D&d with no classes and point-buy system

[Spacehamster]

So got this crazy idea while working today and were wondering what you guys think of it as a whole?

So concept is simple, drop classes and use point buy system to tailor the character that is perfect to you.

At level 1 you get a bunch of points which you use to decide what hd your pc gets, how many attacks he will get as he levels up, full caster-1/3rd caster, how many starting skill profs. And amount of points would ofc not be enough for d12 full caster with 4 attacks or something crazy like that.

Then as you gain levels you get a set amount of points per lvl up that you can spend on features from the PHB, more potent features ofc cost more so might have to get a empty level or two to afford the very best features and so on.

This is ofc just in a brainstorming phase right now but just wondering if this would be a workable and fun system. :)

[pwykersotz]

Did someone say GURPS? No? Okay then.

It sounds fun, but it also sounds like it would be a royal pain to balance. Would you try to re-analyze the utility and power of each discreet ability, or give it value based on where WOTC decided to put it in class/subclass progression?

[Magic Myrmidon]

If I could find a point buy system that features the cool abilities that typically come with a class based system, I think it'd be great. That being said, I think point-buy character creation wouldn't really be DnD. There are a few things that are essential to any DnD edition, and classes are one of them.

[Spacehamster]

Did someone say GURPS? No? Okay then.

It sounds fun, but it also sounds like it would be a royal pain to balance. Would you try to re-analyze the utility and power of each discreet ability, or give it value based on where WOTC decided to put it in class/subclass progression?

Would be based purely on power of the ability, so a pc that aims for just powerful abilities would ofc get less abilities. Would keep 5 feats that you gain for free as with all the standard classes and then you could buy extra feats for points.

[LucianoAr]

yes it could work, yes a pain to balance, yes id love to play it.

id like to exploit that system to the fullest lol.

[Spacehamster]

As for point cost were thinking low power feature costs 7 points, medium power 10 and high power 16. And you gain 5pts every level. Since no class gets features every level and you always have some advancing features that grow each level from when you create the pc at lvl 1.

[Cazero]

A much simpler way to balance it would be to build it in classes.
Like, you pick your base class chassis (for example full spellcaster, 1/3 spellcaster + attack bonus, or mundane utility + huge attack bonus), and then you choose up to X subclasses for how the features are implemented (one spellcaster subclass to define casting stat and spell list, one subclass for bonus casting on full spellcasters, one subclass to specify how your attack bonus is implemented, etc).

[Knaight]

So got this crazy idea while working today and were wondering what you guys think of it as a whole?

So concept is simple, drop classes and use point buy system to tailor the character that is perfect to you.
It sounds like a huge part of the industry that isn't D&D - classes are a comparatively rare design choice these days, though they're starting to come back in popularity a bit. A point buy system based specifically off of the functionality of D&D 5e could work, but I'd strongly recommend looking into a wide variety of systems first.


If I could find a point buy system that features the cool abilities that typically come with a class based system, I think it'd be great. That being said, I think point-buy character creation wouldn't really be DnD. There are a few things that are essential to any DnD edition, and classes are one of them.

There are plenty of these. Give REIGN a shot, take look at Legends of the Wulin, adapt Mutants and Masterminds.

[Safety Sword]

Interesting idea. It's not D&D anymore, but it's still a magic elf game.

[SharkForce]

well, see you in a few years once you've finally got something that isn't incredibly subject to abuse.


.....


ah, who am i kidding... see you in a few years once you've given up on getting something that isn't incredibly subject to abuse.

(or, in other words... this sort of system can only work if your group don't have a min/maxing bone in their body. otherwise, expect to see a lot of very similar characters as people quickly figure out what is worth the points, and what isn't).

[Knaight]

(or, in other words... this sort of system can only work if your group don't have a min/maxing bone in their body. otherwise, expect to see a lot of very similar characters as people quickly figure out what is worth the points, and what isn't).

Seeing as this is something that routinely doesn't happen with existing point buy games, I doubt it. Seriously, this whole concept is not new, GURPS came out in the 1980s, as did Champions - the two are kind of the definitive early point buy games, and shaped a lot of what came after.

