Classless DnD - thoughts

[Senevri]

or D20, sword-and-sorcery, what-have-you.
A bit of background:

I've been DMing so long, I'm starting to feel a bit torn - either I run a game very gamist, with little to no exceptions from The Official Rules(tm), or I run with this anything-goes attitude where people may get free LA, extra feats and skillpoints whenever they do something that seems to warrant them and so forth.

That being said, my set of houserules for each game is usually different enough to count as a yet another variant of D20 ( fantasy ) game.
This means figuring out some sort of rules for what classes can have. This means, in essence, determining a classless base line of what a character can have.

Every character in a D20 system has Ability Scores, Defense, usually some method of resisting damage - typically Hit Points, Some measure of their combat prowess, typically called Base Attack and so forth. Skills are already optional (and vary depending on the specific ruleset.)

At minimum, you really only need a d20 to play a d20-based game (with dm-controlled risk-and-reward system, all stats effectively at zero. )

Fortunately, as for class features, it basically exists, in various d20 rules. It goes something like this:

Feat, talent, feat, talent, feat, talent...

Let's define feat and talent for purposes of triaging abilities:

A FEAT is something a character can DO, that other characters without this FEAT cannot.
- alternate names could be a TRICK, a STUNT, a SECRET
A TALENT is a way the character is BETTER AT something than talentless characters.

So, a FEAT should give an ability to do something new, while a talent should increase some static number, or the effectiveness of a feat, and so forth.

Next step is to deconstruct some existing classes through this model, to see what's going on with saves, attack and so forth.
One though I had was to use Saga style skills and make various modes of attack distinct skills in the style of Combat (weapon/group).

Let's ignore Sorcerers, Wizards and Clerics from core, since they effectively play a different game than other classes, anyway.

Each character should probably gain a bonus feat and a talent at first level, to present the number of front-loaded abilities characters usually have. Comparable power level to Tier 3 or 4 classes is probably what one should aim at.

<tbc, and panic save>

[Prime32]

I'd recommend starting with this.

Or look at Mutants & Masterminds, which is a point-based d20 game.

[veekie]

I'd recommend starting with this.

Or look at Mutants & Masterminds, which is a point-based d20 game.

Seconding M&M, though as well all point based games characters start to look similar after a while.

[Agita]

Thirding M&M and seconding Generic classes. They're as close as you're going to get to classless D&D without inventing a new system or playing 4e instead.

[Senevri]

I know those, and they're not... really what I'm after, although Generic classes are close, in some ways. In the idea behind them, anyway.
Part of the point is, NOT in fact, just getting a classless (although NOT level-less) system, but also figuring things out about constructing classes. Besides, what's wrong in inventing a new system, as long as it's compatible enough with pre-existing stuff that you can use things like pre-existing modules and monsters and such.

It is, in fact, perfectly okay if the players actually run by different rules than the rest of the world.

An observation on feats - Feat chains do make some amount of sense, in that they improve pre-existing options, and thus the player won't get too many new things to fiddle with - some players just won't like that. Of course, in those instances those progressions in their ability need to be really rather quite good, as getting more options is usually seen as a huge boost in power.

Feats like Lightning Reflexes or Stealthy are effectively talents, so the option for things like that is to make them talents or to turn them into real feats.

There's this weird idea in DnD that a DM is a clinical arbitrator of the rules who isn't allowed to DO anything to the player characters, except kill them. This seems very DnD specific, as even in other d20 based games, DM gets to do more stuff. I think this stems actually from the players playing as themselves, instead of having actual roleplay limitations and consequences.

But that's a bit of digression, as the example I intended to make was, that 'crap' feats like Endurance, Stealthy, Acrobatic etc. could have these bridging effects between rules and fluff, so that a stealthy character would be presumed to BE HIDING if it was beneficial in the situation, without a specific declaration and so forth... but that was the easiest example I could think of, really.

Of course, this readily points out the flaw in some feats, such as a character who picks toughness isn't actually any tougher than anyone else in the long run.

Even further, it's quite hard for a DM to come up with new feats - it's part of the marketing strategy to sell books, of course, but new feats, classes, talents, skills should be EASY for the DM to invent as needed, and such a thing should be encouraged, even.... and the Players, too, should be allowed to come up with stuff for their characters.

It seems there are quite a few things on my mind.

[RobbyPants]

If you're going through the effort of making a new system, and you want it to be classless, do realize that you're making a lot of work for yourself if you want things to be balanced.  Making it so you can pair any set of feats and talents with any other set will mean that it will be impossible to really consider every combination possible, which is where crazy power combos might come into play.

Now, I'm not saying don't do it, but just know that testing this will be really hard.

[Nachofan99]

Sounds like 4th edition.

[wotmaniac]

have you checked out Buy the Numbers?

[RobbyPants]

Sounds like 4th edition.

Classless, or what I said?

[Nachofan99]

Sounds like 4th edition.

Classless, or what I said?

The OP's initial post, more or less.  Where he says "feat/trick/stunt" replace that with "POWER".

I was going through a lot of 3.X material thinking of ways to "balance" it better.  I started thinking about this and that and so on and every fix and tweak I was making *really* started making it look like 4th edition.

