I've been kicking around the idea of it for a fewmonths now, and so far it seems like it should work fine. You choose single features from classes that you can have like divine challenge or fighters mark, and so on, and then build your powers around a concept and your stat build.
What do you think?
I mean, it's all fine as long as everybody takes advantage of the new setup to supercharge their characters, but some builds just wont be seen anymore.
Unbalanced. You mix combat challenge with thunderwave and the game is just over.
A Half-Elf Fighter could already do that.
Similarly, A Dragonborn Fighter can use it's breath weapon to attack multiple foes, and then mark them all.
Game seems to be doing just fine.
OoE + Twin Strike/Dual Strike at level 1? Awesome! :P
A Half-Elf Fighter could already do that.
Similarly, A Dragonborn Fighter can use it's breath weapon to attack multiple foes, and then mark them all.
Game seems to be doing just fine.
I left out how I meant if it ever became an at-will, it would push it over the top. I know I was ambiguous, but how could you not see the problem with that? You get those admittedly awesome abilities from race. What if you had the crazy power of a dragon breath or thunderwave but could also get an extra human feat?
Seriously, it's broken.
A Half-Elf Fighter could already do that.
Similarly, A Dragonborn Fighter can use it's breath weapon to attack multiple foes, and then mark them all.
Game seems to be doing just fine.
Marking a 3x3 square once an encounter is very different from doing it every turn all fight long.
take the structure of the classes and use them as a frame work, but otherwise build classes by pick and choosing powers from all over?
...choose single features from classes that you can have like divine challenge or fighters mark, and so on, and then build your powers around a concept and your stat build.
One of my players wants to play a monk, so we're going to homebrew it until we can get a preview.
For this, the player chooses either the avenger or ranger (two weapon) class format/features.
Armor: Cloth
Weapon Prof: None (unarmed)
Def: +1 to all
1st level
HP: 13 + CON
HP/lvl: 5
Surges: 7 + CON mod
Then the player can choose powers from either class.
Instead of melee weapons this 'monk uses 1d6 unarmed attacks. One feat improves this to 1d8, with another feat for 1d10.
Missile attacks are restricted to basic missile attacks.
There are no avenger implements, the avenger's turn undead and the ranger's prime shot are removed.
And for ranger powers that are either melee or missile weapon, this build can use either STR or DEX mods for the unarmed attack.
If it turns out to be too powerful, I can always rein it in or squash it with nasty monsters.
I'm just going to wait for 5th Edition and hope they do it then.
Not gonna happen. At least, not for anything that ever goes by the name of Dungeons and Dragons. Classes are the very thing that makes D&D what it is, and the game works well for what it does. If you want a classless system, there are plenty of alternatives that'll work great for you. But for the cliched, heroic fantasy adventure that D&D tailors to, classes will always be an intrinsic part.
Not that I'm harping on classless systems, as I love them for any other sort of setting. Classes just don't fit in modern, future, horror, superhero, mystery, etc. I'm not even against an attempt at homebrewing a classless version of 4E, but classless will never be a core feature of D&D.
Anyone try a classless 4th edition? As in, you take the structure of the classes and use them as a frame work, but otherwise build classes by pick and choosing powers from all over?
I've been kicking around the idea of it for a fewmonths now, and so far it seems like it should work fine. You choose single features from classes that you can have like divine challenge or fighters mark, and so on, and then build your powers around a concept and your stat build.
What do you think?
I've thought about this as well, but I've come to the conclusion that the class structure is too important to the tactical nature of the game for a classless variant to work well.
I think that 3.5 lends itself to a classless system much easier...there are probably already D20 games of this nature released under the OGL. The core mechanics of 4th Edition (level progression, healing surges, attack vs. NAD, 1/2 level to skills, defenses, attacks, etc.) should translate nicely, but the class power structure not so.
I could see (perhaps for 5th edition, but who knows) a variant where the classes become more generic in nature, based on party role rather than archetype (IE Defender, Striker, Controller, Leader rather than Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric) with each class having a generic mechanic effect to promote it's role.
Couple this with a power source, which would give different mechanical effects to the role abilities, for instance the Shadow powersource would provide a different effect when applied to the striker's damage bonus, than the martial, etc. The powersource would also provide a pool of powers for the player to choose from throughout their characters career.
