Of course, to have earned all that, Bob would be a remarkably experienced character. See, that's the thing with point buy ... you only have so many points, so you can be good at something, okay at a few somethings, or crappy at a whole lot of somethings.
I admit I was being a bit of a goofball with my example (lots of overdramatization) Points and prerequisites would never allow this, I know. My other point is that it could like a mish-mash of skills/abilities that would not be a believable progression(even in a fantasy setting).
So, bob is a master of the arcane, while being good with a greatsword and heavy armor, who sneak attacks his enemies, has the favor of his deity gaining bonuses to all saving throws while having both holy smite and unholy blight, an animal companion, eldritch blast for some random reason, all while being able to cook a really good cassarole for the king. Yeah, point system would tone all this down substantially, but it doesn't make it any less ridiculous of a combination if he's less effective in these aspects.
Making a point system would require a delicate balancing act. If it isn't restrictive enough, you get the above. If its too restrictive, then it is nothing more than a disguised class system. I am really not opposed to non-class systems. I have played games that use them a few times. I just think that D&D is better served improving upon the class system. In 3e and 3.5e, the edition that I played the most, the wizard and sorcerer were conceptually similar, but mechanically so very different to play. They really could make some really good classes that do exactly that. A templar class could play very different from a paladin and a shaman could play very differently than a cleric or druid, just as a sorcerer and warlock are different from a wizard. The "point buy" system actually sort of exists in the create a custom class that your DM agrees is balanced and fits the campaign sort of way...
This boils down to what I call Internal Balance vs External Balance. Internal Balance is imposed by the game system. External Balance is imposed by the GM. With a point buy system, you have to rely on external balance; the GM needs to look at things and just say 'no' (or, alternately, if he doesn't, he's got nobody to blame but himself).
Entirely true. I never meant that what you are describing wouldn't work or wouldn't work well. I am merely pointing out some of the dangers. DMs have a lot on their shoulders. They have to uphold the mechanics and rules of the game, handle unexpected situations as they arise, improvise at a moment's notice when a player wants to do something he/she could not have anticipated, and many other responsibilities.
That's why I believe that the core rules should be helpful to the DM in terms of internal balance. Being a DM isnt easy and inexperienced ones need all the help they can get. Secondary materials can always broaden and loosen certain aspects of the rules, making things less rigid if desired and shifting more toward external balance.
Well, the groundwork for such an idea has already been laid in the form the the generic classes option in Unearthed Arcana(3e.) They have the expert, the spellcaster, and the warrior, and they are pretty much just base templates to change however you want. It's not something I ever used, or ever would use, but it isn't like it is some hyper-radical idea that D&D has never dabbled in before.
True. That's what I feel they should do yet again(I always disregarded that myself too, but to each their own). Guidelines for this sort of thing should be in a secondary source for those who want it. I'm just thinking they should keep classes as a core mechanic as opposed to using this as the new core...
There are a dozen games out there with classless systems. Why produce another? All it really does is try to appease the player that "wants to do everything."
I've played two, and they were fun. I liked the character builds I made. But, it's not D&D. There are those that want to slaughter sacred cows. That's fine. But understand often times you just end up with a bunch of rotten meat.
What if someone suggests D&D be a Star Trek game and says, stop protecting the "fantasy" part of D&D. It's such a sacred cow. How about we move to a d100. There are far more variables, and in the end, it really is a more flexible system. How about making it humans only. No races outside that because fantasy races are such sacred cows. How about getting rid of stats. How about getting rid of the books. How about making it a card game.
There are a dozen games out there with classless systems. Why produce another? All it really does is try to appease the player that "wants to do everything."
I've played two, and they were fun. I liked the character builds I made. But, it's not D&D. There are those that want to slaughter sacred cows. That's fine. But understand often times you just end up with a bunch of rotten meat.
What if someone suggests D&D be a Star Trek game and says, stop protecting the "fantasy" part of D&D. It's such a sacred cow. How about we move to a d100. There are far more variables, and in the end, it really is a more flexible system. How about making it humans only. No races outside that because fantasy races are such sacred cows. How about getting rid of stats. How about getting rid of the books. How about making it a card game.
There are a dozen games out there with classless systems. Why produce another? All it really does is try to appease the player that "wants to do everything."
I've played two, and they were fun. I liked the character builds I made. But, it's not D&D. There are those that want to slaughter sacred cows. That's fine. But understand often times you just end up with a bunch of rotten meat.
What if someone suggests D&D be a Star Trek game and says, stop protecting the "fantasy" part of D&D. It's such a sacred cow. How about we move to a d100. There are far more variables, and in the end, it really is a more flexible system. How about making it humans only. No races outside that because fantasy races are such sacred cows. How about getting rid of stats. How about getting rid of the books. How about making it a card game.
Some sacred cows are meant to be sacred.
Modules man, modules.
I agree with modules. I think they're a better idea than the one I presented; however, it seems far too many are going to "pull their money" and "not play" unless their specific needs for their race are met in the beginning. Modules would allow the designers time. It would enable them test their ideas and come up with more creative solutions. But apparently, some people are in a hurry.
I agree with modules. I think they're a better idea than the one I presented; however, it seems far too many are going to "pull their money" and "not play" unless their specific needs for their race are met in the beginning.