And then I realized something.  Not only do I *personally* dislike 4th ed, I realized *exactly* why I did.  With the finest point I have ever put on it.

4th ed takes options away from your character and your group and your player's and your DMs.

It makes it exactly more like a board game.  I had called it that after playing it the first time, through 11th level.  A very nice board game.  Then I realized why I called it that.

3.X is so incredibly *OPEN* that every time you play it is different.

4th edition is not like that *at all*.  Every single encounter is exactly the same.  Use daily?  Use Encounter? Use At-Will?  Choose 1. Repeat for 30 levels.  Boiling down ALL of the options of the game into Powers makes it simpler, just like a board game, and that takes away from the very essence of the game system for myself and my players who gave 4th ed a shot and found it severely lacking.

It's the Monopoly of D&D.

[RobbyPants]

The Monopoly of D&D that still has broken combos/rules, but you just have to look harder to find.
[/thread hijack]

[Flay Crimsonwind]

God-knows-whating (fifth?) Mutants and Masterminds, though I agree that it gets a bit hard to fall into power-wise. However, I suggest expanding upon it, and really so long as the team thinks about filling different roles instead of being gods, you should be fine.

[Senevri]

'Buy the numbers' seems like something I should read. d20 BESM also did an ability cost breakdown on core classes, but it's been a while since I read that.

Balance is overrated, really --- certainly, a nod towards balance is needed - and the more game-focused it becomes, the more important it is.
M&M is a very different game, although it's power-shopping is in itself interesting. and it's handling of injury - basically wound points without any vitality, sort of kind of - is... what it is. That being said, I don't have any practical gameplay experience with M&M.

I want to leave more fiddly bits for the DM and the players.

I'm not really looking to do point-based, as you end up invariably in a situation where something is too cheap, too expensive, useless or too open-ended. Then again, points of all sorts are simplest, that's why they see so much use everywhere.

Things I'm looking at right now:
- Starting everyone with the same hit die and skillpoints
- giving the option to trade away HD size for other benefits.
- Skill points should take care of themselves by allowing buy-able skills with, say, combat utility. For an example, a Magic(Conjuration)  skill of some sort.
- If I use base attack ( which I probably will, ) binding more abilities to it.
- Quantifying skill usage - that's actually mostly been done, but there's a need to encourage the players to use skills creatively. perhaps bluff or diplomacy could be used to make enemy combatants hesitant, giving them a penalty to attack rolls? Using parkour-like maneuvers to gain situational bonuses to attack, AC, saves in the range of +1 to +4, requiring various acrobatics checks?
- Things like Rage (or fighting madness or what have you), sneak attack, uncanny dodge and so forth seem like feats for the most part. Well, a single SA die in and at itself isn't quite enough to justify a feat, I think, so a single feat should perhaps grant some sort of a progression by default? Use-activated or situational static boost, are they feats or talents?

As an aside, I'm also looking at some things for speeding up combat rolls. I'm considering abolishing the notion of number of hits, and instead just going for determining if you hit or not. Thus, more hits just improve one's hit chance - and possibly give a simply calculated boost to damage, instead of requiring additional rolls. Say, BAB X number of hits. I think this still lowers the average damage output.

Anyway, one of the reasons I'm looking at this is because I want a player to be able to say "I want to play a character like this", and to get to that character without needing to scour through various splats to scrounge up a bunch of tricks to play a simple concept.

On the other hand, part of the charm of DnD specifically, is in it's exception-based nature (which I feel they sort of missed out on in 4e).
Basically, all the interesting classes have their THING, that special thing or new ruleset that differentiates them from others.

In core, there's spellcasting, Initiators initiate maneuvers, Factotums have their inspiration points, psions run on power points, Binders change their skill sets daily, and so forth. In that, the Pathfinder's beta barbarian with it's rage points was much more interesting than the finalized version. It's also why the Fighter is by default so boring, and why Monk is considered a mess - neither have a THING.

Actually, that could be another key to classless, but levelled system - each character should have a thing, a gimmick that they get.
For an example (not to be taken seriously), a rogue-like character could get a skill trick or equivalent at each level, a fighter-type a maneuver and mages their thing.
Now that I think of it, it's not that 4e characters don't get their gimmick, it's just that everyone's gimmick works exactly the same way.

Hmm. I'll need to sleep on this.

[Nachofan99]

Now that I think of it, it's not that 4e characters don't get their gimmick, it's just that everyone's gimmick works exactly the same way.

Bingo.  Couldn't agree more.

[RobbyPants]

Balance is overrated, really --- certainly, a nod towards balance is needed - and the more game-focused it becomes, the more important it is.

Well, it's overrated until one player stops having fun.

You might want to look into creating a retraining system as well, to help alleviate bad character building decisions.  This also helps alleviate bad game balance in that weaker characters can be quickly improved to match the rest of the group.

[Senevri]

Or steal an existing one

Ideally there shouldn't be.... or rather, no character option in and as themselves should be inferior or useless. If a character becomes ineffective, it should be through synergy failure or the inability to use the character's abilities to the fullest, instead of mechanical suck.

