Seriously, what's so great about a class-less system?

[Skywalker]

Why does everyone equate a Class-based system with a Level-based one?

I think it comes from the fact that this is a D&D site and D&D is class/level system. I agree that the 2 should not be linked.

And just how "little" do I make it out do be? I do not beleive I have misrepresented the game at any point.

By saying that both are "middle ground" class systems I believe you are reducing what I see as vast differences in design, philosophy and practice.

But since to use skills successfully, you have to have some levels in the skills, it is, on an order, class related.

In order to advance in skills in Cthulhu it is based on your usage. If you make a roll successfully you may increase though skills at lower levels increase faster than those at higher levels. The only class connection is that you buy skills based on points that are linked to a career system. Its a very tenuous link. It has a strong link to usage not class.

First off, I disagree that you cannot compensate. You can and you should. And the system certainly CAN help reinforce logical character design.

Agree. However no system can withstand someone wishing to abuse it. However again this is a little off point from the class idea. Classless systems are no more prone to abuse than Class ones.

Second, I intensely dislike dismissing the problem of illogical character design as being a mere symptom of one's players being part of a nebulous category of people dubbed "system abusers." My experience is that almost any player, when given a budget to work with and confronted with the fact that his character's success may well depend on their characters capabilities in the game, can make some irrational character design choices.

OK again I agree but say again that no system can withstand someone wishing to abuse it. Cthulhu is a very well designed system and the system abuse use mentioned by you has little impact on play compared to other possible abuses in games. D&D has much greater opportunity for abuse in my humble opinion.

A concept that is stated in meta-game terms (i.e., "with access to arcane spells"). You would never see those terms in a novel, for example. Now if the concept was "a character naturally gifted by his deity to cast fire magic", that's not metagame and sorcerer is a shoo-in. The example only flies in the face of the system because you engineered it to do so by invoking metagame terms specifically because you knew the system wouldn't accomodate it based on the fact that you, as a player vice a character in the mileu, clearly see the arcane versus divine dichotomy. That is a cracked example.

Point made. I'll rephrase. Class based systems tend to require the player to take into account Meta-Game considerations as classes themselves are a game construct. The example given was how in a class based system a concept struggled to be supported as it failed to fall within the defined classes. In a classless system such considerations would not arise as often. BTW I did not invoke the example.

Easily making self-consistent characters without requiring GM intervention is one of the central strengths of classes/archetypes, and you do ill to ignore that.

Agree to an extent as that is one thing I like about classes too. However classless systems can also be balanced. My observation is that in a class system the need to tinker with classes to fit concepts can arise if the classes are two prescriptive.

And of course, I beg to differ. People rail against classes failing to recognize the whole time that they are right under their nose. It's a false dichotomy, and by pegging D&D as one of a few class based systems, I think it is YOU who are over-simplifying.

Actually in my first reply I did set out that:

a) I recognise that there is a spectrum of classes,
b) Class systems can be as good as classless systems,
c) I prefer having a class system as they provide a great game aid.

However I went on to explain that the prescriptions in D&D classes are greater than found in other class systems such as Cthulhu and others. I am not making a general attack on class systems but merely criticising D&D on the criteria that I set out.

If you disagree with that and have another critieria that puts Cthulhu and D&D on the same ground then I don't think we will ever agree. I call its quits - work calls - thanks its been fun

 

[Psion]

You're right; it doesn't need every last detail. It should make sense though. Instead, all those Knowledge skills are cross-class skills, and as you improve them, you increase your hit points dramatically (and your BAB and Saves a bit too).

Of course, you are entirely ignoring the fact that "class based system" is entirely a different thing than a system made to simulate heroic fantasy, which D&D is. You are whacked in the head if you think a class made to represent commoners in a faux-medievil heroic fantasy setting wouldn't have a totally different set of class skills than a commoner (or expert, or whatever) has in a modern setting.

I imagine when D20 modern comes out, it will have NPCs much like star wars does, that don't make the assumption that NPC classes get advancing HP and so forth. Your arguments are NOT relevant to the general case of class-based systems. Your case seems to be that he cannot make himself in a D&D, to which I can only answer: of course not, he isn't a character in a heroic fantasy setting. Duh!

Edit: n't!

 

[buzzard]

amusing

What I find amusing in read this and the GURPS thread is that there is some measure of incompleteness in the comparisons of the two systems, as presented by the classless partisans.
In the GURPS thread, it is stated that a 100 point GURPS character is roughly equivalent to a 3rd level D&D character in abilities and skills. However here everyone is complaining that a 1st level D&D character can't have the background and abilities of that GURPS character. Well gosh darn it, what a surprise! Maybe if you compared that GURPS character to a 3rd level D&D character you might have a valid case.

