The threat of homogenization: The powergamer will always try to select the best abilities available, the abilities available that work best together in synergy, or a combination of both. Feats, spells, skills, and abilities would have to be incredibly balanced. If not, prerequisite abilities would be analyzed in great detail and selected merely on the basis of getting access to the best combination of abilities.
...and what is the end result? Players are going to have many of the same abilities and there will be likely a large pool of untouched abilities.
The more delicate situation in balance: Restrict the prerequisites of abilities too little and game balance goes pretty much out the window. Restrict the prerequisites too much and all you really have is a disguised class system
The threat of homogenization: The powergamer will always try to select the best abilities available, the abilities available that work best together in synergy, or a combination of both. Feats, spells, skills, and abilities would have to be incredibly balanced. If not, prerequisite abilities would be analyzed in great detail and selected merely on the basis of getting access to the best combination of abilities.
...and what is the end result? Players are going to have many of the same abilities and there will be likely a large pool of untouched abilities.
The more delicate situation in balance: Restrict the prerequisites of abilities too little and game balance goes pretty much out the window. Restrict the prerequisites too much and all you really have is a disguised class system
Or you can actually make the system balanced so most if not all options are considered even by power gamers...thought because of how D&DNext is now right now...everything is damage output per round as of now...
Or you can actually make the system balanced so most if not all options are considered even by power gamers...thought because of how D&DNext is now right now...everything is damage output per round as of now...
Care to take a crack at figuring out what it even means to balance a Monk's immunity to disease against a Fighter's parry?
The threat of homogenization: The powergamer will always try to select the best abilities available, the abilities available that work best together in synergy, or a combination of both. Feats, spells, skills, and abilities would have to be incredibly balanced. If not, prerequisite abilities would be analyzed in great detail and selected merely on the basis of getting access to the best combination of abilities.
...and what is the end result? Players are going to have many of the same abilities and there will be likely a large pool of untouched abilities.
The more delicate situation in balance: Restrict the prerequisites of abilities too little and game balance goes pretty much out the window. Restrict the prerequisites too much and all you really have is a disguised class system
Or you can actually make the system balanced so most if not all options are considered even by power gamers...thought because of how D&DNext is now right now...everything is damage output per round as of now...
Ideally, yes. Ideals are difficult to put into practice optimally though. There are always unforseen consequences, as the ability to create something "perfect" is next to impossible. If one could, you'd have the edition to end all editions. Easier said than done...
And the answer is, "because GURPS is nearly un-playable".
Which is all the more reason to look twice before jumping into the morass that is classless RPG.
I've not played GURPS, but I have played quite a few games that don't have classes, and I would say they are far from a "morass." Have you had some not-good experiences or something?
For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon
@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?
Impossible for me to disagree more. D&D is, always has been, and always needs to be, a class-based system. WotC should feel free to create an infinite number of non-class-based games, but none of them would be D&D.
While pre-3rd wasn't PERFECTLY class-based (allowed multi-classing, had optional proficiencies, etc), it was pretty close. Third moved directly away from being class-based, and 4th moved somewhat laterally, which is one big reason why we don't play those editions much.
For 5th to win us over it must return to being HEAVILY class-based.
I personally have to disagree.
The defining thing of DnD is not the class system I’ve given my reasons for this opinion and Saelorn summed it up perfectly in a previous post. I’ve also given my reasons why a non class based system would work much better, and that essentially it’s already present in the DnD next game mechanics. The classic classes would still be essentially there in my proposition and given all the reference and credit they disserve and need to maintain the classic character archetypes of DnD.
I’d like to know why you feel the class system is so essential, could you elaborate?
You can disagree all you want, but you're not right, you just have an opinion, same as everyone else.
For me, it's a class based game. Period.
For you, it isn't. Period.
Fortuantely they've already shown that it's GOING to stay at least mostly class based, so we can talk till the next Mayan apocalypse, it won't change what D&D has always been, and is going to be with 5th.
