Should 4th ed be point and level based?

[JoeGKushner]

Part of the problem of character creation being too open in a point buy setting, would be templates to act as example design modifications. It would eliminate the inability to move past core classes while allowing players who just wanted a character to sit down and play. Similiar to the archetypes in Mutants & Masterminds while allowing someone who really wanted to specailzie in a bow without bieng able to use heavy armor or be good in melee combat those options.

 

[theRogueRooster]

*the following is not based on any numbers or hard facts... just guessing *

I think this would confuse the user base too much. Nowadays, with the many different rpg systems around people at first decide what game philosophy suits them best and then they will play that game. Now over the years that system will get a steady, if not growing, customer base due to how the game mechanics work compared to other systems (or it will go under if its too bad, too exotic or too complicated). If people do not like the rules after a few tries they will switch to other systems, otherwise they will stick with it, even over many years. Now imagine having such a drastic (ok, "drastic" is a wee bit over the top term, but let's use it for now) change as you propose for the next edition of 4e. I do not think that would work out well with the existing user base cause they are used to a certain way of how the game works. And changes like that would alter those mechanics too much so in the end you would probably see more people leaving the system than you would be able to gain because of those rule changes. It is my impression that the gold fields of RPG are more or less claimed and fortified nowadays. There are not too many more "virgin" gamers out there that could be lured into a new system so todays companies have to try the impossible mix of a) adding new stuff to justify new editions and b) keeping those changes in a range where they wont loose existing customers.

I think your proposal for 4e being point and level based would go too far. There are other systems out there that have the same or similar mechanics so why should D&D be changed in that direction.

*end of pure speculation and guesstimation*

Of course, if this same argument had been used during 3E's development we never would have gotten skills or all those nifty feats to play with. We'd still be picking weapon and nonweapon proficiencies and trying to figure out our THAC0.

4E, like all previous editions, will stand on its own merits, and as long as the system is good and there are basements to gather in people will play.

-tRR

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

People who enjoy point-buy systems are the minority of the market in my experience.

There I said it. Flame on.

M&M and True20 have a devoted fan base and are good games, but the majority of the market LIKES classes. They LIKE archetypes and predefined roles.

There is a small market of hardcore gamers that want ultimate flexibility and enjoy the point-based systems on the market (M&M, True 20, GURPs, Hero) but despite what these system's adherents say, having pre-defined party roles is a feature of D&D/d20, not a bug and is a key to the system's enduring appeal.

Chuck

I agree. And there is no need to tinker with a proven winner just for changes sake. I've never seen anything other than internet forum rantings that suggests that more people don't play D&D due to the levels.

 

[Castigator]

Looking at the thread about Champions of Valor, they have organization substiution levels.

This sounds like a great mechanic, similiar to racial substiution levels.

However, at some point, the sheer wealth of options must crumble around itself.

Would D&D be better off using levels as a tool in terms of how many feats, hit points and skills you can have, and using points to buy those things?

I'm starting to think so....

Well, as you yourself said. It's based on the assumption that substiution levels (racial or otherwise) are a good idea in and by themselfs.

Something I'd strongly disagree with.

Besides, if people wanted a point-buy system, they'd play Gurps, wouldn't they?

 

[glass]

Should D&D use point buy? Definitely not.
-excellent points snipped-

I agree with MerricB, for the reasons he expressed so well in his post.


glass.

 

[theRogueRooster]

M&M and True20 have a devoted fan base and are good games, but the majority of the market LIKES classes. They LIKE archetypes and predefined roles.

There is a small market of hardcore gamers that want ultimate flexibility and enjoy the point-based systems on the market (M&M, True 20, GURPs, Hero) but despite what these system's adherents say, having pre-defined party roles is a feature of D&D/d20, not a bug and is a key to the system's enduring appeal.

Chuck

True20 is not classless (edit: it's not point-based either). And archetypes and predefined roles can (and do) exist in a True20 system. Blue Rose does exactly this by defining Paths, which simply choose your abilities for you (and which I contend is exactly how D&D works currently). The difference is you don't HAVE to follow a Path if you don't want to.

The point is that you CAN have both. You can have both predefined roles and customization. It doesn't have to be either-or. You can have your dwarven ale and drink it too!

-tRR

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Looking at the thread about Champions of Valor, they have organization substiution levels.

This sounds like a great mechanic, similiar to racial substiution levels.

However, at some point, the sheer wealth of options must crumble around itself.

Would D&D be better off using levels as a tool in terms of how many feats, hit points and skills you can have, and using points to buy those things?

I'm starting to think so....

Thats how my current d20 game is done using a home brewed system. I like it and I think at least half of my players like it better than the typical level system. The combination of level system with point buy has several advantages if done right:
1) Customization (duh!)
2) Unlike it most point buy systems (such as Gurps or Shadowrun) you can prevent munchkinization to an extent by limiting how much characters focus in areas. Such as by saying the most BAB you can buy per level is +1. And the minimum BAB you can buy is + .5

And you can use a point buy system to make a few archtypical builds for PCs to use. So just as the Rogue Rooster said, you can have both.

But the question is would it still be D&D with out classes?

 

[Zappo]

Ironically enough, a point based system can easily do that.

Do what? Kill stacking bonuses proliferation, curb powergaming, force better mechanic design, or limit situations where multiple modifiers apply? Anyway, for all four issues, I don't see how point vs. level could have an influence, either positive or negative. In the end, whether you got Dodge as a fighter bonus feat or you paid it with points, you've still got a +1 AC bonus which has a name but stacks with everything anyway, and only applies towards one opponent if you can remember it, unless you're flat-footed. Levels or points have little to do with that.

 

[Remathilis]

My problem with point-buy or even generic/customized is that most PCs fall into generalists rather than specialists. Most point bought characters tend to be okay combat, have pretty general useful skills (move silent, spot), and either useful abilities or spellcasting. That makes a party become akin to a party of bards trying to be mages, priests or warriors.

Classes define your role. Want to expand? Multiclass.

 

[Rasyr]

First off, not all point buy systems are created equal.

Hero for example does not have professions/classes so all characters start from the same exact point.

Rolemaster and HARP are examples of another type of point buy system, but one with classes, where the class defines the degree of difficulty of learning skills (i.e. he point costs in purchasing them). However, this type of model only loosely defines those class niches, and allows for a wide variety of customization.

Then in D&D, you have strict class structure, where the class defines everything (yes, there is some EXTREMELY minor customization with the use of skill points, but it is far less than the class defined features). However, with this model, you end up with many, many, many different classes (this includes both base and prestige classes), many of which replicate features of another class, and so forth...

However, what I think might be a very good idea would be to make something that is someplace between D&D and HARP. Have your basic niches, have point buy systems, but only allow those points to be used to customize within the niche. This is actually already partially implemented with Clerics (domain spells).

For example, Fighters would have a wide selection of options to purchase, everything from lightly armored Dex-based Fighters to heavily armored tanks, archers or spearmen, etc... Rogues could go the same way at one end of the spectrum have combat oriented scouts, and at the other have thieves and pickpockets and con-men. For Wizards, create sub-sets of spells which are very focused in nature (example - all of the Bigby's xx spells become one focus group), and then Wizards can use their points to specialize in these various spell groups (with these working much like Cleric domain spells).

Of course, you would also include a group of generic abilities and such that all classes could purchase.

Using this last model, you would be both giving niche protection, and allowing a great deal of customization without having to worry about rules bloat (or class/PrC bloat), though it is quite likely to continue to happen anyways without careful, extreme management.