DM corner: Classless D&D

[Ubiquitous]

One thing I always contemplate about the D&D system as it stands today is
classes. Why? Because one of my players is such a metagamer, that as
soon as he sees a person do something he instantly tries to pidgeon hole
that person into a D&D class, e.g., he goes to the temple of the Heironious
and outside are two platemail clad knights. As he tries to get in, one of
them talks to him and asks some questions whilst the other "peers intently
at him in a discerning manner". Net result, my player instantly decides
these are paladins (doing detect evil) and starts asking if they can heal
him please? How annoying! (especially as he was right of course!). The
paladin sort of looked at him as if to say "how do you know we can do that"
and he started going on about "I've heard of these mystical knights who can
sense evil - they can also heal and ...." (and might as well have listed a
shopping list of things paladins can do!).

Okay, rant over.

The point is that 3rd edition D&D has gone a long way to improve this with
arcane spell failure and still spell feats and armour check penalties and
armour proficiency feats. Its now perfectly possible to have a platemail
wearing wizard/rogue who wields a two handed sword. Brilliant stuff! But
its still not quite there because all paladins can turn undead and lay on
hands and detect evil. I'd like to be able to play in a game system where
having one of these abilities doesn't instantly get you recognised (at least
by the players) as a paladin (or whatever) and shoved into that little
pidgeon hole.

To that end, I'm wondering about designing a classless D&D system for a new
campaign.

It would basically be based on D&D as it is now. Everyone still has levels,
still has all the same stats and BAB and saves and skills and feats and class
abilities, but class abilities would be in a big pool and available to all
characters/people. So when you level up you gain a certain amount of points
to spend buying BAB increases and 1d10 HD or 1d4 HD, and N number of skill
points and N feats, and +1 reflex save and so on. You could buy +1 level
of wizard spell casting (so you'd still have caster levels as now). Obviously
buying +1 level of wizard spell casting would be expensive compared to +1
level of lay on hands for example. I know working out comparitive costs
of these abilities would be tough to balance, but it could be done.

And you'd end up with a system whereby a character could wield a long sword,
wear platemail, cast wizard spells and lay on hands, plus wildshape into an
animal form - and no one would have any idea what someone could do, just
because they used a special ability.

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?

[Ian Rogers]

"Ubiquitous" <***@polaris.net> wrote in message news:cnm8ml$ce1$***@news.utelfla.com...
<snip whole thing>

I started to deconstruct the current classes, and abilities per level to do
exactly what you suggest. Two things stopped me from really going anywhere
with this:

1) no one else in my group was remotely interested
2) there are too many non-comparitive abilities, that you'd have to pick a
number, any number, and playtest the hell out of it - which I heartily
recommend, but couldn't do - see 1) :O)

If you get any playtest results or go anywhere at all with this, please post
back here with your thoughts, I'd love to hear them!

~ Ian

[Bruce Grubb]

Post by Ubiquitous
To that end, I'm wondering about designing a classless D&D system for a new
campaign.
It would basically be based on D&D as it is now. Everyone still has levels,
still has all the same stats and BAB and saves and skills and feats and class
abilities, but class abilities would be in a big pool and available to all
characters/people. So when you level up you gain a certain amount of points
to spend buying BAB increases and 1d10 HD or 1d4 HD, and N number of skill
points and N feats, and +1 reflex save and so on. You could buy +1 level
of wizard spell casting (so you'd still have caster levels as now). Obviously
buying +1 level of wizard spell casting would be expensive compared to +1
level of lay on hands for example. I know working out comparitive costs
of these abilities would be tough to balance, but it could be done.
And you'd end up with a system whereby a character could wield a long sword,
wear platemail, cast wizard spells and lay on hands, plus wildshape into an
animal form - and no one would have any idea what someone could do, just
because they used a special ability.
Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?

Personally I feel if you are going to go this for go all the way and adapt
something like Hero or GURPS to your D&D setting. I should point out that
AD&D2 did have something like build your own class in Players Options but
the idea was never really pushed to the point where the homwbrew classes
were really 'balanced' and trying to so this in D&D 3.x is just asking for
trouble.

[Mitch Williams]

Post by Ubiquitous
I'd like to be able to play in a game system where
having one of these abilities doesn't instantly get you recognised (at least
by the players) as a paladin (or whatever) and shoved into that little
pidgeon hole.
To that end, I'm wondering about designing a classless D&D system for a new
campaign.

Go over to www.rpgnow.com and take a look at "buy the numbers". This is a
PDF that looks like it has the rules to do just what you are describing.

Mitch

[Hmmm]

Post by Ubiquitous
To that end, I'm wondering about designing a classless D&D system for
a new campaign.

You might wish to consider looking at the general classes in the
Unearthed Arcana. Essentially, there are only three base classes:
Spellcaster, Warrior or Expert. You can take these classes on top of the
more traditional classes if you wish, but their true potential is not
there.

If you limit your base classes to these only (as opposed to the standard
array of barbarian/bard/...), you can either give out class abilities as
bonus feats (bardic music becomes a feat), or those 'base' classes become
prestige classes (and a set of rules for doing that are conveniently
outlined in the Unearthed arcana). Paladinhood is especially appropriate
for being a PrC rather than a base class.

This is not truly classless, but it blurs the lines enough. moreover, you
don't have to think/playtest/work hard for a new system.

Hope that helps.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Mike Monaco]

Post by Ubiquitous
One thing I always contemplate about the D&D system as it stands today is
classes. Why? Because one of my players is such a metagamer, that as
soon as he sees a person do something he instantly tries to pidgeon hole
that person into a D&D class, e.g., he goes to the temple of the Heironious
and outside are two platemail clad knights. As he tries to get in, one of
them talks to him and asks some questions whilst the other "peers intently
at him in a discerning manner". Net result, my player instantly decides
these are paladins (doing detect evil) and starts asking if they can heal
him please? How annoying! (especially as he was right of course!). The
paladin sort of looked at him as if to say "how do you know we can do that"
and he started going on about "I've heard of these mystical knights who can
sense evil - they can also heal and ...." (and might as well have listed a
shopping list of things paladins can do!).
Okay, rant over.
The point is that 3rd edition D&D has gone a long way to improve this with
arcane spell failure and still spell feats and armour check penalties and
armour proficiency feats. Its now perfectly possible to have a platemail
wearing wizard/rogue who wields a two handed sword. Brilliant stuff! But
its still not quite there because all paladins can turn undead and lay on
hands and detect evil. I'd like to be able to play in a game system where
having one of these abilities doesn't instantly get you recognised (at least
by the players) as a paladin (or whatever) and shoved into that little
pidgeon hole.
To that end, I'm wondering about designing a classless D&D system for a new
campaign.
It would basically be based on D&D as it is now. Everyone still has levels,
still has all the same stats and BAB and saves and skills and feats and class
abilities, but class abilities would be in a big pool and available to all
characters/people. So when you level up you gain a certain amount of points
to spend buying BAB increases and 1d10 HD or 1d4 HD, and N number of skill
points and N feats, and +1 reflex save and so on. You could buy +1 level
of wizard spell casting (so you'd still have caster levels as now). Obviously
buying +1 level of wizard spell casting would be expensive compared to +1
level of lay on hands for example. I know working out comparitive costs
of these abilities would be tough to balance, but it could be done.
And you'd end up with a system whereby a character could wield a long sword,
wear platemail, cast wizard spells and lay on hands, plus wildshape into an
animal form - and no one would have any idea what someone could do, just
because they used a special ability.
Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?

