Why Classless?!?

Zappo · Jun 23, 2002

Can't we just ignore this clearly trollish thread?

LostSoul · Jun 23, 2002

Psion said:
Of course I am. It is the GMs responsibility to see that all the character's make sense and work together, and that task is a lot easier in classed.

I guess I don't see it that way. I think that's the Player's responsibility. I guess it's just a difference of style.

Psion said:
So does that mean you never question the choice of skills and abilities in a point based system?

Nope. The only thing I'd do is restrict them to raising skills that they've used in the game, or told me they've taken time to work on. But at character creation, anything goes. It's their character, after all, not mine; I get all the NPCs to play with.

James McMurray · Jun 23, 2002

Zappo: Just because a thread starts a debate doesn't mean its trollish.

LostSoul: I agree, it falls on the players' shoulders to make believable characters. Heck, I have copies of each of my players' character sheets, but I certainly don't police them. I keep them for reference. One of the characters has 1 rank in each of several craft and profession skills. Sure, it may not look very good on the surface, but I know he was looking into building a stronghold and figured that's what his character would pick up. Without him even telling me I knew what it was he wanted with those skills.

Guess I'm just lucky to have players I can trust to create logical characters and have reasons for their skills / classes chosen.

Psion · Jun 23, 2002

Ace said:
In a fuedal society (like Harn) classes make sense because your opportunities are limited. If you are a peasent, unless you break with the mold, ie change classes, you stay a peasent.

Okay, but IME/O, there are still logical sets of skills that you will obtain in certain careers and professions. A few "hobby" skill points you throw here and there are of little consequence.

In societies wth more opportunities Classes are a lot harder to swallow

Are they? Perhaps strict classes, but 3e style classes allow you to select a variety of different skills.

Now I could make the case that, in a modern setting, you might be better off working around the model of having a majority of points go towards class skills instead of charging more (like CP 2020 and CoC), but the idea is still fundamentally correct.

He is a little easier to fit into a class, He might be a Fighter/Specialist Wizard or maybe a Monk/Wizard but again the problem of baggage

If, in D&D, he has enough knowledge in magic to qualify as a member of a class (vice just some cross class ranks in K:arcana), then it's going to take more that a few spare skill points spent that way.

With a point based system and a little GM guideance you can build more types of charcters and you don't have to fight the system

You don't have to fight the system to make illogical characters -- that's not a good thing. Like I said earlier: most viable, logical, well-justified character fall along the lines of classes ANYWAYS.

In GURPS or other point based systems a charcter equivilant to 8th level may be rather good at a number of different things and no one will have a nitche in the group

Of course, because the gurps rules strongly encourage two types of characters instead of 11: the dex generalist and the int generalist.

IMO point based systems are better because they empower players.

And IMO, they don't work because they don't encourage logical, self consistent, beleivable characters. And some, like GURPS, actually discourage them.

gamecat · Jun 23, 2002

Zappo said:
Can't we just ignore this clearly trollish thread?

Define trollish. So you are under the impression I ranted so as to make people start posting? Damn it!

Can't we just ignore the clearly rude zappo?

Ace · Jun 23, 2002

Psion said:
Okay, but IME/O, there are still logical sets of skills that you will obtain in certain careers and professions. A few "hobby" skill points you throw here and there are of little consequence.

OK I can see you point but how does a Commercial Driver, Iado Blackbelt, Cook, Actor, 20 years SCA and Singer fit together if all of the skills are professional level?

A class system (particuarly D&D) wouldn't allow enough skill points to achieve 5+ in of these skills without being high level or having very high stats, neither of which fit the bill for this individual

Lets take D&D as an example

I have a character 28 years old--

His background-- Grew up on a farm near the fairy woods till 10
parents ran out of town joined Gypsy caravan for 5 years
apprenticed to a wizard for 3 years
joined mercenary army as fighter for 7 years
last 2 years was an adventurer.
Recently got call to become Paladin

Now I could make him a Rogue1, Sorcerer2, Fighter 4, Paladin 1,

This would cover his skills pretty well but its clumsy, FREX what if the concept shouldn't have Flank Attack, Training in polearms, Training in platemail and so on

With a skill system
he has

Sword
knife
spear
stealth
theft
various spells
holy warrior gifts
magic power

BadaBoom Bada Bing

Are they? Perhaps strict classes, but 3e style classes allow you to select a variety of different skills.