A system like this could work, but not with the current array of class powers I would imagine. Also, the game as it stands now is very easy for new players to learn, whereas this proposed structure would make D&D more obtuse and esoteric to potential enthusiasts.
D&D will never be class-less.
Not gonna happen. At least, not for anything that ever goes by the name of Dungeons and Dragons. Classes are the very thing that makes D&D what it is, and the game works well for what it does. If you want a classless system, there are plenty of alternatives that'll work great for you. But for the cliched, heroic fantasy adventure that D&D tailors to, classes will always be an intrinsic part.
Not that I'm harping on classless systems, as I love them for any other sort of setting. Classes just don't fit in modern, future, horror, superhero, mystery, etc. I'm not even against an attempt at homebrewing a classless version of 4E, but classless will never be a core feature of D&D.
There are alot of things that arguably could be called "what makes d&d what it is" that are no longer part of the game. I would not discount anything from happening just yet.
For classless 4e I would give people a set number of feats to start out with. Of course you would need to dump powers and class features because they are balanced by class. There would be four types of basic attacks: melee, ranged, blast and burst. Melee and ranged would remain the same and blast and burst would be int, wis, or cha based (based on implement) with the damage based on implement (meaning implements would have to have damage values).
I might develop this more for pick-up games.
Marking a 3x3 square once an encounter is very different from doing it every turn all fight long.
Yes...this would be an overpowered combination, I certainly don't doubt that.
However, as it stands now, a Paragon Multiclassed Fighter/Wizard could already do this, and add marked scourge on top of it. A Stormsoul Genasi with a sufficiently high WIS score would work nicely.
My point is that the capability to do this already exists within the game, it's just a bit more difficult to achieve.
The biggest problem I see with this is that ostensibly, this combination would make the character a better controller than even the controller classes.
Yes...this would be a powerful combination.
However, as it stands now, a Paragon Multiclassed Fighter/Wizard could already do this, and add marked scourge on top of it. A Stormsoul Genasi with a sufficiently high WIS score would work nicely.
My point is that the capability to do this already exists within the game, it's just a bit more difficult to achieve.
"A bit?"
In order to do it now you're spending 4 specific feats, balancing the gear requirements of two classes and missing out on Paragon Path abilities. You're also spread pretty thin in terms of attributes.
This change lets you do it at first level with a single high attribute and no feat expenditure.
That's not "a bit" less difficult, it's a completely different order of magnitude.
You want a class-less game, go play World of Darkness.
D&D will never be class-less.
The designers of 4e did say that while it was designed with classes in mind, it could easily be done as a classless system instead.
I've thought about it, but havent done it, even though I almost had a classless 3e system going. I've also thought about removing the restriction on only being able to take 1 multiclass, but that might require some nerfing of the multiclass feats, maybe remove the free skill training beyond the 1st or something.
It might allow some powerful combos, but if you trust your players not to abuse the system or at least to all abuse it equally, then go for it. If everyone has fun, then thats all that really matters. It will definitely give them a power boost but I dont think it will break the game.
This should probably go in the homebrew section.
For classless 4e I would give people a set number of feats to start out with. Of course you would need to dump powers and class features because they are balanced by class. There would be four types of basic attacks: melee, ranged, blast and burst. Melee and ranged would remain the same and blast and burst would be int, wis, or cha based (based on implement) with the damage based on implement (meaning implements would have to have damage values).
I might develop this more for pick-up games.
I've considered giving implements set damage values as well...if you decide to give this a shot I'd like to read about how it works in play.
I've considered giving implements set damage values as well...if you decide to give this a shot I'd like to read about how it works in play.
I will not be playing until school lets out so I can't really test anything until then. The main problem with converting implements to set damage would be balancing all of the powers, which is more tedious than difficult. I think a proficiency bonus would be appropriate as well (lower than weapons).
I would go:
wand +2 1d4, high crit, off hand
staff +1 1d8
orb +2 1d6, off hand
Or something along that line.
There are alot of things that arguably could be called "what makes d&d what it is" that are no longer part of the game. I would not discount anything from happening just yet.
Those various things that you refer to are generally specific mechanical aspects, such as vancian casting. However, to a non-player, D&D is "that game where you play a wizard, or a fighter, or a thief, and you go kill monsters and take their stuff". The classes really are the thing that make D&D what it is.