Here's a little analysis I did on classes, and what they are.
Mind you, it's not the ONLY valid system, just the only one that is valid for me for D&D. For other games I accept any number of different systems. However, since the game is D&D, and has ALWAYS been class-based, and works BEAUTIFULLY as class-based, I have no desire to see it ever change.
I think you're right, that they're straying FAR too far from being purely class based. I hope to see that change. Even if they don't, enough of it is optional to allow us to retain our class based version of the game (no skills, backgrounds, feats, themes, builds, etc).
"For 5th to win us over it must return to being HEAVILY class-based"
A more correct way to convey your point is that for fifth to win you over (not us), it must return to being a heavily class based system. As you explained in your last post, you just have an opinion, same as everyone else. Your opinion does not represent the whole of the DnD community. Mine doesn’t but it does represent a large part of it. There are many players who want more freedom in the characters they play.
I was referring to my groups...the people I know and play with. I didn't mean everyone. Obviously there's plenty that don't. Just like there's plenty that do. Almost impossible to track accurately, but obviously enough that they felt certain of establishing it as a basic element of the game before they even started.
"Fortuantely they've already shown that it's GOING to stay at least mostly class based, so we can talk till the next Mayan apocalypse, it won't change what D&D has always been, and is going to be with 5th."
Discussion does change opinion and has and does change the nature of the DnD game. The very fact that new versions come out is proof of that. Will it changes the class system? well I can hope.
Since the entire point of 5th has been to establish as the core the elements which have been true across all previous editions (and then offer other ideas as optional modules), they're not likely to change one of those elements...especially when it's dearly loved by a large number of fans. Since there are a lot that want something different I'm totally behind them offering an alternative system module that you'd enjoy more. If you'd like to create a petition to that effect I'd be happy to sign it because I want everyone to get a game they'll enjoy. Just not possible to have it all be core.
From what I gathered from reading your article, the core of it focusses on the functionality of the class system, not why DnD, as you say, always needs to be a class based system or why a class based system is the only valid one for DnD.
Because that's what D&D is, and has always been, which was a part of the point of the blog I posted. It IS what the game is. You can't separate a game from its components and have it be the same game. Doing that makes a game nothing more than a brand name, and a game is NOT the brand, it's the rules and flavors and purpose and warrants and all of that which makes it the game that it is. Chess is not checkers, despite similarities. They're not different editions of the same game, they're entirely different games. That's why they have two names.
That's why I, and so MANY MANY others, don't feel 4th (and many even 3rd) isn't D&D...it's entirely different components, thereby changing the very nature of the game itself. I may (or may not) be an awesome game, but it's not the SAME game as other editions (ie pre-3rd). You can revise, and even somewhat evolve, a thing, and have it still be the same...once you change a part of its core structure, however, it becomes something new entirely. Not better or worse, but different.
The only point I gleaned from your article as to why DnD should be a class based game was because it was a class based game it its first iteration. Not to discredit your article, it took an extremely in-depth look into the class system and its interpretation. I enjoyed it and in the context of how a class system could work more efficiently it was very insightful, it just didn’t relate directly to what this thread is talking about. The question my proposal creates is, does DnD need a class based system? Why?
I’d love to know why you feel so strongly that DnD must have a class bases system. Thus far the only reason you have given is that DnD has worked beautifully as a class based system. That’s your subjective opinion. I disagree for the many reasons I have explained, to which you havn't addressed.
And that's YOUR subjective opinion. None of the things you suggest exist for us as problems. It's like 5mwd, or vancian, or class balance, or totm vs map/minis, or any other game element...there is NO objective right or wrong or better or worse, only subjective playstyle preference.
