Quote from: Larsdangly;837990Any distinctions between what I just wrote and canonical classes are distinctions without a difference.

Possibly, but try and make an AD&D Fighter-MagicUser, or a B/X Elf with that system.

Quote from: CRKrueger;837649As long as you have levels, you're going to go around the same circle again and again.

The problem with classless isn't levels it is the fact that certain abilities are tied to level. For example spell slot. There is no way to fingle the the spell slot system outside of saying at X level you get to cast X spells of various levels.

Of course you could do away with vancian spells slots but that just takes the game further away from classic D&D.

In my opinion the overall design of D&D 3.X is the best way to handle character customization and still keep the game D&D. Treat each level as a package of skills and abilities that you are able to mix and match.

Now what can be done is take the d20 design but plug in classic D&D numbers and abilities instead of what they got now.

Scale the save, slot levels, the base attack bonuses to match your favorite classic edition. Limit the classes to the traditional four or even the the three of OD&D. Omit feats and perhaps even skills.

Gah! Why does this seem so hard? Perhaps the ideas I've suggested are not clear. In any event, it seems trivial to me:

Fighter/MU or Elf: I would suggest a sub-equal mix of taking [1d4 HP+spell level], [1d6 HP+stat point] and [1d10 HP] level ups, such that a 6th level character would have something on the order of 23 HP (on average), be capable of casting 2nd level magic user spells, and have increased a favored stat or stats by +2, with attendant improvements to-hit, etc. That's not so different from an average 1E Fighter/MU with an equivalent experience point total.

Spell slots are the one thing that demands its own sub system equivalent to RAW D&D. I would suggest one table that applies to anyone who has one or more spell casting levels. If you have spell casting levels in two or more different types of magic (MU, Clerical, Druid, etc.), just treat them as separate pools of respective spells.

Quote from: Larsdangly;838054Gah! Why does this seem so hard? Perhaps the ideas I've suggested are not clear. In any event, it seems trivial to me:

Fighter/MU or Elf: I would suggest a sub-equal mix of taking [1d4 HP+spell level], [1d6 HP+stat point] and [1d10 HP] level ups, such that a 6th level character would have something on the order of 23 HP (on average), be capable of casting 2nd level magic user spells, and have increased a favored stat or stats by +2, with attendant improvements to-hit, etc. That's not so different from an average 1E Fighter/MU with an equivalent experience point total.

Err... yes it is very different. At F/MU in your system has the magic casting abilities of an MU half the level. A 1E F/MU & B/X Elf has magic casting abilities of an MU the level below. The only thing that's trivial is how trivial it is to see the difference ;-)

Quote from: Larsdangly;837427I'm personally not very sympathetic to the whole value balancing business. I figure if everyone in the party would like to gain 1d6 hp or be able to cast 1st level cleric spells rather than become expert at tracking, that is their business. So, I just jammed all the abilities you find in core D&D into a list and said 'pick what you actually want'. If you care a lot about ability balance you'd obviously do something else. But I honestly don't care, and so it doesn't bother me.

Quote from: Spinachcat;837435Ah, the classless system...where everybody can make a Fighter Mage! Or maybe a Mage Thief?

And that's what will happen.  Without 'balancing' you get cookie cutter builds because someone will hit on it, find the best choices, and everyone else will copy, because it's most efficient.  It's how Gamers work.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;838074Err... yes it is very different. At F/MU in your system has the magic casting abilities of an MU half the level. A 1E F/MU & B/X Elf has magic casting abilities of an MU the level below. The only thing that's trivial is how trivial it is to see the difference ;-)

Did you compare them at the equivalent number of experience points (say, assuming a classless system would have requirements that look like the average of all the common classes)?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;838075And that's what will happen.  Without 'balancing' you get cookie cutter builds because someone will hit on it, find the best choices, and everyone else will copy, because it's most efficient.  It's how Gamers work.

This is the only criticism of a classless system that I think is significant. The example I think of is Runequest. An amazing game filled with fascinating options for developing characters in distinctively, culturally rich ways ... yet always seems to produce the same fucking rune-lord-priest with iron plate armor and two bastard swords casting the same fucking spells before every fucking battle.

One way in which one could mitigate against this is by making attributes strongly influence ability and making sure everyone is honest about their stat generating process. If you start play with STR 7 and INT 9 you are not going to try to make yourself a fighter mage because you will suck at it forever, no matter how hard you focus on that goal.

Quote from: Larsdangly;838092This is the only criticism of a classless system that I think is significant. The example I think of is Runequest. An amazing game filled with fascinating options for developing characters in distinctively, culturally rich ways ... yet always seems to produce the same fucking rune-lord-priest with iron plate armor and two bastard swords casting the same fucking spells before every fucking battle.

One way in which one could mitigate against this is by making attributes strongly influence ability and making sure everyone is honest about their stat generating process. If you start play with STR 7 and INT 9 you are not going to try to make yourself a fighter mage because you will suck at it forever, no matter how hard you focus on that goal.

The issue with D&D as opposed to other games, is that Magic always works.  Yes, I've said this multiple times, but in D&D the spell system is 100% successful, with no chance of repercussions.  Even better, the utility spells often make the skill system secondary and often pointless.  What's the point of athletics if you can cast Spider Climb or Levitate for the same process but with no chance of ever failing?

Personally, to make D&D 'classless' and work, you'd need to figure out what costs more than some of the other abilities.