Well, the clear advantage of using classes is that it forces the party
memebers to specialize and provides some templates for effective
characters. The stereotypes help establish the feel of the game world.
A D&D party of characters such as what you describe wouldn't be playing
D&D, but some other d20 game.

In D&D you can usually guess the class of NPCs because there are
stereotypes. The games I've played in usually don't involve guessing
the class of NPCs but interacting with them. The problem player you
report will probably ask every NPC he sees to heal him in a classless
system. The problem is how the player interacts with NPCs. I don't
know if changing game mechanics will do anything about that.

Regards,

Mike

[David Meadows]

Post by Ubiquitous
I'd like to be able to play in a game system where
having one of these abilities doesn't instantly get you recognised (at least
by the players) as a paladin (or whatever) and shoved into that little
pidgeon hole.
To that end, I'm wondering about designing a classless D&D system for a new
campaign.

Why first thought is, "why bother"? Are the other features of the DS&D rules
*SO* good that you can't bear to part with them? Otherwise, why not just
switch entirely to a non-class based rules system (I'm sure I don't need to
list examples; there are many).

[Zenobia]

Post by Ubiquitous
One thing I always contemplate about the D&D system as it stands today is
classes. Why? Because one of my players is such a metagamer, that as
soon as he sees a person do something he instantly tries to pidgeon hole
that person into a D&D class, e.g., he goes to the temple of the Heironious
and outside are two platemail clad knights. As he tries to get in, one of
them talks to him and asks some questions whilst the other "peers intently
at him in a discerning manner". Net result, my player instantly decides
these are paladins (doing detect evil) and starts asking if they can heal
him please? How annoying! (especially as he was right of course!). The
paladin sort of looked at him as if to say "how do you know we can do that"
and he started going on about "I've heard of these mystical knights who can
sense evil - they can also heal and ...." (and might as well have listed a
shopping list of things paladins can do!).

I was winging about that months ago and people responded with - "so
don't play with such dickheads" - advice which I thought was
unreasonable because the D&D rule books do encourage players to think
about their characters in terms of stats rather than personalities.
[see disclaimer below]. Maybe you should have an XP penalty for such
horrible people to discourage metagame narrative like that during the
game ! (not something I'd do but I've seen it suggested and, no doubt,
people here have played it).

[disclaimer - personal view - lurkers take notice: no need to respond
about how your group are so perfect - I already know that - this
entire post is a personal view and makes no claims that everyone nor
even that anyone else should do (or even that they do do) this, that
or the other].

Post by Ubiquitous
Okay, rant over.
The point is that 3rd edition D&D has gone a long way to improve this with
arcane spell failure and still spell feats and armour check penalties and
armour proficiency feats. Its now perfectly possible to have a platemail
wearing wizard/rogue who wields a two handed sword. Brilliant stuff! But
its still not quite there because all paladins can turn undead and lay on
hands and detect evil. I'd like to be able to play in a game system where
having one of these abilities doesn't instantly get you recognised (at least
by the players) as a paladin (or whatever) and shoved into that little
pidgeon hole.
To that end, I'm wondering about designing a classless D&D system for a new
campaign.

Thanks, I might even use that as it seems that 95% of gamers ONLY want
to play D&D nowadays! [note: remember the disclaimer above!]

Post by Ubiquitous
It would basically be based on D&D as it is now. Everyone still has levels,
still has all the same stats and BAB and saves and skills and feats and class
abilities, but class abilities would be in a big pool and available to all
characters/people.

You may want to think about that a little. If everyone is going to be
a fighter / magic user / thief - you will be LOSING something from the
game. You need carefully tweak character generation to restrict how
many feats characters can take.

Post by Ubiquitous
So when you level up you gain a certain amount of points
to spend buying BAB increases and 1d10 HD or 1d4 HD, and N number of skill
points and N feats, and +1 reflex save and so on. You could buy +1 level
of wizard spell casting (so you'd still have caster levels as now). Obviously
buying +1 level of wizard spell casting would be expensive compared to +1
level of lay on hands for example. I know working out comparitive costs
of these abilities would be tough to balance, but it could be done.

Best take a look at some other systems. (BESM, GURPs). I've been using
BESM / Tri-Stat recently (the core Tri-Stat rules are available for
free download). It has Stats (like D&D abilities), derived stats,
attributes (much like feats but taken at various levels), defects
(like GURPs disadvantages) and skills. Different skills are priced at
different levels of Skill Point cost. The GM gives verbal
restrictions on background (to create a rationale for the PCs wanting
to associate) and actual restrictions (you have X character points).
After that the players can more or less create any character they want
- which is very varied. PCs can even create their own new attributes,
defects and skills (although the GM has the final say on how they
should be priced (Character Point-wise). In total it's quite complex
and can take some time for beginning players to generate characters.
Compare that to the plus of D&D where the class system creates
differentiated characters quickly.

The moral of this tale (as told in the above para) is that yes you can
tweak D&D but you lose ease of play and gain complexity. If you want
to tweak and gain the least amount of complexity you'll probably make
a mistake and leave a hole in the character generation rules for
power-gamers to manipulate (which you'll need to plug later) - I
remember the half-elf fighter-mage hole from 1e AD&D - nasty piece of
work that one!

Post by Ubiquitous
And you'd end up with a system whereby a character could wield a long sword,
wear platemail, cast wizard spells and lay on hands, plus wildshape into an
animal form - and no one would have any idea what someone could do, just
because they used a special ability.
Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?

[Brandon Cope]

Post by Zenobia
Best take a look at some other systems. (BESM, GURPs). I've been using
BESM / Tri-Stat recently (the core Tri-Stat rules are available for
free download). It has Stats (like D&D abilities), derived stats,
attributes (much like feats but taken at various levels), defects
(like GURPs disadvantages) and skills. Different skills are priced at
different levels of Skill Point cost. The GM gives verbal
restrictions on background (to create a rationale for the PCs wanting
to associate) and actual restrictions (you have X character points).
After that the players can more or less create any character they want
- which is very varied. PCs can even create their own new attributes,
defects and skills (although the GM has the final say on how they
should be priced (Character Point-wise). In total it's quite complex
and can take some time for beginning players to generate characters.

This can be said of most beginning players. I would not call BESM
character creation 'quite complex,' either.

Post by Zenobia
Compare that to the plus of D&D where the class system creates
differentiated characters quickly.

As can other several other systems without classes.

Brandon

[Laszlo]

Post by Ubiquitous
One thing I always contemplate about the D&D system as it stands today is
classes. Why? Because one of my players is such a metagamer, that as
soon as he sees a person do something he instantly tries to pidgeon hole
that person into a D&D class, e.g., he goes to the temple of the Heironious
and outside are two platemail clad knights. As he tries to get in, one of
them talks to him and asks some questions whilst the other "peers intently
at him in a discerning manner". Net result, my player instantly decides
these are paladins (doing detect evil) and starts asking if they can heal
him please? How annoying! (especially as he was right of course!). The
paladin sort of looked at him as if to say "how do you know we can do that"
and he started going on about "I've heard of these mystical knights who can
sense evil - they can also heal and ...." (and might as well have listed a
shopping list of things paladins can do!).

