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

[EnglishScribe]

Classically Modern has the D&D classes deconstructed in just this way. Granted the focus is using the classes in D20 Modern, but there is no barrier to using the classes with D&D instead (just ignore the Defence & Reputation columns )

Antony

 

[mmadsen]

No amount of spine-stiffening is going to reduce the time it takes me to write out stat blocks - I find developing high-level NPCs and unique monsters a chore, plain and simple, and I want a system that makes my adventure writing easy first and foremost, detail be damned.

I want to spend my time writing great adventures and playing the game, not flipping pages in a rulebook or weighing the relative merits of different feats and class abilities. Fast and clean for me, please and thank you.

Have you looked at Savage Worlds?

 

[mmadsen]

f you're going to get rid of classes and try to play D&D, you might as well be playing GURPS.

Right, because there are no meaningful differences between D&D and GURPS except that one's class-based and the other's point-based. :\

 

[Ravellion]

I love Grim Tales with its six classes and nothing but a lot of talents and bucketloads of feats to allow character customization. But in order for my players to use it, I'm pretty sure I'll have to write about 10 "classes" for it. Ie. I have to write down a few combinations with all the talents and bonus feats in a nice table, otherwise more than half the group will just get swamped.

Classes will do just fine.

Rav

 

[mmadsen]

I think you could go a long, long way toward simplifying the game and making it more flexible by reducing classes to lists of skills and feats -- with plenty of flavor text for plenty of character concepts.

A Ranger's list of feats (in the same style as the fighter's) might include: Alertness, Endurance, Improved Critical, Point Blank Shot (Far Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Shot on the Run), Quickdraw, Run, Skill Focus (Class Skill), Track, Weapon Focus; Nature Sense, Animal Companion, Woodland Stride, Trackless Step; Sneak Attack, Evasion, Uncanny Dodge.

If all classes get one feat per level (period), this isn't too complicated.

But there's a second step that makes the whole thing much, much easier. Instead of providing countless prestige classes with countless new rules, the books could provide sub-classes with skills already chosen and with feats laid out by level:

Ranger of the North
Primary Skills: Listen (Wis), Spot (Wis), Survival (Wis).
Secondary Skills: Climb (Str), Heal (Wis), Hide (Dex), Jump (Str), Knowledge (geography) (Int), Knowledge (nature) (Int), Move Silently (Dex), Ride (Dex), Search (Int), Swim (Str).
Feats:
1 Track
2 Alertness
3 Endurance
4 Woodland Stride
5 Trackless Step
6 Nature Sense
[...]

An Nth-level Ranger of the North would have Primary Skills with N ranks, Secondary Skills with N/2 ranks, and Feats 1 through N. (I'm assuming we also toss the notion of first-level being special, with extra skill ranks, quasi-feats, etc. A starting character would be 4th-level.)

 

[Lobo Lurker]

I'm all in favor of core classes rather than point-based systems, especially for DnD.

However, I wouldn't mind various options available to the core classes. One of the neat things about Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved book is that my Champion/Witch/Totem warrior can have different ability than yours.

While it might be nice to simplify the core classes into Magic User, Healer, Thief, & Warrior, I think it leeches a lot of flavor from the game. I'd be more apt to favor a large number of core classes and a limited number of PrCs. PrCs are supposed to be special... but it's not so special when there are upteen billion of them.

So put me down for #3; Lots of semi-customizable core classes & a handful of well thought out PrCs (Fractional BAB, Saves, & a unified caster level would be nice as well).

 

[WizarDru]

Nah. GURPS has a rather different feeling (and necessitates a rather different play style) than D&D, with its lack of escalating hit points and all.

At best*, you could, say, multiply HP by 5 but they still wouldn't change much despite your power advancement over the course of a campaign.

(*Without too much work, that is.)

Having used GURPS as my system of choice for the fifteen years prior to 3rd edition (the same fifteen years post-AD&D, for me), I definitely agree. GURPS is not built around the 'young man discovers his true talents and rises to become a hero' ideal nearly so much as the 'talented individual finds himself caught up in an adventure' ideal. The difference between a 100 pt. GURPS character and a 200 pt. GURPS character is much different than a 1st and 21st level D&D character. The GURPS character is a little more competent at a few select things, possibly has a few more friends and maybe the backing of an organization. The D&D hero is a farmer boy who rises to a power to rival the gods.

As for the core question: I prefer classes: the perceived increase in flexibility is dramatically offset by the additional work required for all parties. My experience with open-ended systems like this is that it increases the character (and NPC!) creation time while only providing benefits to the 'wacky' character concepts. Invariably, someone ends up wanting to play the swordsman; for him, the new system doesn't really change details, except that he needs to do the legwork for his abilities. If he wants to create Zatoichi, this is a benefit...if he wants to create Fafhrd, much less so. I usually would much rather prefer to jerry-rig the existing system than to redesign the core mechanics to accomadate the outliers. I don't mean to imply that one approach is inherentely better, because after having tried both, I don't think either one is superior. I prefer the different approaches for different reasons, but on the whole prefer 3.Xs levels-with-personalization over AD&D's static classes or GURPS totally open ended characters.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I want to spend my time writing great adventures and playing the game, not flipping pages in a rulebook or weighing the relative merits of different feats and class abilities. Fast and clean for me, please and thank you.

As I said, include the core classes in the PHB. If, as a DM, you say "only the core classes in the PHB are allowed," how does that make anything more difficult? If the class creation rules are in the DMG, it automatically makes them off-limits, unless the DM allows them. That's my point about DMs stiffening their spines. If a DM can't control his game enough to disallow players from using material in the DMG, that shouldn't mean options should be limited for those DMs who can.

 

[Kanegrundar]

For D&D give me classes. Make them wide and varied and then give us a set of fluid guidelines for creating new classes. Keep point-buy out of my D&D. It's fine for other games, but I like the sacred cows of D&D.

Kane

 

[TerraDave]

Players Option?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Grim Tales: takes the 6 D20 Modern core classes, extends them out to 20th level, and adds a lot of 3.5 class abilities as talents.

The UA generic classes cited above also work.

"Variant" classes ala UA can also work, we use a version of the "cloistered cleric", this covers a lot of "archetypal" ground...

Players Option: Skills and Powers, that I have in storage. And plan to keep it there