[veekie]

Yeah, but synergy is such a huge part of a character that synergy failure in itself is generally grounds for sucking, especially for would-be multithreats.

[Senevri]

Skills!

Although the skill mechanic is already sort of an optional feature, it's such a staple that it really should stay.
DnD already has some 'Optional' skills, such as Autohypnosis, Martial Lore, Iaijutsu Focus and so forth. Then again, depending on the game, some skills get consolidated (jump, tumble, balance into acrobatics, hide, move silently to stealth f'ex) depending on the system. SAGA has initiative as a skill.

I like skills. I enjoy when a lot of the game stuff gets done with them.

Some observations: As mentioned, 'melee attack' could also be a skill - it makes at most a difference of 3 in standard dnd, and would effectively eliminate grapple - and also enable players to build characters that are actually inept in combat - even the lowliest 20th-level wizard can whup a starting warrior - in swordplay! Fact I always found somewhat... odd.
Heck, individual spells could be skills - with a stepped - say, for every 5 points in result - effects. There's a ton of potential for all sorts of interesting things just within the skill system!

Of course, this sort of an approach to the skill system makes skills much more important - I guess it's designer preference showing. This increases the importance of skill-manipulating feats.

*edit* I took a closer look at M&M chargen, and it might actually work:
- use DnD rules - total attack defence etc. can go way up.
- max BASE attack, Base save, skill ranks, base CL etc. are capped by level as per usual
- bonus skill points and hp from high int as per usual.
- default hp to d4, one point per die increase.
- characters default to simple weapon proficiency. You can gain one first-level-only point by dropping to 'specially limited' a'la monk/wizard proficiency.
- I would retain staged point buy costs with the cost being (score -12)/2, rounded up for those.
- 4 skill points per point

Let's take a look at few classes, see how expensive they are at first level

Fighter:

• d10 HD: 3 point
• fort save: 2 points
• Martial weapons, three armor proficiencies, two shield proficiencies: a total of six points
• Base attack: one point
• Bonus feat: one point

Total base cost of class: 13 points.
They also spend roughly 4-5 points on class abilities per level.

Rogue:

• d6 HD: 1 point
• Skill points: typically 2 pt.
• Sneak Attack & trapfinding: 2 points.
• REF save: 2 points.

Total 7 points, with about the same spent per level.

Paladin:

• 3 points to HD
• 3 points on class features
• 3 points on base attack and saves

And then roughly 6-7 points per level. But then there's spellcasting....

[The_Mad_Linguist]

4th ed takes options away from your character and your group and your player's and your DMs.

It makes it exactly more like a board game.  I had called it that after playing it the first time, through 11th level.  A very nice board game.  Then I realized why I called it that.

3.X is so incredibly *OPEN* that every time you play it is different.

4th edition is not like that *at all*.  Every single encounter is exactly the same.  Use daily?  Use Encounter? Use At-Will?  Choose 1. Repeat for 30 levels.  Boiling down ALL of the options of the game into Powers makes it simpler, just like a board game, and that takes away from the very essence of the game system for myself and my players who gave 4th ed a shot and found it severely lacking.

It's the Monopoly of D&D.

The main reason I'm not that interested in playing 4e is that Descent does it better.

[Senevri]

Heh. Very true. Descent was fun, except I ended up DMing it immediately, too....

Continuing on the previous topic, I made a mistake on paladin - they spend an additional 6 points at first level on proficiencies, to a total of 15 points.

Monk, which is a bit special is...
2 for HD, 3 points on feat, flurry and unarmed strike, 1 point on increasing unarmed damage die from 1d4, 6 points on saves and 1 point on skills. 13 points. Monks also get wis to AC with no armor, so that's 1 point.
I think monk and wiz proficiencies could effectively be seen as alternates for simple weapon proficiency.

Now, spellcasters, oh dear...

I think I'm going to look at wizards and bards.

First of all, base caster level is limited by HD/level, and bought normally. As extra spell and extra slot are feats, those cost a point separately.
So...

Wizard has worse than simple proficiencies, no armor, no HD increase,
+2 saves, familiar, scribe scroll is straight-forward 3 points,
Cantrips.. are probably worth 1-2 points total, for both spells and slots, after that...
I'd say that every single new level of spellcasting (capped by level as usual) costs one point, after which you still need to buy spells learned.

So, a wizard has cantrips, new level of spellcasting, two slots, and two spells known AND a special attribute of number of extra spells known equal to int modifier at first level. That's 7 points, total, putting them at 11 points spent at first level. At that point, that does sort of accurately represent their power.

Trouble is, there are various spell lists with different power levels. One solution could be to rank various spellcasting abilities and add an extra cost based on spell list access:
Ranger, Paladin: 1 point. Bard: 2 points. Cleric or Druid: 3 points. Wizard/Sorc: 4 points.
Hm. I'm still unsure if that's enough, and there's nothing preventing a character for gaining full spellcasting list from ranger or paladin by level 7 by the rules I've established thus far. I guess I could set that 1st level spells  = 1 point, 2nd = 2 pts and so forth.