"You have no class, sir!" (Discussion on classless D&D)

[Deleted]

I cycle through different video games in my spare time, both to unwind and to get ideas for tabletop, and recently I've been revisiting the "souls" games by FromSoft, and one thing I enjoy is that while they're set in worlds that aesthetically resemble old school fantasy tabletop settings (albeit dark and twisted/ruined variations) and they're quite deadly and skill-based, you're not locked into a particular class or playstyle. Sure, you start as an archetype like "Cleric" or "Barbarian" but that mostly affects your stats and gear early in the game. You're entirely free to branch out from there and build your character in any direction you please. 

Now, from early on in D&D's history, there's been instances where multi-classing or half-classing have been options, and that's cool, but I realize there's also been some hacks and theories in recent years about how to take the idea of "having no class" and make it work with old school D&D. I've read a few formulas online. Point-buy type systems concerning how much, say, Vancian spells or Turn Undead "cost". There's also been hacks like Ben Milton's Knave that allow gear-based characters to explore in classic adventures or worlds. 

I'm just wondering, what do you guys think about this dynamic? Have you tried any of these approaches and would you recommend any of them? I definitely wouldn't personally ever do away with classes altogether, but for a certain type of campaign this might be fun. (Disclaimer - I'm fully aware there are entire classless systems out here that perhaps do this better. Runequest, etc. I'm specifically interested in hacking D&D for this purpose, as an intellectual exercise.)

[jeffb]

Personally, I think one of the draws to D&D *IS* the class based system. It has it's headaches, and I don't care for most multiclassing rules from most editions, but it's still a nice little game "package" that makes things easy.

There is a retro/inspired by game out there- name escapes me- that is OD&D or S&W based, but Indiana Jones in all but name. I keep wanting to say it's Searchers of the Unknown, but I'm not 100%, Ancient Mysteries & Lost Treasures. All characters are the same class- Adventurer-Scientist and you pick from a few abilities to build what type of adventurer you are. I'm cool with that in that genre (and in Sci-Fi/Sci Fantasy too), but I think for me something might be "missing" if Classes went bye bye in D&D. I think a simple mechanic like 13th Age's Backgrounds work well to round out a character with a "suite of abilities" during gameplay without adding a skill system or making things crunchy.

[tdenmark]

During the 2e era I left D&D to play mostly GURPS, and a lot of other non D&D stuff. 3e brought me back into the D&D fold.

I've had my fill of classless systems other than Call of Cthulhu, and even in that you're basically playing an Investigator class.

I think the race-class-level system is part of the true genius of D&D.

[Deleted]

I don't have any beef with the class system. I like it. But I have noodled the idea of eliminating the thief class and letting the other three classes gain the skills thieves have (maybe by expending XP or GP to gain increments in a chosen thief skill). Kinda make all of the classes into rogues, if they choose to be.

[jamiltron]

I actually run quite a bit of "classless" D&D from time to time. Not that I don't enjoy the class system - I absolutely do and I think it brings a lot of advantages to the game in terms of getting players invested in particular fantasy tropes, providing a nice abstraction for ranking up in a specialization, a bit of niche protection, etc.

But I do tend to run a lot of extremely sandboxy games, often with quite a bit of downtime where most of the game revolves around player goals. I tend to be pretty permissive in what I allow players to do as long as they are engaging with the fiction and it seems reasonable, so players end up going in a whole bunch of directions, sometimes overlapping in "abilities" or what have you, so in many of my games the importance of what class you are kind of breaks down once you start increasing your position in the world.

So sometimes I do run D&D with everyone just being "adventurers", pretty much just taking the Fighting Man class, and letting players run wild in my setting. Why I do that instead of playing other classless games (which I also do) is that D&D as a platform works very well for me. Its easy to grab whatever adventure, use familiar stat lines, run with the 6 core stats, AC, d20 combat rolls, all that and just go with it.

[Vile Traveller]

Classes or the lack of them were a big draw for RuneQuest 1E & 2E back in the day. A lot of marketing for D&D's competitors played on the idea of no classes and detailed settings.

Which is what I'd play if I went that way, converting D&D to a classless game is too much like work. I actually ran most TSR modules in Greyhawk (and GWD adventures in the 3rd Imperium) using RQ2 rules in the 80s. Modules are easy to convert, as are characters. Whole rulebooks are more laborious.

