Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 kazuhiro Dec 15, 2008 21:09:25	Perhaps the only thing that irks me about the D&D system is the classes. Classes in D&D are very specific and flavorful, and you really have to commit to following the character concept of your chosen class. The only way 3.5e escapes feeling restrictive is the ability to crazily multiclass between the stacks and stacks and stacks of material available. And 4e doesn't have that going for it yet. Sometimes I like "classless" systems where you just use your points (or levels) to "buy" stats, making a totally customized character. I'm not altogether certain that it would be better than what we have now, but contemplating whether or not it can be done seems worth a shot. I wonder if the system of power progression could be used to create a "classless" system where you mix and match powers and abilities like multiclassing in 3.5? Except 3.5 wasn't exactly classless either.
#2 MusicOfCreation Dec 15, 2008 21:20:25	Classless systems still end up turning into class based systems in the end. There are usually builds in classless systems that are consider optimized by most players and people tend towards fulfilling a certain role anyways. Worst case scenario is all characters are eventually able to do everything which in a way is a single class system. Classless systems are class based systems for delusional people. Most people in my experience who want classless systems in fantasy games are the people who want their warrior/rogue/ranger/other melee to be able to heal themself without having to be a healer. Occasionally its a spellcaster who wants to be able to heal themself without having to be a healer.
#3 Dreamstryder Dec 17, 2008 2:48:26	Classes are usually there to aid the flavor of the setting (keeping spaceship mechanics out of Rokugan, for example). Tho' D&D is fairly setting-generic, classes can still guide you in the game's adventurer theme (and mechanically in decent builds), but it can get in the way of many homebrews (which are likely to happen in setting-generic games). It's about how and where you use classes. I like classless to be able to play a concept that doesn't fit in the writers' list of preconceived archetypes. D&D examples: a mechanic that repairs your steam airships, a speedy cleric that attacks with light blades (You see them in Soul Calibur II or Samurai Spirits), etc. All of these are valid adventurer themes not yet directly supported in D&D classes (unless the artificer=mechanic). Classless 4e: Try taking 4e as-is, then allow them to choose non-at-will powers from other class lists (same type & level; different class's list). You'd have to have an unusual number of high ability scores to make it abusive, and it works perfectly if you're going for that left-out archetype like "the gunner who sneak-attacks with his gun" (rogue with ranger abilities) or something that isn't an archetype but fits your character concept. The common problems (having a bunch of weak powers, hunting through the classes for the most powerful Lv 2 power regardless of character concept), are both alleviated by 4e's system of having different ability scores for different power sets and that you must still pick according to level and power type.
#4 silvercatmoonpaw Dec 17, 2008 7:43:22	Classless systems are class based systems for delusional people. Or systems for people who are very creative with concept but can't make a rigid system fit that concept. Not every character made for a classless system is a munchkin's wet dream.
#5 mellored Dec 17, 2008 14:06:29	Classless systems are extremely difficult to balance, and thus you usually end up with a "class", or a weak character. The closest i've seen to a balanced classless system is guild wars. If you CAN make a balanced classless system, you'd really have something golden on your hands.
#6 enlightened Dec 17, 2008 14:20:52	If you CAN make a balanced classless system, you'd really have something golden on your hands. You mean like Savage Worlds, GURPS, BRP, OMNI and HERO?
#7 nephallim Dec 17, 2008 14:26:58	You mean like Savage Worlds, GURPS, BRP, OMNI and HERO? In my experience GURPS and HERO have awesome character creation systems...but very quirky gameplay... HERO in particular.
#8 mellored Dec 17, 2008 14:48:47	You mean like Savage Worlds, GURPS, BRP, OMNI and HERO? I've heard great things about Savage World, and GRUPS character creation, never played them though. In my experience GURPS and HERO have awesome character creation systems...but very quirky gameplay... HERO in particular. I guess a balance classless system isn't enough to make a good game.
