Mix and Match Classes

[Person_Man]

So here's an odd thought experiment.


Instead of classes, everyone gets full BAB, 6 Skill Points per level, 8 class skills of their choice as class Skills, 2 strong Saves of their choice.
At first level, you choose 7 abilities. An ability can be any class ability, spell, power, vestige, soulmeld, racial abilities, whatever, from any source, as long as it would somehow be available to a 1st level character.
You also get one Trait. Traits are really weak class abilities/feats/spells/etc with no meaningful combat benefit. Trapfinding, Track, Detect Evil, Create Food, etc.
If an ability/spell/feat/etc is continuous (Sneak Attack, Evasion, immunities, most feats like Power Attack) or has a duration (most buff spells) you may only have 1 active at any given time. But you may switch between them as an Immediate Action.
Otherwise, all of your abilities can be used at will. But each time you use an ability in combat beyond the first, it takes a -2 penalty to all of your rolls (attack, damage, healing effects, etc), and enemies get +2 to any Saving Throws that it allows. Thus the first time in each combat it works normally, but each successive time it becomes more difficult to spam. This resets at the end of each combat.
Truly open ended abilities (Wild Shape, Alter Self, Polymorph, etc) and abilities which don't allow any attack roll or Saving Throw are banned.
Every even level you gain one ability. The ability must be something that a normal character of that level could gain. (Thus at 2nd level you could take Evasion, at 4th level you could take Divine Grace, etc). If a class ability scales with levels (Sneak Attack, Favored Enemy, Smite, etc) you only need to take it once, and you gain the full benefits.
At every odd level you gain one additional Trait, and may trade out one lower level ability fora new one. Thus you're not saddled with weak/low level options at higher levels.


So, free reign to mix and match from any source. What would you play? How do you think it would work out in a real game?

[Yora]

If you have a group of hardcore power gamers, I would expect all kinds of munchkinnery.

If you have a group of regular players, they probably would still just make ordinary rangers, rogues, and knights.

[limejuicepowder]

I'd love to play something like this. I very much like the more free-form character generation, rather than taking class levels and getting specific abilities. Refluffing is always an option of course, but I still feel that having the option to take any type of ability from anywhere is more real.

Btw, how would you explain in-game that you can only use 1 ability at a time, and switching them while fighting makes you worse? I think it'd be neater to choose less abilities, but they are all active/available at all times.

[Randomguy]

If an ability/spell/feat/etc is continuous (Sneak Attack, Evasion, immunities, most feats like Power Attack) or has a duration (most buff spells) you may only have 1 active at any given time. But you may switch between them as an Immediate Action.

This seams like it would be a problem. For example, you can't power attack on a sneak attack and you can't power attack while you have mage armour active.
This is especially troubling if "etc" includes magic items, since everyone has multiple continuous magic items at high levels.

[NotScaryBats]

Yeah, so I can't have +Cha to saves (paladin) in addition to +Cha to ranged attacks (Charming the Arrow feat) at the same time?

Do you pick your casting stat and it only effects dcs not bonus spells?

[Harugami]

This is no good, because even if you can't have sneak attack and power attack at the same time you wouldn't need them at the same time. so you would get the smart-allek player who makes a barbarian with rouge sneak and paladin defense sneak attacks then switches to constant power attacks and you can't put him down because he is warded and has tons of armor and DR along with self heals. This is fine for epic type games but in a normal game I wouldn't allow it knowing what our group would do.

[ArcturusV]

You know, if you look over in the Homebrew section I think someone posted a 3.5 base class they called the "Trissociate" or something like that... which functionally does this exact concept. Might want to scope it out. It has a ton of replies so I have to presume it was pretty well tested by people and vetted out. Might give you ideas about how you'd want to do this.