[tombowings]

For me, the solution to the player who wants to fight and cast fireball is to allow characters to more freely change classes. My general rule is that characters can change classes so long as they meet the ability score requirements (if any) of that class, but may never return and take additional levels in the original class.

[robertsconley]

Jul 24, 2021 18:25:43 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

I'm just wondering, what do you guys think about this dynamic? Have you tried any of these approaches and would you recommend any of them? I definitely wouldn't personally ever do away with classes altogether, but for a certain type of campaign this might be fun. (Disclaimer - I'm fully aware there are entire classless systems out here that perhaps do this better. Runequest, etc. I'm specifically interested in hacking D&D for this purpose, as an intellectual exercise.)

My recommendation is to look at D&D 3.0 style multiclassing but with OD&D numbers and capabilities. Use Swords & Wizardry as a source because it uses to-hit bonus and ascending AC as an option.

Let's look at GURPS, character creation in the base system is based around each players having a pool of points and dividing it among attributes, advantages, perks, and skills. Even in GURPS 1e/2e where the list of stuff (skills, etc) were not quite as overwhelming a lot of time character creation was the referee or experienced player coaching the novices on what to take to be effective at something.

Late in the GURPS 3e era and fully embraced by GURPS 4e, the template was developed. It is a pre-defined list of attributes, advantages, skills, etc for a particular character type. The GURPS system wasn't changed but presenting the options like this made character generation quicker and easier without losing the strength of the system. Also template often had lenses which are small packages that can be taken to present a variant or even a more experienced character.

When I started doing my Points of Light style settings, I decided use classic editions of D&D as it made sharing and stuff easier as most of the hobby plays D&D in one form or another. Plus it was easier to use the IP. As I continued to write and started to flesh out more of what I did specifically with the Majestic Wilderlands, I couldn't use my GURPS notes 'as is'. So I used what I learned, much of it learned here , about classic D&D, took Swords & Wizardry, took my GURPS Notes and template, and translated as a bunch of Swords & Wizardry classes. And it worked out nicely both in terms of writing and all the campaigns I ran for the past decade or so.

Taking what I did a step further there is no reason that you can't take the 3.0 idea of different class levels stacking on each other and using that to build characters. Trick is to use OD&D numbers not 3.0 numbers.

[Finarvyn]

I think of classes as skill bundles, and each bundle gives you things you can do. The class system also is nice because it gives each character a clearly defined role in the party -- the sneak type, combat type, spell type, healer type -- whereas a skill-based system encourages everyone to do everything. What value is there in the thief if everyone else can also pick locks? What makes the magic user special if everyone else can cast spells?

Some of this comes down to party size. If we have two players I might encourage each to multi-class characters so that the key abilities are represented, but as the party gets larger it's better to have specialists who are really good at their trade rather than a pile of "jack of all trades" characters who are so-so at everything. I can say from playing Adventurer's League if you have a group of 5th level single-class characters and one 3/2 fighter/wizard the multi-classed character usually feels cheated because he doesn't get to fight as well as the 5th level fighter and doesn't get to use magic like the 5th level wizard.

When we come to a locked door I like the notion of turning to the thief to say, "hey, it's your turn in the spotlight" rather than everyone trying to speak up first just so he or she can make that die roll.

Just my two coppers. I've played both class and skill based RPGs. In general I like class systems better.

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2021 19:06:32 GMT -6 jeffb said:

Personally, I think one of the draws to D&D *IS* the class based system. It has it's headaches, and I don't care for most multiclassing rules from most editions, but it's still a nice little game "package" that makes things easy.

I actually do agree strongly with this, in principle. I just find the idea of trying different things with it interesting. I know what I propose has been attempted before, to varying degrees of success. Supposedly, you can use "Knave" characters in any old school or OSR module with no real issues, if the reviewers are to be believed anyway. Whether or not this actually ends up working better than, say, simply using a sysyem that was designed as classless from the ground up, would require a lot of testing and personal opinion I'm sure. 

