Why are there Classes?

[Piratecat]

There may be good reasons, but this isn't one of them. I submit that the mother cow is dead, the herd is dead, the ranch is closed, and the cowboys are in the unemployment line. Any reasoning having anything to do with cows is just not viable anymore.

Wow, long time no see.

I'll disagree, though. D&D is by definition a game with character classes. That was one of the design maxims.

 

[Nifft]

There are classes (and levels) to facilitate communication.

Class + level is short-hand for role + power level. As a DM, I can make a lot of design decisions knowing only those two facts about a party.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Psion]

Classes are a central strength of D&D. They define the action, create strong, recognizable roles, and make it possible to make pre-planned adventures with a good degree of reliability. Certain gaming experiences benefit from having a free hand in character design, but the constance of the class based D&D gaming experience has its own place and would suffer from removing classes and relying on the crap-shoot of more open character design.

 

[Imperialus]

Even classless systems like Shadowrun still make extensive use of archtypes. There is more blurring, but each PC still usually has a fairly clearly defined roll. The only 'classes' in Shadowrun would be awakened vs mundane (and I suppose Technomancer in 4E) but the street samurai is still the guy who spends all of his time shooting at things and getting shot, Hackers... well hack, riggers drive the car, faces negotiate, stuff like that.

Generalist characters do sometimes work, particularly in small groups but they're oftentimes very weak compared to another PC who focus' on one or two archtypes.

The greatest (and really only) strength I see in a classless system is that it makes it much easier for small groups as long as the GM lowers the opposition bar across the board. I've played some really good SR games with only two players, a Hacker/StreetSam/Face and an cybermage/rigger. I didn't need to worry so much about what kind of challenges I threw at the PC's, just as long as the thresholds of the tests wern't too high.

 

[Family]

Dragonborn Bard

You stay classy Winterhaven.

 

[fiddlerjones]

While I'm a fan of classless systems sometimes, D&D still needs classes, especially in 4E. Your suggested system seems just too arcane with the build points and such, and so classes are there primarily to sort out powers. As I see it, the hallmark of 4E is that the class is, more than anything else, defined by the powers allotted to it, which is why fighter and wizard class features don't balance out.

 

[blargney the second]

I actually quite like the class system, as long as there's a healthy amount of customizability without sacrificing effectiveness.

 

[Family]

Actually, the classes hp/armor/features do not balance. So there is no formula that could help there.

Dear WotC, please nerf Paper. Scissors is just fine. Regards, Rock.

 

[xechnao]

Holy cow, nothing more than that really.

Perhaps D&D from 5th ed and forward will only use the word "build" and power affinities. I agree that "class" is a strange word for what it is used in 4th ed since all are created equal and balanced.

Stats should also be dropped too in favor of edges: ie strong, tough etcetera that give the bonuses stats do.

 

[Asmor]

It's not a holy cow, it's a defining characteristic! That's like saying that vampires are holy cows in Vampire: The Masquerade/Requiem.

D&D, at it's most basic, is a fantasy RPG in which you pick a race and a class and you level up by killing things and taking their stuff.

I mean, hell, why does D&D still have dice when we can just generate arbitrary random numbers of any range, including difficult ones like 1-7 or 43-4927, instantly? Clearly, dice are a holy cow too.