I don't quite see the problem. I think that the ability to "pigeonhole"
characters is, in fact, a good thing, because it makes it possible to
devise sensible tactics and otherwise anticipate things in the game
world.

For example: an NPC casts Fireball on the group. Well, that's a wizard
then; best get the archer to ready to interrupt him. In your proposed
world, he could just be a fighter with "Fireball 1/day", and tactics
would be a matter of mere chance. Not good.

A fantasy world is good when it's somewhat clear what people are
capable of, and not everything is "up in the air". Makes planning
possible.

Post by Ubiquitous
It would basically be based on D&D as it is now. Everyone still has levels,
still has all the same stats and BAB and saves and skills and feats and class
abilities, but class abilities would be in a big pool and available to all
characters/people. So when you level up you gain a certain amount of points
to spend buying BAB increases and 1d10 HD or 1d4 HD, and N number of skill
points and N feats, and +1 reflex save and so on. You could buy +1 level
of wizard spell casting (so you'd still have caster levels as now). Obviously
buying +1 level of wizard spell casting would be expensive compared to +1
level of lay on hands for example. I know working out comparitive costs
of these abilities would be tough to balance, but it could be done.

I'll make a bet with you; make any system of that nature that you like,
and one of three things will happen:

1) There will be several Core classes you won't be able to create anymore
with the "points" system.
2) It'll be incredibly restrictive, and largely pointless.
3) I can make an utterly broken character with the system within half
an hour of seeing it.

You see, the problem is that you won't be able to compensate for
"synergetic" skills and abilities. A simple example: if you have a
poor Reflex save, then the Evasion ability isn't very good. If you
have a good Reflex save, it's much better. So giving a fixed
"point cost" to Evasion won't work well, because it will either be
too weak if you don't buy a good Reflex save to go with it, or too
powerful if you do.

There are, of course, several ways around that; like I said, that's
just a simple example. There are far more complicated synergies, and
you won't be able to account for them all. What'll happen is that a
good min/maxer (like modest ol' me) will be able to take abilities
that synergize in subtle (or not-so-subtle) ways, and create a
massively overpowered character.

Post by Ubiquitous
And you'd end up with a system whereby a character could wield a long sword,
wear platemail, cast wizard spells and lay on hands, plus wildshape into an
animal form - and no one would have any idea what someone could do, just
because they used a special ability.
Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?

It's a bad idea that also happens to be largely unworkable. It will
actually _decrease_ the number of viable character builds, just like
how in "classless" CRPGs, everyone always ends up as a fighter/mage.
It will also make the game world less fun and interesting. I would
strongly advise against it.

If you insist on trying, though, I'll be happy to check out the
balance. My min/maxing skills could use the workout.

Laszlo

[Hmmm]

Post by Laszlo
I don't quite see the problem. I think that the ability to
"pigeonhole" characters is, in fact, a good thing, because it makes it
possible to devise sensible tactics and otherwise anticipate things in
the game world.

One problem I see is the wonder in the gameplay is gone. A good DM can
find ways to awe his/her players, but it's getting harder and harder.
It's also hard to roleplay the new kid who just arrived from the village
with his father's sword from the war years. I, as a player know a lot
more than my PC. i can roleplay my PC's wonder of the ways of the world
well, but my mind automatically converts 'an exploding flash of the
hottest fore you've ever seen washes over you' to a 5d6 fireball.
Admittedly, the second is much more boring than the first.

Oh well. Kids grow. Reality sinks in. :(

If you're not sure of the capabilities of the opposition, it becomes a
different game. However, as you've said, it would be very hard to
implement this without detracting from other fun aspects of the game.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Hong Ooi]

Post by Laszlo
For example: an NPC casts Fireball on the group. Well, that's a wizard
then; best get the archer to ready to interrupt him. In your proposed
world, he could just be a fighter with "Fireball 1/day", and tactics
would be a matter of mere chance. Not good.
A fantasy world is good when it's somewhat clear what people are
capable of, and not everything is "up in the air". Makes planning
possible.

Please not to be silly. The only things that you need to be able to plan
are a consistent ruleset and consistent GMing. Or are you suggesting that
people who play HERO, GURPS, et al just charge in blindly every time they
get into a fight?

[David Meadows]

Post by Hong Ooi
Or are you suggesting that
people who play HERO, GURPS, et al just charge in blindly every time they
get into a fight?

He's probably thinking of my Champions group :-o

[Shawn Corey]

"Plans only last until first contact with the enemy." That's why my
group never plan fights. Wastes too much time.

Post by David Meadows

Post by Hong Ooi
Or are you suggesting that
people who play HERO, GURPS, et al just charge in blindly every time they
get into a fight?

He's probably thinking of my Champions group :-o

[Mr. M.J. Lush]

Post by Shawn Corey
"Plans only last until first contact with the enemy." That's why my
group never plan fights. Wastes too much time.

That rings depressingly true, IME every time a group plans at least 3/4
of the session is taken up in heated debate, resulting in a plan that
is rendered moot by the next plot twist:-(

[Zenobia]

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:08:17 -0500, Shawn Corey

Post by Shawn Corey
"Plans only last until first contact with the enemy." That's why my
group never plan fights. Wastes too much time.

All the best fights I've seen won in RPGs have been well-planned. All
the worst fights I've experienced were not planned.

My experience is diametrically opposed to yours'.

PS: By "best fights" - I mean those with least casualties and greatest
success.

Post by Shawn Corey

Post by David Meadows

Post by Hong Ooi
Or are you suggesting that
people who play HERO, GURPS, et al just charge in blindly every time they
get into a fight?

He's probably thinking of my Champions group :-o

[Shawn Corey]

Post by Zenobia
All the best fights I've seen won in RPGs have been well-planned. All
the worst fights I've experienced were not planned.
My experience is diametrically opposed to yours'.
PS: By "best fights" - I mean those with least casualties and greatest
success.

I never said we fought well.

--- Shawn

[Bill Reich]

Post by Zenobia
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:08:17 -0500, Shawn Corey

Post by Shawn Corey
"Plans only last until first contact with the enemy." That's why my
group never plan fights. Wastes too much time.

All the best fights I've seen won in RPGs have been well-planned. All
the worst fights I've experienced were not planned.
My experience is diametrically opposed to yours'.
PS: By "best fights" - I mean those with least casualties and greatest
success.

It seemed that the context we had here was an unexpected encounter, a
meeting engagment. In that case, a well-organized group responds with
"canned tactics." A GM who would let you discuss and plan at that
moment would be too lenient. You should know how to react to an
"ambush front/left" because you did that planning in advance.

If you are talking about an assault known in advance, whether you are
the attacker or the defender, plans are, of course, a very good idea.

Will in New Haven
--
Sunspear, who walked the length of Shadows Dance

Post by Zenobia

Post by Shawn Corey

Post by David Meadows

Post by Hong Ooi
Or are you suggesting that
people who play HERO, GURPS, et al just charge in blindly every time they
get into a fight?

He's probably thinking of my Champions group :-o

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Bill Reich
It seemed that the context we had here was an unexpected encounter, a
meeting engagment. In that case, a well-organized group responds with
"canned tactics." A GM who would let you discuss and plan at that
moment would be too lenient. You should know how to react to an
"ambush front/left" because you did that planning in advance.