The example cited here was the mage with noble background. In 3 levels he could have one level of noble (or rogue), and 2 levels of mage. The skills would be there, as would the background you need. Try building that GURPS character with 70 points maybe (or less - I am not GURPS savvy), and see how much of any background you manage to assemble.

Buzzard (who prefers to compare oranges to oranges)

 

[Psion]

If you disagree with that and have another critieria that puts Cthulhu and D&D on the same ground then I don't think we will ever agree. I call its quits - work calls - thanks its been fun

Fair enough. Actually it does appear at this point that we understand where we stand respectively. It's just the definition of what "middle ground" is that we may mince ofer.

 

[Arani Korden]

Say you want to play a priest, who has access to divine spells but is not a war-like character and thus has no knowledge of armour and only the most basic of defensive weapons. He also has no experience of undead and his deity grants him no special power over them. But he does have access to many arcane spells to do with fire but cast them as part of his normal divine spell list as he worships a fire god.

You know, the OA Shugenja class would fit this character exactly.

 

[LostSoul]

Trust me, this gets old _VERY_ fast. And yes, the DM has often stepped in and said "NO! That character is too innane/insane/out of place for my campaign, make a new one!". And I cheer every time he does. You know how much that detracts from the fun of the game for others?

Hmmm... I don't think I'm making my point quite right.

A player comes up with a concept. Goes to the game to write the rules around it. The rules should not get in the way. The player comes to the GM. The GM reviews the character. GM decides if it will work in the game. GM & Players make compromises to get everything right, if they need to.

GM hands out experience. Player "levels up" character in whatever way he chooses. (Although most skill-based games have a "raise only what you've used" option.)

Even if the GM thinks it illogical that the bookish wizard type takes 2 points in Swordplay, or the fighting type takes some skill in Stealth, it's up to the player to decide what he wants his concept to be.

Even when you've got classes (such as clerics in my game world) they aren't always going to fit in.

I guess my point is: players should not be restricted by the rules when they develop thier characters. The GM should not have a say in how they "spend" thier "experience".

 

[Ace]

SNIP And I have not yet been able to nail down the character I want to play (basically a psychic ranger) in D&D.

Sorry to go OT but since I recently had to figure out how to make a woods paladin I have a few suggestions...

Take the the base, a Human Psionic Warrior
For your first two feats buy cosmopolitan (for wilderness lore) and Tracking.

Buy a couple ranks (cross class) move silent and hide.

Viola,

Once you hit 3rd level get the Stealthy (+2 to move silent and hide) Feat or If you are big on stealth take cosmopolitan twice more (at 3 and 6) for hide and move silent.

The only bad thing

You use up feats especially if you want combat ones, that means a weaker psi warrior. FREX If you want a two weapon fighting wall runner, thats pretty much all of your feats

Another option if you DM allows WOT classes is to multi class a few levels of Woodsman and Psion.

This means stronger woodscraft but weaker psi.

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion.....

 

[LostSoul]

Re: amusing

However here everyone is complaining that a 1st level D&D character can't have the background and abilities of that GURPS character.

That's not really it - not for me, at any rate. If you consider a class like the Rogue, why do you have to get a Sneak Attack? Perhaps the character is a pacifist and never, ever attacks. But the Rogue class - with all its skill points - is otherwise a perfect fit.

But you're still left with the middle BAB progression and Sneak Attacks - although your character shouldn't have those abilities.

It's the bundling up of abilities that you may or may not want to have.

 

[LostSoul]

Sorry to go OT but since I recently had to figure out how to make a woods paladin I have a few suggestions...

Cool, thanks for the advice. Actually multi-classing through Ranger-Psi warrior (or Rogue-Psi warrior-Fighter) works okay. But I'd rather take that Ranger spell list and swap it out for some kind of psionic progression.

Those are the kinds of things you can do in a classless system, but can't in a classed one.

 

[Zappo]

Re: Re: amusing

That's not really it - not for me, at any rate. If you consider a class like the Rogue, why do you have to get a Sneak Attack? Perhaps the character is a pacifist and never, ever attacks. But the Rogue class - with all its skill points - is otherwise a perfect fit.

Make an Expert. Anyway, D&D is a heroic fantasy setting and it isn't supposed to model high-level characters that aren't heroes.