Quote from: The Butcher;841422I'll play devil's advocate, since I guess my position is obvious from the post you've quoted.

The Devil has an army of lawyers already. Check "Beyond the Black River", though.

Quote from: Premier;841445I think there's an important distinction between "hard" and "soft" class systems.

"Hard classes", as I call them, are defined by their exclusive abilities - in old-school D&D, ONLY fighters can use all types of weapons, ONLY thieves can use thief skills, ONLY wizards can cast their kinds of spells, etc.. Even when you get into the various AD&D 1st ed. and Unearthed Arcana classes, the trend remains, so you have some dozen classes with some sort of strong niche protection for each. The more hard classes you have, the more specific their special ability loudout becomes (and consequently, the less archetypal they are), while the game's philosophy slides further and further away from "if the rules don't forbid it, you can do it" towards "if the rules don't explicitly allow it, you can't", since more and more things are "reserved" for some class' special ability. D&D is traditionally very much about hard classes (which, in turn, pretty much necessitated the abandonment of the original "if it's not forbidden" rules philosophy.

However, you can also have a class system with "soft classes", where there are very few (if any) class-exclusive abilities, and differences are defined by how well a given class can do something - without declaring that other classes can't do that thing at all. In order to deliberately cite a D&D-derived game, Other Dust is very much like this. Each class does have a single exclusive ability, but they're defined at least as much by their gradual differences - Slayers have a better attack bonus, Survivors have more HP, each class has a different list of class skills (everyone can learn any skill, but class skills are cheaper, so you're more likely to concentrate on those).

Obviously, these sorts of differences can and do also exist in, D&D's hard classes, but the important distinction is that they're not the definitive factor there. If a newbie asks an AD&D player about the difference between a Magic User and a Fighter, the answer won't be "the magic user has fewer hit point, worse attacks, and better saving throws in certain categories"; it will be "the magic user can cast M.U. spells and the Fighter can't", because that's the definitive difference. Whereas in Other Dust, the answer likely won't be "The Slayer can automatically hit once per combat while the Speaker can automatically convince an NPC of something once per day", it will be "the Slayer is better in a fight and is generally beteter at combat-oriented skills".

Now, with all this mind, I think most people who argue against the possibility or feasibility of a "one size fits all" character class OSR game are doing it with their thinking firmly entrenched in the hard class mindset. And sure enough, if you insist or implicity assume that classes must be primarily defined by their exclusive abilities, creating an "omniclass" will be impossible. However, that's a pretty silly thing to assume.

I get the same impression, and soft classes are much closer to WFRP2 or Maelstrom careers!

Quote from: AsenRG;841407Oh please... If that's your list, you really, really want a system with only three classes that don't include cleric, or a classless system.
And all of your examples support a classless system.

The Cleric is a D&D invention.  Very few casters in fantasy literature (previous to 1980) were divinely granted powers, a lot of them (not all, but a lot of them) were sorcerers before they joined a church or worshiped a god.  And there are a lot of Priestly types that don't ever gain magical power.  

And I'm not saying that a 'classless' game system is pointless, what I'm saying is that fantasy heroes tend to gravitate towards a primary method of dealing with problems.

And I'd argue that Conan was actually just a 'fighting man'.  Yes, he's learned, but just about every real world or fantasy fighter in most non-game based media was educated in some fashion.  And a lot of his 'thieving' involved climbing a tower and looting, I don't recall him ever picking a lock, and climbing and looting isn't all that hard to do for most human beings, I'd posit that most of us here has climbed a tree when we were younger?

Also, stealth is a relatively simple skill to pick up.  I'm pretty sure a lot of us still use a modicum of it from time to time, like when we don't want to wake our S.O. to get that glass of water or go to the bathroom.  We take it slow, and measure our steps, avoid that creaky board on the floor that we know about.

Here's the thing, I've found I can figure out which 'archetype' that a Fantasy Hero is by seeing/reading what the most common response to a conflict occurs in the story in question.  If they draw a weapon, or is combative, likely a Fighting Man, if they are more likely to cast an augury or other mystical means, then Magic User, if they're more likely to think their way through it, by either smarts, guile or cunning, then they're probably an Expert.

The Archetypes are very, very broad, but they've always been there when I've read fantasy novels.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;841511The Cleric is a D&D invention.  Very few casters in fantasy literature (previous to 1980) were divinely granted powers, a lot of them (not all, but a lot of them) were sorcerers before they joined a church or worshiped a god.  And there are a lot of Priestly types that don't ever gain magical power.  

Indeed.
And in a classless game you could have exactly those, again.