#9 wyld_mutation Dec 17, 2008 14:56:21	I like explosions and transmutation (of myself and others). That is why I like to play casters. I like to get in the thick of the battle, and lay destruction down like blanket-bombs. That is why I play melee characters. Put that together and we haven't really got a class that fits my preferences yet. However we have bits and pieces. I've seen a few discussions on making 4e into a classless system in houserules. After the attempts were tested it was agreed that it *can* work with a cooperative set of players. Those tries give me my melee-magic wielding sword-and-sorcery Sorceror. Classless systems have failings just like anything else. But they also have good points. Anyone who's played the recent Final Fantasy games would have seen a fairly solid form oif "classless" gameplay. Maybe not all that balanced and polished. But it works. I would vote for meeting halfway. Seperate powers into pools from which you select what you want. Martial, Arcane, Divine, etc. And from there say pick and choose. It reduces a dozen focused classes into a handful of broad design foci.
#10 vforge Jan 06, 2009 19:33:06	A system that defines a character as a basic set of stats first is a classless system. The only thing that defines the class of the character after that is a system of skills that are purchased through XP earning and spending. Each skill is augmented by the basic stats of the character. The skills fit into trees that go into various fields like combat or magic. As the character progresses in experience they better define what character they like to play best by choosing skills that take the character in that direction. If a character wants to be a warrior they will have picked skills that worked better in combat. If a player wants to be a rogue they will spend their points in stealthier skills. if you want to be a sneaky fighter you can but you only get so many points. That way you don't end up with a Fighter/mage/druid/assassin/cleric. If you wanted to be that you could role-play it but it'd be silly.
#11 Krusk Jan 06, 2009 21:24:38	I really like classless systems, but they usually have a large learning curve. New players to these systems always have a hard time figuring out what to make, and just how everything works. Class systems have the benefit of giving new or more casual players some place to start.
#12 Daybreaker Jan 07, 2009 3:10:39	I like the theory of classless systems. Mutants & Masterminds is one of my favorites. Shadowrun didn't use classes, either. In both cases, you have a tendency toward "classing" the classless system. In M&M you often have "speed guy," "big tank," "psychic," "martial artist," and "wizard," and variations/combinations thereof. In SR it's more like "street samurai," "rigger," "decker," and so on. But, in those systems, you don't have to class. You can, if you're clever, come up with a way of circumventing or negating the need for certain roles. Or you can invent new roles. The way I see it, classes are a bit of a crutch. Maybe they're a necessary crutch for some people, but personally, I think I can do without them.
#13 danmarlok Jan 08, 2009 8:06:40	The biggest problem with classless system is it opens the door for significantly more min/maxing. Someone mentioned Hero's (Champions), GURPS and the like. Ever make an all presence attack character there? What about a character that's nothing but defense? One that's has cranked up mind control? Or one that's all about the danger sense? Classless in those equals door open wide to very odd seriously strong/weak glass cannons that create headaches galore for the game master. In a casual group or a group where everyone understands the issues classless can and does work great. But all it takes is one twink to start skewing things. So to answer the original question classless can work great, I've enjoyed it for years with various systems but it requires much more heavily on players who know the inherent limitations of the systems and how not to abuse them to avoid causing problems for the DM/GM and between the other players. Classed requires significantly less knowledge or effort on the part of the player, when you only have to pick one of 4 encounter powers for example it's a lot easier than having to pick between one of 36 possible encounter powers. Each is good for a different audience.
#14 johnnyjumpup Jan 08, 2009 10:31:08	Yeah, classless systems can be assaulted by munchkins. That's being a bit specific though. More accurate is that all systems that offer the player any choice in their character's stats can be assaulted by munchkins. We've got the character optimization booards as proof.
#15 envoke Jan 08, 2009 14:43:08	To me, a classless 4e just seems like a really vague World of Darkness. You give yourself a race, and with that race you pick your abilities, and get more as you go... World of darkness? You pick your bloodline/tribe/fey, your abilities, and go at it. Like someone said earlier, any classless based game is going to turn into a class game eventually, only because it's what players want. To see a classless game and have nobody be coined the 'healer' or the 'dps' is a game that might be a little offbeat and hard to play....
