Sub Levels -> Alternate Class Features

[JoeGKushner]

I played HERO. I played GURPS. I know the score. Ultimate freedom of character design is not the sole goal to aspire to in character generation. Manageability, organization, embedding concepts in mechanics, and creation of a team based archetype system that can be modeled and understood are things that those games don't buy me.

But how does D&D even do that anymore? If every character in the party is some multi-classed, multi-racial freak, the whole idea of team based archetype is GONE. Not modified. Not changed. Not mutated into something new and shiney, but gone.

There is a compromise to be had. You can create classes that provide conceptual flexibility while still remaining in credible design boundaries and frameworks that facilitate creation of character appropriate for the activity at hand.

If classes were actually created that way, sure. They're not. Most of them are still niche efforts that are only now coming up to the old Rolemaster professions in terms of semi classes such as the Dusk Blade allowing a warrior-mage from the get go while we still have no good rogue/fighter (fighter/thief from Rolemaster) unless you go Arcana Evolved.

The classes continue to be ripped up and tossed out like so much garbage and people are cherry picking their abilities to such a high extent, that outside of level, I'm not seeing a lot of real differences between mid-high level D&D and point buy systems anyway.

 

[Psion]

But how does D&D even do that anymore? If every character in the party is some multi-classed, multi-racial freak, the whole idea of team based archetype is GONE. Not modified. Not changed. Not mutated into something new and shiney, but gone.

A party full of bards isn't a good idea, either?

But, it seems to me like you are entertaining a false dichotomy here, and going outside of the scope of the conversation to do it. We weren't talking about multi-classing, we were talking about tweaking existing classes.

But if you are saying that multi-classing is bad, why now is point buy okay? At least if a character has some levels of fighter, he will have contributions to bab, fortitude saves, hit points, and fighting feats that reflect that. I know something about the character without doing a deep analysis. With a point gen character all bets are off.

If classes were actually created that way, sure. They're not.

Agreed. I wasn't defending "class-mill classes", quite the opposite. What I was saying, if you are done "excluding the middle", is saying that classes with built in options are a better solution for this than throwing the baby out with the bathwater and going point based.

The classes continue to be ripped up and tossed out like so much garbage and people are cherry picking their abilities to such a high extent, that outside of level, I'm not seeing a lot of real differences between mid-high level D&D and point buy systems anyway.

Mmmm... nah. It would only be worse if we were point gen. Even if you pick a class, there's a trade off. You can cherry pick certain things, but classes always come as a package, and the party still needs capabilities provided by different classes. You have point buy, it will just devolve to TRUE cherry picking, pulling in all the abilities you want without any downsides or compromises, and the game will go solely to those who are good at "gaming the system". Those who aren't good at juggling points or sniffing out loopholes play second fiddle and desperately try to assemble workable characters who aren't as good. And eventually give up, because they are having to do all the work themselves.

I've SEEN it. I like Rolemaster's and Hero's flexibility. You know why I quit? Because making competent characters was a skill that most players didn't have or want to learn. And we aren't just talking the business and liberal arts majors here, either. We are talking about people with occupations and educations that allegedly require them to do complex things, like an organic chemist.

In short, the complex point gen experience is not widely accessible and porting D&D to it is not, IME, a good solution for the existing audience. Most players who like the approach of point gen enough to handle its difficulties are already playing point gen game. No reason to make D&D into one.

 

[JoeGKushner]

A party full of bards isn't a good idea, either?

Depends on your resources and what you consider a bard. The bard from Complete Book of Eldritch might could add some variety there.

But, it seems to me like you are entertaining a false dichotomy here, and going outside of the scope of the conversation to do it. We weren't talking about multi-classing, we were talking about tweaking existing classes.

But those tweaks in existing classes are often added to characters who are maximizing some aspect of their character. Or at least in my experience.

But if you are saying that multi-classing is bad, why now is point buy okay? At least if a character has some levels of fighter, he will have contributions to bab, fortitude saves, hit points, and fighting feats that reflect that. I know something about the character without doing a deep analysis. With a point gen character all bets are off.

No, I'm saying that in my experience, multi-classing and freak shows are so... I won't say common, but easy in game mecahnics terms these days, that it's much more common than it previously was, reducing the core strength of the archetype system D&D is built around. And I agree that point gen characters are more difficult to effectively build.

What I was saying, if you are done "excluding the middle", is saying that classes with built in options are a better solution for this than throwing the baby out with the bathwater and going point based.

I imagine a world where a point buy system shows various archetypes and character builts in a manner similiar to a 'level' progression that allows players to either move into it or make their own stuff up. Similiar in some ways to say Mutants & Masterminds.

Mmmm... nah. It would only be worse if we were point gen. Even if you pick a class, there's a trade off. You can cherry pick certain things, but classes always come as a package, and the party still needs capabilities provided by different classes. You have point buy, it will just devolve to TRUE cherry picking, pulling in all the abilities you want without any downsides or compromises, and the game will go solely to those who are good at "gaming the system". Those who aren't good at juggling points or sniffing out loopholes play second fiddle and desperately try to assemble workable characters who aren't as good. And eventually give up, because they are having to do all the work themselves.