At the moment, there are people claiming that 4E might as well not be D&D, many of which backing this up by saying that all the classes are the same (not true, but still). Imagine the uproar if there were no classes at all. No, the classes are the iconic feature of D&D, and would always have to remain in some form.
I will not be playing until school lets out so I can't really test anything until then. The main problem with converting implements to set damage would be balancing all of the powers, which is more tedious than difficult. I think a proficiency bonus would be appropriate as well (lower than weapons).
I would go:
wand +2 1d4, high crit, off hand
staff +1 1d8
orb +2 1d6, off hand
Or something along that line.
Proficiency bonus wouldn't work for this because implement powers target nonarmor defenses, which tend to be lower than AC.
Giving implements inherent to-hit bonuses would make them overpowered.
Also, implements already have per encounter abilities associated with them, do they really need weapon properties as well?
"A bit?"
In order to do it now you're spending 4 specific feats, balancing the gear requirements of two classes and missing out on Paragon Path abilities. You're also spread pretty thin in terms of attributes.
This change lets you do it at first level with a single high attribute and no feat expenditure.
That's not "a bit" less difficult, it's a completely different order of magnitude.
Apologies...I have a talent for understatement.
Proficiency bonus wouldn't work for this because implement powers target nonarmor defenses, which tend to be lower than AC.
Giving implements inherent to-hit bonuses would make them overpowered.
Also, implements already have per encounter abilities associated with them, do they really need weapon properties as well?
Your right I forgot.
The designers of 4e did say that while it was designed with classes in mind, it could easily be done as a classless system instead. [...]
Now that's the kind of stuff that would fit well for a 4E "Unearthed Arcana", wouldn't it? ;)
Now that's the kind of stuff that would fit well for a 4E "Unearthed Arcana", wouldn't it? ;)
This is what I am waiting for. :D
This all started from a discussion I was having with a fellow nerd, and the other DM for our group( I am the other), about using a classless system of 4th edition for a scifi game. So far he has done up some great rules for fire arms that we will be using, and I was going to look at a classless system.
I think everyone seems to be of the mind that the class features, along with powers from other classes would imbalance things.....Maybe I'll have to make my own stat based base classes to use like they have in d20 modern....I think that could work pretty good.
Or just have no class features, everyone get's the same number of powers but throw a few extra feats in to the mix at the beginning to help flesh out the character and the role they intend to fit....
I tend to prefer classes for the same reason I don't think everyone should be allowed to vote. Some people just can't be trusted with freedom...well, almost everyone can't, actually. But anyway...classless can be alright, but usually it just leads to needless trouble when you take a classed system and render it classless. More trouble than it's worth, anyway.
Now that I've mentioned Generic Classes, I think I'll go try that out.
The designers of 4e did say that while it was designed with classes in mind, it could easily be done as a classless system instead.
And it would be terrible. The only way I could think to possibly make it work would be to chain the entire system to a set of prereqs and power trees that would make Exalted look simple. Also you'd have to redo the skill system from the ground up to help give more limiters and prereqs. I'm going to file that under "things the designers were very wrong about." Good classless systems all have their own control mechanisms to prevent abuse. D&D doesn't have that structure.
It could be done, but it would a massive undertaking to do it right.
I've thought about it, but havent done it, even though I almost had a classless 3e system going. I've also thought about removing the restriction on only being able to take 1 multiclass, but that might require some nerfing of the multiclass feats, maybe remove the free skill training beyond the 1st or something.
3rd ED was classless really. It was a point buy system where you used your "levels" to buy "skill packages." The only reason classes existed at all in a game was due to the massive power loss from multiclassing due to spell level loss. Basically it's own imbalance kept it's class structure.
It might allow some powerful combos, but if you trust your players not to abuse the system or at least to all abuse it equally, then go for it. If everyone has fun, then thats all that really matters. It will definitely give them a power boost but I dont think it will break the game.
It won't break the game if you try not to break the game AND are good enough optimizers (or bad enough I suppose). But I think a party of 5 average players would have someone hit on some insane combat by accident and blow right past the current charop leader boards.
Going classless essentially means that everyone is out for himself or herself, and any attempts at cooperative teamwork when it comes to character creation will inevitably wind up resembling what is essentially a class-based game.