[Shining Wrath]

If you can make it work, I suggest you write it up, copyright it, and offer to sell it to WotC. Seriously, this would be a blast as an alternative in DMG 2 when they publish that, and if you do it right and play test it, it is at least plausible WotC would pay you for it.

[SharkForce]

Seeing as this is something that routinely doesn't happen with existing point buy games, I doubt it. Seriously, this whole concept is not new, GURPS came out in the 1980s, as did Champions - the two are kind of the definitive early point buy games, and shaped a lot of what came after.

so you're saying if i go take a look at various characters within those systems, i won't find that an overwhelming majority have invested their points in a few specific ways? heck, if i go find a GURPS forum or a Champions forum and check on threads asking for character building advice, do you think i'm going to find them all saying "oh, pick whatever you want, everything is pretty equal", or do you think i'm going to find a lot of "well, here are the things that are best for their cost, here are some really effective combinations of abilities" and so forth.

just to show on a smaller scale, consider the D&D skill system. everyone wants perception. if i look at 20 builds on these forums, i'd be extremely surprised if at least half of them don't have perception as a skill, which is impressive considering it isn't a class skill for most classes. if i look at backgrounds, i bet i'll find that most builds take specific ones of those as well (urchin is probably the most popular i can think of offhand, or maybe pirate). then look at the feat system. how many people do you see making recommendations that you should take the tavern brawler feat or whatever it's called? how many threads talking about how effective warriors are that *don't* assume you're talking great weapon master and polearm mastery on a melee or sharpshooter and crossbow mastery on a ranged build?

when there are options, people will tend towards the most effective ones. they won't be chosen every time; i've seen people insist that the sage background is the one that fits their character, and i've seen people wanting to fit non-optimal feats into their build, but generally speaking there is a strong trend towards making the choices that are most effective.

yes, you *can* use it to make non-optimal choices. and that's why it will only work for a group that doesn't min/max. if you're in a group that likes to make their characters effective at what they do, you're likely going to see trends like i've just described occur in any system. with a point-based system, there are fewer restrictions on who can get what, and as a result you will tend to see the choices that have the best cost:benefit ratio chosen time and time again.

it can work in a group that doesn't care about min/maxing. any other group, characters are going to start looking very similar in many ways; they'll have the same hit die, choose the same saving throws, probably have mostly the same proficiencies, and so forth. there may be some variation in general type of character (for example, there will be warriors and spellcasters), but even within general types you'll likely find a lot of overlap.

unless, as i said, your group doesn't care about optimization at all. which is totally a thing that can happen, don't get me wrong. you can make a system that will work *for your group* if your group doesn't care about optimizing their characters. but one that will work for general use without the problems i've described? not gonna happen. various companies of people with years or even decades of experience in designing games have spent a lot of time and effort trying to make one. and there isn't one yet.

if you actually look at the available data, you'll probably find that even in a system with comparative limited options like D&D, and look at what proficiencies, feats, and backgrounds are most frequently taken, i would be surprised if you don't find that, say, 20% (or less) of the feats in the PHB account for 80% (or more) of the feats selected for actual characters.

[Joe the Rat]

As for point cost were thinking low power feature costs 7 points, medium power 10 and high power 16. And you gain 5pts every level. Since no class gets features every level and you always have some advancing features that grow each level from when you create the pc at lvl 1.Just make sure what is advancing every level are things that are explicitly character level... So proficiency bonus and cantrip damage. I'd consider baking in the all-classes ASI as well, unless you feel they should be an optional component.

Somewhere in the recesses of my game computer I have a set of rules where someone did exactly what you are talking about doing here, only for D&D 3/3.5. I'll see if I can find it.

[Knaight]

so you're saying if i go take a look at various characters within those systems, i won't find that an overwhelming majority have invested their points in a few specific ways? heck, if i go find a GURPS forum or a Champions forum and check on threads asking for character building advice, do you think i'm going to find them all saying "oh, pick whatever you want, everything is pretty equal", or do you think i'm going to find a lot of "well, here are the things that are best for their cost, here are some really effective combinations of abilities" and so forth.

