Why adhere to the "core" classes? Why not deconstruct for flexibility?

[Driddle]

Others in this thread have suggested some sort of points-based customizable system. I have not, and I wouldn't necessarily want to go that route. We could instead meet in the middle.

A few have picked up on what I would like to see: More options within a simplified class framework. The ranger already has one example of this, in that you get to choose a three-feat ladder in either two-weapons or bow. Expand on that a smidgeon and you're on your way -- the "ranger" class provides three linked weapons feats at levels X, Y and Z; you can pick from two-weapons style, bow, axe, sword, etc.

As another potential example, consider the wizard's feats at 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th. As it is, they're supposed to be very wizardly picks, ala item creation and metamagic. But deconstruct the class and open the choices, ala ranger style -- the "wizard" class provides themetically linked feats at levels X, Y, Z, etc.; you can pick from the (current) wizardly path, or a more martial path (the so-called fighter feats), or a more skill-based path (skill focus feats).

So, no; let's not toss the baby out with the bath water and end up with another HERO or GURPS system. Keep the class structure, but open the definitions more. The deconstructed class options wouldn't be true "point-buys" although they would serve the same function while providing class flavor.

((In my head, I like to use the term "template" to describe the concept, but WotC has already assigned that word for other purposes in monster design.))

 

[Runesong42]

Yeah, I like classes too.

Note that there is "Buy the Numbers" if you want to try a system where you use xp to buy up various abilities.

But it isn't the same feel. And it is far too prone too abuse. Just like Players' Option was. Hell, PLayers' Option: Spells and Magic was sooooo cheezy. You think that clerics are tough in 3.5, you ain't seen badass until you see a cleric dump most of the useless spheres and plow those points into badassness a la players' options: spells and magic.

*LOL* I remember my first and only encounter with Players Option rules.

I hadn't played DnD with my old group for a few years as I had moved away to university. I came home for a weekend and they boys were playing through some box set using characters created with the Players Option rules. They wanted me to join up, so I made a Fighter/Bard with the Blade kit (uses offensive and defensive displays of weapons to various effects) as I didn't want to "take the time" to learn this new set of rules.

My friend had made a character with the maximum allowed number of disadvantages, and it's a wonder how he survived as long as he did alongside his gimped-out travelling companions. He kept falling in combat after combat and he was getting very frustrated. So, I thought I'd try and help him out. While the party was doing stuff, I read through the character creation rules and I really liked what I saw. I laughed out loud as a character concept gelled in my mind, talking into account the RP preferences of my friend.

"Den," I said, "I can gimp you a character. Here: make a dwarf cleric, give him warrior THACO, warrior Strength bonus, warrior weapon prof, warrior weapon specialization, take the Priest spheres of Elemental, Combat, Healing, and Protection, and while you're at it, give yourself an Extra Wizard School as a sphere... oh, let's make it Invocation/Evocation."

The boys' mouths dropped. He almost squealed with excitement. I had created what seemed to be the "ultimate" character.

And it took me all of TEN minutes. Not bad for having never seen or even heard of the book before that day.

I also have some GURPS experience under my belt. It took forever to make a character in GURPS, but when you were done, you had the character that you WANTED right away. So, I would absolutely enjoy a DnD that allowed for highy customizable characters using point-buy attributes/skills/feats/spells, even if it had to be alongside regular levelling. I know that BESM d20 does this, though I have yet to DM/play using that ruleset. BESM d20 seems to be quite close to GURPS creation rules, and might be a decent alternative if you wanted to go that route.

 

[yennico]

I would like the Monk and Barbarian to be rolled back into the Fighter as a set of Talents (as d20 Modern) and Feats. I would like the Sorcerer rolled into the Wizard in a similiar manner. I would like Druid to likewise be rolled into the Cleric. Move the Ranger, Paladin and Bard into Prestige Classes (tweaking the Unearthed Arcana versions to fit). This puts the core basic classes to: Cleric, Fighter, Rogue and Wizard.

I totally agree.

 

[yennico]

Personal preference: I like classes in D&D. I'm all for flexible systems for character creation in other games, and I wouldn't even mind it existing as an optional rule* for D&D, but I want my classes.

*(It would have to be very optional. The last thing I'd want is some player telling me I "had" to let him swap out this ability for that because the point-buy system says they're equal.)

Business reality: Never going to happen. Classes are a much more profitable way to set up an RPG.

Seriously. All else being equal, any system that requires new products to expand is more profitable than one that allows great flexibility without the need for new products.

This is not a slam at WotC. This is not a slam at the current design of the game. It's simple numbers. WotC is a business, and I just don't see them changing a core aspect of the game that A) works very well as is, and B) allows for a substantial amount of supplementary material.

I totally agree.

I like my classes in D&D, but I like also other rpgs than D&D which do not use classes.
I like multiclassing, but I dislike prestige classes. I like the idea of a base caster level for each class.
I would change the magic system of D&D into a mana point system for flexibility (IMHO a sorcerer sucks).