#16 MusicOfCreation Jan 08, 2009 14:53:12	I could see classless systems working in a game where you play as regular people. Most combat heavy games usually have characters evolve into roles and therefore classes.
#17 doomsought Jan 08, 2009 16:53:11	classless =/= D&D I'll say that strait out, and this thread is in the wrong sub-forum. onto the topic: I've only looked at one classless system, BESM, so far and it looks fun. I haven't been able to play it yet but Id like to. Look it up, and get the mecha splat book for it. even if you can't find a group that plays the game, every one in D20 future says that its got the best system for making mecha.
#18 voska66 Jan 09, 2009 16:27:49	Perhaps the only thing that irks me about the D&D system is the classes. Classes in D&D are very specific and flavorful, and you really have to commit to following the character concept of your chosen class. The only way 3.5e escapes feeling restrictive is the ability to crazily multiclass between the stacks and stacks and stacks of material available. And 4e doesn't have that going for it yet. Sometimes I like "classless" systems where you just use your points (or levels) to "buy" stats, making a totally customized character. I'm not altogether certain that it would be better than what we have now, but contemplating whether or not it can be done seems worth a shot. I wonder if the system of power progression could be used to create a "classless" system where you mix and match powers and abilities like multiclassing in 3.5? Except 3.5 wasn't exactly classless either. I like classless systems as they offer more freedom to develope you character. You do need some boundaries though. I think 4E is far to restrictive now that they layer role on top of the classes. Now a game where one could pick a role and pick a class then build the class to suit the role, that would be interesting. Say I want to play rogue who is a leader or Cleric who is controler.
#19 Vatras Jan 09, 2009 17:21:17	I DMd RuneQuest (2nd edition) for seven years in one long campaign - it's the gamesystem I like best, but I had no chance to try GURPS yet. I also played Traveller, which has no real classes either. Most players' characters will look like they have a class in classless systems, because if you concentrate on something, you basically get what a class does. But you are free to pick up other things, if you want to. In RQ you pick up skills and improve them by using them during play, so your character will have the skills he needs for what you want to do. Nothing hinders you to have a swordswinging sorcerer - the tradeoff is that you can use/practice only so many skills in play; if you invest half your time in swordplay and related skills like Parry, and half in your magic, you simply aren't as good as someone who does one thing 100%. In our group we had a 100% fighter, who never touched skills which didn't fit the Conan type, a sorcerer with a little ambition in staff fighting, a warrior who dabbled in miscellaneous skills, battlemagic and divine spells, and a user of battle magic who dabbled with summoning/control spells. I liked how each character had his highlights over time, and that a jack-of-all-trades could be as important to the group as a specialist.
#20 nightmare_scenario Jan 09, 2009 19:43:27	Classes help keep your characters from being well-rounded. A perfect circle doesn't have a point. When someone asks what you do, you say "I'm a salesman" or "I'm a student" or "I'm a technician". You don't tell them all your skills and capabilities because they don't matter anywhere near as much as what you do 40 hours per week. This goes double when you add things like education and training to the mix. All characters in RPG's either have specialized training or one major distinguishing ability. Not defining yourself by that training/ability just makes you sound silly and complicated, like a regulated democracy. "But wait! I'm complex!" Then go see a therapist. Complexity is for bored academics, simplicity is for games looking to create an audience. We all know that the only truely classless system is Communism, and look what happened to that. And after all that, I'll have you know that the homebrew system I'm working on is, in fact, classless. Yes, I do hate myself, and you're welcome.