We (meaning me, my group, and MANY of the others, several of whom have posted on this very thread) feel that the game has worked excellently as a class based game. We ENJOY that aspect, and all it brings. We acknowledge that YOU (and others) would prefer something different, and we would like you to get that chance...but not with the core of D&D because it is NOT then D&D and we wouldn't enjoy it.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If you like it, keep it. These are fundamental elements of design, and they apply here. We want class based because it has no shortcomings for us, and forms an integral part of the game we love. We love other games, for other reasons, but have no interest in making D&D 'like those others'. We want it to stay D&D.
Essentially, I feel that a class system is fundamentally restrictive (though this is by far not the only reason I have mentioned).
You can feel that way. We don't agree.
Go play another game? What if I like sneak attack? Feats, the DnD dynamic and everything about it apart from the class system? The answer is to encourage that the game accommodates the thing that I would like to see in it and I’m not the only one who wants this.
Those things are minor issues that can be put into anything. They form no part of the CORE of the game. Feats didn't even exist until 3rd, missing the vast percentage of what D&D has been. The CORE of the system is class based, core 4 classes, 6 attributes, basic races, lots of different dice (usually rolling a d20 to achieve something), etc. The devs have said this from day 1, and all the polls that have been given to people support it. While there are people who don't think those things are core, the OVERWHELMING majority do.
It's not that I don't want you to play D&D, but if you don't like an absolutely foundational element of it then I can't see how or why it would/should ever work for you. It'd be like telling a potential love interest "I really like you, except that you're black (or religious, or stupid, or ugly)"...it's an absolutely basic, integral, defining part of the person. It's not something you can change and still have the same person. Same is true with classes and D&D.
The ONLY solution that fits the 5th paradigm is to offer an optional module which includes classless components. I don't think they would, because of how integral it is to the game (would basically mean writing an entirely different game, bottom to top). However in the interest of giving you what you want I support it.
If your answer is too big to post, please post a link and please bear in mind the point’s I have already made that may answer some of your concerns.
If you think there’s no point to discussing the pro’s and con’s (there’s definitely no point in arguing them or if you’re not going to logically consider the points I am making), then I thankyou for the input you have given thus far.
There are NO pros for those that don't want it. Period. You have NO points. None. Nothing you say exists for us. At all. It's ONLY a valid argument for you and those that feel like you do. Not sure how else to say it so that it would make sense to you.
The only pros which would exist would be getting more people to like the game, but if you go classless then ONLY those people will like it, and those of us who already liked it will then hate it. So you gain NOTHING (and potentially lose a LOT due to the popularity of this issue).
Again, the way to debate this and reach accord/compromise is to agree that we're talking about two polar opposite approaches which CANNOT coexist within one game. Having accepted that there is only one question left to answer: do we want different modules/options to support the different playstyles? I'm fine with that. If you're not then we need to know why, and rather or not it can be resolved for one or the other of us. If it can't, then one set of people simply won't buy the game, sales numbers won't reach required numbers, they'll pull the game, and no one will get anything. It's not rocket science.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own.
WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
D&D is the wrong game for you. Please go play GURPS. Or the Champions/Hero System. Those two systems already exist & offer you exactly what you want. And you can plug all your favorite D&D fluff into them....
This OPs post lengths are a class unto themselves.
Personally when I want to play a classless game there's dozens out there. Basic System from Chaosium, Savage Worlds, Hero System, GURPS...okay maybe not dozens. But I don't always want to play a classless system. Sometimes I want to know what level I am.
Please expalin to me what the defining characteristics of the Dungeons & Dragons game are. I already have GURPS. I'm not sure why D&D should attempt to be that game.
Defining traits of D&D:
Implied generic fantasy setting
Dungeons
Dragons
Vast majority of tasks resolved with d20
Party members work together to cover different roles, since no one character can do everything
Longsword deals 1d8 damage
I thought gurps was source materia and inspirational character design mechanics that you can ignore in favor of free form play....
and d8 for longsword? nyeh....for that goes in the who cares cat.... I mean the 6 stats any order (str,dex,con,cha,int,wis) ... mundane stat range 3 to 18 , ummm escalating absract hit points, levels and the BIGEE classes.
