But seriously, it depends on how you do it.

If the handy-dandy familiar classes are still there to do their job with no more fuss and muss than before, then it's no peanut butter in my chocolate if they're just a subset of what people who want to can "build" with some pick-from-a-menu system.

System, shmystum. The 'classic' classes are just stuff various cats made up for their own campaigns. You can do it, too. If somebody wants to do it with some optional module, then what of it?

Ditto proficiencies, weapon and non-weapon alike. Some people love one and consider the other an abomination, but I can do without both. That, to my mind, is part of the beauty of old D&D!

Quote from: Sacrosanct;657226Why even have two?  Why not just one and you pick your skills.

clearly in order for a game to remain D&D, you can get rid of classes and make it a skill based system instead

Take HERO system.

Roll1d20 instead of 3d6 as core mechanic.

Change the hit system to rolling vs 'AC'

Roll 3d6 for stats.

Take skills and abilities that fit your character concept.

Now you have DND with no classes.

I think some of these last posts have gone too far, and you can now tell they're not talking about D&D. See how that works?

Quote from: RPGPundit;657447I think some of these last posts have gone too far, and you can now tell they're not talking about D&D. See how that works?

Yeah, my last post sort of was referring to that

Quote from: Phillip;657241System, shmystum. The 'classic' classes are just stuff various cats made up for their own campaigns. You can do it, too. If somebody wants to do it with some optional module, then what of it?

I hate to be a broken record about this game, but the above was a major  revalation for me with ACKS: I could add custom built classes and it still feels just like D&D. The classic classes are still there (in my case), but I'm not even sure removing them would change that feel (e.g. I've considered swapping Cleric for custom Priests and Templars). And this is in spite of the fact that ACKS starts to play in a very particular way at mid- to high-levels that was not typical of other versions, save perhaps BECMI.

Quote from: Bobloblah;657455I hate to be a broken record about this game, but the above was a major  revalation for me with ACKS: I could add custom built classes and it still feels just like D&D. The classic classes are still there (in my case), but I'm not even sure removing them would change that feel (e.g. I've considered swapping Cleric for custom Priests and Templars). And this is in spite of the fact that ACKS starts to play in a very particular way at mid- to high-levels that was not typical of other versions, save perhaps BECMI.

Well, take a look at Rob Conley's Majestic Wilderlands. He redoes every single class, in ways that are both familiar and very different at the same time, and its awesome, and utterly old-school, and very much D&D.
I think what still has to be there is a general set of "class types": the fighter class(es), the wizard(s), the rogue(s), the clerics (though the latter might even be conjoined with wizards into a general "magic-casters" category).

RPGPundit

The thing is that you can add stuff to the menu -- which has been going on from Day One -- without needing to tell anyone, "No, no, none of that old wine for you!"

Quote from: Bobloblah;657060So, a priest-type character would be a mage who chooses divine spells only? What kind of access would they have to clerical or other priestly special abilities (e.g. turning)?

No abilities, just spells. I find abilities a little too "superpowers" to me. Rogues would get a bonus to learning appropriate skills, Priests would define themselves by chosing spells appropriate to their diety.

Mind, just for context's sake, I have never played in a game of D&D wherein ANYone ever chose to play a priest or cleric. They were always NPCs. I get their purpose for dungeoncrawling (provide healing and backup fighter), and Gary's original intent for the class (Van Helsing, basically), but I find them redundant. I'd rather just let Wizards learn healing spells if one was going that route. Looking to historical beliefs in magic, this actually makes a lot more sense. The priest spell/wizard spell divide was always just a D&Dism.

Quote from: Phillip;657220Why separate Specialist? Why not just two types as in The Fantasy Trip:

* "Hero" more easily picks up skills (including fighting skills).
* "Wizard" more easily picks up spells.

You can allow for the character who knows everything about basket weaving but needs "this end toward enemy" engraved on his sword without needing to devote a whole category to that!

Because I like the number 3.

And I don't like the Fantasy Trip.

Quote from: TristramEvans;657700The priest spell/wizard spell divide was always just a D&Dism.

From which it follows that we must destroy it in order to save D&D!

Quote from: Phillip;657710From which it follows that we must destroy it in order to save D&D!

Sure, whatever.

Its not like they were a part of the game at the beginning.

I stumbled across this today-- an inventory of which monsters are common to OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, and S&W. I'd say it sounds about on-mark to me (though I think they also all have their own interpretation of a Displacer Beast so I'd give that an honorable mention).

Edit: Derp, forgot to post the link.

Quote from: TristramEvans;657724Its not like they were a part of the game at the beginning.

Maybe we should start breaking out "just joking" indicators?

Cleric and MU were two of the original types in the published D&D game. At the start of the proto-D&D Blackmoor game, I think the prospects were something like Flunky, Hero, Wizard.

Quote from: Phillip;657932Maybe we should start breaking out "just joking" indicators?

well, I was serious about the three classes. I've always thought that more than that was unecessary, and led to the eventual confusion of classes with occupation. I'd prefer an approach like Warhammer, with classes as classes, and professions chosen seperately, but I think even that just contributes to rules gloat. Not that I'd throw a fit about the "classic" 4 classes, but as I'm in a rather weird minority that prefers OD&D to all later editions, take my opinions with a grain of salt.

QuoteCleric and MU were two of the original types in the published D&D game.

IIRC originally it was fighter and magic user, and then Rogue and Cleric got added in Holmes.

Quote from: TristramEvans;657947well, I was serious about the three classes. I've always thought that more than that was unecessary, and led to the eventual confusion of classes with occupation. I'd prefer an approach like Warhammer, with classes as classes, and professions chosen seperately, but I think even that just contributes to rules gloat. Not that I'd throw a fit about the "classic" 4 classes, but as I'm in a rather weird minority that prefers OD&D to all later editions, take my opinions with a grain of salt.



IIRC originally it was fighter and magic user, and then Rogue and Cleric got added in Holmes.

You're mistaken, I'm afraid. It was Fighter and Magic User during Blackmoor and Castle Greyhawk, then Cleric, the three of which were in OD&D, then the Thief came along in supplement 1.