Or, the GM could assume that the PCs, professional adventurers, have
discussed the tactics in advance, even if the players haven't yet.

[Bill Reich]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Bill Reich
It seemed that the context we had here was an unexpected encounter, a
meeting engagment. In that case, a well-organized group responds with
"canned tactics." A GM who would let you discuss and plan at that
moment would be too lenient. You should know how to react to an
"ambush front/left" because you did that planning in advance.

Or, the GM could assume that the PCs, professional adventurers, have
discussed the tactics in advance, even if the players haven't yet.

Most of our characters are not professional adventurers. They are just
people who get into trouble. We roleplay the fireside and trail riding
conversations that prepare the group for "ambush, front left" once the
characters have some idea that they will be staying together. Even
then, someone might forget and do something else. Every character
gives his or her intentions with only shouted commands or advice
aloud, in realtime at the double. And Joanne's current character has
"Blonde Points" which lead her astray. NOT my idea.

Will in New Haven

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Bill Reich

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

A GM who would let you discuss and plan [tactics] at that moment
would be too lenient. You should know how to react to an "ambush
front/left" because you did that planning in advance.

Or, the GM could assume that the PCs, professional adventurers, have
discussed the tactics in advance, even if the players haven't yet.

Most of our characters are not professional adventurers. They are just
people who get into trouble. We roleplay the fireside and trail riding
conversations that prepare the group for "ambush, front left" once the
characters have some idea that they will be staying together.

That still leaves room to assume that the PC discussion is more thorough
than the player discussion. Also, note that even if I accept that your
claim is appropriate for your specific group, it doesn't hold up in the
more general form you originally stated. Allowing the players to plan
now, with the assumption that the PCs planned ahead, is a kind of
abstraction, not a sign that the GM is "too lenient." Your example
merely shows that your current group has no use for the abstraction.

[Bill Reich]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Bill Reich

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

A GM who would let you discuss and plan [tactics] at that moment
would be too lenient. You should know how to react to an "ambush
front/left" because you did that planning in advance.

Or, the GM could assume that the PCs, professional adventurers, have
discussed the tactics in advance, even if the players haven't yet.

Most of our characters are not professional adventurers. They are just
people who get into trouble. We roleplay the fireside and trail riding
conversations that prepare the group for "ambush, front left" once the
characters have some idea that they will be staying together.

That still leaves room to assume that the PC discussion is more thorough
than the player discussion. Also, note that even if I accept that your
claim is appropriate for your specific group, it doesn't hold up in the
more general form you originally stated. Allowing the players to plan
now, with the assumption that the PCs planned ahead, is a kind of
abstraction, not a sign that the GM is "too lenient." Your example
merely shows that your current group has no use for the abstraction.

I agree that I was being hasty in my judgment. If you want to wait
until you are confronted with a situation and then retroactively have
the fireside conversation where you work out how to deal with it, that
works also. It isn't being "lenient."

It is, however, making it a lot easier to create a response. It is one
thing to have a good solid and somewhat flexible plan for "ambush,
front right" and quite another for the most experienced player in the
game (or the most assertive) to say "Garal, you shoot the magician;
Arne and I will stand against the Trolls, Finnegan will fireball the
mummies." In our game, Garal probably WILL shoot the mage, Arne and
Dave will hold the bottleneck against the Trolls until the fire
support gets rid of the other threats and Finnegan might flame the
mummmies or he might toast the rearmost Troll, according to his
judgement.

We see the possibility that a player might forget or misinterpret, and
thus his character forget or misinterpret, the tactics worked out on
the trail or around the campfire as a good thing, lending versimlitude
and texture to the game. We also often have new characters involved
and our regular characters do not form a "party" that spends all its
time together and this leads us to prefer not simulating a previoius
tactical conference before a fight.

I am not putting this forward as "the one true way" but I am making a
case that it leads to more interesting gaming. It also leads to the
above-mentioned most experienced or most assertive player in the game
not getting to move the other characters around like chess pieces. And
sometimes he gets all red in the face and frustrated, which is cool.
If he dropped out of the campaign, I wouldn't like it but he's been
playing in my campaign since 1979, frustrated or not.

Will in New Haven

[Bill Reich]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Bill Reich

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

A GM who would let you discuss and plan [tactics] at that moment
would be too lenient. You should know how to react to an "ambush
front/left" because you did that planning in advance.

Or, the GM could assume that the PCs, professional adventurers, have
discussed the tactics in advance, even if the players haven't yet.

Most of our characters are not professional adventurers. They are just
people who get into trouble. We roleplay the fireside and trail riding
conversations that prepare the group for "ambush, front left" once the
characters have some idea that they will be staying together.

That still leaves room to assume that the PC discussion is more thorough
than the player discussion. Also, note that even if I accept that your
claim is appropriate for your specific group, it doesn't hold up in the
more general form you originally stated. Allowing the players to plan
now, with the assumption that the PCs planned ahead, is a kind of
abstraction, not a sign that the GM is "too lenient." Your example
merely shows that your current group has no use for the abstraction.

I agree that I was being hasty in my judgment. If you want to wait
until you are confronted with a situation and then retroactively have
the fireside conversation where you work out how to deal with it, that
works also. It isn't being "lenient."

It is, however, making it a lot easier to create a response. It is one
thing to have a good solid and somewhat flexible plan for "ambush,
front right" and quite another for the most experienced player in the
game (or the most assertive) to say "Garal, you shoot the magician;
Arne and I will stand against the Trolls, Finnegan will fireball the
mummies." In our game, Garal probably WILL shoot the mage, Arne and
Dave will hold the bottleneck against the Trolls until the fire
support gets rid of the other threats and Finnegan might flame the
mummmies or he might toast the rearmost Troll, according to his
judgement.

We see the possibility that a player might forget or misinterpret, and
thus his character forget or misinterpret, the tactics worked out on
the trail or around the campfire as a good thing, lending versimlitude
and texture to the game. We also often have new characters involved
and our regular characters do not form a "party" that spends all its
time together and this leads us to prefer not simulating a previoius
tactical conference before a fight.

I am not putting this forward as "the one true way" but I am making a
case that it leads to more interesting gaming. It also leads to the
above-mentioned most experienced or most assertive player in the game
not getting to move the other characters around like chess pieces. And
sometimes he gets all red in the face and frustrated, which is cool.
If he dropped out of the campaign, I wouldn't like it but he's been
playing in my campaign since 1979, frustrated or not.

Will in New Haven

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Bill Reich
I agree that I was being hasty in my judgment. If you want to wait
until you are confronted with a situation and then retroactively have
the fireside conversation where you work out how to deal with it, that
works also. It isn't being "lenient."
It is, however, making it a lot easier to create a response .... We
see the possibility that a player might forget or misinterpret, and
thus his character forget or misinterpret, the tactics worked out on
the trail or around the campfire as a good thing ....

I find that this happens even when we plan tactics during a fight. There
are always misunderstandings, differences of opinion, etc., such that
the tactics aren't unrealistically effective.

[Robert Singers]

Out from under a rock popped David Meadows and said

Post by David Meadows

Post by Hong Ooi
Or are you suggesting that
people who play HERO, GURPS, et al just charge in blindly every time
they get into a fight?