You'll find that particular character archetypes are routinely realized in particular ways,and that certain abilities are pretty frequently seen. At the character level though, you won't find that an overwhelming majority have invested the majority of their points in a few ways. A handful of individual traits might be part of a small portfolio shared by characters, but those eat fairly few points and leave the rest open.

Take Champions (a superhero game). If you're trying to build a super strong, super tough flying brick, then the points are probably generally going to be spent largely on being strong, being tough, some degree of flight, some degree of combat skills, and enough left over for an alter-ego. If you're trying to build a master of magnetism, that's not what is going to happen. In my experience, point based games tend to encourage coming up with your character concept, then realizing that effectively. So, GURPS optimization tends to involve a lot more attribute-skill balancing to get the set of skills you want for the character as cheaply as possible, and a lot less of just picking up the most powerful skills.

As for people always wanting to maximally optimize, by that logic just about every D&D party would be composed entirely of tier 1 casters. Yet that is fairly rare.

[Argothair]

A much simpler way to balance it would be to build it in classes.
Like, you pick your base class chassis (for example full spellcaster, 1/3 spellcaster + attack bonus, or mundane utility + huge attack bonus), and then you choose up to X subclasses for how the features are implemented (one spellcaster subclass to define casting stat and spell list, one subclass for bonus casting on full spellcasters, one subclass to specify how your attack bonus is implemented, etc).

Can you say more about what you mean by a 'base class chassis' and how it would interact with multiclassing? I think this is really interesting, but I'm not sure I understand how it would work. Can i pick a bard spellcaster list and a paladin spellcaster list at the expense of giving up, e.g. short rest spell slot replenishment? Do i have to choose full, 1/3, or zero casting at character creation and then stick with that the whole game, or can i take a level in "utility" and then later take a level in "spellcaster"? What kinds of subclasses would there be for "attack bonus"? Wouldn't that tend to get a little repetitive, in terms of extra attacks, extra accuracy, extra damage coming up over and over?

[TheOOB]

The class and level based system is an essential part of D&D, I'd even say the essential part of D&D. A system without it isn't D&D. There are dozens, no hundreds of other RPG's out there that do what your looking for.

[Ravens_cry]

So Mutants and Masterminds, but with the tone and genre set to 'Heroic/High Fantasy.'
Eh, if I was proficient in M&M, I'd play it.

[Kyutaru]

If you can make it work, I suggest you write it up, copyright it, and offer to sell it to WotC. Seriously, this would be a blast as an alternative in DMG 2 when they publish that, and if you do it right and play test it, it is at least plausible WotC would pay you for it.

Why would Wizards of the Coast pay for a system that was already in 2nd edition? They already own TSR.

On pg 32-35 of the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide, there are instructions and charts for creating your own class. It does this already, featuring a point-buy system of sorts for choosing armor limits, hit dice, spellcasting, class features, weapon proficiencies, etc. The more powerful the class, the greater the amount of experience it takes to level up.

While not exactly the same as you can't point buy every level, a choose-your-own-class-features point buy system was already in D&D over 25 years ago.

[Cazero]

Can you say more about what you mean by a 'base class chassis' and how it would interact with multiclassing? I think this is really interesting, but I'm not sure I understand how it would work.
It would interact very badly with multiclassing, but the whole point is to make multiclassing obsolete by building a custom class that already include what you want.


Can i pick a bard spellcaster list and a paladin spellcaster list at the expense of giving up, e.g. short rest spell slot replenishment?
Not how I see it. I would see it as picking a certain number of spell spheres (like wizard spell schools or paladin smiting) depending of your spellcasting type (spellbook-based, full list granted by an exterior force, or innate permanent knowledge). Then full casters would have to choose a mechanism that allow more spellcasting of low level spells to help them with their limited ressource. Partial spellcaster would have less spheres and weaker spell slots, but rely less on spells to begin with due to their other benefits. Both could trade spheres for side benefits, like a cleric proficiency in weapon and armor.
A big chunk of the work here would be to put every spell in appropriate spheres.