[jeffb]

Jul 25, 2021 13:56:45 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

Jul 24, 2021 19:06:32 GMT -6 jeffb said:

Personally, I think one of the draws to D&D *IS* the class based system. It has it's headaches, and I don't care for most multiclassing rules from most editions, but it's still a nice little game "package" that makes things easy.

I actually do agree strongly with this, in principle. I just find the idea of trying different things with it interesting. I know what I propose has been attempted before, to varying degrees of success. Supposedly, you can use "Knave" characters in any old school or OSR module with no real issues, if the reviewers are to be believed anyway. Whether or not this actually ends up working better than, say, simply using a sysyem that was designed as classless from the ground up, would require a lot of testing and personal opinion I'm sure. 

Have at it and do your thing. THAT is the spirit of OD&D!

[jamiltron]

Jul 25, 2021 13:56:45 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

Jul 24, 2021 19:06:32 GMT -6 jeffb said:

Personally, I think one of the draws to D&D *IS* the class based system. It has it's headaches, and I don't care for most multiclassing rules from most editions, but it's still a nice little game "package" that makes things easy.

I actually do agree strongly with this, in principle. I just find the idea of trying different things with it interesting. I know what I propose has been attempted before, to varying degrees of success. Supposedly, you can use "Knave" characters in any old school or OSR module with no real issues, if the reviewers are to be believed anyway. Whether or not this actually ends up working better than, say, simply using a sysyem that was designed as classless from the ground up, would require a lot of testing and personal opinion I'm sure. 

I really enjoy Knave. I don't think it will run everything perfectly, but it would be significantly easier to run classic or modern osr modules with it than trying to translate all of that to, say RuneQuest for example. From my own personal experience, at least. Ymmv of course.

[ahabicher]

Jul 25, 2021 6:14:56 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I think of classes as skill bundles, and each bundle gives you things you can do. The class system also is nice because it gives each character a clearly defined role in the party -- the sneak type, combat type, spell type, healer type -- whereas a skill-based system encourages everyone to do everything.....

This is quite relevant especially if compared to the earlier mention of GURPS.
GURPS is an absolutely class-less system, insofar as every character is just a bundle of Stats, Advantages/Disadvantages, and Skills, all bought with a package of points.

However!
Many, if not most sourcebooks offer certain packages, like for example, GURPS Spec Ops offers a US Marine build and a Spetznatz build or a Legion Etrangere build that bundles up a couple of relevant Advantages / Skills with slight adaptations (choose main weapon speciality, for example).

In other words, GURPS is class-less but offers class as a secondary package,
and DnD is a class-system but offers multiclassing as a secondary package.

[jeffb]

And long before GURPS, HERO system games like Espionage and Justice Inc had package deals- class like bundles of skills, advantages/disadvantages and abilities.

[tkdco2]

The nice thing about the HERO Package Deals and GURPS Templates is that you don't have to use them. They're handy as references, but not required.

[Vile Traveller]

Jul 29, 2021 17:23:37 GMT -6 tkdco2 said:

The nice thing about the HERO Package Deals and GURPS Templates is that you don't have to use them. They're handy as references, but not required.

They are also good starting points if you want to tweak a character to your personal taste without going the whole hog point buy from the ground up. Swap out a few skills here, an ability point there, and Bob's your uncle.

[aramis]

Jul 25, 2021 6:14:56 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I think of classes as skill bundles, and each bundle gives you things you can do. The class system also is nice because it gives each character a clearly defined role in the party -- the sneak type, combat type, spell type, healer type -- whereas a skill-based system encourages everyone to do everything. What value is there in the thief if everyone else can also pick locks? What makes the magic user special if everyone else can cast spells?

That is only true if total skill levels aren't capped... Traveller, especially MegaTraveller, but also late CT era, limited total skill levels, and so one literally cannot be the do-it-all type...once you hit cap, raising a skill requires lowering another one.

RuneQuest would be a poor choice to try that way, tho'.

[tombowings]

I really like the "miscellaneous skills" that DragonQuest presents:

Alchemist
Assassin
Astrologer
Beast Master
Courtesan
Healer
Merchant
Mechanician
Navigator (sailor)
Military Scientist
Ranger
Spy
Thief
Troubadour (bard)

In effect, each class is a skill, but taking ranks (levels) in one skill does prevent the character from taking ranks in another skill. I believe Barebones RPG does something similar.