In any case, I think the biggest issue with a classless system is the possibility to aim for the best of all words. The aforementioned example of having the fighter's ability to mark, combined with at-will spells like thunderwave, illustrates how this can crumble pretty quickly.
If you really want to go classless, you might want to add requirements to certain, stronger powers. For example, in order to opt to select a particularly strong, wizard control power, you might require to already have one or two other control powers at your disposition. In this way, retraining still allows players to gradually switch the focus of their characters completely while at the same time ensuring that you don't have characters repeatedly opting for the best powers of every role.
As to requirements for progression, totally. It would be a themed progression if I could manage it, and by that I mean that i would have them build characters with a them in mind. So that one guy could be the fire guy, one guy the ice guy and so on, plus they could have all their bases cover through powers and a group effort.
And, if it turned into a total over powered, slugger fest, I can roll with that bad boy too. Nothing wrong with a campaign, short lived though it may be, consisting of over the top fight scenes feature a group of super sluggers vs the unbalanced hordes of doom. :D
But it looks like I would need to watch the character creation and level up process very carefully incase someone figures out the loop hole of loop holes.
I think that 3.5 lends itself to a classless system much easier...there are probably already D20 games of this nature released under the OGL.
Yep. For example Complete Control issued by Dreamscarred Press. Very interesting book, though I haven't been able to try it out yet.
Sorry.
...I'll go back to the OTT now.
I didn't think 4.0 had any class to begin with.
Sorry.
...I'll go back to the OTT now.
Your joke was bad and you should feel bad.
On further reflection i now agree it will never be classless, as it would impact the splat business model just a little too hard. :D
You kidding, AC? They would just come out with "Complete Fire-Based Defender Powers VII". :D
That's the thing that bugs me about classes, really, and why I sympathize with the folks that want to figure out classless systems. Classes do too much of the work for me -- and some of it is work I enjoy doing.
I think you could easily go classless, as long as you arent playing with a bunch of morons who want to find the way to break the system, and you are willing to houserule a few things.. I don't know if Id want to read all those powers though people could be tempted to just filter for the highest damage in excel or something (powers are to similar to select on "coolness" now).
I think whenever you post a houserule idea people on forums are going to say "broken!" but this is not a representation of a True D&D demographic. You probably get more people here who want to break classes and have the most powerful character then in your campaign (which probably has the accountant that always plays a dwarf, and the teacher who always plays the gnome illusionist.. e.g. people who do this 1-2 times a months and don't think up clever ways to break the system).
I say go with it if you think itll be fun, but my take is that it might not be THAT fun having to read 10x more powers everytime you level.
I found 4E almost feels like it should have been classless. Almost like the classes were added after they designed the system. Like they had a bunch of suggested builds and just decided to make them the classes.
I bet it was designed without a class at first. Sort of a base class so you can decide how much damage it should do at every level. How many choices, skills, ac ect it should have at every level.
Then they would just modify the base class, the controller hits more targets so lower its damage, the striker should do a bit more, ect, ect. But there is always the "average" class to compare to.
Power parts would be , melee weapon , [W] , marked, knock prone , ongoing damage ... that sort of thing.
Then you'd build up your own unique powers from the parts available sort of the way you created new spells in Oblivion and Morrowind. Each part has a cost and each level of power has a total available .
Powers would be lmited based on the levels you get them. A level one daily power might be limited to maximum of 3 of the same type of any one part.
Ex; Level 1 Daily power has max 3[W]
........ I'll think more on it. I'm sure it can be done and to the point that it would be balanced still and hard to under power a character. But it could end up having lots more versatile characters . I just hate having books with powers in them that might never ever get used. Its like a waste of space.
But a cjharacter with a role to fill and the basic building blocks that the role ,race and power source or sources provide could be very fun .
though the number may change. Maybe 3 maybe 5, I'll have to play around with it and see how things look.
Oh, and this would be for one campaigns worth at best, and realistically it would be for a few adventures.
Proficiency bonus wouldn't work for this because implement powers target nonarmor defenses, which tend to be lower than AC.
Giving implements inherent to-hit bonuses would make them overpowered.
Also, implements already have per encounter abilities associated with them, do they really need weapon properties as well?
Actually Wizards have encounter powers associated with Implements.