Do i have to choose full, 1/3, or zero casting at character creation and then stick with that the whole game, or can i take a level in "utility" and then later take a level in "spellcaster"?
The way I see it, it might be possible to pick options from character generation (such as spellcasting ability) with feats. But it would force to reconsider entirely how ASI/feats trading works for balance issues (feats with scaling?). Since I'm already talking crazy about breaking the whole character generation process...


What kinds of subclasses would there be for "attack bonus"? Wouldn't that tend to get a little repetitive, in terms of extra attacks, extra accuracy, extra damage coming up over and over?
The obvious one that already exists are sneak attack, extra attack, fighting styles, action surge, smite...
They would be split in different category, like always available for sneak attack and extra attack and limited resource for smite and action surge. You make the mix you like the most. It wouldn't be any more repetitive than the current existing ways to build an attack based character.

All of this is complicated. Ideally, the system should allow to rebuild the existing base classes exactly as they are. This way, anyone can just pick a base class if he doesn't feel like building his own.

[Argothair]

So, this is still interesting, but if I'm understanding you correctly then the new system would have a lot of what I see as downsides:

1) You'd have to do 80%+ of the character design up front, before you even set foot in a Level 1 tavern. You can pick spells from your spell list and ASI/feats as you go along, and maybe select from some multiple choice options (e.g. Bear Totem Barbarian benefit vs. Eagle Totem Barbarian benefit), but when you start your character, you would already have to know how much casting you want to do, what school(s) of casting you want to do it from, what armors/weapons you want to be proficient with, what skills you want to be proficient or have expertise with...all the way through to Level 20. Ordinarily players will have *some* idea of what kind of character they're hoping to build, but the multiclassing RAW leave a lot more room than your system does for pivoting mid-campaign and for waiting until later in the campaign to flesh out higher-level features.

2) It's not clear to me that your system actually *has* more flexibility than multiclassing plus the odd bit of homebrew. It sounds like you're saying players are:

limited to a strict progression of full/half/third/no casting, rather than being able to pick up some levels from caster classes and some levels from martial classes
limited to one spell list, instead of being able to pick up multiple spell lists by multiclassing, and
forced to take one of each type of feature, rather than being able to heavily specialize in attack bonuses or utility bonuses or spell recharge bonuses


So what is it that I can do in your system that I can't do in RAW? Play a Fighter with a Sneak Attack? Play a Sorcerer who can Smite? It's not clear to me that those kinds of minor feature-swaps are worth re-tooling the whole system...any DM who would be willing to play with such a radically different rules system will usually be willing to let you make a couple of homebrew feature-swaps like that, especially if you're doing it for flavor or to flesh out a unique concept, rather than to try to gain an unfair advantage.

[Cazero]

So, this is still interesting, but if I'm understanding you correctly then the new system would have a lot of what I see as downsides:

1) You'd have to do 80%+ of the character design up front, before you even set foot in a Level 1 tavern. You can pick spells from your spell list and ASI/feats as you go along, and maybe select from some multiple choice options (e.g. Bear Totem Barbarian benefit vs. Eagle Totem Barbarian benefit), but when you start your character, you would already have to know how much casting you want to do, what school(s) of casting you want to do it from, what armors/weapons you want to be proficient with, what skills you want to be proficient or have expertise with...all the way through to Level 20. Ordinarily players will have *some* idea of what kind of character they're hoping to build, but the multiclassing RAW leave a lot more room than your system does for pivoting mid-campaign and for waiting until later in the campaign to flesh out higher-level features.

