The contests are OVER! Thanks very much to everyone for playing!

[Wycen]

It most certainly should be classless, as when 4th edition comes out, it will be unwelcome garbage I have no intention of buying.

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

No, it shouldn't be a classless system. D&D has always been, at the core, a game that was defined by its classes. Fighter, magicuser, cleric, and thief/rogue are the core of the system. Skills, feats, other classes, prestige classes, etc. are all based on those core classes, but modified in some way. Other game systems do classless very well, and if a classless system is needed, they are better suited to it. Changing D&D into a classless clone of other systems would just take the center out of the system. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel (although there are always those who insist that a better wheel can be made...).

 

[Corinth]

Classes are a sacred cow, but they are a sacred cow that works well by clearly defining the roles--ensuring niche protection--and deliniating those roles to newbies and grognards alike in clear, concise terms. Classes make the game easy to learn and play- keep them!

 

[NarlethDrider]

4E shouldn't be class less (like others have stated) 'cause, to me, it wouldnt be D&D.

 

[Morrow]

Keep 'em. Classes provide easily identifiable archetypes that anyone can identify with. They help players, new and old, connect conceptually with the game.

Morrow

 

[Taren Nighteyes]

Classes should stay

I think classes are an important part of the DND game - for a couple of reasons:

1. They make describing a character easier. "My character is a fighter" has a lot of meaning. "My character can use a sword well" isn't as definitive.

2. Classless systems need many rules to regulate truely classless systems. A point-buy system often lends to powerful combinations - where the whole is MUCH greater than the parts (and eventually leads to a typical character build anyway.)

Thanks,

Taren Nighteyes

 

[JoeBlank]

I'll say no to classless D&D. I'm not much of a sacred cow kinda guy, but classes just make D&D. Perhaps I'll take a closer look at the generic classes in UA, but it will still just be an alternate rule to me.

 

[guedo79]

I would rather see the Modern version of classes(strong, fast,....) then a nonclass system. But at that point it would not be D&D it would be a fantasy RPG with D&D flavor.

 

[Estlor]

Keep the classes. As much as a classless feat/skill chain system may enable you to build characters with more freedom and flexibility, the very core of understanding D&D is all about the classes. Whether it's the "base seven" of OD&D or the current "base eleven" of 3.5, D&D has always been about taking a broad character archetype and applying your own spin to it.

That said, I'd be willing to wager in 4e we'll see an attempt to open up D&D classes more than they currently are. They'll either adopt a D20 Modern path approach where you pick from various pathes, becoming as specialized as you want, of an Arcana Unearthed pool approach where you pick abilities from a large pool each time you learn a new one.

 

[Zappo]

No. D&D should maintain classes. First of all, they are one of the most holy sacred cows, and classless D&D is no longer D&D for most players. Secondly, the class system reinforces the archetipes of the genre, or of the setting, encouraging players to choose characters that fit well in the gaming world. The current incarnation of the class system does this very well, and at the same time it allows those who want to tinker with it a bit to create oddballs and exceptional characters.