[Deleted]

I was trying to find the exact formula I remembered from years ago that inspired this thread, and haven't had luck yet. I did find someone's idea for an Adventurer Class from 2013. Interestingly, Gavin Norman takes part in the comments here (author of OSE) and I also note that Kevin Crawford uses the Adventurer class in his "Worlds Without Number" as an alternative to a fixed specialist character.

[lige]

You can also just have a bunch of “tweener” classes with different suites of skills. AS&SH does this really nicely. T&T covers most bases with only 4 core classes - with two specialists and two generalists.

[tkdco2]

I'm okay with general skills that encompass a range of abilities. Take the Castle Falkenstein rpg for example. A character's skill level in Fencing would not just encompass swords, but also long handheld weapons. Exchequer determines how often you can afford to dine out or go to the theatre, as well as your general living conditions. There are types of characters that could be defined as classes, and each with suggested strong suits, ie recommended skills to assign a Good or Great level.

[muddy]

Back in the day the owners of our local game shop created their own game - Melanda -to rectify things they didn't like in D&D. Specifically the Vancian magic and the limits imposed by classes. I don't remember to much about it other than your built your character from the ground up, with no class restrictions. We played it some, and enjoyed it, but always went back to D&D.

I've always liked the class system. I've never thought too much about it but this thread has me thinking - classes are a natural evolution of wargame approach to gaming. In wargames you have the the heavy infantry, light infantry, artillery, etc and each has its strengths and weakness that need to be accounted for as you deploy your forces. Classes function the same way and the four basic classes always seemed to me to cover all of the necessary bases: Offense/Support/Arcane/Stealth without becoming overly complicated.  I think that is probably a better explanation of how classes came about than as an attempt to capture fantasy fiction archetypes (if it were that, the fighter would be modeled more on Conan than a a medieval soldier, and we probably wouldn't have clerics.)

[plethon]

If I were to go classless, I would go in the 'gear based' direction, but beyond getting rid of classes, I would get rid of ability scores too and any other individualized stats. All characters are humans and have basic human capabilities, a certain speed, HP, saving throws, etc. based on their XP/HD and beyond that are fully differentiated by what items they find in the dungeon or buy. Magic would be item based, so to cast spells you would have to find or otherwise acquire charged items. For divine magic, you could take inspiration from some of the old Roguelike games and have altars to strange gods scattered through the underworld, where characters can make sacrifices of various kinds to acquire divine aid. I've always enjoyed the image of the 'magic user' who is covered in a mish-mash of various ill-fitting pieces of armour, fumbling with various devices from his bag of tricks, and this type of game would be perfect for that.

[tkdco2]

It all depends on the campaign I'm running. Sometimes using a system like HERO or GURPS does a better job than D&D, even for fantasy. The availability of nonhuman races as PCs also depends on the campaign; I've written up fantasy and science fiction campaigns that where only humans exist, at least in the game.

That said, I don't have a problem with the class & level system. It's a convenient way to build a character. And the next time someone tells me I have no class, I'll respond by saying I'm a 5th-level monk.

[jeffb]

One of (so many) things I love about Runequest is the previous experience system- I think this sets a very different expectation than D&D's class based system.

In D&D- you choose a class and go from there, it's your shtick. "This is who I am, and am going to be"  Multiclassing is there but feels like an afterthought and non-organic (and pretty much abused and broken in every single edition but 4E, where it does not exist in the  traditional format)

in RQ- you (optionally, but most everyone I know of uses it) have previous experience and a background- you have some skill in certain areas based on your culture and role in your culture's society, but as you start the game there is a real sense of "that was who I was, now that I have set out on a life of adventure, what will I become?"*. I find this far more satisfying as a player. A sense of freedom vs some artificial restrictions , and also a sense that the fictional events of gameplay as it happens will drive your decisions about what your character will become.  Just reading the Saga of Rurik The Restless throughout the RQ2 rulebook shows exactly what I mean.





* Most likely.....(rolls D100....07) impaled in the....(rolls D20, gets a 10)....abdomen by a baboon's spear thrust ( rolls 1d6+1 + 7 for the impale...12 points damage total)....and your body looted in your very first combat, but  that's another of RQ's charms