QuoteAnd I'm not saying that a 'classless' game system is pointless, what I'm saying is that fantasy heroes tend to gravitate towards a primary method of dealing with problems.

That's the whole point!
They tend to gravitate towards a primary method. They aren't locked out of other methods, as class based PCs are.
Going classless would solve that.

QuoteAnd I'd argue that Conan was actually just a 'fighting man'.  Yes, he's learned, but just about every real world or fantasy fighter in most non-game based media was educated in some fashion.

He also performed a magical ritual. Most Fighting Men would be forbidden by the rules to do so, or the ritual wouldn't work.
And picking locks is about as hard as sneaking. I certainly have had an easier time with opening a padlock that needed opening than I have climbing.
That's because I've got a better attribute score in one than in the other, of course, since I'm untrained at both. Conan would be different, but still, the ritual is more telling about the range of his abilities.
And his sneaking puts most thieves to shame, given that he can sneak in chain armour.

Quote from: AsenRG;841519Indeed.
And in a classless game you could have exactly those, again.

Or (in the case of 5e) you pick whatever class you want and pick the right background.

Quote from: AsenRG;841519That's the whole point!
They tend to gravitate towards a primary method. They aren't locked out of other methods, as class based PCs are.
Going classless would solve that.

No, it wouldn't.  Sometimes a focus in a direction is necessary.  Sometimes have no direction stalls more than it helps.

Quote from: AsenRG;841519He also performed a magical ritual. Most Fighting Men would be forbidden by the rules to do so, or the ritual wouldn't work.
And picking locks is about as hard as sneaking. I certainly have had an easier time with opening a padlock that needed opening than I have climbing.
That's because I've got a better attribute score in one than in the other, of course, since I'm untrained at both. Conan would be different, but still, the ritual is more telling about the range of his abilities.
And his sneaking puts most thieves to shame, given that he can sneak in chain armour.

Conan's first response to any conflict is to draw his weapon and smite it.  This makes him a Fighting Man, anything else is superfluous.  You want your fighting man to do a magic ritual?  Fine, make something up.  That's what D&D exists for.

Quote from: AsenRG;841407Gandalf is consistently described as a human, so elf is right out.
The other option requires two feats. Can I even afford it as a starting PC?

Gandalf was closer to elf than human as a race. You said "like Gandalf"; do you want an archetype or a Xerox copy? (I note that he also did talk with giant eagles but I think they spoke the common tongue?) Why would you expect your starting PC to match one of the most powerful characters in Middle Earth?

QuoteWith barbarian rages, Read ancient script, Perform Rituals with impromptu tools and being sneakier than a thief, and able to kill a major enemy with a knife, as long as you can get surprise, which suggests a sneak attack mechanic?
You honestly think the Barbarian class covers that?

Um... yes? (If you really want that backstab mechanic for your clone, three levels of Rogue (Assassin) would increase damage significantly in the surprise situation. I'd be satisfied that a raging barbarian can kill anything with whatever weapon is at hand. You can get stealth from several different backgrounds; Read ancient script might just be a History check, and some Barbarians in 5e can cast a ritual as a class feature--take a feat for more generality.)

QuoteAnd he gets more observant with experience, right? That's a major part.

Yes, if he's proficient in Perception then his bonus rises with level, and he can also increase his Wisdom ability and add the supporting feats as he gains levels.

QuoteDo you really mean said background makes me richer, better trained at least in social skills, lore and possibly in occult matters, and gives me a cadre of bodyguards? If not, that's not a nobleman.

Your notion of a nobleman is more restrictive than a D&D class! History and Persuasion are the basic skills for the Noble background; you can get Arcana from your class or just have a higher INT ability. The background can give you retainers but not bodyguards (they don't fight for you; I think that's as much a game balance issue as anything else); you could recruit other PCs to be bodyguards. Also for game balance Noble characters don't get higher income; Nobles who adventure are either from houses that have fallen on hard times or consume their stipend on their lavish lifestyles or are too removed from their estates to benefit from their wealth.

QuoteI don't think in mechanics, I think in character abilities. Way too often, you can't get those with a starting character, because the designer had a different idea about the class. So you need a variant class, thus, class proliferation.

You list specific mechanisms and you expect starting characters to match up with Gandalf and Conan. :rolleyes:

I do think 5e does a pretty good job without any house rules. The most difficulty I've had with an archetype was a shapechanger like Beorn; I ended up with a Moon Druid but some of the class features didn't match my conception (Druidic? general spell casting?); my solution is to not use those where they don't match my idea of the character. So my character is weaker than the same class using all of the abilities available. You seem hung up on making characters more powerful, not more in tune with an archetype. And a classless system where everything is up for sale would indeed be just the thing for the min-maxing you seem to want.

