Classes vs Skills vs Point Buy

[tdenmark]

I've noticed some conversations around class based and skill based systems, and also point buy systems.

Matt Colville who runs MCDM had this to say:

"When I see character optimization threads full of feat choices per level and "take a 1 level dip in..."
I think "these folks should play a point-buy system, not a class-based system."
Then I think...the Devs WANTED point-buy but felt stuck with classes. So we ended up with this"

This got me to thinking about the current designers on 1D&D and how what they really want to do is ditch classes and levels and make some sort of feat based build-a-character system. But they're stuck with classes.

I'm of the opinion that class based systems are all around the best for RPG's. It works great for new players to jump in, they can easily wrap their head around a class. Elf Ranger, Human Magic-User, got it! But as players become more sophisticated and want more options in customization than skills and point buy systems become appealing. The problem with all point buy systems is they always end up exceedingly crunchy and complicated and encourage min-maxing rather than making a character for the sake of character.

I got my fill of this with GURPS and the few times I played Champions. The endless noodling and fiddling with numbers are fun for a time, but soon become tedious. That's how I see it anyways.

Would you like to see 1D&D turn into a skill based (or feat based) point buy system?

[barbaribunny]

Oct 10, 2022 2:47:37 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

Would you like to see 1D&D turn into a skill based (or feat based) point buy system?

I can't see D&D realistically moving away from classes, they're too iconically part of the game; but my own preference is for a class-based system or something similarly simple (Electric Bastionland's 'Failed Professions' are fun).

For me, character-building minigames always end up being too far removed from actually playing the character. Plus, I like randomisation but point-buy systems are the opposite. They're all about control.

I do think a happier medium than 5e is possible, though. The issue isn't feats so much as having feats plus skills plus an ever-expanding list of subclasses plus relatively generous multi-classing rules.

Kevin Cranford's games, such as Stars Without Number, are much less fidddly even though they have feats and skills because their class systems are far simpler. From the other direction, Barbarians of Lemuria doesn't have classes, but its careers and boons are so simple that it never turns into a crunch-fest. I usually prefer something even simpler, but both show you can offer some customisation without a lot of crunch and endless optimisation.

I think there are probably a lot of barriers preventing D&D taking that route though. I think the entire business model is based on regularly releasing new player options.

[hamurai]

D&D moving awayfrom classes would be like... moving to a d6 pool dice system or something. Classes are iconic D&D, just like the d20.

Instead of huge lists of options, I'd prefer a more simpler approach, like 3 "skill/ability trees" for each class, acting something like sub-classes, but with the option to branch out or focus.

Personally, I hate multiclassing in most editions because it leads to ultimate "builds" for characters and seeing, for example, the 20th 5E dwarf wizard is simply because they get +2/+2 STR/CON and free armour proficiency so they can cast in armour, and of course 1 level in Rogue for Sneak Attack and Expertise, and of course a level Fighter for Fighting Style etc etc.
That was, of course, before the new rules which are now standard in 1D&D where you can select your attribute bonuses freely. The fact that you get more options in feats is cool because they actually often require other feats before they can be taken, which comes closer to the skill tree. As I remember it, Backgrounds allow access to spell-casting and you can't just grab a Magic Initiate feat at 1st level for anyone, as you could in 5E.

That said, munchkinism and min-maxing is not a thing of modern editions, it just got easier to do and the mentality of modern players is often more inclined towards the power-gaming aspect, at least in my experience. We played about half of the Ravenloft campaign online during Covid lockdowns and I felt that some encounters were very hard and we only had a chance because many of us did power-game their characters. So maybe other modules also favour the upper end of the characters? I don't know.

In spite of all the rules, though, I still believe it's up to the group and the DM to make the final calls on what rules will be used how, and that if you want to get rid of the skills of D&D, you can just do it (many do it), and if you want a feat selection based on roleplaying and what happened in your campaign, it's very easy to do so.
For your group, that is. You cannot do that in an Adventurer's League game.