He's probably thinking of my Champions group :-o

Sounds like a lot of the groups I've been in. Generally they keep my
character around to do the thinking that gets them to the fight.

[Laszlo]

Post by Hong Ooi

Post by Laszlo
For example: an NPC casts Fireball on the group. Well, that's a wizard
then; best get the archer to ready to interrupt him. In your proposed
world, he could just be a fighter with "Fireball 1/day", and tactics
would be a matter of mere chance. Not good.
A fantasy world is good when it's somewhat clear what people are
capable of, and not everything is "up in the air". Makes planning
possible.

Please not to be silly.

If you take away my silly... you take away that which makes me HUMAN.

I will never bow to your demands. NEVER.

Laszlo

[Bill Reich]

Post by Hong Ooi

Post by Laszlo
For example: an NPC casts Fireball on the group. Well, that's a wizard
then; best get the archer to ready to interrupt him. In your proposed
world, he could just be a fighter with "Fireball 1/day", and tactics
would be a matter of mere chance. Not good.
A fantasy world is good when it's somewhat clear what people are
capable of, and not everything is "up in the air". Makes planning
possible.

Please not to be silly. The only things that you need to be able to plan
are a consistent ruleset and consistent GMing. Or are you suggesting that
people who play HERO, GURPS, et al just charge in blindly every time they
get into a fight?

I particularly loved the phrase "get the archer ready." Who has time
to do anything like that? If someone does a fireball (equivalent, we
aren't playing D&D) on a group that I am in, I shoot him. So does
everyone else with a missile weapon except the crispy types who were
caught in the spell. If I am not one of the shooters or spell-casters,
I am rushing him. If the group is large enough, one or more people are
checking our other flank in case this dude is a diversion or part of a
two-pronged move. Maybe he is a magician and maybe he had a device to
do it. We don't plan or debate, we shoot.

Fights are not planned while in contact with the enemy. When in
contact, you are carrying out a plan that was made before or you are
reacting in pre-discussed ways to a foreseen possibility. You don't
debate it on the spot.

Will in New Haven

--

Faster horses, older whiskey, younger women, MORE MONEY

[Larry D. Hols]

Hallo,

Post by Laszlo
It's a bad idea that also happens to be largely unworkable. It will
actually _decrease_ the number of viable character builds, just like
how in "classless" CRPGs, everyone always ends up as a fighter/mage.

What an interesting notion. I've _never_ encountered this in a group.

Larry

[Bill Reich]

Post by Larry D. Hols
Hallo,

Post by Laszlo
It's a bad idea that also happens to be largely unworkable. It will
actually _decrease_ the number of viable character builds, just like
how in "classless" CRPGs, everyone always ends up as a fighter/mage.

What an interesting notion. I've _never_ encountered this in a group.
Larry

We play a game without classes at times. The groups almost never
become all fighter/mages. For one thing, people don't have all the
time in the world to train in everything. For another, some people
don't have the abilities to do one or the other.

Will in New Haven

[David Johnston]

Post by Laszlo
It's a bad idea that also happens to be largely unworkable. It will
actually _decrease_ the number of viable character builds, just like
how in "classless" CRPGs, everyone always ends up as a fighter/mage.

Everyone? Let me think. In the last one I ran, I had a mage who
couldn't fight (nonmagically) at all, a fighter with everything thrown
into strength so he could kill all of his opponents with one blow, a
"fighter/thief", an archer, and a fighter with leadership attributes.

Not a single fighter/mage.

[Travis Casey]

Post by David Johnston

Post by Laszlo
It's a bad idea that also happens to be largely unworkable. It will
actually _decrease_ the number of viable character builds, just like
how in "classless" CRPGs, everyone always ends up as a fighter/mage.

Everyone? Let me think. In the last one I ran, I had a mage who
couldn't fight (nonmagically) at all, a fighter with everything thrown
into strength so he could kill all of his opponents with one blow, a
"fighter/thief", an archer, and a fighter with leadership attributes.
Not a single fighter/mage.

My guess would be that he's thinking of single-player, single-character
CRPGs, where it is indeed common for people to develop something like a
fighter/mage. But that's a very different situation than a typical D&D
session.

[Rupert Boleyn]

Post by Laszlo
I'll make a bet with you; make any system of that nature that you like,
1) There will be several Core classes you won't be able to create anymore
with the "points" system.

If all their abilities are in the pool you will be able to. However,
to get any sort of balance you'll probably need some special extra
costs and/or cost-breaks for some combos.

Post by Laszlo
You see, the problem is that you won't be able to compensate for
"synergetic" skills and abilities. A simple example: if you have a
poor Reflex save, then the Evasion ability isn't very good. If you
have a good Reflex save, it's much better. So giving a fixed
"point cost" to Evasion won't work well, because it will either be
too weak if you don't buy a good Reflex save to go with it, or too
powerful if you do.
There are, of course, several ways around that; like I said, that's
just a simple example. There are far more complicated synergies, and
you won't be able to account for them all. What'll happen is that a
good min/maxer (like modest ol' me) will be able to take abilities
that synergize in subtle (or not-so-subtle) ways, and create a
massively overpowered character.

Only compared to non-optimised characters.

Post by Laszlo
It's a bad idea that also happens to be largely unworkable. It will
actually _decrease_ the number of viable character builds, just like
how in "classless" CRPGs, everyone always ends up as a fighter/mage.

They do?

[John Reiher]

Post by Rupert Boleyn
Only compared to non-optimised characters.

And there is the rub. Optimized characters versus non-optimized
characters.

In many games optimized characters tend to fall into a very small range,
especially once all the costs and benefits from each set of skills and
abilities are rigorously defined. And this is usually defined in terms
of combat.

Boooring.

I'd drive min-maxers and optimizers crazy by creating "interesting
characters" that were far from being combat monsters but were, horrors
of horrors, interesting from a roleplaying perspective.

Like my Gurps alcoholic mage, who only had one good spell, (non-combat,
he could fortell the future in dreams) and his other spells were
centered around getting alcohol. He'd use a dehydrate spell to turn of
jug of cheap wine into some powerful popskull.

Or one player who cranked out horrendously optimized Gurps characters
that were near godlike in their capabilities when he was allowed to use
any of the supplemental books, and even when limited to the main book,
he had several characters down pat that all had the nearly the same
abilities and skills.

Basically to eliminate some of the things you can spend points on. Like
rolling for stats like Strength, Dexterity, etc. or getting rid of
buying a flaw for extra points. Flaws should be roleplayed, not "roll
played" as most are.

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:59:34 -0800, John Reiher

Post by John Reiher
In many games optimized characters tend to fall into a very small range,
especially once all the costs and benefits from each set of skills and
abilities are rigorously defined. And this is usually defined in terms
of combat.

IME that's as much an indication of the sort of game that player is
used to as anything else. I tend to optimise my characters, but that
doesn't mean a non-combat one will be good at combat.

Post by John Reiher
I'd drive min-maxers and optimizers crazy by creating "interesting
characters" that were far from being combat monsters but were, horrors
of horrors, interesting from a roleplaying perspective.

That sort of character is, IMO, fine - provided the game is not about
killing monsters and taking their stuff. In the latter case characters
should be competent monster hunters and slayers first, and
'interesting' in other ways second (unless it's a lighthearted game
about a bunch of city-slickers out of their depth, or the like).

