Legends and Lore - The Genius of D&D

[MooMan68]

I'm DMing a class free system now, and while we are having lots of fun I took a step back and examined what the players had created for themselves.

I concluded that a point-buy classless system wouldn't necessarily add much to D&D.

What you need is for the DMG to have clear rules-of-thumb for how to create custom prestige and base classes to fulfill the desires of the players. The math to watch for balance, etc.

These rules-of-thumb exist, it's how they create new classes themselves.
It wouldn't be without balance problems, but that's true of any point-buy system I've ever seen -- especially once you let the DM/Players add new abilities. If you thought controlling the synergies of multiclassing was hard.....

 

[Invisible Stalker]

Class is a sacred cow.

Class is a 20th level sacred cow.

 

[Connorsrpg]

If they went with something like Talent Trees (like Saga, which I am hoping for), then you could practically do both. Class grants a few extras on entry, then access to certain TT's.

Classless I guess would just jump into the TT's.

BTW I am hoping for Racial TT's and even Themes/BGs/Kits done as a TT.

 

[Mark CMG]

Class is a 20th level sacred cow.

Obviously untrue. In (O)D&D a Fighting-Man had 9 named levels, a Magic-User 11, and a Cleric 8. In 1E (as per the PH core), most classes included tables for eleven or twelve levels with provision to go above (notably Monks, Druids, and Assassins had tables going higher). In 1E a Magic-User gained only a single hit point for each level above eleven though there was a spell table that took things up to level 29 (as did Clerics, though Illusionists only to 26). In 4E the standard is for 30 levels playing with the primary core books. It seems the sacred cows of class and level have fluctuated a great deal over the years which means they are not so sacred at all and two rather separate cows.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

Obviously untrue. In (O)D&D a Fighting-Man had 9 named levels, a Magic-User 11, and a Cleric 8. In 1E (as per the PH core), most classes included tables for eleven or twelve levels with provision to go above (notably Monks, Druids, and Assassins had tables going higher). In 1E a Magic-User gained only a single hit point for each level above eleven though there was a spell table that took things up to level 29 (as did Clerics, though Illusionists only to 26). In 4E the standard is for 30 levels playing with the primary core books. It seems the sacred cows of class and level have fluctuated a great deal over the years which means they are not so sacred at all and two rather separate cows.

Class and Level have twenty levels of sacred cow each

Race and Ability Scores have about 15-18 levels of sacred cow

4E Utility Powers have one level of sacred cow

 

[Mark CMG]

Class and Level have twenty levels of sacred cow each

Race and Ability Scores have about 15-18 levels of sacred cow

4E Utility Powers have one level of sacred cow

I doubt the designers of 5E who seem to wish to attract a broader base of players than they currently have on board are thinking quite so narrowly but we'll know soon enough.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Honestly, I can't see a classless system in Core D&D. Maybe in a later splat, but, that's a ginormously huge sacred cow to even consider turning into hamburger.

With the mantra in mind that it's always easier to have fewer options than more options, there may be a "classless" option in the core books, though I don't imagine many other modules using it. Still, if you go with the assumption that there is no class, and that you can describe yourself as a "wizard" or whatever, and that "class" is a layer of complexity you can add to your character, well, that's classless, even if it doesn't quite match the a la carte menu of systems like GURPS.

Heck, as it is in 4e, you could pretty much take Page 42 and run a classless game on THAT core engine.

Obviously untrue. In (O)D&D a Fighting-Man had 9 named levels, a Magic-User 11, and a Cleric 8. In 1E (as per the PH core), most classes included tables for eleven or twelve levels with provision to go above (notably Monks, Druids, and Assassins had tables going higher). In 1E a Magic-User gained only a single hit point for each level above eleven though there was a spell table that took things up to level 29 (as did Clerics, though Illusionists only to 26). In 4E the standard is for 30 levels playing with the primary core books. It seems the sacred cows of class and level have fluctuated a great deal over the years which means they are not so sacred at all and two rather separate cows.

Further reinforcing my opinion of D&D being functionally a 10-level/1-year game.

I kind of disagree with Monte on the magic of levels. His perspective is good for a businessman interested in getting the most people to play D&D, but the game design reason levels work is because they give a sense of change over time -- that the character you began as is not the same kind of character you'll end up with. There's other ways to grant that sense of change over time (metroidvanias often do it with new a la carte character abilities), but XP -> Levels is an efficient one.

 

[Hussar]

Y'know, KM, I more or less agree with your 10 level 1 year idea.

I'd probably make it 12 levels, just because 4 levels per "tier" makes for a nice spread. But, making each level a fairly big jump, but spacing the levels out a bit more so that you actually get to play with your new toys before you wind up getting another new toy is a good idea, IMO.

Besides 12 levels/1 year makes a nice 4 session/level break as well. 4 sessions is long enough to get used to all the new toys a level gives you. For me, it would look a lot like 1e where your character at 1st - 4th was pretty weak on poncy, 5-8 you were an experienced hero taking on lots of bigger stuff (giants, dragons, dealing with large scale threats, possibly leading armies) and then 9-12 is all about very large scale stuff with a name level AD&D party being able to take on pretty much anything that wasn't out of the Dieties and Demigods.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I've toyed with the idea before of having only 10 levels per class, but then let multiclassing go beyond that. The idea would be some strange mix of 1E and 3E dualclassing/multiclassing, where getting to 10 took a lot of XP, and it got slowly but steadily worse as you passed the 10th level mark.

Thus, it takes the 3E problem of certain weak multiclassing, makes it the norm, and gives a progression where the second career is harder to get. That is, you've got a fighter and a wizard. After lots of adventures, they hit 10th level. From there, they decide, what they heck, and swap careers. Well getting to 11th was slightly harder than going from 9th to 10th. And all each of them gets out of it is what the other guy got relatively easy at 1st. Then after even a lot more adventures, they finally max out again. At some point, the diminishing returns makes it not worth it to start a whole new career, and thus would encourage niche protection going after the equivalent of prestige classes. That is, the 10th level fighter gets a lot more bang for his buck adding on barbarian or paladin levels, than wizard levels.

That model has problem of its owns, but I like it as way to have relatively distinct and concise class level listings at around 10th level, but still provide for later growth for groups that want it.