|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 3:46PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
I know that AD&D 2E, at the very least, included a point-based class-construction module in the DMG. Of course, in those days, the "points" involved were experience points - you could have as many features as you wanted for your class, but it would end up costing more experience per level than if you'd just multi-classed with each component  Still, to say that there is no precedence for this sort of thing would be without merit. It existed. It was in the book.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 3:50PM
#12
|
|
|
I actually just posted this in the L&L expertise dice thread, but it applies here too. Excuse the part about me responding to their argument about the rogue being the king of the two other pillars. Disclaimer: I will start this by saying I do agree that other classes need some out of combat help, and giving it only to the rogue is not the answer. But handfeeding all options to everyone is not the answer either. I don't know how you guys play games, but I require rolls for conversation maybe 1 out of...maybe every 5? Maybe? There's a lot of talking going on that never requires skills or checks of any kind. A lot of you are making a gross generalization concerning "Fighter has to sit down when the talking starts" :P One trend I've seen come and go on these boards is this idea that every class should be perfectly viable in every situation, and that's just silly. If every class was equally viable in all areas of play, there would be no need for classes. The point of classes is that it distinguishes each player with what they are good at and what they can do. If you take away that distinguishment, what's left? What the reason a player is playing a rogue face instead of a fighter face? or a wizard face? I'm going to take a snippet from the packet. Here's the basic description for fighter: "Durability and unequaled weapon mastery help the fighte rdominate a battlefield." Where in that description does it mention face fighters? Nowhere, because it's not a core concept of the class. The Devs have given you the tools to make a face fighter if you really want one with feats. Take that chance if it's really bothering you. Choosing a class is supposed to be the most meaningful decision of the character creation process. You basically are saying "This is what I want to be able to do in my party". By just giving every option to every class, you make that a much less meaningful choice. Think about the elder scrolls series. In all of them (Save Skyrim) you had to choose a class. But beyond what made you level up, did it really matter? Did being a "Nightblade" instead of an "Assassin" really change how you played? Not really. You played how you wanted to play because you could do anything. The class was really just a formality. Thus in Skyrim they nixed them completely because they realized the selection of classes actually detracted from their design goal and made the players feel more limited. But D&D is not The Elder Scrolls. Classes and their capabilities play a huge roll in this game, and the Devs seem pretty intent on keeping that. As much as I hate using this word, classes have a "role" to play in D&D. They aren't just a collection of mechanics with a title, they actually present mechanics to help in an area in which other classes are lacking. Sometimes this gets a little lost (3e spellcasters), but that is the core design. The design of D&D is a party of classes working together to overcome challenges, each providing their own expertise. This has been the theme of every edition of D&D before, and I don't see a reason to change it now.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 3:50PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2010
|
Just a note to my references to the classic classes becoming character builds. In my mind these builds would be given as much prominence as the current classes. Their backgrounds, style of play, interactions, etc, would be given as much attention as they already have. In fact their builds would not be too different to their current level structure. So in my mind the classic classes would never be diminished or their place in the DnD mythos lessened.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 3:56PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
wel we have narrowed the amount of classes down to 2 at this point.
martial (expertise dice based) with the builds fighter,rogue and monk.
magical (vancien based) with the builds wizard and cleric.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 4:08PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2010
|
wel we have narrowed the amount of classes down to 2 at this point.
martial (expertise dice based) with the builds fighter,rogue and monk.
magical (vancien based) with the builds wizard and cleric.
Are you talking about DnD next or my proposed classless model? My confusion is because what you have outlined is essentially what is proposed in DnD next, as it stands. If this is what you meant, I agree completely. If you feel that there’s more diversity in the proposed DnD next classes, I would say that that very same diversity would exist in the recommended character builds and those same differing abilities that give the diversity (manoeuvres, feats skills, spells, etc) would be available to any character who meets the prerequisites if the player wishes to break from the established classic character archetypes, as many do.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 4:08PM
#16
|
|
|
Just a note to my references to the classic classes becoming character builds. In my mind these builds would be given as much prominence as the current classes. Their backgrounds, style of play, interactions, etc, would be given as much attention as they already have. In fact their builds would not be too different to their current level structure. So in my mind the classic classes would never be diminished or their place in the DnD mythos lessened.