True. There is a problem with "baggage" though. I had a character concept - Paladin With Woods Skills:

To play this I had to take a level of Ranger which gave me Ambidextarity, Species Enemy and 2W fighting that had nothing to do with the charcter concept

In a point based system I ould have bought alertness stuff, stealth and tracking and been done with it

Bunch more examples

My character concept Guy who can fight and use some magic

In class system - 5 levels of Wizard (I know a number of spells so Sorcerer is out) then 4 of fighter works ok but I also have to take Scribe Scroll, A bonus meta magic feat and the ability to have a familiar, none of which suit the character.

Point based system
Magery
Spells
weapons skills

still balanced-- done

Third example

Thief with healing gift
Grew up on the street of Unborg was product of rape, raised by orphanage. Grew up to take care of self. Learned to fight. Joined army. Has Moms healing gift. Not a nice guy

In D&D I make him a cleric, fighter, rogue--- Of course I have all the turn undead, various weapons feats, and assorted clerical and rogue baggage. In additon if the GM starts at 3rd level it will take 3 session to get better at anything.

Its easier to make the character with skill based system

weapon skills
healing talent
rogue skills
Done

Example 4: Concept Woodsman/Shapechanger

Class system, compute ecl for Shapechanger-- Oh sorry we are starting at level1 not allowed

After some weedling OK we will start at level 2
Picks class, HMM ranger I guess as Barbarian has no stealth skills

So far I have an unneeded Species enemy, Ambidext and 2w style (or its replacement) heavy and medium armor feats--

I play him a while and hit 8th level.

I have even more species enemy rubbish and spells that don't fit either

The solution? Use another class-- Sigh to solve a simple design problem I have to import another class from another game or supplement-- And if the DM wants to use core rules only well I am out of luck

Now in a skill based system
wolf form package
Woods skills
done----

Fifth problem
Unarmed fighter with inate spell ability. Dad was a Storm elemental see...

In D&D and most class based system (excep Rolemaster) not possible

Skill based system ---
martial arts abilities
inate spell power

done

Now I could make the case that, in a modern setting, you might be better off working around the model of having a majority of points go towards class skills instead of charging more (like CP 2020 and CoC), but the idea is still fundamentally correct.

I can get on board with that idea, but why bother codifing it in rules. Just tell your players "Make your skills fit your background"

If, in D&D, he has enough knowledge in magic to qualify as a member of a class (vice just some cross class ranks in K:arcana), then it's going to take more that a few spare skill points spent that way.

Its clumsy. It is easier to say "Your charcter apprenticed with a Druid but didn't become one. No problem, Buy Druid Lore at x"

You don't have to fight the system to make illogical characters -- that's not a good thing. Like I said earlier: most viable, logical, well-justified character fall along the lines of classes ANYWAYS.

What is an illogical charcter. It seems to me the burden of proof falls on the GM not the player! Rather than fighting the system to build a con man/ warrior/ wizard I can just build him as needed. If there is skill or two out of place the GM can just say "Not allowed"

Of course, because the gurps rules strongly encourage two types of characters instead of 11: the dex generalist and the int generalist.

That a good point and it is a GURPS quirk.

And IMO, they don't work because they don't encourage logical, self consistent, beleivable characters. And some, like GURPS, actually discourage them. [/B]

We will have to agree to disagree here. I have played a lot of skill based systems and I have never had the illogical character problem in any serious way. My biggest problem has ben with Illogical classes and concepts in D&D, No you can't play a Psion there aren't any. I am not using that feat or class etc
Of course I usually err on the side of fun, shrug and say

Heck its Just a game and let em play what they like

YMMV of course

CWD · Jun 23, 2002

Your example #1: A 28 year old stealthy holy wizard warrior?

That's the best argument against a skill-based system I've ever heard!

Psion · Jun 23, 2002

Ace said:
OK I can see you point but how does a Commercial Driver, Iado Blackbelt, Cook, Actor, 20 years SCA and Singer fit together if all of the skills are professional level?

You'll excuse me if I say, it doesn't sound that complicated. I think I could do it in spycraft.

A class system (particuarly D&D) wouldn't allow enough skill points to achieve 5+ in of these skills without being high level or having very high stats, neither of which fit the bill for this individual

I would debate whether or not any such individual DESERVES 5 levels in that many skills.