#21 silvercatmoonpaw Jan 09, 2009 19:55:54	When someone asks what you do, you say "I'm a salesman" or "I'm a student" or "I'm a technician". You don't tell them all your skills and capabilities because they don't matter anywhere near as much as what you do 40 hours per week. This goes double when you add things like education and training to the mix. Yet you are not required in life to be a member of only certain training groups. All characters in RPG's either have specialized training or one major distinguishing ability. Not defining yourself by that training/ability just makes you sound silly and complicated, like a regulated democracy. Class vs. Classless is not defined by existence vs. non-existence of specialized training/ability but by how free you are to choose.
#22 nightmare_scenario Jan 09, 2009 20:06:20	Yet you are not required in life to be a member of only certain training groups.. You are if you want to be a specialized member of an elite group. Please name three famous or heroic people who were not specialists. If you don't have a special skill or ability, then you aren't an adventurer. You're a peasant or shopkeeper, and even then not a very good one. Class vs. Classless is not defined by existence vs. non-existence of specialized training/ability but by how free you are to choose. You are very free to choose what specialized class you wish to join, in games and in free societies IRL. Freedom of choice is definitely not the problem with class-based systems.
#23 silvercatmoonpaw Jan 09, 2009 22:12:35	You are very free to choose what specialized class you wish to join, in games and in free societies IRL. Freedom of choice is definitely not the problem with class-based systems. But in a class-based system you are not allowed to choose a class and/or option that has not already been presented to you. You may make houserules to get what you want, but then classless is for those people who wish to have this option built in to the system.
#24 Endarire Jan 10, 2009 2:56:05	There's no official 'Dragoon' class for 3.5, but Little Red Raiding Hood combines classes in an interesting way to capture the Dragoon's abilities and feel.
#25 silvercatmoonpaw Jan 10, 2009 7:12:21	There's no official 'Dragoon' class for 3.5, but Little Red Raiding Hood combines classes in an interesting way to capture the Dragoon's abilities and feel. And that required more than one rule book to pull off, as well as possibly fan-created rules. If you don't have access to the former and don't have the time to seek out the latter a classless system is much more likely to start you off with what you need to do this.
#26 need_a_life Jan 10, 2009 17:22:04	Short version Savage Worlds. Nuff said. Long version I've tried a few classless systems and while, yes, there are usually tactics that produce a result more effectively than others, there's always a trade-off. The times where the GM doesn't occasionally point at those weak spots, then yes there's a problem. Otherwise, I don't see the problem. In Savage Worlds - the most well-balanced system I've ever seen - there are five attributes (Strength, Vigor, Agility, Spirit and Smarts) and all of them are necessary if you want "TEH UBERR K1LLAR." Strength for melee damage. Vigor for soaking. Agility for the Fighting, Shooting and Throwing skills and making Agility-based "Combat tricks"**. Spirit for getting "un-Shaken"* and resisting Intimidate Smarts for resisting Taunts and making smarts-based "Combat tricks"** * Shaken is a condition where you can't attack and move slowly, typically caused by an attack that was weak enough not to inflict a wound but powerful enough to exceed your Toughness. ** Kicking sand in someone's face, tripping him, feinting etc. Social characters can usually get by with Spirit and/or Smarts, depending on their focus (Persuasion, Streetwise, Intimidation, Taunt) and getting various bonuses to their Charisma* by use of Edges[Feats] * Charisma is 0 unless you have an Edge or Hindrance that says otherwise. It adds to your Persuasion and Streetwise rolls (and with an Edge you can add it to Intimidation as well).
#27 Endarire Jan 11, 2009 19:13:38	SilvercatMoonpaw: Hoods are all legal by WotC's rules as written. In 3.5, an optimized wizard or cleric- perhaps even druid- can get by with only the PHB. All other cases require more sources.