So there would still be classes. Well, thats what I take from that.
Actually, I had a thread about this subject. I was making the point that D&D is a class-based system. Which it is. Whether its two (martial and magical) or 11 classes or 16, its class-based. If you want a classless game there are plenty of those both good and bad. GURPS, White Wolf, Shadowrun are all classless games. However, with D&D we have classes and I'm pretty sure they aren't going anywhere.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 4:15PM
#17
|
|
|
wel we have narrowed the amount of classes down to 2 at this point.
martial (expertise dice based) with the builds fighter,rogue and monk.
magical (vancien based) with the builds wizard and cleric.
This is kind of an oversimplification :P While it seems like that in one perspective (especially with the Fighter not having anything personal atm), classes still get plenty of special class only goodness (Except the fighter, atm). Rogues get schemes, monks get their ki abilities, clerics and wizards get completely different spells, etc. There's still plenty of uniqueness left to them, and I feel it will only get better 
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 4:25PM
#18
|
|
|
Sentrix,
Your idea has merit. It would be neat to try it out. But, I am going to disagree, although I'm not going down the pit of "it's not D&D." I'm going to say because it inflates the notion that players must have everything.
There are many that play D&D to overcome obstacles. An inherent obstacle for any challenge is not having all the right tools for the job. In real life I can't be a NBA player because I'm 5'11, have average manual dexterity, and CeeLo hands. (Not really, but his hands are such a good illustration.) In D&D I might have to disarm the trap via magical means because I'm not a thief and do not have their skillset.
This upsets some players and makes others happy. It also creates things like bloat. I know your table says it won't, but that's a naive way to look at it. Once players find the three things to skills it takes to be an archer, many will do simply that. I would bet, even some that don't want to will, for fear that their character will be the one that "does nothing" each round compared to his companions. Simply look at the fighter's thread. The second someone mentioned on there that thieves should get some extra benefit for damage, someone wanted skills and damage. Then someone else wanted bonus damage, spiked single target damage, skills, and the ability to cause effects. It's human nature, and a ruleset like this only exacerbates the situation.
I've mentioned it before in another thread, just because you give options does not necessarily create a better game. You may, in fact, be ruining the game for some. Look at it like traffic: you could make the rules of the road have many many options, and traffic would probably move faster. But, it would also create more accidents. And in accidents there are victims. Many don't want to be a victim.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 4:40PM
#19
|
|
|
The time for classes to go out the window was actually about 20 years ago.
That said, it'll never happen.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 4:48PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2010
|
Just a note to my references to the classic classes becoming character builds. In my mind these builds would be given as much prominence as the current classes. Their backgrounds, style of play, interactions, etc, would be given as much attention as they already have. In fact their builds would not be too different to their current level structure. So in my mind the classic classes would never be diminished or their place in the DnD mythos lessened.
So there would still be classes. Well, thats what I take from that.
Actually, I had a thread about this subject. I was making the point that D&D is a class-based system. Which it is. Whether its two (martial and magical) or 11 classes or 16, its class-based. If you want a classless game there are plenty of those both good and bad. GURPS, White Wolf, Shadowrun are all classless games. However, with D&D we have classes and I'm pretty sure they aren't going anywhere.
There’s absolutely no problem calling the classic character builds I have proposed, classes, except that is could lead to misunderstandings. You could call what I am proposing a classless model or a class model with guided freedom. Whatever it is called does not bother me as long as the function is the same, which is to unlock the current restrictive class system and allow the player community to alter the classic character archetypes and/or build whatever character they envision within a framework of balanced guidelines. With this model, essentially there would be no classes, just different character builds. Several outlined, described and encouraged to be chosen (the classic DnD character archetypes). This is essentially what DnD next is, but without the freedom to modify the character classes or make your own. Each class is a different build based on DnD next game mechanics but with no freedom to be modified or remade. What I am proposing in not a large step away from what is already established as DnD next. In fact it’s not really a step at all, the build structure is already there, it simply unlocks the restrictive class system enabling players to modify the builds already there (currently called classes). The current classes in DnD next are not actually classes, they are different character builds within already established game mechanics with differing abilities/features but without the freedom for change.
|
|
|