Post by John Reiher
Basically to eliminate some of the things you can spend points on. Like
rolling for stats like Strength, Dexterity, etc. or getting rid of
buying a flaw for extra points. Flaws should be roleplayed, not "roll
played" as most are.

Wouldn't bother me, but you can still optimise (or not) characters in
this environment. The ground rules are a bit different, so the 'sweet
spots' are probably in slightly different places, but they'll still be
there.

[Malachias Invictus]

Post by John Reiher

Post by Rupert Boleyn
Only compared to non-optimised characters.

And there is the rub. Optimized characters versus non-optimized
characters.
In many games optimized characters tend to fall into a very small range,
especially once all the costs and benefits from each set of skills and
abilities are rigorously defined. And this is usually defined in terms
of combat.
Boooring.
I'd drive min-maxers and optimizers crazy by creating "interesting
characters" that were far from being combat monsters but were, horrors
of horrors, interesting from a roleplaying perspective.
Like my Gurps alcoholic mage, who only had one good spell, (non-combat,
he could fortell the future in dreams) and his other spells were
centered around getting alcohol. He'd use a dehydrate spell to turn of
jug of cheap wine into some powerful popskull.

Why did the group include your character as a member? What was the purpose
of the group?

[John Reiher]

Post by Malachias Invictus

Post by John Reiher
Like my Gurps alcoholic mage, who only had one good spell, (non-combat,
he could fortell the future in dreams) and his other spells were
centered around getting alcohol. He'd use a dehydrate spell to turn of
jug of cheap wine into some powerful popskull.

Why did the group include your character as a member? What was the purpose
of the group?

You may have a point there. There was no "purpose" for the group, other
than we were new residents in the town. My character set up a fortune
teller business and scammed the locals, another person... well I don't
think the others tried to actually get jobs. My alcoholic mage was the
only one who did have a regular income and he had a better grasp of what
was going in the town than the others.

We were sort of thrown together as a group, when we had to face some
zombies. Only my character had a spell that could hurt the zombies, but
his spell points were low due to him being three sheets to the wind,
that he passed out during combat and had to be dragged to safety.

This campaign didn't last much longer as the GM didn't have a good idea
of what he wanted to do in the game.

[David Johnston]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:59:34 -0800, John Reiher

Post by John Reiher
Like my Gurps alcoholic mage, who only had one good spell, (non-combat,
he could fortell the future in dreams) and his other spells were
centered around getting alcohol. He'd use a dehydrate spell to turn of
jug of cheap wine into some powerful popskull.

So he was comic relief. Note, by the way that nothing about this
character design precludes optimisation. Just because a character is
useless doesn't mean he has to waste points.

[John Reiher]

Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:59:34 -0800, John Reiher

Post by John Reiher
Like my Gurps alcoholic mage, who only had one good spell, (non-combat,
he could fortell the future in dreams) and his other spells were
centered around getting alcohol. He'd use a dehydrate spell to turn of
jug of cheap wine into some powerful popskull.

So he was comic relief. Note, by the way that nothing about this
character design precludes optimisation. Just because a character is
useless doesn't mean he has to waste points.

Comic relief? Hahahaha! Because of his powers, my character was only one
who had a feel for the citizens of the town, and his dreams foretold of
the evil that was about to assault the place. He even knew where this
evil was based and was the only one with spells that could hurt the
minions of this evil! Talk about being between a rock and hard place.

Once the other players realized that my character was the only one who
had any chance against this evil, they did their best to get my
character sober... But the reason why my character became an alcoholic
was because of his powers to foretell the future. He had foretold his
own death and guess where and what it was...

The game didn't last much longer because the GM really hadn't planned it
out well and our character were either underpowered or overpowered for
the encounters he set up. (He was a DnD DM and decided to switch to
GURPS but hadn't figured out that Gurps was far more lethal than DnD...)

[Brandon Cope]

Post by John Reiher
Like my Gurps alcoholic mage, who only had one good spell, (non-combat,
he could fortell the future in dreams) and his other spells were
centered around getting alcohol. He'd use a dehydrate spell to turn of
jug of cheap wine into some powerful popskull.

I ran a GURPS fantasy campaign where all the PCs were fighters and two
were Vikingesque. Your character may have fit in well ;)

Brandon

[Peter Knutsen]

Laszlo wrote:
[Ubi proposes a "classless D&D"]
[...]

Post by Laszlo
It's a bad idea that also happens to be largely unworkable. It will
actually _decrease_ the number of viable character builds, just like
how in "classless" CRPGs, everyone always ends up as a fighter/mage.
It will also make the game world less fun and interesting. I would
strongly advise against it.

[...]

You, and others, seem to assume that the alternative to
D&D3-style character classes is an ultra-egalitarian rules
system under which everybody has the exact same development
potential.

But there is a third alternative: A system offerering
several (at least more than two, as in GURPS) important
attributes, that affects the speed with which the character
develops in various directions.

This leaves characters free to go everywhere, while at the
same time the effect emerges from such a system that
individual characters will have high and low probabilities
for going in particular directions. For instance, a
character with low Agility and low Dexterity might be
forced, by circumstances, to attend melee weapon training
for some weeks or months, even though he won't benefit from
it. But as soon as he can get free, he will run away and
seek development better suited to his nature.

[Malachias Invictus]

Post by Laszlo
It's a bad idea that also happens to be largely unworkable. It will
actually _decrease_ the number of viable character builds, just like
how in "classless" CRPGs, everyone always ends up as a fighter/mage.

Nonsense.

[Sampo Smolander]

Post by Laszlo
You see, the problem is that you won't be able to compensate for
"synergetic" skills and abilities. A simple example: if you have a
poor Reflex save, then the Evasion ability isn't very good. If you
have a good Reflex save, it's much better. So giving a fixed
"point cost" to Evasion won't work well, because it will either be
too weak if you don't buy a good Reflex save to go with it, or too
powerful if you do.

In the standard rules, Evasion goes with good Reflex saves
(Rogues, Monks). Is is too powerful now?

[Senator Blutarsky]

Post by Sampo Smolander

Post by Laszlo
You see, the problem is that you won't be able to compensate for
"synergetic" skills and abilities. A simple example: if you have a
poor Reflex save, then the Evasion ability isn't very good. If you
have a good Reflex save, it's much better. So giving a fixed
"point cost" to Evasion won't work well, because it will either be
too weak if you don't buy a good Reflex save to go with it, or too
powerful if you do.

In the standard rules, Evasion goes with good Reflex saves
(Rogues, Monks). Is is too powerful now?

What does it "cost"?

-Bluto

[David Johnston]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 03:01:42 GMT, Senator Blutarsky

Post by Senator Blutarsky

Post by Sampo Smolander

Post by Laszlo
You see, the problem is that you won't be able to compensate for
"synergetic" skills and abilities. A simple example: if you have a
poor Reflex save, then the Evasion ability isn't very good. If you
have a good Reflex save, it's much better. So giving a fixed
"point cost" to Evasion won't work well, because it will either be
too weak if you don't buy a good Reflex save to go with it, or too
powerful if you do.

In the standard rules, Evasion goes with good Reflex saves
(Rogues, Monks). Is is too powerful now?