Quote from: rawma;840716So, a basic flavorless class with extra points to buy feats or more hit points or more spell casting or whatever.

Quote from: AsenRG;841407And I'd prefer a classless system where you buy the extra HP or the spellcasting.

There's no functional difference between a "classless" system and a system with one class. The one class is "Character".

There have been endless arguments about what class is this fictional character and what class is that fictional character.  Invariably the characters in question will do or be something exceptional or something that doesn't fit in a given class.  People will go to great lengths to justify their assessments when the fact that they have to should serve as a stark reminder that fiction is not D&D and D&D is not fiction.  3.x reinvigorated these arguments with its robust multiclassing mechanics.  And sometimes the arguments go one step further and people want to argue about just what level the characters are.  Or alignment.  That's another favorite.

Perhaps we should consider letting this shit go.  D&D classes will not map 1 to 1 with every fictional character.  And that's okay.  For many the divisions it makes are the categories they want.  For others D&D has taught them to see its classes and other characteristics in every bit of fiction they read (to the point of reading them into the stories when they are not there).  Others see where things don't line up and wish they would.

D&D is a game, not a story.  Not a tool for literary analysis.  It doesn't need to map one to one with every possible story in order to justify its mechanics.  It's also okay if different D&Ds map to different elements depending on the goals of the rules writer or people playing the game.

From what I understand the cleric class was invented as a counter to a cheesy vampire character called Count Fang who had gotten out of hand.  The earliest monk was inspired by the song "Kung Fu Fighting" by Carl Douglas.  People were having fun making shit up.  They weren't doing some dissertation on applying analytical tools to the entire body of fantasy literature to come up with the perfect categories into which all protagonists must invariably fall.

We really need to stop pretending that D&D is a grand theory of everything when it comes to categorizing characters from fantasy stories.  Be it by class, by level or alignment.  It's so fucking ridiculous.  Just stop for a second and imagine Count Fang facing off against a holy warrior for the first time while Carl Douglas punches an ogre in the balls in the next room.  Woho-oh... Woho-oh...

Thank you, Nathan. Said it better than I could.

I'll just emphasize a couple points.

First, I don't know who started to refer to "archetypes" in D&D, and not being too familiar with Jungian theories I can't say whether D&D classes have any relation to those. But I found the word illuminating in that it made me realize that D&D classes as originally conceived are not professions. They are character types. From that view, the idea of multiclassing in a fashion where you take a level of this and a level of that is pretty ridiculous. You are what you are; character growth in the mechanical sense just means you're a more epic version of what you are. In the context of the mechanics, a random Game of Thrones dude is a tadpole and Conan is a frog, but in fiction they're different species--tadpole and great white shark, say.

Of course this idea is subverted immediately by Gygaxian Naturalism, if not by the rules of OD&D then certainly by AD&D. The fact that you move from tadpole to shark by acquiring something called "experience" shows that the notion of class and level was already seen in terms of "professional development."

In short there's a contradiction from the start which is basically resolved in the same way as the hit point conundrum: it works if you don't examine it too closely.

If you try to reform the system by tweaking the mechanics, chances are you're just going to make an abomination. Best to go back to first principles.

Quote from: Arminius;841605D&D classes as originally conceived are not professions. They are character types. From that view, the idea of multiclassing in a fashion where you take a level of this and a level of that is pretty ridiculous.

Of course this idea is subverted immediately by Gygaxian Naturalism

Thank you, Eliot, for reminding me why I like S&W so much better than AD&D (and 3e, and 4e, and 5e...)



Not that I am against a classless take on D&D but then it shouldn't mix and match design principles. NathanIW's example upthread is a pretty good start.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;841618Not that I am against a classless take on D&D but then it shouldn't mix and match design principles. NathanIW's example upthread is a pretty good start.

So far it's been working.  Only had 12 or so hours of actual play with 6 people.  It pretty much is the build a bear approach Larsdangly mentioned in the original post.  Or the type of play Randall was talking about.

For anyone worried about ideas like archetypes, the approach will maintain them as long as the player interested in one can make it out of the pieces available.

For anyone interested in "niche protection," well, I don't have much respect for such ideas.  I don't want one character class being able to do X to ever mean every other one can't.  And I certainly have no use for rules that protect a player's interest in how their character is special.