[JeminiZero]

You know, if you look over in the Homebrew section I think someone posted a 3.5 base class they called the "Trissociate" or something like that... which functionally does this exact concept. Might want to scope it out.
Hai there! Here is the Trissociate (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php? t=234951)!:smallbiggrin:

Its not quite the same as this proposal. While the Trissociate lets you pick your own abilities, they remain of the same thematic type throughout your career. E.g. if you pick soul-binding at level 1, your soul-binding gets progressively better as you level until you hit level 8 vestiges.

Whereas in this system, you could start with soul-binding, and then suddenly swap it out 10d6 sneak attack at level 20. (Note: A Trissociate CAN master both sneak attack and soulbinding, but the choice to learn both starts at level 1).

[Slipperychicken]

How do we determine size of Hit Dice?

How do we treat Caster/Manifester/Initiator Level?

How will we treat Metamagic feats?

If I take Lightning Reflexes and Craven, do I need to spend an Immediate action to "turn off" Lightning Reflexes to activate Craven?

Is Leadership counted as a "truly open ended ability"?

It would be a pain to make a list of Abilities and Traits as described here, although a really dedicated team might be able to pull it off partially.

Dragonwrought Kobolds with the proper racial features allows first-level characters to take Epic feats. My character would most likely select Epic Toughness at 1st level, among others.

[Psyren]

I would pick summoning abilities. Even if the attack/save penalties applied to my summons, choking the battlefield with ni summons and having them form a wall of flesh between me and my enemies would mean they would have to roll some natural 20s before the enemy could reach me.

[Slipperychicken]

I would pick summoning abilities. Even if the attack/save penalties applied to my summons, choking the battlefield with ni summons and having them form a wall of flesh between me and my enemies would mean they would have to roll some natural 20s before the enemy could reach me.

Summons have durations, so you can only have one up.

Take Celerity, immunity to Daze, Timestop. Do it one more time per round (Celerity + Timestop = infinite action loop?).



White Raven Tactics is another infinite action loop. As long as you don't need your Swift Action. Teleport around.

Cunning Surge also breaks it. At the very least scores you another Standard Action, if you use the 1/round interpretation.

[Matticussama]

I love 3.x for the many things it does well, but what you're proposing changing (static class features) is pretty close to the heart of the system. If you start making such drastic changes, you might as well look for another system that would handle those changes better and make it easier to accomplish. It seems like it would be extremely cumbersome to implement.

At that point why not just play a point-buy system that allows you to build your character without being tied to a specific class? It would allow you to get all of the features that you'd like, without having to rework an entire system to force it to work (and likely being rather cumbersome in practice). If you want specific D&D class abilities that don't exist in other systems, the beauty of most point-buy games is that you can simply create them and assign a cost to them by comparing their relative abilities compared to others within the system.

[Psyren]

Summons have durations, so you can only have one up.

My bad, missed that bullet. But I'm sure there's a no-save, no-attack-roll ability I can pick instead.

I wonder how Utterances work under this system? Sounds like the Law of Resistance is where he got the idea from.

[Spuddles]

Interesting.

I think what counts as a trait and what counts as an ability. Also, if I pick "spells" as an ability, how does that work? Does that mean I can pick one first level spell to use at will?


My bad, missed that bullet. But I'm sure there's a no-save, no-attack-roll ability I can pick instead.

Those are banned.

[Person_Man]

Btw, how would you explain in-game that you can only use 1 ability at a time, and switching them while fighting makes you worse? I think it'd be neater to choose less abilities, but they are all active/available at all times.

Maintaining an ability requires Focus. Therefore, you can only have 1 Focus ability at any given time. Though I'd probably expand the number of Focus abilities you could use at higher levels to add more strategic depth.



This seams like it would be a problem. For example, you can't power attack on a sneak attack and you can't power attack while you have mage armour active.

That's the entire point. You cannot stack a bunch of passive abilities. You must choose between offense or defense, and every choice you make is meaningful. You can switch between them as an Immediate Action, and that makes how you spend your Immediate Action a very important choice as well.