What does it "cost"?

One FEAT slot?

[Senator Blutarsky]

Post by David Johnston
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 03:01:42 GMT, Senator Blutarsky

Post by Senator Blutarsky

Post by Sampo Smolander

Post by Laszlo
You see, the problem is that you won't be able to compensate for
"synergetic" skills and abilities. A simple example: if you have a
poor Reflex save, then the Evasion ability isn't very good. If you
have a good Reflex save, it's much better. So giving a fixed
"point cost" to Evasion won't work well, because it will either be
too weak if you don't buy a good Reflex save to go with it, or too
powerful if you do.

In the standard rules, Evasion goes with good Reflex saves
(Rogues, Monks). Is is too powerful now?

What does it "cost"?

One FEAT slot?

Apparently, you didn't understand the question.

-Bluto

[Ken Vale]

Ubiquitous wrote:
<snip>

Post by Ubiquitous
It would basically be based on D&D as it is now. Everyone still has levels,
still has all the same stats and BAB and saves and skills and feats and class
abilities, but class abilities would be in a big pool and available to all
characters/people. So when you level up you gain a certain amount of points
to spend buying BAB increases and 1d10 HD or 1d4 HD, and N number of skill
points and N feats, and +1 reflex save and so on. You could buy +1 level
of wizard spell casting (so you'd still have caster levels as now). Obviously
buying +1 level of wizard spell casting would be expensive compared to +1
level of lay on hands for example. I know working out comparitive costs
of these abilities would be tough to balance, but it could be done.
And you'd end up with a system whereby a character could wield a long sword,
wear platemail, cast wizard spells and lay on hands, plus wildshape into an
animal form - and no one would have any idea what someone could do, just
because they used a special ability.
Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?

First you don't need to go all of the trouble, pick up a copy of
Unearthed Arcana, it has reduced everything to 3 (or 4) classes. These
classes can take for feats some of the abilities that any of the other
classes have (the fighter can take feats to be like the ranger or
paladin; the Expert can take feats to be like the bard or assassin; the
Devine spellcaster can take feats to be like the cleric or druid; the
Arcane spellcaster can take feats to be like the wizard or sorceror),
you can multi-class to any class and the is no experience penalty for
having more than 2 classes and being more than 2 levels apart.

Second you could look into games like GURPS, Hero, Fuzion (free online),
Action (free online), Fudge (free online); these game systems do not use
class or levels to build characters. Game balance is maintained through
points, each skill or ability cost points related to how effective it
is. You may have problems switching a group away from d20 though.
Ken

[Ian R Malcomson]

Post by Ubiquitous
One thing I always contemplate about the D&D system as it stands today is
classes. Why? Because one of my players is such a metagamer, that as
soon as he sees a person do something he instantly tries to pidgeon hole
that person into a D&D class, e.g., he goes to the temple of the Heironious
and outside are two platemail clad knights. As he tries to get in, one of
them talks to him and asks some questions whilst the other "peers intently
at him in a discerning manner". Net result, my player instantly decides
these are paladins (doing detect evil) and starts asking if they can heal
him please? How annoying! (especially as he was right of course!). The
paladin sort of looked at him as if to say "how do you know we can do that"
and he started going on about "I've heard of these mystical knights who can
sense evil - they can also heal and ...." (and might as well have listed a
shopping list of things paladins can do!).

<Snip>

Instead of changing the system, why not *use* the system. For example,
player goes "Oh, they must be paladins"; character wouldn't necessarily
know that, so make player roll an appropriate Knowledge check (religion,
likely) to "transfer" that slice of player knowledge to the character.
Character cannot act on such knowledge unless the check is successful.

[Keith Davies]

Post by Ian R Malcomson
Instead of changing the system, why not *use* the system. For example,
player goes "Oh, they must be paladins"; character wouldn't necessarily
know that, so make player roll an appropriate Knowledge check (religion,
likely) to "transfer" that slice of player knowledge to the character.
Character cannot act on such knowledge unless the check is successful.

FWIW, I like characters that carry themes 'common' in the setting. To
be able to recognize someone's capabilities by their trappings or what
you see them do.

"A Paladin of Trenneth... don't even *try* to lie to him."

"Chain lightning! Okay, it's a Chosen of Thaurond, everybody spread out
and stick close to cover. Nikolai, you're wearing heavy armor, *don't*
close with him... Mikhail, you're not wearing metal, close and keep him
busy. Archers, find something else to do, pick off the mooks, your
arrows won't reach him through the winds!"

I find that themes for characters, especially when they can be
recognized and acted on, add verisimilitude to a campaign.


Keith

[Varl]

Post by Ubiquitous
The point is that 3rd edition D&D has gone a long way to improve this with
arcane spell failure and still spell feats and armour check penalties and
armour proficiency feats. Its now perfectly possible to have a platemail
wearing wizard/rogue who wields a two handed sword. Brilliant stuff!
But
its still not quite there because all paladins can turn undead and lay on
hands and detect evil. I'd like to be able to play in a game system where
having one of these abilities doesn't instantly get you recognised (at least
by the players) as a paladin (or whatever) and shoved into that little
pidgeon hole.

Classes are how one defines what you are, or at least, gives others a
vague idea. If someone walks onto a construction site with a tool belt,
hammer, nails, and a saw, chances are good his "class" is carpenter. He
undoubtedly has more skills than just carpenter, but if that's what he
uses to pay the bills, put food on the table, and get the job done, then
he's classified as a carpenter. If, like the saw and hammer, a paladin
brings his "tools" to work with him every day, why would you want to hide
that or make skill more enigmatic? There's nothing wrong with showing what
you are and what you can do. I don't understand this need to have classes
go into the closet. What benefits do you gain by players thinking, "Gee,
he demonstrates paladinic-like skills and abilities, but is still quite
hard to tell..WHAT ARE YOU?"

Even if you manage to keep an NPC's or PC's "class" quiet, you know how
long that secret is going to be held? One session. After that, the
character will get pigeonholed into a class anyway by default, so why even
bother?

[Fitz]

Post by Ubiquitous
One thing I always contemplate about the D&D system as it stands today is
classes........[snippage]..........I'd like to be able to play in a game system where
having one of these abilities doesn't instantly get you recognised (at least
by the players) as a paladin (or whatever) and shoved into that little
pidgeon hole.
To that end, I'm wondering about designing a classless D&D system for a new
campaign.
It would basically be based on D&D as it is now.........[snippage.........] And
you'd end up with a system whereby a character could wield a long sword,
wear platemail, cast wizard spells and lay on hands, plus wildshape into an
animal form - and no one would have any idea what someone could do, just
because they used a special ability.
Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?