#28 nightmare_scenario Jan 11, 2009 21:24:38	But in a class-based system you are not allowed to choose a class and/or option that has not already been presented to you. You may make houserules to get what you want, but then classless is for those people who wish to have this option built in to the system. Even without classes, you still can't customize your character beyond the boxes you fill in on the character sheet. Classes are a simplification, hardly a limitation. The only system I can think of that offers you unlimited customizability is RISUS, which is hardly even a game, and definitely not a very popular one. Heck, I can't even remember what the acronym "RISUS" stands for. And that required more than one rule book to pull off, as well as possibly fan-created rules. If you don't have access to the former and don't have the time to seek out the latter a classless system is much more likely to start you off with what you need to do this. If a classless and class-based system are equally complex, it will be infinitely easier to make a satisfactorily unique character in the class-based.
#29 silvercatmoonpaw Jan 12, 2009 7:02:05	Even without classes, you still can't customize your character beyond the boxes you fill in on the character sheet. Classes are a simplification, hardly a limitation. But that's the whole point of having pre-build stuff (i.e. classes): you're limited to what has already been built for you, unless you choose to houserule at which point you're not using the class system. If a classless and class-based system are equally complex, it will be infinitely easier to make a satisfactorily unique character in the class-based. That's never been my experience: I build more unique characters with classless systems than class-based systems simply because I can build to my vision rather than what a bunch of pre-set rules assume I'm going to build.
#30 nightmare_scenario Jan 12, 2009 18:37:05	Then we have a difference of opinion. I stick to my opinion; since classless systems makes you start from the bottom up, and given systems of equal complexity and content, it is far more difficult/time consuming to make a useful, unique custom character than with class-based. It's the difference between building an automobile from sheet metal vs tricking one out. The difference, other than appearance, is negligible, but the difficulty in creation is exponential.
#31 silvercatmoonpaw Jan 12, 2009 19:11:19	……since classless systems makes you start from the bottom up, and given systems of equal complexity and content, it is far more difficult/time consuming to make a useful, unique custom character than with class-based. Oh. Then I completely agree with you. I thought you were arguing that class-based systems allowed for greater detail in the character. In that case I always find their restrictions leave something out. But it's certainly faster to build someone when steps of the creation have been taken out (via being pre-built).
#32 nightmare_scenario Jan 13, 2009 19:24:44	Oh. Then I completely agree with you. I thought you were arguing that class-based systems allowed for greater detail in the character. In that case I always find their restrictions leave something out. But it's certainly faster to build someone when steps of the creation have been taken out (via being pre-built). My argument isn't that the class-based give greater detail. You do have a higher degree of control with a classless system. That difference in detail is, in practice, a trade off for the simplicity of the class. My argument is that the difference in detail is pointless and unnecesary, especially compared to the time needed to get it all written down and ruled out. In a nutshell: If both systems are equally rich in content and complex in options, if both allow for the same diversity of actions, challenges and depth on the character sheet, then having classes is far superior to not having classes. It makes the system accessible, defines your role in the party and saves time. (Emphasis added for readability, it's a horrible run-on sentence, sorry.) Furthermore, given equally deep and complex systems, it is simpler to create any character, add any skill set, when there are classes to assist with definition. Any difference in detail is unimportant the playing the game. That's my point. If, in your opinion, that level of detail is more important than I believe it to be, and worth the trade off of time that (I think) could be better spent in backstory development, sleeping, carousing, playing WoW, or arguing with someone you've never met over the internet, then go ahead. ;)
#33 inferiae Jan 15, 2009 0:03:47	The only system I can think of that offers you unlimited customizability is RISUS, which is hardly even a game, and definitely not a very popular one. Heck, I can't even remember what the acronym "RISUS" stands for. My group and I managed to work Risus into a pretty decent system. We just use the TN to meet chart and some common sense, instead of the regular conflict resolution stuff. Risus is latin for 'laughter' or 'smiling' by the way. We get the word 'ridicule' from it, literally to laugh at someone. ... Another very free form system is 'Wushu', where you choose broad concepts instead of specific skills.
#34 nightmare_scenario Jan 16, 2009 19:54:00	My group and I managed to work Risus into a pretty decent system. We just use the TN to meet chart and some common sense, instead of the regular conflict resolution stuff. Risus is latin for 'laughter' or 'smiling' by the way. We get the word 'ridicule' from it, literally to laugh at someone. Then feel free to keep enjoying it! I enjoy it myself, but I consider it a social exercise, not a game. Thanks for the clarification!