For a classless system using the 4e framework the bigger issue becomes handling class features rather than powers. Sure, the interaction of some powers becomes a problem in certain cases, but that's nothing that isn't already possible to manufacture through multi-classing and power swap feats.
Best way would be to have the base classes or roles work like a kit, but have powers wide open, i.e. you take a defender kit that lets you pick some features and from the defender pool, so the character would still have a 'class' that determines HP and Features, but powers are wide open. This keeps at least some of the party inter-dependancy in tact.
This of course acknowledges that any radical departure from the published system effectively negates the main value of pre-published monsters, adventures, and so forth. That sounds brutal, but it's nothing you don't run into in any of the other classless systems.
Anyone try a classless 4th edition? As in, you take the structure of the classes and use them as a frame work, but otherwise build classes by pick and choosing powers from all over?
I've been kicking around the idea of it for a fewmonths now, and so far it seems like it should work fine. You choose single features from classes that you can have like divine challenge or fighters mark, and so on, and then build your powers around a concept and your stat build.
What do you think?
such a game already exists. It's called G.U.R.P.S. and it does what you are talking about very very well. It is basically a guideline for creating any kind of role-playing adventure you can think of by completely customizing every character using generic characteristics. Just wiki it if you want to know more.
Although I'm not a big fan of the rules in general, I think that Shadowrun was great for classless characters. You knew that there were certain roles in the game, both IC and OOC, but it was up to you to figure out how to fulfill those roles, or if you wanted to try to invent a new role or a new way of doing things.
That's the thing that bugs me about classes, really, and why I sympathize with the folks that want to figure out classless systems. Classes do too much of the work for me -- and some of it is work I enjoy doing.
This is funny, since I just mentioned the other day to some friends of mine that Shadowrun really only has the illusion of freedom - for competent players.
Our group was highly competent and highly professional (Shadowrunners, that is). Well prepared, tons of stealth, the two FUBAR situations we ran into in the campaign couldn't have been forseen or planned by us, but because our characters were built very well we just steam-rolled them.
What I noticed is that there are key roles in a group, and each needs to be covered. Generalists are useless. Primary and Secondary focuses are about all that you can do in terms of flexibility - all key roles need to be fulfilled.
With the basic framework in mind, only a few character types really become good. Sure, you could build something "neat", but then your character... really isn't that neat.
The problem is that the SR build system makes it harder to increase ranks via gaming than at char-build, so optimally you want to crank out a few specialists rather than a generalist, then spread out your Karma investment.
We had a new player who was a weapons expert (following the archtype, probably) but she was basically out-gunned by my Face in pistols and our other sammi in blades/SMG. She could use lots of different types of weapons, but in any particular combat we did better. She essentially could do a bit of everything, but nothing as good as any one of the rest of us. Probably was very frustrating for her.
Any good, solid team of runners will have characters with stealth, 1 primary combat skill, 1 primary role skill (hack, talky, magic, etc), 1 secondary combat skill, and 1 secondary role skill. With everything else put in to support the primaries, that'll use up your chargen. You'll have specialized professionals. Scatter randomly when everyone else does what I just said, and you'll feel like you're a tad useless. If everyone scatters, everybody will be trying to do everything and the team as a whole is weak.
More than anything else, SR is teamwork (even more than D&D!) which becomes a matter of professionals with specializations.
SR classless is a trap! ;)
You're either a Hacker or a Rigger or a... you know. :D
[...] SR classless is a trap! ;)
You're either a Hacker or a Rigger or a... you know. :D
While I generally agree with your analysis, this statement is less true in SR4. Hacking and Rigging are just two subsets of "doing stuff with computers". Also, the focus has changed. Improvements in cyber-, drone- and matrixtech has led to the situation that a team can do fine without a mage but is utterly f***ed without a hacker.
While you can (and my group does) play DnD4 without a cleric (or any leader, in that case) in the party you just can't play SR4 without a hacker. The party won't get anywhere - no information about Johnsons or possible targets, no bypassing of locks, no scouting/surveillance with hoverdrones, no in-field team coordination (or running around with PANs in active mode :P), and so on.
Class based games are the simplest way to built a cooperative foundation for obvious team dynamics.