But isn't this a major beef against D&D now? That the game is soley for those for cherry pick it and that standard adventurers fall into two camps; players walking through it with ultra efficient built characters or players suffering TPK's from being build ineffectively?

I've SEEN it. I like Rolemaster's and Hero's flexibility. You know why I quit? Because making competent characters was a skill that most players didn't have or want to learn. And we aren't just talking the business and liberal arts majors here, either. We are talking about people with occupations and educations that allegedly require them to do complex things, like an organic chemist.

I can see it in Rolemaster but Hero? I guess I just got too good at Hero. Rolemaster, regardless of skill set, takes a while to make characters based on doing level progression every level (kinda like D&D now.)

In short, the complex point gen experience is not widely accessible and porting D&D to it is not, IME, a good solution for the existing audience. Most players who like the approach of point gen enough to handle its difficulties are already playing point gen game. No reason to make D&D into one.

But there almost there now. Options in the core book for point buy on stats. Option in the core book for non-random rolled hit points. Skill points per level that you use to buy skills. Options that you can switch and flip out in terms of feat and ability acquisition. It's almost point built just with more limitations no?

And maybe D&D could be the first game to have a point gen that was't complex. Probably not as it's pretty confusing now a days and the spell system would get completely nerfed in any point buy based on the wildly varying power levels of spells. "Magic missile first level? Nope." That would be the true revolution!

 

[GreatLemur]

Even I can agree with that.

Of course, I seem to be in the minority there, with so many others lapping up new classes from the WotC class mill like a cat to a fresh bowl of milk.

Well, in the absence of flexible classes, new core classes are pretty welcome. I'd prefer a Sorcerer class that could function like a Warlock or a Dragonfire Adept or a Hexblade according to a system of feats of class options, but if the only way to get that sort of functionality is by throwing in whole new classes . . . eh. I'll take it.

...embedding concepts in mechanics...

I could easily be misinterpreting how you mean this, but I prefer mechanics I can adapt to my own fluff over ones that drag pre-created fluff around with them. "Embedding concepts in mechanics" sounds to me like something that should be avoided.

At least if a character has some levels of fighter, he will have contributions to bab, fortitude saves, hit points, and fighting feats that reflect that.

I think this is probably the best argument for a class-and-level system. I love Mutants & Masterminds deeply, but it's very, very easy to spend a lot of points on powers and skills, and completely forget to consider what kind of saving throws and combat bonuses a character should have at your campaign's power level.

 

[Gold Roger]

But how does D&D even do that anymore? If every character in the party is some multi-classed, multi-racial freak, the whole idea of team based archetype is GONE. Not modified. Not changed. Not mutated into something new and shiney, but gone.

If classes were actually created that way, sure. They're not. Most of them are still niche efforts that are only now coming up to the old Rolemaster professions in terms of semi classes such as the Dusk Blade allowing a warrior-mage from the get go while we still have no good rogue/fighter (fighter/thief from Rolemaster) unless you go Arcana Evolved.

The classes continue to be ripped up and tossed out like so much garbage and people are cherry picking their abilities to such a high extent, that outside of level, I'm not seeing a lot of real differences between mid-high level D&D and point buy systems anyway.

Well, I did say constantly adding classes and allowing all of those classes is detrimental for the system, didn't I?

Of course, there are many groups that don't use the pletora of new base classes, wether they restrict to Core only Classes or only add choice ones.

Even if you have a pletora of races, multiclassing, PrC's, feats, substitution levels and alternate class features. As long as you stick to the Core base classes, the structure of role-filling, party-ing and world makeup based on certain base models of personae remains intact. Once you start adding non-core base classes, it breaks down.

 

[JoeGKushner]

As long as you stick to the Core base classes, the structure of role-filling, party-ing and world makeup based on certain base models of personae remains intact. Once you start adding non-core base classes, it breaks down.

I'd say that as long as you allow multi-classing, it breaks down. In short run campaigns (based on past efforts), or conventions modules, players are going to min-max their characters as opposed to worry about long term ramifications. When given 10 levels to play around, players don't have to worry about the 'building' of the character nor the viability of it as they can just jump in and play.

Niche protection is greatly eliminated in 3.5.

Not saying that's a bad thing mind you as it allows for a wider range of game styles but assuming RAW useage, it can be a bad thing. "What do you mean no one can cast an 9th levle spell? We're all 20th level right?" Shakes fist at sky. "Damn you multi-classing! Damn you!"

If classes actually had some decent high level abilities outside of the slow and steady continuation of existing class abilities, it might provide some real impetus to stay in your core class. Without mechanical reasons to do so though...

 

[Psion]

No, I'm saying that in my experience, multi-classing and freak shows are so... I won't say common, but easy in game mecahnics terms these days, that it's much more common than it previously was, reducing the core strength of the archetype system D&D is built around.

I don't find it to be so.