Lets take D&D as an example

I have a character 28 years old--

His background-- Grew up on a farm near the fairy woods till 10
parents ran out of town joined Gypsy caravan for 5 years
apprenticed to a wizard for 3 years
joined mercenary army as fighter for 7 years
last 2 years was an adventurer.
Recently got call to become Paladin

Now I could make him a Rogue1, Sorcerer2, Fighter 4, Paladin 1,

This would cover his skills pretty well but its clumsy, FREX what if the concept shouldn't have Flank Attack,

Which is fine with me, because I would question you giving him rogue levels in the first place.

Even if there are such incongruities, that is what the "customizing characters" rule in the PHB is for. Characters like this are the exception, not the rule. In my entire time playing 3e, I have only had to use the customizing character rule one time when a player want to deviate. I consider this example (and your others) contrived as examples, and such come up extremely rarely in actuality.

Training in polearms, Training in platemail

Got the call to be a mercenary and didn't learn anything abuot weapons and armor... okay, sorry, if you are telling me "but my characters training was so specific blah blah blah", I will REALLY tag you for creating contrived examples.

(other contrived examples snipped)

Class system, compute ecl for Shapechanger-- Oh sorry we are starting at level1 not allowed

If the campaing is 1st level. And it wouldn't be any different if I was running a 25 point hero campaign and you wanted to buy shapeshifting and couldn't afford it, either.

The solution? Use another class-- Sigh to solve a simple design problem I have to import another class from another game or supplement-- And if the DM wants to use core rules only well I am out of luck

Once again, blithely ignoring the customization rule, or course.

I can get on board with that idea, but why bother codifing it in rules.

Very simple: for consistency and ease of use. You don't have to make your character wonder what skills would be appropriate for a fighter or a wizard or a rogue... it's all right there.

What is an illogical charcter. It seems to me the burden of proof falls on the GM not the player!

I beg to differ. The GMs role is, by definition, the ajudicator of the game.

My biggest problem has ben with Illogical classes and concepts in D&D, No you can't play a Psion there aren't any. I am not using that feat or class etc

I fail to see the difference here between point based and class based. Whenever I ran fantasy hero, I filled out the little list of what powers were and weren't available.

If you were running GURPS, are you honsestly telling me if a player wanted to take psionics skills and there were no psionics in your world. you would simply let him? If so, not only is it not a wonder to me that you don't find the guidance of classes helpful, your ideas of what a players role in a game and mine are so totally different, it is not even worth debating. In either case, there is no fundamental different between class based and skill based on this score.

Of course I usually err on the side of fun, shrug and say

Heck its Just a game and let em play what they like

And I usually err on the side of caution, and sidestep SOD problems that come from outlandish and out of place characters. If you want to play a space marine in my fantasy game, I will tell you that your character does not belong in my game*, no ifs, ands, or buts. I may rain on the loony's parade, but in doing so I produce a more visceral, beleivable, and ultimately more satisfying experience for everyone else. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

* - or at least to save it for the DS game.

LostSoul · Jun 23, 2002

Ace said:
Lets take D&D as an example

I have a character 28 years old--

His background-- Grew up on a farm near the fairy woods till 10
parents ran out of town joined Gypsy caravan for 5 years
apprenticed to a wizard for 3 years
joined mercenary army as fighter for 7 years
last 2 years was an adventurer.
Recently got call to become Paladin

This isn't too hard in D&D. I'd say Rogue with 4 ranks of Use Magic Device, then Fighter, then Paladin.

My problem with D&D is that it packages abilites together that don't always make sense. If you want a highly skilled guy, you automatically get Evasion and Sneak Attack and Rogue BAB progression. If you want a really tough, defensive warrior, you get Rage and Fast Movement. If you want to work divine miracles, you learn how to wear Heavy Armour and fight decently.

Customization is the key; but wouldn't it be easier if the system defined customization in the rule set, leaving character creation in the player's hands instead of the DMs? Not all agree (Psion

) but I think it's a valid point.

Bonedagger · Jun 23, 2002

Well. With the class system the DM has a guarantee (At least on paper) that the players have a chance to survive a combat encounter.

Remember. A classless system can result in that the PC's are not balance in combat. Or that they don't spread their abilities out enough. The freedom players have for character creation is given with the insurance to the DM that the characters are ready for the combat encounters with only a little preperation from his side. The class system are here to prepare the players for one of the best thing the d20 system has to offer. It's tactical combat system.

Balance is the keyword. (And no balance often results in not much teamwork)

...... Maybe I'm just rambling. It's late.