#35 Tony_Vargas Jan 17, 2009 0:24:13	Sure, I like Hero - best system, ever - which is entirely classless, an effects-based build system. Wonderful, if you have a clear character concept to build to. But class-based systems have the advantage that you don't have to fully imagine a character to create one, nor fully consider every aspect of a character to create a generally effective one - there's a lot of 'power steering' in classes. I wonder if the system of power progression could be used to create a "classless" system where you mix and match powers and abilities like multiclassing in 3.5? Except 3.5 wasn't exactly classless either. It would not be difficult to create a few 'generic' classes - "Generic Warrior" or "Generic Mage" or what-have-you, who had few or minor class features, but could choose any power of thier 'source' (martial, arcane, etc). Such characters wouldn't fill 'roles' as well as typical classes, but they'd be much more customizeable, being viable in parties that already have the basic roles covered.
#36 matthewswift Jan 19, 2009 13:04:47	Just tried Thousand Suns for the first time last night. A real simple system made to be either classless or not. I really liked it, because I could make a stereotypical character, or not. The difference is that I could pour over skills for an hour or just combine classes quickly and efficiently. Made my first character in 30 minutes, and it was a combonation Academic/Scout. My point is, there is a happy median. There are systems that are flexible enough to work with, but there are always players who know how to exploit and abuse. But hey, it's their game right? Classless systems have a place in my heart, but I like having character concepts readily available. Last time DnD put a bandaid on its class system it became kind of ungodly. Gestalt characters were too complicated for me (as a DM) to trust my players with.
#37 silvercatmoonpaw Jan 19, 2009 14:04:31	If both systems are equally rich in content and complex in options, if both allow for the same diversity of actions, challenges and depth on the character sheet, then having classes is far superior to not having classes. It makes the system accessible, defines your role in the party and saves time. Well my perception is that class-based systems never offer enough "content…complex[ity] in options…diversity of actions, challenges and depth on the character sheet". The closer they get the more cluttered they are. I don't think they should try: they should get right what they're for and leave the rest to another system.
#38 encard Jan 19, 2009 14:14:40	Then we have a difference of opinion. I stick to my opinion; since classless systems makes you start from the bottom up, and given systems of equal complexity and content, it is far more difficult/time consuming to make a useful, unique custom character than with class-based. It's the difference between building an automobile from sheet metal vs tricking one out. The difference, other than appearance, is negligible, but the difficulty in creation is exponential. Actually, most classless systems I've seen seem much more transparent rules-wise than D&D, which makes building a character that does what you want them to do a bit simpler.
#39 dragonturtle Jan 22, 2009 22:21:26	I dunno, I find that there is a little more potential to customize in Shadowrun (the classless system I've played the most) than there is in D&D. It's all about scaling. In classless systems you can go into something to whatever extent you want, rather than looking at intervals. For example, if I want to make a Fighter-MU in D&D I need to essentially select X amount of figher and X amount of M-U. Unfortunately, the M-U traits come in a bit of a clump, I can't choose to only have magical traits that deal with protection, for instance, or only ones that amplify my combat prowess. In shadowrun, if that's what I want, that's what I spend the points on. However, that said, if I want to make a working shadowrun character it takes me two or three times as long minimum as a 4e character, and as long or longer than a very complicated (4+ classes/PrCs) 3.5 character, plus being less perfectly put together at the end of it.
#40 silvercatmoonpaw Jan 23, 2009 9:34:13	I second what Dragonturtle said: classless systems allow for diversification without having to add an entire chunk of abilities and stats increases you didn't want.
#41 doomsought Jan 23, 2009 19:57:13	BESM is not only classless, but abstract, you can pretty much do anything with it. On the other hand I'm not going to try to make a character with it until I can find some one who has already played it.