I saw this thread and the OP didn't bother to describe what he meant was the minimum for a class-based system beyond that a class-based system is a regular D&D.
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?34682-Class-Based-Systems-Yea-or-Nay&p=909107#post909107
I assume needs skills systems- not general purpose. Need stat-based effects. Skills can be used by some classes. Some skills are difficult to obtain for some classes. Some skills are impossible to have for some classes. Classes imbue some roleplaying direction and personality to character.
Is the minimum some skills are easy to obtain for a class and some hard to obtain?
Could a class be a style whereby there are many standard skills (and others that are difficult to obtain) in each category (defence(count healing as defence), offence, socially useful noncombat, non-social, battlefield modification) available for each style and therefore players always have the choice to have something to do in all situations? Does any system explicitly do that?
Is D&D still D&D if you replace the standard classes with styles (which can player described as rogue, wizard etc.) and the skills have some suitable different class limits?
My definition for a class based system is a system in which certain character abilities are only available to members of certain groups, the "classes". Thus only Wizards can cast spells, only Warriors can specialize in hand-to-hand combat weapons, only Thieves can pick locks or find and remove traps.
The exclusivity of abilities is what defines a Class. In many skill based systems any character can potentially learn any skill or ability, in a Class based system they cannot.
Skills are not necessary, nor are stat or attribute based effects.
A class based is a system where progression is handled in discrete chunks i..e levels and that each class can buy/obtain attributes/skills/talents/gifts at different costs and availability usually to fulfill the theme or purpose of the class. It can be tied to a underlying universal system of skill and talents or feature a unique set of abilities to each class.
Circa 2016 it lies at one end of a spectrum of how to define a character in term of mechanics. In the 1980s there was clear dividing line between class based RPGs and skill based RPGs. But the development of d20 system with the ability to freely stack levels from different classes and packages/templates blurred the line considerably.
My definition of a class-based system is a system that uses classes.
That part isn't really that difficult, but I suppose you could ask "What is a class, really?" In the original RPG, it's a broad character type that's unusually gifted in one ability. Exclusive abilities aren't necessary. In OD&D, there were only three classes to start, all of which could fight, and two of which had spell casting built in, but even fighters could cast spells, by the book. One class got much better than the others at surviving danger and killing enemies, another got much better at using magic, and one class was somewhere in between. There are only two abilities that are exclusive: turn undead, and making magic items. Everything not listed, anyone could do, or at least try.
Over the years, some games, including the way some people played Basic or Advanced D&D, tightened up the classes and started thinking in terms of exclusive abilities, for "niche protection". Others, including AD&D eventually, toyed with skill systems or other customization options. In part, this was a reaction to the "exclusive abilities" approach. In part, it was just a "grass is greener on the other side of the fence" reaction to Traveller and later Runequest.
Quote from: cloa513;909477Is the minimum some skills are easy to obtain for a class and some hard to obtain?
No. The minimum is no skills, just one or two rules about what equipment a class can use (Fighters can use magic swords and magic armor, M-Us can use scrolls and wands.)
Quote from: cloa513;909477Could a class be a style whereby there are many standard skills (and others that are difficult to obtain) in each category (defence(count healing as defence), offence, socially useful noncombat, non-social, battlefield modification) available for each style and therefore players always have the choice to have something to do in all situations? Does any system explicitly do that?
Some, probably many. It starts with The Fantasy Trip, which had only two classes, Hero and Wizard, which had only two effects:
(1) Anyone could get any talent or spell, but most talents were more expensive for Wizards, all spells were more expensive for Heroes.
(2) Some magic items were usable only by wizards.
Rolemaster is also a bit like this, and a more modern game system (Organic Rules Components, basis of Fates Worse Than Death, Tibet, and In Dark Alleys) pretty much only uses classes as styles.
Quote from: cloa513;909477Is D&D still D&D if you replace the standard classes with styles (which can player described as rogue, wizard etc.) and the skills have some suitable different class limits?
No, that's how other games were created: by completely replacing the core systems. D&D is still D&D if you change which dice you roll, or change how armor works, or even if you change vancian magic to a true spell point system. It's even still D&D if you add some (or too many) classes. It's not D&D if you change the way classes work, or remove the level system.
D&D class based systems tend to be either zero skill or skill lite. Each profession is defined by what it can do. Sometimes theres overlaps like fighters, paladins and rangers all use the same combat table and overall have the same access to weapons for example. Or sometimes like the Thief, the class can just do something anyone can do, except better.
Skill based/point buy systems are "build your character" type so you can create all manner of combos. Gurps is a good example of this taken to the extreme. BX D&D and 2e AD&D had an alternative class builder system in Dragon for BX and in the books for 2e.
Other games like Shadowrun are hybrids that on one side limit the purchases within certain paramiters the player assigned at the start. But also provides some archetypes which are essentially class examples that you can flesh out. Rifts is another early hybrid in that its got classes or races with specific powers. But also a relatively open skill system.
Quote from: talysman;909494Rolemaster is also a bit like this, and a more modern game system (Organic Rules Components, basis of Fates Worse Than Death, Tibet, and In Dark Alleys) pretty much only uses classes as styles.
When running FWTD, I told everybody that the Classes are like Warhammer Careers, and the prices are different because you associate with different people. It seems to "click" for people rather quickly:).
The same would be even more true in Tibet;).
Class-based.
Race-based.
Skill-based.
Attribute-based.
Plot-based.
Equipment-based.
Armor-based.
Weapon-based.
Magic-based.
Spirit-based.
Blood-based.
Cliche-based.
There are others. The trick is deciding what percent of each that you want in your game system.
Quote from: cloa513;909477Is D&D still D&D if you replace the standard classes with styles (which can player described as rogue, wizard etc.) and the skills have some suitable different class limits?
Tough question. I guess it would depend what the end-product looked like.
Quote from: RPGPundit;909985Tough question. I guess it would depend what the end-product looked like.
Oriental Adventures? Masque of the Red Death? They both change things around quite a bit but still play and feel like D&D overall.
Is Buck Rogers XXVC still 2nd ed D&D?
Is d20 Modern still 3rd ed D&D?
Quote from: Omega;909988Is d20 Modern still 3rd ed D&D?
It's still D20, but it isn't D&D.