One of the suggestions I've heard is to simply allow players to choose from any Power, but even this (beyond a superficial nod) is problematic. Take, for example, the Fighter Class. If fighters could choose Wizard Powers willy-nilly then why make a Wizard? You'll have more HP, more Surges, better Armor (without a Str requirement), and be better off in general. There's no need for class features for a Wizard if you have good gear. You'd be better off as Bloodmage since you'll have more HP and more Surges. You'd be better off as a Spiral Tower Wizzy because you'll have the Long Sword feat and you'll benefit from Sword and Board. This could go on and on.
Class based games are the simplest way to built a cooperative foundation for obvious team dynamics.
Because every class has some cool class features, and to get those features you'll have to choose that class. For someone going with mainly wizard powers, those extra fighter HP might not be as useful as your implement mastery (particularly orbs). A striker build will still probably start with one of the striker classes to get the extra damage.
if you trust your players not to abuse the system or at least to all abuse it equally, then go for it. If everyone has fun, then thats all that really matters.
This is a universal truth.
It might allow some powerful combos, but if you trust your players not to abuse the system or at least to all abuse it equally, then go for it. If everyone has fun, then thats all that really matters. It will definitely give them a power boost but I dont think it will break the game.
There would have to be some effort amongst everyone (players and DM) to ensure you have a party or characters that is more or less balanced with each other. I think that some players would simply be better at building characters than others. If everyone goes away and then shows up with their character, there will be a much wider disparity in the power level of each character than in a class system. Even if everyone has the intention of wanting to build a party where everyone is the same power level, either the better optimisers will have to hold back or assist the non-optimisers on how to build a better character. The end result is that some players will not get to play what they want because it is either too powerful or not powerful enough.
Although 4E does not totally eliminate the disparity in power levels amongst players of different optimising skill and desire, it balances things well enough. Players can build a character that they like and still be effective even if not optimised.
There would have to be some effort amongst everyone (players and DM) to ensure you have a party or characters that is more or less balanced with each other. I think that some players would simply be better at building characters than others. If everyone goes away and then shows up with their character, there will be a much wider disparity in the power level of each character than in a class system. Even if everyone has the intention of wanting to build a party where everyone is the same power level, either the better optimisers will have to hold back or assist the non-optimisers on how to build a better character. The end result is that some players will not get to play what they want because it is either too powerful or not powerful enough.
Although 4E does not totally eliminate the disparity in power levels amongst players of different optimising skill and desire, it balances things well enough. Players can build a character that they like and still be effective even if not optimised.
I realize that might not apply to all groups, but in my experience the more effective character builders tend to help the less-knowledgeable ones. No one wants to have to pick up the slack for another player. Also, like you said, they can still be effective even if they arent optimized.
I realize that might not apply to all groups, but in my experience the more effective character builders tend to help the less-knowledgeable ones. No one wants to have to pick up the slack for another player. Also, like you said, they can still be effective even if they arent optimized.
All groups are different. In the game that I run, I am one of the more effective character builders. I have made suggestions to the less-knowledgeable ones. Sometimes the response I get is that their less optimial build is what they want to play and my suggestion makes their character less cool. In 4E, it isn't that big of an issue because he would still be effective. In 3.5, there would be a big issue because he does something that he feels is cool, but is even more useless than the simplest basic attack. If some players play significant inferior characters, those players will be unhappy as the feel they cannot be effective and others feel they have to always pick up the slack.
I would feel that a classless system would have a disparity in power more like 3.5 than 4E. I may be wrong as I am not an expert in game design. Perhaps someone can build a classless system that can keep the power level disparity close. If so, I would support such a system. I am not optimistic about it because all of the game system that I have seen, the more customisation, mixing and matching allowed the greater disparity in power level there can be. This is not just RPG's, but other games with any type of tactical combat.
All groups are different. In the game that I run, I am one of the more effective character builders. I have made suggestions to the less-knowledgeable ones. Sometimes the response I get is that their less optimial build is what they want to play and my suggestion makes their character less cool. In 4E, it isn't that big of an issue because he would still be effective. In 3.5, there would be a big issue because he does something that he feels is cool, but is even more useless than the simplest basic attack. If some players play significant inferior characters, those players will be unhappy as the feel they cannot be effective and others feel they have to always pick up the slack.