Frankly, it sounds like a lot of work to reinvent the wheel. Such
systems already exist, and I think it would be a lot easier to use
Fudge (for example) in D&D mode than to try to modify D&D to such an
extent.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fitz
http://fitz.jsr.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Warren Okuma]

Post by Ubiquitous
One thing I always contemplate about the D&D system as it stands today is
classes. Why? Because one of my players is such a metagamer, that as
soon as he sees a person do something he instantly tries to pidgeon hole
that person into a D&D class, e.g., he goes to the temple of the Heironious
and outside are two platemail clad knights. As he tries to get in, one of
them talks to him and asks some questions whilst the other "peers intently
at him in a discerning manner". Net result, my player instantly decides
these are paladins (doing detect evil) and starts asking if they can heal
him please? How annoying! (especially as he was right of course!). The
paladin sort of looked at him as if to say "how do you know we can do that"
and he started going on about "I've heard of these mystical knights who can
sense evil - they can also heal and ...." (and might as well have listed a
shopping list of things paladins can do!).
Okay, rant over.
The point is that 3rd edition D&D has gone a long way to improve this with
arcane spell failure and still spell feats and armour check penalties and
armour proficiency feats. Its now perfectly possible to have a platemail
wearing wizard/rogue who wields a two handed sword. Brilliant stuff!
But
its still not quite there because all paladins can turn undead and lay on
hands and detect evil. I'd like to be able to play in a game system where
having one of these abilities doesn't instantly get you recognised (at least
by the players) as a paladin (or whatever) and shoved into that little
pidgeon hole.
To that end, I'm wondering about designing a classless D&D system for a new
campaign.
It would basically be based on D&D as it is now. Everyone still has levels,
still has all the same stats and BAB and saves and skills and feats and class
abilities, but class abilities would be in a big pool and available to all
characters/people. So when you level up you gain a certain amount of points
to spend buying BAB increases and 1d10 HD or 1d4 HD, and N number of skill
points and N feats, and +1 reflex save and so on. You could buy +1 level
of wizard spell casting (so you'd still have caster levels as now). Obviously
buying +1 level of wizard spell casting would be expensive compared to +1
level of lay on hands for example. I know working out comparitive costs
of these abilities would be tough to balance, but it could be done.
And you'd end up with a system whereby a character could wield a long sword,
wear platemail, cast wizard spells and lay on hands, plus wildshape into an
animal form - and no one would have any idea what someone could do, just
because they used a special ability.
Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?

Simple. Get a game system that doesn't use a class... Gurps, Champions,
BESM, etc...

D20 is a class struggle (Gandalf Marx).

[Dare]

***@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote:
<snip>

Post by Ubiquitous
To that end, I'm wondering about designing a classless D&D system for a new
campaign.

You might look at BESM d20. It's a point-build system that mostly just differs under the hood, and lists point costs for saves, Base Attack, existing class abilities, and a bunch of non-sword-and-sorcery abilities from BESM. (It slants its costs away from combat, where D&D is usually slanted at combat, but that's fairly easy to change.) It also has a "classless class", lacking class abilities, with a big pool of unspent points.

- Dare, GURPSist extraordinaire and plenipotentiary

* "You sound reasonable...Time to up my medication."
* Hi! I'm a .sig virus! Join the fun and copy me into yours! :)

[Håvard]

Post by Ubiquitous
To that end, I'm wondering about designing a classless D&D system for a new
campaign.

You might want to check out Mutants and Masterminds by Green Ronin, since
IIRC that is a classless D20 game.

Players like the one you mention can be really annoying. There is a
number of ways you can fool them though. Extensive multiclassing, unusual
choices of feats, magical abilities etc can allow you to create pretty
much any sort of character.

But you raise a point concerning the abilities that are limited to a
certain class. What you could do is allow other characters to buy class
specific abilities by spending feats. The trick would be how to determine
the prerequisites though.

In the end, a better sollution might be to simply use a different system.
A rules light system would be ideal for making players stop thinking in
game mechanical terms. Ofcourse, they may also just leave your group...
:(

Håvard

[Peter Knutsen]

Håvard wrote:
[...]

Post by HÃ¥vard
In the end, a better sollution might be to simply use a different system.
A rules light system would be ideal for making players stop thinking in
game mechanical terms. Ofcourse, they may also just leave your group...
:(

You're going to have to explain why it is wrong for a player
to be mindful of his character's capabilitistic
individuality while he is roleplaying said character,
because I simply can't see it.

[Scott T]

Post by Ubiquitous
One thing I always contemplate about the D&D system as it stands today is
classes. Why? Because one of my players is such a metagamer, that as
soon as he sees a person do something he instantly tries to pidgeon hole
that person into a D&D class, e.g., he goes to the temple of the Heironious
and outside are two platemail clad knights. As he tries to get in, one of
them talks to him and asks some questions whilst the other "peers intently
at him in a discerning manner". Net result, my player instantly decides
these are paladins (doing detect evil) and starts asking if they can heal
him please? How annoying! (especially as he was right of course!). The
paladin sort of looked at him as if to say "how do you know we can do that"
and he started going on about "I've heard of these mystical knights who can
sense evil - they can also heal and ...." (and might as well have listed a
shopping list of things paladins can do!).
Okay, rant over.
The point is that 3rd edition D&D has gone a long way to improve this with
arcane spell failure and still spell feats and armour check penalties and
armour proficiency feats. Its now perfectly possible to have a platemail
wearing wizard/rogue who wields a two handed sword. Brilliant stuff!
But
its still not quite there because all paladins can turn undead and lay on
hands and detect evil. I'd like to be able to play in a game system where
having one of these abilities doesn't instantly get you recognised (at least
by the players) as a paladin (or whatever) and shoved into that little
pidgeon hole.
To that end, I'm wondering about designing a classless D&D system for a new
campaign.
It would basically be based on D&D as it is now. Everyone still has levels,
still has all the same stats and BAB and saves and skills and feats and class
abilities, but class abilities would be in a big pool and available to all
characters/people. So when you level up you gain a certain amount of points
to spend buying BAB increases and 1d10 HD or 1d4 HD, and N number of skill
points and N feats, and +1 reflex save and so on. You could buy +1 level
of wizard spell casting (so you'd still have caster levels as now). Obviously
buying +1 level of wizard spell casting would be expensive compared to +1
level of lay on hands for example. I know working out comparitive costs
of these abilities would be tough to balance, but it could be done.
And you'd end up with a system whereby a character could wield a long sword,
wear platemail, cast wizard spells and lay on hands, plus wildshape into an
animal form - and no one would have any idea what someone could do, just
because they used a special ability.
Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?

Check out www.legendaryquest.com . They have a skill based system, but there
is also a class based system on top... it's quite good.

[Simon Lipscomb]

Post by Ubiquitous
And you'd end up with a system whereby a character could wield a long sword,
wear platemail, cast wizard spells and lay on hands, plus wildshape into an
animal form - and no one would have any idea what someone could do, just
because they used a special ability.

Two, really.

One, that's called RuneQuest (or many other classless systems that have
been around for ages.)

Second, I tried a 1st Ed. variant many years ago, where everyone was
effectively multi-classed in everything and it worked fairly well. As I
recall, at the start of the campaign I gave everyone a flat amount of
XP, enough to put them roughly 4th level in a single class, and they
divvied it up amongst whichever classes that they chose. Any class that
they didn't start out with XPs in then began at effective Level -2. As
they gained XPs, these were divided up between classes, and increasing
stats.

Lazslo is partially correct in that the "fighter-mage" type of character
predominated, but not excessively. If you didn't start out with M-U
levels it tended not to be worth the effort to work your way up through
using a handful of crappy 1st Ed. cantrips to get even a poxy Magic
Missile, when you could instead wade in with your specialised +3
longsword. I recently dug out the old character sheets and turned them
into 3rd Ed. characters, very easy to do, so I don't think in the end
that my "novel" system is really that novel now.