This is especially troubling if "etc" includes magic items, since everyone has multiple continuous magic items at high levels.

That's a good point. I'm not quite sure about the best way to handle magic items, since everyone has a strong opinion on them. But my horse sense says that magic items should be treated like every other ability. You can choose any item that someone of that level could reasonably get. Though if it provides an always on ability or a duration, you may only have 1 active active at any given time.



Yeah, so I can't have +Cha to saves (paladin) in addition to +Cha to ranged attacks (Charming the Arrow feat) at the same time?

Do you pick your casting stat and it only effects dcs not bonus spells?

Yeah, there definitely needs to be some X to Y handwaves. New bullet. If you choose to use any ability which is keyed to a specific mental attribute, then all of your abilities may be key to a single mental attribute of your choice, as long as it fits with the overall fluff of your character. So if you want Divine Grace, then all of your spells/powers/etc may be keyed off of Cha.



How do we determine size of Hit Dice?

Pick a number that works well for your group. Everyone gets that number of hit points per level (plus their Con bonus).


How do we treat Caster/Manifester/Initiator Level?

It is equal to your character level.



How will we treat Metamagic feats

You can simply trade out lower level spells for higher level metamagic ones. For example, at first level you take Magic Missile. At 5th level (when you would normally have access to 3rd level spells), you can trade it out for Empowered Magic Missile (which would fill a 3rd level slot). If you find some weird combination that truly breaks the game, then it can be voted off the island by the group. But in general I'm willing to keep a very open mind.


If I take Lightning Reflexes and Craven, do I need to spend an Immediate action to "turn off" Lightning Reflexes to activate Craven?

Actually you couldn't use Craven at all (unless the group was at the point where more then one Focus ability at a time was active) because Craven and Sneak Attack are both "always on" abilities, and thus can't be used together. And that's the point - I want to get away from the constant stacking of numerical bonuses.



Is Leadership counted as a "truly open ended ability"?

Most definitely yes. Though if players have the urge to play more then one character, I generally allow it, as long as the group doesn't get too big.



It would be a pain to make a list of Abilities and Traits as described here, although a really dedicated team might be able to pull it off partially.

No need to make a list. If it exists, I'd probably let you use it.



Dragonwrought Kobolds with the proper racial features allows first-level characters to take Epic feats. My character would most likely select Epic Toughness at 1st level, among others.

Well that's fine if everyone in your group is willing to play at that power level as well. And then you can expect to be facing enemies of similar powers in combat, if that's what floats your boat.



I wonder how Utterances work under this system? Sounds like the Law of Resistance is where he got the idea from.

I'll be honest and say that I've never understood Truespeech, and thus can't give an intelligent answer to your question. (And this comes from a guy who loves Incarnum and vestiges). Though by default, I would probably just let you pick and use it at will like any other ability, ignoring pre-reqs, assuming that a character of that level could normally get it.

Also, screw pre-reqs in general. If something is cool, you can take it.



Interesting.

I think what counts as a trait and what counts as an ability. Also, if I pick "spells" as an ability, how does that work? Does that mean I can pick one first level spell to use at will?

If you are going to use it in combat, it probably counts as an Ability. If you're generally using it out of combat, it's a Trait. If it's in the grey zone in between, then we have a reasonable conversation about it and decide on a case by case basis.

If you choose a spell as an ability, you can use it at will. Your caster level is equal to your character level. Each time you use it beyond the first in combat, it takes a -2 to all rolls, and enemies get +2 to all Saves. This also applies to the rolls of all Summons. If it has a duration, then it falls under the Focus rule, and you can only have one Focus ability active at any given time. Truly open ended abilities like Polymorph are banned, as are spells that do not require any attack roll or allow any Saving Throw. All spells/powers/etc are keyed off of a single mental attribute of your choice, and Spell Failure from armor never applies. So you can mix and match as you like.