2) It's not clear to me that your system actually *has* more flexibility than multiclassing plus the odd bit of homebrew. It sounds like you're saying players are:

limited to a strict progression of full/half/third/no casting, rather than being able to pick up some levels from caster classes and some levels from martial classes
limited to one spell list, instead of being able to pick up multiple spell lists by multiclassing, and
forced to take one of each type of feature, rather than being able to heavily specialize in attack bonuses or utility bonuses or spell recharge bonuses


So what is it that I can do in your system that I can't do in RAW? Play a Fighter with a Sneak Attack? Play a Sorcerer who can Smite? It's not clear to me that those kinds of minor feature-swaps are worth re-tooling the whole system...any DM who would be willing to play with such a radically different rules system will usually be willing to let you make a couple of homebrew feature-swaps like that, especially if you're doing it for flavor or to flesh out a unique concept, rather than to try to gain an unfair advantage.

My 'system' has flaws, and it is not surprising. It got 30min thinking tops.
1) Not necessarily, you could make choices at each level.
2) Full/half/no casting is based on what exists, doing anything else strike me as needlessly complicated.
Increasing your spell list can still be done if a feature for it is defined.
Being forced to diversify the kind of feature you are allowed to pick is here for balance purpose. For obvious reasons, designing a class with full smite, full sneak attack, 2 attacks and action surge should not be possible.

It is clearly not worth re-tooling the whole system if your DM allow some homebrew feature swaps, but those feature swaps definitely can't be done with multiclassing.

[Millennium]

You may want to consider BESM d20 as a model (an SRD is available as Anime d20).

This was a port of the anime RPG Big Eyes, Small Mouth from a purely point-buy system to something more closely resembling D&D. Although they embraced classes as stock archetypes, they didn't want to abandon point-buy completely, and so most class features have been assigned values in "character points". Characters of all classes get at least some "character points" at each level, with which they can purchase any Attributes they can afford, including those granted by other classes. It also includes conversions of the standard D&D classes into this system, and even a "classless class" called the Adventurer, who gets loads of character points but no default class abilities.

My one caveat here is that this was done during the days of 3.0: a 3.5 conversion document exists, but isn't so easy to find anymore. Still, it might be of use as a model to people trying to build out a d20-like point buy system.

Though I've got to be honest; I don't see the point of doing this. The mechanics and statistical models are different enough between class/level systems and point-buy systems that by the time you're done rebuilding, you've got something that doesn't resemble the old system very much anymore. You could save yourself a lot of time and effort by abandoning the idea of "conversion" and just adapting an existing point-buy system, rebuilding the mechanics (though obviously not the flavor) of your setting to suit. You couldn't legally call this D&D, but technically you can't call a converted system D&D either, so you don't really lose anything.

[Laserlight]

Take Champions (a superhero game). If you're trying to build a super strong, super tough flying brick, then the points are probably generally going to be spent largely on being strong, being tough, some degree of flight, some degree of combat skills, and enough left over for an alter-ego. If you're trying to build a master of magnetism, that's not what is going to happen. In my experience, point based games tend to encourage coming up with your character concept, then realizing that effectively.

Concur.

Also, "optimizing" could be a bit slippery. Back when I was actively playing, DEX23 was efficient because it rounds well, DEX24 was not efficient; but if everyone else is DEX23 and your DEX24 lets you act first, then maybe that extra 3 points was a good investment.

Incidentally, Fantasy HERO is coming out any time now--may already have started shipping.

[Baptor]

My big issue with point-buy (and therefore IMO a hurdle you'll need to overcome) is that the more flexible a system becomes like this, the easier it is to make a terrible character.

Now a lot of folks will decry that the issue is that it's likely for someone to pick all the right things and make an OP character, and that is very true.

But the opposite is true as well, it becomes all too easy to pick a bunch of "neat" things that a poor naive RP-focused player thinks will be cool only to end up with a piece of crap.

Case in point? Asheron's Call.

There's this really old MMO called Asheron's Call. It was a strict point-buy system...you could make anything. My friend, who had been playing for years, had spent hours creating this axe-wielding rogue-like character who could cast buffs and healing magic.

It sounded cool. He looked cool. It also was a terrible build that sucked. He died a lot and had trouble doing anything meaningful. Despite his years of playing he had not advanced far.

I wanted to make some kind of cool hybrid like him, but he warned me, "Don't make a hybrid. They don't work. Make a pure fighter or a pure mage, those builds are the most powerful in the game."