As your contrast between multi class and point buy suggests, I see some of the same players who have problems with point build have problems with multi-classing, building limp-noodle characters because they don't build for synergy. Things like splitting your levels evenly between non-complimentary classes.

Fortunately, those cases are rare, and usually easier for me as a DM to spot. If I see a fighter 5 / wizard 5 on the character sheet, I know there may be trouble ahead right then. With point build, my search has to go deeper.

But those who do do it commonly usually build to the strengths of the common archtypes.

My main point here is that a player playing the game who is not a master builder can usually build a fairly effective character who contributes to the party by taking one of the core classes. Where there are problems, I've noted them to be with the classes that have more choices (I had a player who took a psychic warrior and built up none of her feat trees... it was a very weak character.)

And I agree that point gen characters are more difficult to effectively build

Well, that's one thing we've got.

But isn't this a major beef against D&D now?

I'd say the "beef" online is amplified severalfold from the "beef" as it exists in the real world. Online, people tend to over-react to things that appear powerful at first glance, that I have never seen be difficult to manage in play.

Taking the wayback machine, I recall running a Fantasy Hero / Ninja Hero game in which the players were in a fantasy Japan. The math weak players wouldn't play with spells at all because it meant touching the power system.

Rolemaster was worse. Even the players who would play mages in the hero game asked me to make characters for them because they didn't get buying skills.

My experiences with D&D have been quite a bit more pleasant. I find the average player is more capable of handling D&D than point build. Indeed, the one subsystem I find gives them the most trouble RESEMBLES point build (being skill points.)

I can see it in Rolemaster but Hero?

See above. Rolemaster is admittedly worse, but I've ran into plenty of players who didn't get the power system in Hero. And too many who did get it tried to abuse it...

But there almost there now. Options in the core book for point buy on stats. Option in the core book for non-random rolled hit points. Skill points per level that you use to buy skills. Options that you can switch and flip out in terms of feat and ability acquisition. It's almost point built just with more limitations no?

Yes.

The limitations are an important aspect, IMO. I am not against point-gen so much as unstructured point-gen. Things like not being able to suck all the points out of your attributes to enable your one super-spell makes structured point gen more sensible.

There's also the fact that you are dealing with just a few choices instead of many niggly points, which makes the system more accessible.

 

[Gold Roger]

I'd say that as long as you allow multi-classing, it breaks down. In short run campaigns (based on past efforts), or conventions modules, players are going to min-max their characters as opposed to worry about long term ramifications. When given 10 levels to play around, players don't have to worry about the 'building' of the character nor the viability of it as they can just jump in and play.

Niche protection is greatly eliminated in 3.5.

Not saying that's a bad thing mind you as it allows for a wider range of game styles but assuming RAW useage, it can be a bad thing. "What do you mean no one can cast an 9th levle spell? We're all 20th level right?" Shakes fist at sky. "Damn you multi-classing! Damn you!"

If classes actually had some decent high level abilities outside of the slow and steady continuation of existing class abilities, it might provide some real impetus to stay in your core class. Without mechanical reasons to do so though...

It would seem we have played in very different games.

Anyway, I'm way more concerned about the implied setting role protection, than any mechanical niches.

 

[Psion]

I could easily be misinterpreting how you mean this, but I prefer mechanics I can adapt to my own fluff over ones that drag pre-created fluff around with them. "Embedding concepts in mechanics" sounds to me like something that should be avoided.

I see this argument constantly, but I really don't buy into it because...
1) Excessive flexibility in chargen is as often abused as used effectively. (Back in 2e, I had a player who wanted to play a particular elven race with a human only kit, because they were AWESOME together. It was obvious to me when he suggested the character what the intent was.)
2) Players often aren't so flexible and creative as they think they are. Even if you are creative, I've heard authors tell me their best work is not when they had a blank slate, but a goal.
3) Even if they are, often their concepts are an ill fit with the game world. By selecting classes and options that FIT the concept of the world, the shared vision can be that much better.

If all you are talking about is different flavor for a given mechanic, that's fine. What I speak up here is the creation of credible, cohesive concepts. Class abilities that fit with the premise for the class and skills that support the class abilities are all good things to build a self-consistent, believable concept. If I wed these aspects as a designer, I am more likely to make the right call WRT "faith to concept" than if I am a player who is scraping by for points and has to choose between getting my attack bonus as high as I want it or if my character really needs a climb bonus because his concept says it.

 

[Greg K]

I like the UA variant class abilities (and even a few variants from PHB2). I was actually surprised that they were pretty much ignored until UA considering that a class variant example was provided in the 3.0 PHB. I actually assign several of these variant in my own campaign to a) specific cultures (or subcultures) to differentiate cultural or organizational backgrounds, b) occassionaly to specific classes as mandatory replacements for certain class abilities.

As for multiclassing breaking down, it can be a problem for some groups. It is not a problem for me. I heavily restrict non-core (and even some core) material alllowing only specific items on a case-by-case basis after review. I also place pre-requisities on multiclassing in the form of training requirements (feats, skill ranks, trainer, and time).

I