1720XX > The Wizards Community

1 person likes this forum thread.

1720XX posted to Diffan's forum thread on the DnD Next group.

Forum Topic: This isn't the D&D we're looking for............

1720XX posted to Fardiz's forum thread.

Forum Topic: You might be playing DnD wrong if...

1720XX posted to Gnarl's forum thread on the DnD Next group.

Forum Topic: Revisiting “you can’t improvise”, “all classes are the same”, “it’s not...

1720XX added a comment to Phoenix182's blog post.

On Class

There have been three or four threads concerning...

Show previous 5 comments...

2 / 10

Saelorn

I think it's strange to consider whether a game is "class-based" as some sort of boolean yes/no dichotomy. I suppose you could analyze whether or not a game sits precisely at one extreme, but it really is a spectrum of how much of a game is class-based compared to point-based (or choice-based).
Even back in the day, a Dwarf Fighting-Man was different than a Human Fighting-Man, however small that difference may be. It is certainly the case that each edition prior to 4E has shifted the game...

View full comment I think it's strange to consider whether a game is "class-based" as some sort of boolean yes/no dichotomy. I suppose you could analyze whether or not a game sits precisely at one extreme, but it really is a spectrum of how much of a game is class-based compared to point-based (or choice-based).

Even back in the day, a Dwarf Fighting-Man was different than a Human Fighting-Man, however small that difference may be. It is certainly the case that each edition prior to 4E has shifted the game closer to the point-based side of the scale, which may be more or less desirable based on personal preference.

To insist that all abilities should come from class and be unique to that class would... well, at the very least, it would require a *lot* of work to write up the many different sets of abilities as distinct classes, and you would still have characters who don't fit in. Feats and skills (themes and backgrounds) allow us to stretch a given class so that it can also encompass nearby concepts, without turning into the system of a million classes.

I think a safer definition of what a class, rather than everything it offers being unique, is that it has at least *one* thing that makes it unique. If there is not at least *one* thing that signifies a class, then there's no point in having classes.

If we define paladins as being able to sense and smite evil, then it doesn't matter if a given paladin can also cast spells or pick locks, because it's still a paladin based on the criteria we just set. Likewise, we can define a wizard as a Vancian spellcaster who memorizes spells from a spellbook, so anyone who casts spells using such a method is a wizard.

If we decide that the cleric is defined by praying for spells and being able to cast them without understanding how they work, then we can't give that ability to anyone else. If we want the druid to also cast spells in this manner, then we need to say that druid isn't a class (it would be a sub-class of cleric, or possibly a theme or background or kit or whatever), or we need to change our definition of cleric.

July 24, 2012 12:30 PM PDT

Phoenix182

I can't imagine NOT considering the basis for a game system. Until you have that, you don't have anything but a random hodgepodge of rules and ideas. It's not a single axis of how class based it is, but a fixed ratio or mixture of how much of each basic type (skill based, class based, power based, etc) it is. It's one of the very first considerations: ok, how are characters going to be differentiated- class, skill, power, or what?
I see the racial differences as having been VERY small until...

View full comment I can't imagine NOT considering the basis for a game system. Until you have that, you don't have anything but a random hodgepodge of rules and ideas. It's not a single axis of how class based it is, but a fixed ratio or mixture of how much of each basic type (skill based, class based, power based, etc) it is. It's one of the very first considerations: ok, how are characters going to be differentiated- class, skill, power, or what?

I see the racial differences as having been VERY small until 3rd edition (though they grew slightly in each). I can't see how anyone could call pre-3rd D&D anything but a class based game. Nearly everything about a character was determined by it. Even attributes hardly mattered, except in determining the math on each roll. What they rolled for, however, was entirely a function of their class choice.

You say it would be a lot of work, but it's no work. The work was already done. Again, until 3rd edition that's what D&D was. Oh not EVERY ability was totally unique, but the package of abilities was (especially when viewed from the other angles I mention like power source, association, etc). Reread the chess analogy: all the pieces can move and capture, but it's the unique way they combine it that makes a pawn different from a knight.

Your system, while obviously attractive to many, redefines class based in a way that doesn't fit the earlier editions (in my opinion). While it still makes a valid game, I hold that it doesn't make D&D. It isn't one single thing that makes a Cleric different from a fighter, it's a package of things from the different categories I mention above.

What's most important to me in the discussion isn't really this underlying theory, but what it means in practice. If a rogue is defined as a class having a broad set of thieving abilities and being generally shady, etc, then allowing any other class to mimic that combination erases all class lines. It's that specifically that I argue against. There are plenty of great games out there where every character can be customized to do anything and everything. D&D isn't one of them, and should never be. I want D&D where ONLY the thief has access to what makes a thief a thief.

July 24, 2012 3:59 PM PDT