Modules would allow the designers time. It would enable them test their ideas and come up with more creative solutions. But apparently, some people are in a hurry.
Guys... guys Guys listen. I have the best ide guys listen I have the best idea ever guys I'll take the CLASSES guys classes I'll take the CLASSES guys listen here I'll take the CLASSES... and homogenize them in template form, allowing people to pick and choose their abilities to prevent being straitjacketed by a title and role, thus allowing everybody to make the character they desire.
It seems to me that we're giving the Expertise system to every martial class at this point, so why not give it to every class entirely? For that matter, why not give spells to every class? Why not eliminate spells entirely?
Okay, so, like, I totally have this idea that practically nobody will like, but what if we had Expertise Dice, Hit Dice, Weapon Attack, Spell Attack, Save DC Bonus, and Spell Progresion set up in three different arrays where a player could in theory "make" their own class?
For example, Array 1 would have Full Expertise Dice Progression, D10 Hit Die, Full Weapon Attack Progression, 1/3 Spell Attack Progression, 1/3 Save DC Bonus, and 1/3 Spell Progression
Array 2 would have 1/3 Expertise Progression, D6 Hit Die, 1/3 Weapon Attack Progression, Full Spell Attack Progression, Full Save DC Bonus, and Full Spell Progression
Array 3 would have 2/3 Expertise Progression, D8 Hit Die, 2/3 Weapon Attack Progression, 2/3 Spell Attack Progression, 2/3 DC Bonus, and 2/3 Spell Progression
Maneuvers and Spells could be selected from a compiled list like "Fighting Style" or specific magical schools, or perhaps make it more broad for simply arcane and divine magics.
I mean, Array 1 easily allows somebody to make a Paladin or Ranger with the proper choices, Array 2 easily applies Wizards and Cloth Clerics, and Array 3 applies to Bards and Assasins.
To ensure that we don't break the tradition of D&D, there could be a compilation list of the iconic classes like Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, and whatnot, much like Specialties and Backgrounds. This should in theory allow pick up and play type players to simply pick an array and play their character.
It would never, ever happen, would it? I thought not.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
Supposing this were a real and balanced option, wouldn't it be true that one could easily extrapolate the arrays from the classes offered? If you can't, then that in itself suggests the classes are more than just arrays + options, mechanically.
The trouble is that you have just reinvented GURPS. GURPS is very fun, but it isn't D&D. D&D is very fun, but it isn't GURPS.
While turning D&D into something more like GURPS might bring new people in (those who prefer such systems), it would be a longshot. Those people already have systems that they play and enjoy, and they think of D&D as a class based RPG. So in order to be successful, they would need to heavily advertise the fact that D&D was changing. Furthermore, to many people, D&D means having classes as fundamental units. Get rid of this, and the game no longer seems like D&D.
As usual, I'll put it into food terms. D&D is a restaurant that offers distinct entrees. GURPS is a buffet that has the basic elements of meals: raw meat, uncooked vegies, herbs & spices, etc; cusomers select what they want and then it is cooked up (like Flat Top Grill). Both are really good, but at the same time distinct and different. People who really enjoy Flat Top aren't even going to think about other restaurants that have always been the kind to serve distinct entrees. And people who have been going to the other place for years will be shocked to walk in one day and see the buffet. That said, there is nothing wrong with including this sort of thing in a separate book.
I disagree. The basic principles that would be applied is the idea that characters are built on some sort of point structure where each power, ability, stat, skill etc.. has a point value. The designers of D&D would than use their own system to create "classes" as they see fit, in their version of the game. But through this process would allow players to adjust, change or create new classes using the same balancing structure the designers used. In this way if a GM disagree's with the designers version of the rogue for example (as is the case today), they can instead of bitching on the forums and demanding a "fix" or "erretta" after the game is released, change the bloody thing themselves and have a structure on which to do that, the same structure used by the designers to create the original version.
More importantly think of how many doors this opens both creatively and mechanically. The Class/Level system is rigid, it piegon holds the narrative and creates balance issue which than can only be resolved by players taking on the role of the designer and changing the foundation of the game, aka, tampering with a system they don't understand how it was constructed.
I don't expect anyone to change their mind, as I said before, the game is as rigid as the community, but I find it such an odd sentiment given that role-playing is all about creativity, emergant gameplay and a full of boundless concepts.. yet we insist that rogues are trap removing, overly skilled, back stabbing charactertures and can't be anything else because that would mean they are not a rogue as we have come accept him by tradition.
Everytime someone comes on these forums and complains that this is over powered, that is under powered, this should be like that, that should be like this... they end up making changes to the system anyway, the only problem is that they do it outside of the rules of the game (which creates conflicts with players unescessarly) and more importantly often solve one problem by creating another. Within the confines of a structure which defines how the game is designed, how classes are designed, you end up with a system that is flexible and open to change and adjustments as players and GM's see fit. Even more importantly it will bring back a the lost concept that GM's and players are in control of their games, not the rules.
But again, I fully expect for this concept to be rejected outright by the D&D community. They want their decesions to be made for them by the designers who they almost never agree with oddly enough.
(lots of overdramatization) Points and prerequisites would never allow this, I know. My other point is that it could like a mish-mash of skills/abilities that would not be a believable progression(even in a fantasy setting). 