Point-buy is nice for equally powerful characters, but as we observed, it easily leads to min-maxing. What's the solution here? When I ran 5E for a short time (instead of being a player), I made sure to make every stat matter.
Why raise Charisma when we play a dungeon-crawl? - Because with lower Charisma, monsters are more prone to attack you, for some reason. Which sucks when you have to count on most enemies shooting your ass first. I rolled a d20 for each monster group to see who they'd attack. When the result was below and close to a charisma score, that character was attacked. Those with CHA 8 (default score) had a 40% chance to be picked. Those with higher scores were less likely to be picked. To speed up the process, I often had players roll themselves. It wasn't the most elegant mechanic, but I wanted to have a mechanic for it at all, not just DM whim.
Why raise Wisdom? - Easy, that's perception checks in 5E and you had to find those traps, and in dim light, you had to make sure to be close to those traps, otherwise you couldn't see them, so when the Rogue walks on the left side of the corridor, who's looking at the right side? Also, I used Wisdom checks for surprise. When an enemy turned up suddenly, everyone would roll WIS and on a fail, they are surprised for the first round.
Why raise INT? - Because I allowed the INT bonus to be added to initiative. Quickness of the mind. The wizard player loved it Also, when searching a room (for traps, secret doors, treasure especially) I used only Investigation skill instead of Perception.
Why raise the other 3 stats? Obviously, because combat.

[tedopon]

Classes and skills are both great but they both suffer from the same problem where about one in ten players are hyper focused on breaking the game. Neither is better or worse, in practice I've noticed they tend to be about the same level of complexity and utility for 90%+ of players. Most of the real issues with either approach originate with that minority of players who want the game within a game.

[geoffrey]

Point buy? I hate it.

Skills? I hate them.

Classes? I love them.



Real D&D consists of OD&D, Holmes, AD&D, B/X, Mentzer, and C&C. One will note that they are all class-based.

I suggest that those who want to play something that is not class-based should play something other than D&D. There's nothing wrong with playing non-D&D games. But to make a new game and then call it D&D? That would be kind of odd.

[Deleted]

If we're playing a game where ability scores are king and inform skills, my players prefer point buy. For D&D the preference is for strong archetypes and the interpretation of ability scores rather than customization and optimization.

One-D&D is the worst compromise, I agree with Matt Colville.

[Deleted]

There are a plethora of roleplaying games on the market that have skill-based systems. They were developed largely as a reaction to what D&D is. If you keep turning D&D into the things that spun off it, it keeps losing more and more of its original identity, which brings more people here and away from the current product.

So I'm all for it.

[Vile Traveller]

I might stop playing D&D if it dropped classes, because there are better classless systems I've been playing for decades. I don't mind point buy, but If I'm honest I prefer random purely because I'm lazy.

[tdenmark]

Oct 10, 2022 7:34:53 GMT -6 hamurai said:

Personally, I hate multiclassing in most editions

Agreed. I've never seen a good implementation of multi-classing. 3rd edition came the closest, but it is still a miss for me.

I've tried my hand at designing decent multi-classing rules and have yet to get it right.

[tdenmark]

Oct 10, 2022 8:21:06 GMT -6 tedopon said:

Classes and skills are both great but they both suffer from the same problem where about one in ten players are hyper focused on breaking the game. Neither is better or worse, in practice I've noticed they tend to be about the same level of complexity and utility for 90%+ of players. Most of the real issues with either approach originate with that minority of players who want the game within a game.

yep, you always get those who want to game the system. Heck, I catch myself doing it at times even though I frown on it when others do it! Strong archetypes and clear characters, rather than a bundle of numbers for maximum efficiency is the most fun for everyone.

[Finarvyn]

Oct 10, 2022 2:47:37 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

I got my fill of this with GURPS and the few times I played Champions. The endless noodling and fiddling with numbers are fun for a time, but soon become tedious.

Yeah, I had great fun with Champions until I figured out how to "break" the point-buy system, then I had no interest in playing. Once you find a couple of loopholes you sort of wonder why you bother to play the game anymore.