The other thing I've noticed is that "balance" hasn't been an issue either.  I'm using gaming material for the normal assumptions of character power level and things are fine.  I have some monsters from the S&W SRD.  A dungeon from a Judge's Guild publication and some other stuff I've grabbed from here and there and everything is working fine.  Maybe things will start being problematic by level 5, but that can often be the case in games like AD&D where one wrong magic item can ruin the game.

I did end up using a spell point system so if someone takes two spell casting class features, they still have the same pool of points to spend, but just with more spells to choose from.  I need to double check my math, but I may be giving too many spell points per level.  It hasn't yet become a problem, but I'll be sure to double check how I'm doing that before the next character levels up.

The other thing I've done is normalize experience and base it off exploration.  The game is explicitly about exploring the mythic underworld, so a character gets an XP for each room or adventure area they visit/survive/explore.  The type of area that merits an entry in a key for a map.  This, like the old GP = XP, makes wondering monsters a real threat rather than an opportunity for rapid advancement.  To figure out how many XP are needed per level I just took the XP and Treasure of a normal dungeon and figured out on average how many rooms would have to be visited to level up once you divided the XP and GP as XP between the characters.  I rounded it up and got 25, 50, 100, etc.,.  So far in 12 hours of play 27 adventure areas have been visited.  I don't know if that's fast or slow compared to normal D&D expectations, but part of having no classes is figuring out how to deal with how characters level up.  The PDF of Philotomy's musings were very useful in working this out.

Love it; sounds cool!

Quote from: NathanIW;841593Perhaps we should consider letting this shit go.  D&D classes will not map 1 to 1 with every fictional character.  And that's okay.  For many the divisions it makes are the categories they want.  For others D&D has taught them to see its classes and other characteristics in every bit of fiction they read (to the point of reading them into the stories when they are not there).  Others see where things don't line up and wish they would.

This is a good point.  It's also worth noting that a lot of things that D&D characters do are completely impossible in literature.  I was reading a blog today that retold a story about PCs preferring to have their heads cut off and placed in a bag of holding (to be resurrected later) than to surrender (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/37527/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-player-characters-and-surrender)

If you follow any historical examples, nobody would ever have done this and there are few (if any) fiction universes where this can happen.  Just think of Game of Thrones -- where this is never an option no matter how desperate the stakes.  In the same vein, the teleport spell does a lot of damage to world building assumptions.  Some universes, like Wheel of Time, can handle it but it would be completely out of genre in Conan or Lord of the Rings.  

It is also true you can't make Superman in D&D, either.  

So D&D cannot emulate all genres.  That's okay.

That head in a bag thing is hilarious.

That sounds like something out of Irish myth. (Come to think of it, the Celts had a thing for cutting off heads, and I think that may be a theme of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. But the humorous/self-parodying aspect seems Irish.)

Quote from: NathanIW;841624For anyone interested in "niche protection," well, I don't have much respect for such ideas.  I don't want one character class being able to do X to ever mean every other one can't.  And I certainly have no use for rules that protect a player's interest in how their character is special.

My understanding of niche protection is that a character should not be completely overshadowed by another character, not that no other character can do the thing they do. So I care about niche protection so that a player doesn't feel their archer character is worthless because the mages can sling better damage with their cantrips, not because they invested anything special in it but just as a side effect of learning real magic; or the thief gets put out of work by divination spells. I don't care if one fighter is +2 relative to another, because the player with the weaker fighter isn't going to say, "Oh, no reason to play a fighter!".

It does help to have lots of archetypes or skills or colleges of magic or deities or whatever so that every player has a good chance of being a little bit better than the rest of the party at something, not so that they have a monopoly on their specialty. But I'm not enforcing that with any rules. And most things a character can do help the party just by quantity: more spell slots, more hit points, more attacks are good even if they're weaker than what other characters have.

Quote from: Votan;841655I was reading a blog today that retold a story about PCs preferring to have their heads cut off and placed in a bag of holding (to be resurrected later) than to surrender (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/37527/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-player-characters-and-surrender)

If you follow any historical examples, nobody would ever have done this and there are few (if any) fiction universes where this can happen.

How could this happen historically, since it depends on having resurrection spells? I don't understand the decapitation, since it seems to be a D&D-ish game (wouldn't you need the whole body to raise them from the dead? or just a small amount of flesh for a clone spell?)

For a fictional example, there's Fred Saberhagen's Empire of the East; one of the characters asks his wife to cut his head off so that she can put a collar on his severed neck so that his head and body would be transported by the robotic medics for healing, which might not work anyway - but no other way to get the collar on.

Maybe some mass cult suicides were motivated by the same reasoning (believing they would be brought back to life).