I would feel that a classless system would have a disparity in power more like 3.5 than 4E. I may be wrong as I am not an expert in game design. Perhaps someone can build a classless system that can keep the power level disparity close. If so, I would support such a system. I am not optimistic about it because all of the game system that I have seen, the more customisation, mixing and matching allowed the greater disparity in power level there can be. This is not just RPG's, but other games with any type of tactical combat.
I hate to say it, but the best solution here might be to play gurps fantasy.
It's the most balanced classless system I've ever seen simply because they did a great job of the math for the points for things, and everyone in a campaign starts with the same number of points.
I hate to say it, but the best solution here might be to play gurps fantasy.
It's the most balanced classless system I've ever seen simply because they did a great job of the math for the points for things, and everyone in a campaign starts with the same number of points.
I've heard of GURPS, but have not seen the system. I would be interested in seeing it as I have heard that it is a classless gaming system. The only classless RPG that I have experience with is the Hero system which also uses points to purchase abilities, skills and powers. That particular system allows some real brokenness and some of the abilities you can take do have warnings for the DM if players take those powers. There are even examples of such characters so the GM knows what to watch out for.
I've heard of GURPS, but have not seen the system. I would be interested in seeing it as I have heard that it is a classless gaming system. The only classless RPG that I have experience with is the Hero system which also uses points to purchase abilities, skills and powers. That particular system allows some real brokenness and some of the abilities you can take do have warnings for the DM if players take those powers. There are even examples of such characters so the GM knows what to watch out for.
GURPS is a general gaming system using a 3d6-roll-under mechanic. The most interesting facts about GURPS are
- the basic system is completely void of flavor (crunch in its purest form)
- there are LOTS of splatbooks (GURPS Space, GURPS Traveller, GURPS Horror, GURPS WW2, GURPS Zombie Apocalypse, ...)
- it uses the very same mechanics for character creation and character advancement (same points, same costs, ...)
- the whole system is very flexible and offers lots of customization options for pretty much everything you can imagine (race powers, superhero powers, alien powers, equipment, magic, psionics, ...)
Theoretically you could have a party consisting of
- a vampire lord
- a cowboy
- a swamp alien from a 1970's horror movie
- an elven samurai
- a transient human time-traveller from 10k years in the future
and all characters would be balanced against each other. At least the game system would support such a cast. ;)
If you want to take a look at it, you can find more information about GURPS here, and grab a free lite version of the game rules here.
One thing, however: GURPS is quite math-heavy and imho definitively no comparison to DnD regarding "ease of play". Character creation alone can take several hours with players new to the system because there are so many options (in 4e you basically just select race, class, trained skills, your starting feat, and then you're ready to go; in GURPS you have several pages of advantages and skills that may be suitable for your character to wade through).
Also, I personally find it less suitable for the "heroic fantasy" style of play because the default combat system is rather realistic and quite lethal if the DM doesn't apply some heavy tweaking to it and the PCs. While for this particular style of play imho DnD is the better and more suitable system, YMMV. :P
One of the suggestions I've heard is to simply allow players to choose from any Power, but even this (beyond a superficial nod) is problematic. Take, for example, the Fighter Class. If fighters could choose Wizard Powers willy-nilly then why make a Wizard? You'll have more HP, more Surges, better Armor (without a Str requirement), and be better off in general. There's no need for class features for a Wizard if you have good gear. You'd be better off as Bloodmage since you'll have more HP and more Surges. You'd be better off as a Spiral Tower Wizzy because you'll have the Long Sword feat and you'll benefit from Sword and Board. This could go on and on.
Class based games are the simplest way to built a cooperative foundation for obvious team dynamics.
Gah. no...If I'm playing a spellslinger I am absolutely going to take a class that gives me magic oriented options and bonuses, always. Why would I ever be in a position to make signifigent use of the fighter class features? My magic is ranged, so I'm going to try to avoid being in front, and thus am going to get less use out of higher hp and better armor than I will out of features made to enhance my magical ability.
One things though, if the OP becomes interested in using Gurps. There are cinematic combat rules, which are less realistic and more in favor of the PCs, thus a little closer to DnD, and in a high magic fantasy game meant to be similar in thematic style to DnD, I'd raise the point buy quite a bit.(which is standard for doing things like superheroes, high powered cinematic campaigns, etc.)
there's also a Gurps character builder, to keep the record keeping easier, I'll see if i can locate it.