That's simple. In any real form of D&D, limitations on spells per day mean it is a resource, like HP, and you need to think carefully about when you 'fire' your bolt. The omnipotence of spells is only a problem in this sense when you are playing an edition that grade-inflates its way to handing 1st level spell casters the ability to constantly do all kinds of advanced shit.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;838075And that's what will happen.  Without 'balancing' you get cookie cutter builds because someone will hit on it, find the best choices, and everyone else will copy, because it's most efficient.  It's how Gamers work.

 - Or you could roll for what you get when you level - that way you don't get the optimized build again and again. Just let the dice balance stuff out.

Quote from: Larsdangly;838091Did you compare them at the equivalent number of experience points (say, assuming a classless system would have requirements that look like the average of all the common classes)?

Yes.

An Elven F/MU in OD&D and AD&D to get to level n/n needs as much XP as level n in Fighter and level n in Magic User. In B/X it's very similar to this (4000 XP for second level instead of 2000 + 2500).  Since XP doubles every level, that means you'll always be one level behind in spell casting and fighting. This system is criticised for making multiclassed people too strong, and is best mitigated by (as per your suggestion) making stats matter a lot. The downside of that is unless you have a balanced system for stat generation you end up with some characters *much* better than others, and unless you have a random system for stats, you can end up with very similar characters.  If you look at my blog you'll see this is the path my game Explore has taken for its classes as skills system.

Your system is like D&D3E where each level you get to level up as a particular class, where you end up with magic use at half your level, which is criticised for making multiclassed characters massively underpowered. I don't know how many people like this system, but I get the impression that it's partially this system that's responsible for the plethora of classes and the introduction of things like Prestige classes.

One thing to note is you put your Turn Undead ability keyed to your overall level, not your level as a Cleric. Most systems would make such abilities be linked to your level as a Cleric, else taking one level in that class gives you too much of a benefit and you find everyone takes it.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;838146The downside of that is unless you have a balanced system for stat generation you end up with some characters *much* better than others

Is that a problem ? I've played AD&D 1e Thieves who can't succeed at their craft till mid level, MUs with 1HP etc

3d6 in order, no messing about, then roll for gain when levelling.

Balance delivered via Player ability, not char sheet

hardcore, you know the score

Quote from: JoeNuttall;838146The downside of that is unless you have a balanced system for stat generation you end up with some characters *much* better than others

Quote from: Sean !;838152Is that a problem ? I've played AD&D 1e Thieves who can't succeed at their craft till mid level, MUs with 1HP etc

3d6 in order, no messing about, then roll for gain when levelling.

Balance delivered via Player ability, not char sheet

hardcore, you know the score

We were talking about a particular system – the issue at point was that if you allow people to multiclass and have fighter / magicusers to powerful and mitigate this by making stats count for more, I was pointing out that if stats count for more you have a character rolling high stats they will count for more, and you end up with an uber-character.

This is the same issue where OD&D (LBBs only) with 3d6 in order works fine because of the small ability bonuses – it's only with Greyhawk's ability bonuses or AD&D's equivalent that I think it becomes a potentially big problem.

I don't think in general people like things being wildly unbalanced (hence why in AD&D DMG it introduced all the alternative stat rolling methods), I think they *hate* the solutions presented for balance – e.g. point buy – and hence they embrace unbalance as a reaction.

Here's my hardcore credentials – in my opinion OD&D without the supplements is the best version of D&D - that's the version of D&D for the game I'm playing in at the moment.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;838159We were talking about a particular system .

Yep, I should have read more carefully. Ha, I should just shut up and write the game.

JoeNuttall, you make interesting points. I think the main issue is that when we talk about 'classless classes' in D&D, everyone assumes a generic class that, through some sort of specialisation system, can do a full-on Fighter, AND a full-Thief, AND a full-on Magic User, AND a full-on Cleric, AND any blend of these, AND all of this with equal efficiency. All the ideas and proposals we've seen in this thread so far attempt to do this, and they all run into the problems you've laid out in your previous two posts or so.

Now, I've come to the same conclusion before, and one particular pet project I'm considering (but haven't gotten around to actually doing yet) would be a possible solution: decrease the possible scope of PC concepts, while increasing the granularity of customisation.

What I have in mind is a campaign which is very specifically sword & sorcery, where all PCs are assumed to be generally Conanesque adventurers. NO Magic Users, NO D&D-style Clerics, NO mixtures with either of these (though some minor dabbling in sorcery might be okay). Instead, the "generic adventurer" class runs the Fighter-Fighter/Thief-Thief continuum. In exchange for the narrower scope, customisation will be more varied than "Okay, you can choose either the Fighter option or the Thief option when you level up". You'll still be picking options when gaining a level, but they will be smaller one: improve your Hit Die to a better one (several times, up to d12), improve your attack rolls from Cleric-equivalent to Fighter-equivalent, gain a few extra skills/proficiencies, make it so one of your Saving Throw categories improves at a better rate, take one type of specialisation (better attacks, better damage, more likely criticals) to one of several weapon types, etc.. If a player wants to expand a bit outside the basic options (say, dabbling with magic, or becoming a sort of wrestler/strangler, or a martial arts monk), then they can get extra options if they 'earn' them in-game.

I think a setup like that would solve the problem underlying the symptoms you mention, which all stem from trying to cram too many vastly different options into a single package.