 

[Aus_Snow]

For the purpose of second-guessing WotC, I'd say the classes will stay more or less the same. Reasons abound.

Personal preference, though? A multitude of core classes all vying for the attention of the poor beleaguered player. That's how it is around here.

edit --- Point buy: Yeah, it's OK. I've tried using it, with Buy the Numbers - modified to suit - and with my own version of things. Deconstruction without point buy: Better, IMO. It's how I do stuff all the time.

 

[Li Shenron]

In future incarnations of the D&D game design, which would you prefer?:

1. the PC class structure be maintained

2. the current classes be deconstructed

For a future edition PHB, definitely 1. To me, classes are the very core of playing D&D, and if there weren't classes, it would be another game. In which case it could still be a great RPG, but wouldn't call it D&D.

The deconstruction of classes could be done in a separate book however (or even in the DMG), so that a DM would have tools to build different classes for her own specific setting, or even to allow playing class-less as an option.

 

[boredgremlin]

In future incarnations of the D&D game design, which would you prefer?:

1. the PC class structure be maintained, which sometimes requires extensive multiclassing to reach the player's concept for his character ("I like the ranger, except I want more focus on animal magic...")

2. the current classes be deconstructed to so players can pick specific components of the class (skills, feats, certain abilities) within preset bounds -- ex. choose between combat feats every other level or backstabbing bonuses every other level; choose between animal companion or familiar; choose which of your three saves will be higher than the other two; choose six class skills; etc.

Or in other words, why load up on tons of supplement and variant products to get a PC's aspects *just right* when you could build the character to spec from the git-go?

Yes options are good. I ran a game once before 3.5 where are the classes abilities where feats. Every 3 levels you got to pick 2 feats from the class feats list. For free. The classes in the book were just a few examples of how you could progress.

Drawbacks of this system.
1) It took forever and a day to create characters.
2) leveling up took longer because you had a ton of options and they actually made all the difference in the world as to who you are as a character.
3) Players, especially new ones often min/maxed a certain ability to the point where they were lethal with that one skill but the first situation it wouldnt work in left them totally helpless.

Advantages of the system.
1) Total freedom
2) total freedom, you can make whatever concept you want. Everything is feat based.
3) Total freedom. Players get what they want, no DM bannings, no rules lawyer whining. 100% player satisfaction. If it bit them in the butt, well then its what they made and there is no one to blame what themselves.

Observations after trying it.
1) holy crap does this take forever. Every character made and every level up takes forever. Players turn old and grey before things are ready to continue.
2) When faced with nothing but options most players make horrible characters. I covered this above in min/maxing. Apparently its really hard to make a halfway balanced character with so many options in front of you.
3) smart players rule the game. Lets be honest, characters aside. Some players just rolled higher INT's with god before coming to this world. The people who can really look forward and balance out things while maxing the most likely possibilities absolutely rule this game. Not that there is anything wrong with smart people being good at stuff like this. But you raise the bar for your players intelligence a great deal with a free form system.
4) It makes choices when levelling up the most important thing. Then the DM has to work harder to play to the group. hammering an abusive powergammer is fun, but you have to really look at everyones skills to make your game. Players make choices based on what they have seen so far. Its only fair as the DM to reward good observational skills instead of punishing them.
5) This system makes everyones job harder. Players have to think more, DMs have more to figure, monsters with classes are a nightmare for the DM. But if everyone is bright, and interested in trying it then the whole thing results in a great game for all. Once in a while.

 

[glass]

I agree with this, but I think there are some interesting implications touched on here. UA opened up a lot of possibilities for a 4th edition, and made a precedent for even more. What I mean is, 4th edition could be a combination of sacred cows and flexibility. Provide the classes as they've been in the core, but include rules for class construction in the DMG. The current classes could then be there, intact, for those who don't find messing with game construction to be fun, but those who like flexibility could have it.

I think (and hope) we'll see an Unearthed Arcana II (and possibly III) before we see a fourth edition.


glass.

 

[glass]

In future incarnations of the D&D game design, which would you prefer?:

1. the PC class structure be maintained, which sometimes requires extensive multiclassing to reach the player's concept for his character ("I like the ranger, except I want more focus on animal magic...")

2. the current classes be deconstructed to so players can pick specific components of the class (skills, feats, certain abilities) within preset bounds -- ex. choose between combat feats every other level or backstabbing bonuses every other level; choose between animal companion or familiar; choose which of your three saves will be higher than the other two; choose six class skills; etc.

I'd say keep classes in more or less their current form.

I think there would definately be a case for making a swashbuckler type available, or possibly broadening the monk to a general unarmoured combatant.

I'd also agree that a couple of things which are currently class abilities could be feats (I'm thinking rage and sneak attack in particular), but I don't think I'd want to go as far as the UA generics in that direction: a couple of oddball classes is part of D&D's charm, for me.


glass.

 

[S'mon]

Personally I want my core classes plus some streamlined guidelines for altering them, like "a feat is worth X skill points" - kinda like what Upper_Krust's Challenge Rating rules do, only simpler maybe.