[hamurai]

My group plays Das Schwarze Auge (The Dark Eye) 4.1 - it's a crunchy system with a character creation and character advancement which is simply ridiculous. There are so many factors which affect how many points skills and abilities cost, to get stuff right and get a character who is able to compete, you actually need a computer program. And even with the program it took me about 2 hours to create the character. And that's for my second character, because the first died.

The DM wants to switch to v5 for our next characters (mainly because his adventure modules are for v5), which is more streamlined and less crunchy than 4.1, but I seriously think about only using the quickstart rules for my character and forget about the rest. Maybe I'll have more fun, even though my character will be comparatively weak.

DSA 1 is my favourite: 5 or so classes, roll 5 attributes randomly and adjust one or two of the rest of the otherwise fixed numbers, if you have high scores in some attributes, then go play. No buying skills and special abilities and stuff. Just some gear. Yes, it was wonky, with everyone starting with the same numbers in attack and defense, no matter if they were warrior or mage, but that would change when leveling up. Yes, the number of spells was very limited, but they were less restrictive and written in such an open way, that you could use them for your group as you wanted. Yes, one or two of the really powerful spells had strange and complex mechanics, but you didn't use these every day anyway.
I play DSA 1 every year in another group during a local convention and it's always the best fun I'm having with DSA.

Edit: The point is, the game was class-based and switched to point-buy. The number-jugglers love it and the DSA-community is such a bunch. There's even a book with rules for intercourse, and tables to roll for the size of genitalia. That was a joke at first, but people loved the idea, so it was made real. It's still a joke to me.

Bottom line for me: There are class-based and point-buy and skill-based systems which work for me, and some which don't. If they're too crunchy, I tend to lose interest. If they're simple and don't get in the way of fun, I tend to like them.

[rsdean]

My miniature wargaming background would lead me to believe that any point buy system ultimately runs up against the problem that you can’t predict all of the possible interactions, and it therefore will have a breaking point. By the time you add a layer of table consensus to deal with it, or simplify it to the point where there are fewer interactions, it’s not that much different than D&D’s classes in practice.

That’s not fully fleshed out, but I am thinking of things like Barbarians of Lemuria where you choose from a short menu, so there’s less to go wrong, or Fate, which relies on table consensus to veto aspects like “most powerful being in the multiverse”…

[tombowings]

DragonQuest is another game that gets skills right. It gets a lot else wrong, but I love the skill system.

One of these days, I'll have to run a DQ PBP. I'm really sure where to run it though. I only really frequent this forum. (You guys are just so cool.)

[tdenmark]

All the more remarkable that the first RPG should stumble onto classes and levels, you can look at Chainmail and easily imagine how things could have been different, just add skills to those man-to-man rules. It would have been a logical choice. Even levels were not strictly necessary.

[tdenmark]

Oct 11, 2022 8:10:29 GMT -6 tombowings said:

DragonQuest is another game that gets skills right. It gets a lot else wrong, but I love the skill system.

One of these days, I'll have to run a DQ PBP. I'm really sure where to run it though. I only really frequent this forum. (You guys are just so cool.)

I should pull my copy of DQ out storage and reread the skills. I don't really remember the system all that well and haven't played it much.

[hamurai]

Oct 11, 2022 8:10:29 GMT -6 tombowings said:

DragonQuest is another game that gets skills right. It gets a lot else wrong, but I love the skill system.

I only know DQ by name, could you elaborate why you love the skill system?

[tombowings]

Oct 11, 2022 23:40:28 GMT -6 hamurai said:

Oct 11, 2022 8:10:29 GMT -6 tombowings said:

DragonQuest is another game that gets skills right. It gets a lot else wrong, but I love the skill system.

I only know DQ by name, could you elaborate why you love the skill system?

In DQ, the skill are painted in large stroke, such as Thief or Ranger. Each skill then has different uses. The thief skill include picking pockets, disarming traps, etc. Based on the character's Rank in the skill and score in various attributes, a percent chance of success is calculated.

It seem to eliminate the problem many skill systems encounter where character simply cherry pick the best skills while ignoring many others.

