has a wide range of depth but each member of the class can vary widely from any other member of the class.

If you've seen Monte's AU/AE game or his Book of Eldritch Might series, those books are full of these style classes.

The predecessor of these style classes can be found in the 3.0 DMG: the Loremaster's secrets class ability is a simpler form of this class design. It's a single tier with level restrictions on when you gain access to the more powerful abilities.

 

[Corsair]

I like 3E. It has its fair share of solidly themed 1-20 classes (druid, beguiler, duskblade, etc), some basic customizable building block classes (fighter, wizard, sorcerer, cleric, psion, rogue), and a mix and match system that lets you put together what you want. A nice middle ground.

1, 2, and 4 aren't flexible enough for my liking, but UA feels like it strips a bit too much of the flavor, and you lose some of the things that make classes like paladins and druids "special."

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I like 4e in that while there is a theme too the Powers and the Classes. By allowing you too choose your Powers I find you can much more easily control the path your character heads in (something that always frustrated me in 3.5, where I would have to ignore large amounts of my characters abilities because didn't fit with the concept).

 

[jdsivyer]

I like much of what 3e character creation has to offer, but...and I'm going out on a limb here...if I had to choose just ONE version of D&D, I'd go for 2e using the Player's Option books

 

[Delta]

My priority is that magic powers vs. mundane powers should use separate systems. There should be few key classes, and their mechanics should be very different. At the same time, there should be only one system each for those different kinds of things.

So for me: 4E fails because everyone just has "powers" (mundane or magical). d20 Modern fails, and 4E additionally fails, because people have both Feats and Talents/Powers, which are both representing same kinds of mundane stuff.

3E isn't perfect because of its separate Skills and Feats mechanics. But I do want more choice for the mundane classes than 1E/2E provide. My favorite 3E classes are fighter & wizard because they're open to choices, in different systems, without static class abilities.

So I'd use something like UA's generic classes, ideally with the Skills mechanics folded into Feats. And after a lot of soul-searching, that's what I've done with my Diminutive d20 rules (linked below).

 

[Betote]

My preferred system would be one where each playstyle could be handled by at least one class: a straight one-trick pony for the ones who want simplicity, a very customizable one for players who want options, etc.

That's something I like about 3.x: each player can choose at least class which corresponds to their tastes.

I like 4e's powers because they give many options to the players (at least in concept), but they seem to accept only one playstyle.

 

[Chainsaw]

Seems like the 1E class system has more in common with 2E, at least pre-Skills and Powers, than OD&D, no? Maybe one of the pros could offer some clarity.