I'm almost feeling like this would be a workable, and surprisingly simple, homebrew system. I wonder if I could get a play by post game off the ground. It's a shame that I suck at running online games.

[Psyren]

Those are banned.

I should probably get around to reading the OP at some point :smalltongue:

[Zilzmaer]

Dragonwrought Kobolds with the proper racial features allows first-level characters to take Epic feats. My character would most likely select Epic Toughness at 1st level, among others.

Dragonwrought would be an 'always on' ability; you'd have to pick whether it was on (and you qualified for Epic feats) or off (and not qualify).

[Urpriest]

First, ideally, most meaningful offensive abilities would not offer saves or have attack rolls, since that allows players to think more tactically and makes the game based on knowledge rather than luck. So on that count I think your design choices are precisely backwards.

What are these characters fighting? Are monsters built as NPCs, a la Legend?

[Person_Man]

First, ideally, most meaningful offensive abilities would not offer saves or have attack rolls, since that allows players to think more tactically and makes the game based on knowledge rather than luck. So on that count I think your design choices are precisely backwards.

Wait, what? I honestly don't understand what you're saying here, but know you're a sharp person, so perhaps you could explain more.

It's been my personal experience that offensive abilities that do not offer saves or have attack rolls are bad things, because they basically eliminate the possibility of missing (ie, luck), allowing some classes to have an unfair advantage over others. And thus I feel that eliminating no save no attack roll abilities would be a good thing.

Are you saying the opposite, that we should strive to eliminate attack rolls and saving throws? Or something else?




What are these characters fighting? Are monsters built as NPCs, a la Legend?

When I DM, I do my best to mix up "out of the box" enemies and customized enemies. That way, if the character knows what an Ogre happens to be, they can adjust their tactics accordingly. But sometimes the Ogre might have class levels, or odd Feat choices, or whatever, so that the players are surprised.

[RFLS]

This sounds a hell of a lot like Legend, tbh. I'm not sure I'm a fan of how you set it up; the 1 continuous buff at a time thing seems...limiting.

EDIT: After reading through the whole thread more carefully, I have to say I've changed my mind. Sounds like a pretty interesting system.

[Urpriest]

Wait, what? I honestly don't understand what you're saying here, but know you're a sharp person, so perhaps you could explain more.

It's been my personal experience that offensive abilities that do not offer saves or have attack rolls are bad things, because they basically eliminate the possibility of missing (ie, luck), allowing some classes to have an unfair advantage over others. And thus I feel that eliminating no save no attack roll abilities would be a good thing.

Are you saying the opposite, that we should strive to eliminate attack rolls and saving throws? Or something else?


That experience is predicated upon the fact that casters tend to get more such abilities than mundane characters. If all characters have equal access to no-save no-attack roll abilities, that problem goes away.

If an ability is strictly attack roll or save-based, then a character can plan their turn perfectly and still get nothing accomplished. Attack rolls and saves are fun, but a character should always manage to accomplish something even when they fail their attack roll or save, provided they expend sufficient resources. This is the logic behind 4e's dailies and the class features of many 4e classes: if a player can spend their turn accomplishing precisely nothing through no fault of their own, the game becomes much less fun.






When I DM, I do my best to mix up "out of the box" enemies and customized enemies. That way, if the character knows what an Ogre happens to be, they can adjust their tactics accordingly. But sometimes the Ogre might have class levels, or odd Feat choices, or whatever, so that the players are surprised.

I don't mean when you DM, I mean were you to DM this system. You shouldn't use normal 3.5 monsters, as they are predicated on the idea that players can have multiple buffs up at once and multiply damage and stack accuracy boosters...you're messing with the rng, in other words, and you'd need to have a new type of monster for this new set of rules.

[Person_Man]

This sounds a hell of a lot like Legend, tbh. I'm not sure I'm a fan of how you set it up; the 1 continuous buff at a time thing seems...limiting.