[bobjester0e]

I've never been happy with a skill system in D&D. The tasks to be performed in the game are quite easily handled according to class and race. Need to unlock a door? Thieves have Open Lock skill.

Can't unlock the door? Force it open, via the fighter's strength. Door busted up beyond repair and need to close it to prevent monsters from following? The MU has a Hold Portal spell.

Dwarves can detect slopes and other stone-worked anomalies. Elves can detect secret doors.

Anyone can light a torch or use a rope. The game assumes (rightly) that anyone can ride a horse.

Who can affect the outcome of encountering monsters & NPC reactions? I use a modifier that combines level and charisma.

Skills really should be a secondary consideration when it comes to playing D&D. Perhaps useful when the PCs are between adventures to repair armor & weapons, do some menial labor to keep the folk's trade in business, etc.

Perhaps an occupation system could relieve players of the burden of having to cherry pick skills. An occupation could have a wide array of 'skills' to complete tasks demanded of the occupation.

There is so much richness that remains untapped in the game as-is that adding a competing and complicated layer of rules is so unnecessary.

[Deleted]

Oct 10, 2022 2:47:37 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

I've noticed some conversations around class based and skill based systems, and also point buy systems.

Matt Colville who runs MCDM had this to say:

"When I see character optimization threads full of feat choices per level and "take a 1 level dip in..."
I think "these folks should play a point-buy system, not a class-based system."
Then I think...the Devs WANTED point-buy but felt stuck with classes. So we ended up with this"

This got me to thinking about the current designers on 1D&D and how what they really want to do is ditch classes and levels and make some sort of feat based build-a-character system. But they're stuck with classes.

I'm of the opinion that class based systems are all around the best for RPG's. It works great for new players to jump in, they can easily wrap their head around a class. Elf Ranger, Human Magic-User, got it! But as players become more sophisticated and want more options in customization than skills and point buy systems become appealing. The problem with all point buy systems is they always end up exceedingly crunchy and complicated and encourage min-maxing rather than making a character for the sake of character.

I got my fill of this with GURPS and the few times I played Champions. The endless noodling and fiddling with numbers are fun for a time, but soon become tedious. That's how I see it anyways.

Would you like to see 1D&D turn into a skill based (or feat based) point buy system?

No, I detest skills, feats and point buy systems. I run my AD&D with no skills or proficiencies. Players easily get locked into, "if I don't have X skill/proficiency, then I can't attempt X" and the only way I have found to dissuade them from that the self-defeating play style is to strip that stuff out of the game.

[hamurai]

Oct 12, 2022 2:17:26 GMT -6 tombowings said:

Oct 11, 2022 23:40:28 GMT -6 hamurai said:

I only know DQ by name, could you elaborate why you love the skill system?

In DQ, the skill are painted in large stroke, such as Thief or Ranger. Each skill then has different uses. The thief skill include picking pockets, disarming traps, etc. Based on the character's Rank in the skill and score in various attributes, a percent chance of success is calculated.

It seem to eliminate the problem many skill systems encounter where character simply cherry pick the best skills while ignoring many others.

Thanks for explaining!

Seems a lot like skills are in Barbarians of Lemuria where you select different careers for a set of skills. 

[tombowings]

Oct 12, 2022 14:59:03 GMT -6 hamurai said:

Oct 12, 2022 2:17:26 GMT -6 tombowings said:

In DQ, the skill are painted in large stroke, such as Thief or Ranger. Each skill then has different uses. The thief skill include picking pockets, disarming traps, etc. Based on the character's Rank in the skill and score in various attributes, a percent chance of success is calculated.

It seem to eliminate the problem many skill systems encounter where character simply cherry pick the best skills while ignoring many others.

Thanks for explaining!

Seems a lot like skills are in Barbarians of Lemuria where you select different careers for a set of skills. 

I would say that's a correct assumption, but certain with more structure than BoL. That being said, the lack of structure is certainly one of BoL's strengths.

[hamurai]

Agreed!