To play a good defender, you need a marking power.
So, you should go through, try to assign 'Point' values to all the class features, with the better powers having a higher value, and comparable powers having the same value (i.e. all Defender marking features share a value, all Striker bonus damage features share a value, etc.).
Each character starts with a number of points, which they can use to but class features. Then they can choose powers from any class, but the balancing feature is that powers should RETAIN their original stats. So, Fighter powers should still key off strength, warlock powers off Con or Cha as appropriate, etc.
GURPS is a general gaming system...
Thank you for the overview of GURPS. From what you described, it sounds a lot like the Hero system. In fact, I could pretty much use what you wrote to describe Hero.
How does GURPS prevent brokenness? If you were to say build a D&D character in Hero, you can probably do it by allocating points to all of the various abilities. If you notice, a D&D character has many abilities. Some coming from their class, some from race, some from feats, etc. What's to prevent me from say only taking half of those powers thus doubling the number of points I allocate to them? With D&D, you cannot for instance trade your shield proficiency, combat superiority your encounter and daily power and then spend all of those points to pump up Reaping Strike. With Hero, you can build a character with 10 powers or a character with 5 more powerful powers or a character with one super powerful power. You end up with degenerate characters who are one trick ponies, but can cause armageddon with that one trick.
Thank you for the overview of GURPS. From what you described, it sounds a lot like the Hero system. In fact, I could pretty much use what you wrote to describe Hero.
How does GURPS prevent brokenness? If you were to say build a D&D character in Hero, you can probably do it by allocating points to all of the various abilities. If you notice, a D&D character has many abilities. Some coming from their class, some from race, some from feats, etc. What's to prevent me from say only taking half of those powers thus doubling the number of points I allocate to them? With D&D, you cannot for instance trade your shield proficiency, combat superiority your encounter and daily power and then spend all of those points to pump up Reaping Strike. With Hero, you can build a character with 10 powers or a character with 5 more powerful powers or a character with one super powerful power. You end up with degenerate characters who are one trick ponies, but can cause armageddon with that one trick.
Well, if you want to play an elf, they come as a package deal, and they cost a certain number of points, period. You can gain more points with mitigators, but not many. you also end up pretty much having to take disadvantages to gain any advantages that could be considered truly powerful. The math is done so that it's more expensive to level something up than to grab another ability, enough so that if you try to do that you won't have an epic ability so much as an above average ability, and the other people in the party will probably have better survivability than you.
[...] How does GURPS prevent brokenness? [...]
That's twofold.
On the one hand, like DoctorBadwolf said, there are the point costs. I haven't played GURPS for quite a while now, but I think a very baseline character (almost your "Joe Average") is around 50-100 points, a character like John McClane would be in the 200s, while Ozymandias would probably have 500 points or so and Dr. Manhatten would break into the thousands. Also, the costs don't scale linearily so it's [much] more expensive to push one ability to the top than learning one or two new abilities at moderate level.
On the other hand, the system itself doesn't put any restrictions on what a PC can learn or improve. If the character has enough points to spend, he could learn whatever ability/skill/power he wanted to learn. The limits are up to the DM to impose on the players. Iirc, there are some recommendations, and there are always the various "setting books" that describe what would be appropriate and what not (e.g. no time-traveling or laser eye beams in a Cthulhu horror setting :P). The skills and powers are classified with icons into "normal"/"supernatural"/"super heroic"/etc. categories but by itself that doesn't impose any restrictions.
If you want to go classless, I recommend that approach. The roles in 4e largely have one or two core abilities (Defenders Mark, Strikers targetting, Leaders Healing, etc). Wait until PH2 comes up, find out how they're going to make Controllers more adequately fit that specific role, and go from there.
Classless works great as long as you maintain those roles. Rangers and Rogues swapping powers isn't really terrible. Fighters and Rangers swapping powers is a little weird, as is Wizards and Warlocks, while Fighters and Clerics swapping powers gets a little crazy. You can even maintain the 4e multiclassing mechanics to allow players access to another power source or role (it would work better with multi-roling, right now).
True Classless is a ways off, and I have to agree with what others said that it's not really something that fits well with the heroic fantasy genre of D&D, but there's somewhere to start, anyway.