Certainly the college professor would have more hit points than his students and his research assistants though, right? In that case, it's clear: high-level Expert vs. lower-level Experts, all else equal.
Sure, I could buy that.
Especially by D&D terms...this college professor would have to have gone through a lot to get to that high level...even if he was, say, a professor of mathematics, he'd have to have gone on quite a few adventures. I could imagine him traveling to all ends of the earth, uncovering ancient tomes of mathematics in Greece and Rome, fighting off the legendary beasts of those lands...he'd have learned to take a blow to get his degree.
Of course, that technicality is really where I could see the appeal of a game system that isn't designed to mimic heroic fantasy. If you want a phenominally skilled Expert, you're going to need to have some adventures. A 1st-level Expert (or even one that once or twice went hunting or got in a mugging and so is 2nd-level) isn't going to have an
extremely high skill bonus in Knowledge (mathematics) even with a high Intelligence (I'd say math professors could have a 17 Int, easy.
) and Skill Focus, though he'd still be above average.
Though you don't need a class-less system to mimic that at all. All you need is a class that doesn't add hit points...and since you're only using it for NPC's, being accepted by the DM shouldn't be much of a problem, since that is what the DM wants.
'Cause while the professor may have levels of Expert, the football player has levels of Barbarian, and probably more Con. It doesn't take much to be a college professor in D&D terms...you could be a 4-5th level Expert and be quite good in your skills...not legendary-good, but better-than-your-average-bob good.
A 5th-level Expert has far more hit points (~15) than a 1st-level Warrior, Fighter, or Barbarian (if we don't give max HPs at 1st level as with PCs). In fact, a 5th-level Expert has as many hit points as a 4th-level Warrior (if they they have the same Con).
This might be getting more into a level thing than a class thing, but I wouldn't expect the football player to just have one level of barbarian...heck, I'd expect them to have a few XP under their belt for each game. Not a whole lot, but enough to give them 2nd-3rd level HP's. And, sure, I'd be able to buy the idea that an Expert who goes out and has enough adventures to ake him 5th level (Finding the Lost Tomes of Euclid in some dark dungeon somewhere) has more HP than a dude who has spent his entire life revolving around Football.
That was just an example of how a class can be much more than many people seem to think...
That's all a reasonable explanation for why a Wizard of noble birth might have no aristocratic skills, but what about the player who wants a Wizard with a few background skills?
What DM who expects their characters to develop personalities won't let them trade out, say, Craft for Diplomacy, if the story justifies it? I'm sure they may exist, but I haven't met them, nor do I know anyone who would play under a DM that put that much restraint on what they could do.
On a side note, if he wants a wizard with some diplomacy skills, he wants someone more powerful than your average wizard, and a level of Noble is perfect to represent that background before his wizardly training.
So why exactly wouldn't you play a classless d20? Or a D&D with more flexible classes (a la the Fighter with its Bonus Feat list or the Expert with its choice of class skills)?
Well, the things mentioned here (and that I've seen, albeit breifly) include:
Infinate Quantifiable Options: *EVERY* descision I make about my character imposes some mechanical effect on the game. The effects of, say, having a contact in my past are balanced by giving me more points or having me be particularly fat or something. I can't just tell my DM about it and leave it in their hands, I have to determine exactly what it is and give it a point value. The same thing with being fat. It's not just a descriptive thing, that I can have as a character quirk, it's something that gives me points to spend on something else. I'll have to reference 5 different books just to find the right combination that describes the idea in my head.
Trouble of "Averaging": I can't just pick up and run an adventure for a classless system because there's no base level. I have to custom-design everything. This isn't as much of a problem if I "tweak" core classes a bit...I can think of a cool adventure without having to know the characters in as much detail as the players do...just knowing their pesonalities and their classes is enough.
Lack of Nessecity: I'm still not convinced there's something that a classless system does better than a classed system...variety is possible if you remember to have fun instead of being overly rules-attentive, and realism is possible in the same way. The class systems seems to be far more flexible than I hear people telling me.
This is not to say the classed system is neesecarily better. The only thing that can determine that is how much fun you have. But I still want to be convinced that there's a good reason people play a classless system (because flexibility appeals to me, and I like to be as open-minded as possible).
I wouldn't begrudge the creation of a "more flexible" system. But I probably won't like it. I like having a core, and then being able to deviate from that core. Having an archetype and then being able to tweak it pretty much as much as I want is a lot better, to me, than to have to build that archetype from the ground up.
And I think the Core Rulebook IV is a GREAT idea, and would gladly shell out $30 for something with such unlimited use.
Edit: And I'm not making a comparison between GURPS and D&D. I don't know GURPS well enough. It just seems like people frequently attack the class-based system for being too limiting and offer the class-less system as an alternative...whereas I don't really see why it's any more open than a class-based system, nessecarily. And I'd like to, I really would. But it can't just be freedom of chioce, because that can be offered with a class-based system, especially with some sort of fomula for class construction...the only place I see the class-based system stick at all is if, for some reason, your DM likes to impose what your character can be on you...and I can't see a DM doing that. Maybe I'm being too limited in my vision of possible DM dictatorship, though.