We've tried BoL's career skill system for D&D, too, and it worked. Every level, the player could put a point into a fitting career. Then we used the career level as modifier for a d20-roll when attempting stuff which fit the career.
It's similar to the background skill system of AD&D, only there you determine the skills before play and cannot improve them.

[Mordorandor]

The more options there are for players to differentiate themselves, the more the players and referees are incentivized to make the game about the characters. “I spent all this time planning my character or choosing all these options, by god, I’m going to use them.”

The more the features of differentiation/options focus on combat, the more combat becomes the focus of the game. “I now have +1 to hit. Time to go hit something.”

The more players are similar, with just a slight difference in capabilities, and the more the dungeon offers the means for differentiation, by treasure = XP and magic items substituting for all the feats and skills, the more the game focuses on exploration of the dungeon.

[hamurai]

Oct 14, 2022 14:57:00 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

The more options there are for players to differentiate themselves, the more the players and referees are incentivized to make the game about the characters. “I spent all this time planning my character or choosing all these options, by god, I’m going to use them.”

I'm not sure if you think that's good or bad. I think it can be a good way to have players try different approaches and not just rely on their "class skill".

Oct 14, 2022 14:57:00 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

The more the features of differentiation/options focus on combat, the more combat becomes the focus of the game. “I now have +1 to hit. Time to go hit something.”

Same goes for combat items, see below.

Oct 14, 2022 14:57:00 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

The more players are similar, with just a slight difference in capabilities, and the more the dungeon offers the means for differentiation, by treasure = XP and magic items substituting for all the feats and skills, the more the game focuses on exploration of the dungeon.

Not necessarily. If there're too many magic items, it may become like a "looter shooter" where the value of items dwindles. Characters may get "the tank dude with magic armour" and the "damage dealer with the magic weapon". Index Card RPG mainly uses this apporach and as interesting the idea was in the beginning, I found it partly switched the focus from the characters to the item loadout. Which, in my opinion, is worse than a focus on character skills.

[robertsconley]

The problem as I see it is that players want to do things other than spellcasting and fighting and want their character to be better at those things. It has been my observation that these things don't fall into nice archetypes but instead represent what any person can do to a greater and lesser degree. A choice could be to ignore these things by not having them come up in a campaign. Another is that it is all about player skill and how good their plan is. Another is to go with a simplistic mechanic typically based on an attribute like Charisma, Intelligence, etc. Still yet another method is to allow characters a chance to do things outside of combat and spellcasting but make the odds of failure ridiculously high like with various iterations of the thief class.

For me, many of the traditional approaches are unsatisfactory because of what I focus on in my campaigns. Which is letting the players trash the setting. When they take advantage of this then things one can do outside of combat and spellcasting as a character become important. And I feel that they should have some decent chance at succeeding at one or two things even at 1st level.

Hence why I have my ability system for my Majestic Fantasy RPG
www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Majestic%20Fantasy%20Basic%20RPG%20Rev%2010.pdf

I think back in the 70s, folks overreacted and in a lot of cases threw the baby out with the bathwater in coming up with their skill-based system. Also, it didn't help that the "why" of D&D wasn't explained well.


In general, I find since the 1980s that D&D hobby always had a significant segment who wanted better character customization. That this group was one foundation of the popularity of other RPGs like Runequest, GURPS, Fantasy HERO, Warhammer, and so on. AD&D 2e tried to fix this with kits but it wasn't until the release of D&D 3.0 that Wizards found a decent compromise that worked with D&D class and level system; feats and skills. Then they too went overboard with is with 3.5 and 4e. Then dialed it back with D&D 5e.

But the pressure remains, I wouldn't say it encompasses the majority of D&D hobbyists who are mostly there to have fun and game with family and friends. But it remains a large minority.

[Mordorandor]

Oct 17, 2022 0:52:00 GMT -6 hamurai said:

Oct 14, 2022 14:57:00 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

The more options there are for players to differentiate themselves, the more the players and referees are incentivized to make the game about the characters. “I spent all this time planning my character or choosing all these options, by god, I’m going to use them.”

I'm not sure if you think that's good or bad. I think it can be a good way to have players try different approaches and not just rely on their "class skill".