EDIT: After reading through the whole thread more carefully, I have to say I've changed my mind. Sounds like a pretty interesting system.

I'm actually a big fan of Legend for a variety of reasons. But getting 4 other people to read and adopt a new game system is a tall order, especially when there's already a big schism of 3.0, 3.5, 4E, and Pathfinder among my friends. So my proposed theoretical game is an attempt to weld them all together in a simple framework that doesn't require learning any new system. I hope. Things are always simpler on paper.

[Bakkan]

If an ability is strictly attack roll or save-based, then a character can plan their turn perfectly and still get nothing accomplished. Attack rolls and saves are fun, but a character should always manage to accomplish something even when they fail their attack roll or save, provided they expend sufficient resources. This is the logic behind 4e's dailies and the class features of many 4e classes: if a player can spend their turn accomplishing precisely nothing through no fault of their own, the game becomes much less fun.

The underlined section is, I think, the most subjective part of your statement and the one that I disagree with somewhat. I don't like having a system guarantee that as long as you try, you'll accomplish something, irrespective of the variables you have no control over. To me, this is like giving out participation awards at competitions. It cheapens the value of true success if there's no true failure. That may be why Person_Man has designed a system to require the possibility of failure for essentially every action.

[Aegis013]

The underlined section is, I think, the most subjective part of your statement and the one that I disagree with somewhat.

It's certainly subjective, but I agree wholeheartedly with Urpriest due to his clarification clause, which you didn't underline. Provided they expend sufficient resources. If all I can do is make an attack, and I miss, that's not fun. It's the same reason I rarely use save-or-die spells, because the save is extremely frustrating for me, and the die is pretty anticlimactic for the rest of the table, in my opinion.

But if I make an attack and I miss, but I still have a swift action and something I can do with it, or if I decide to use an item or otherwise, I should still be able to accomplish something with my turn, whether or not the fickle dice grace me with their favor that turn.

[Urpriest]

The underlined section is, I think, the most subjective part of your statement and the one that I disagree with somewhat. I don't like having a system guarantee that as long as you try, you'll accomplish something, irrespective of the variables you have no control over. To me, this is like giving out participation awards at competitions. It cheapens the value of true success if there's no true failure. That may be why Person_Man has designed a system to require the possibility of failure for essentially every action.

See, I think that the possibility of failure should come primarily from the ability of the players and the capabilities of the characters, not from the dice. It cheapens the value of success if it's just a matter of rolling 1 or 20.

[RFLS]

I'm actually a big fan of Legend for a variety of reasons. But getting 4 other people to read and adopt a new game system is a tall order, especially when there's already a big schism of 3.0, 3.5, 4E, and Pathfinder among my friends. So my proposed theoretical game is an attempt to weld them all together in a simple framework that doesn't require learning any new system. I hope. Things are always simpler on paper.

My sympathies. I've been/am there.

[Bakkan]

See, I think that the possibility of failure should come primarily from the ability of the players and the capabilities of the characters, not from the dice. It cheapens the value of success if it's just a matter of rolling 1 or 20.

I kind of agree, except that I think that the possibility of success should come primarily from the ability of the players. I think that the default mechanics should include the possibility of failure and the strength of a character can in part be measured by how able he is to avoid those "random" failures or succeed despite them. In Person_Man's proposed game there's no way to avoid allowing a save or making an attack roll. But you, at least in theory, can ensure that you have abilities that target different saves, or maximize your save DC's, or have ways of hitting touch or flat-footed AC with an attack roll, thus increasing your success rate to around 95%.

As for the "expend sufficient resources" phrase, I see where you're coming from, but I don't think in general that results should necessarily be a direct consequence of effort or resources. If someone spends 10,000 gp making his sword Holy and Undead Bane in a game where the primary antagonists are Chaotic Neurtal Druids, I don't think that character is entitled to anything in return (assuming he wasn't deceived about the campaign, of course).