Oct 14, 2022 14:57:00 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

The more the features of differentiation/options focus on combat, the more combat becomes the focus of the game. “I now have +1 to hit. Time to go hit something.”

Same goes for combat items, see below.

Oct 14, 2022 14:57:00 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

The more players are similar, with just a slight difference in capabilities, and the more the dungeon offers the means for differentiation, by treasure = XP and magic items substituting for all the feats and skills, the more the game focuses on exploration of the dungeon.

Not necessarily. If there're too many magic items, it may become like a "looter shooter" where the value of items dwindles. Characters may get "the tank dude with magic armour" and the "damage dealer with the magic weapon". Index Card RPG mainly uses this apporach and as interesting the idea was in the beginning, I found it partly switched the focus from the characters to the item loadout. Which, in my opinion, is worse than a focus on character skills.

For me, re: #1, I'd rather a player pick up a character sheet and in 5 minutes be done with the character build, so we can play some other aspect of the game. Like when I open up a board game, take the token out, place it on the board, and we're now ready to go through a turn of play. Cool, my blue token gives me the ability to roll again to move if I roll doubles, and your token gives you the ability to ignore the "lose a turn" spaces. That's great. Just enough differentiation that I'm not so focused on my token and its abilities. And if there are improvement to be made through XP in the board game, I'd want to keep the improvement progression/options to a minimum and be incentivized to go find those improvements through game play (the board game).

Re: #2, the same, and I'd say, for an abstracted form of skirmish battle, I wouldn't want to spend a lot of time going through 10+ character options and variations, for each combatant no less (exaggerations, of course), to arrive at whether a roll resulted in a hit or not.

I prefer the three or four magic items a 6th level character has be the differentiation, because it incentivizes players to go into dungeons and explore. I've had players verbalize as much to me, that when playing this way, it's a gestalt shift for them, if you will.

But I'll never claim that approach is the one and only approach. It's just the one I prefer.

[tdenmark]

Oct 17, 2022 6:15:18 GMT -6 robertsconley said:

In general, I find since the 1980s that D&D hobby always had a significant segment who wanted better character customization. That this group was one foundation of the popularity of other RPGs like Runequest, GURPS, Fantasy HERO, Warhammer, and so on. AD&D 2e tried to fix this with kits but it wasn't until the release of D&D 3.0 that Wizards found a decent compromise that worked with D&D class and level system; feats and skills. Then they too went overboard with is with 3.5 and 4e. Then dialed it back with D&D 5e.

There really is a broad range of players with very different demands. I've been enjoying a 5e D&D focussed channel where the host does deep dives on how to exploit the game mechanically. Part of me really enjoys the min-maxing and breaking the system. The same part of me that enjoyed GURPS, and to some degree Champions (but that is WAY too much).

However I get the most enjoyment out of characterization and puzzle solving. So will forego the "perfect build" for the sake of a character with more flavor. Everyone has the most fun that way.

D&D tries to appeal to all those players from someone who just wants to play a fun character in an interesting story, to the hardcore Engineer-brained math whiz. This is why you get editions as far apart as 4th (needlessly complicated) and 5th (nicely balanced) are. And Monte Cook made a lucrative career making the most ridiculously complicated fiddly crunchy spinoffs of d20.

The game always seems to swing back and forth between these two extremes. But now it's getting knocked off its axis into who knows where.

[makofan]

Oct 11, 2022 8:10:29 GMT -6 tombowings said:

DragonQuest is another game that gets skills right. It gets a lot else wrong, but I love the skill system.

One of these days, I'll have to run a DQ PBP. I'm really sure where to run it though. I only really frequent this forum. (You guys are just so cool.)

I plan to run a DQ pBp set in Tarantis (Judges Guid) one of these days

[tkdco2]

I don't mind games with point buy. I'll happily play HERO or GURPS. These games offer a lot of flexibility in character creation and mixing genres.

But sometimes I just want to play D&D. Rolling up attributes and picking a class is part of the fun, and it's fast in the early editions.