I asked, "But if pure builds are the best, what's the point of having a point buy? Why not just have classes?"

"I don't know. I guess there isn't a reason."

And that is why* although point-buy systems sound good in theory, I have never played on nor will I ever play one.

But if you can find a way past that issue, you will be gold.

*See also Final Fantasy 2.

[Knaight]

I asked, "But if pure builds are the best, what's the point of having a point buy? Why not just have classes?"

"I don't know. I guess there isn't a reason."

And that is why* although point-buy systems sound good in theory, I have never played on nor will I ever play one.

But if you can find a way past that issue, you will be gold.

*See also Final Fantasy 2.

So, one MMORPG and a handful of CRPGs screw up point buy horribly, and you write it all off? The criticism applied could easily be made of class based systems - take D&D, where all it takes to suck is to pick a class that sounds cool but is kind of useless (ooh, you can play a Samurai!). Meanwhile I've seen plenty of point buy systems in which being truly terrible is actually pretty difficult.

[Baptor]

So, one MMORPG and a handful of CRPGs screw up point buy horribly, and you write it all off? The criticism applied could easily be made of class based systems - take D&D, where all it takes to suck is to pick a class that sounds cool but is kind of useless (ooh, you can play a Samurai!). Meanwhile I've seen plenty of point buy systems in which being truly terrible is actually pretty difficult.

That is correct.

Here's the difference in a crappy class and point buy. In a class system I can look over a class and reasonably see how it will measure up to other classes in the game and therefore determine whether to play a samurai or a fighter. (Hint pick the fighter).

In a point buy I find it hard to know if a build will suck until well into the game.

In addition, and this is probably my biggest issue, is that the entire purpose of point but is to give you mite flexibility so you can make interesting hybrids and combinations. Yet in every point buy I've played, pure builds are always the strongest builds. That totally invalidates the point of the system.

Now if course you results may vary, but I've found class systems to be much more reasonable.

I'm more than willing to change my tune if you can show me a point buy that doesn't suffer from the problems I've mentioned.

[Knaight]

In addition, and this is probably my biggest issue, is that the entire purpose of point but is to give you mite flexibility so you can make interesting hybrids and combinations. Yet in every point buy I've played, pure builds are always the strongest builds. That totally invalidates the point of the system.

This sounds like a CRPG problem to me, I've seen far less of it everywhere else.


I'm more than willing to change my tune if you can show me a point buy that doesn't suffer from the problems I've mentioned.
Sure:
Fudge fits this (though only some of the character generation aspects are point buy). There's a system where you just buy up individual skills, and then there's also this (http://www.panix.com/~sos/rpg/fudfive7.html) more minimalist one, where you have five points to spend, you distribute them between skill groups, with 0-4 per group. (It also has one of several optional magic systems, this one is a bit clunky).

There's a real trade there between a specialist and a generalist. Yeah, a specialist has some skills at high values, but if you spend 4 points in 1 skill category you get only 9 skills out of it. With a broad focus and lower points used, you can get 16 skills out of 4 points.

This also gets into the point-buy versus class distinction, since there's another Fudge character generation system that isn't point-buy. Sadly it was on a fan run electronic magazine which is now off the internet and can't be linked, though it survives (sans formatting) here (http://faterpg.com/dl/ontheflysrd.txt).

So lets say you want to be a character to be a noble, who feels far more at home on a battlefield or a hunt than in court, but who has had to pick up some number of court skills because of their profession. Let's really go for a hybrid here, and say they also have some degree of magical talent. So, how is that represented:

First, you figure out their single best skill. I'm thinking Riding - it's useful in a hunt, it's useful on a battlefield, it represents something you can do to get the heck away from court life for at least a little while, it seems like exactly what the character would be best at. Now, you could just start immediately and fill things in as they come up, but the character is more developed at this point. So, a few other notable skills.

Magic - This skill is probably a particular part of magic, but it needs to be put somewhere decently high. I'm thinking Good - the character isn't a dedicated mage, it's a talent that seems to warrant less emphasis than their more martial skills, but it's still high up.

Archery - Again, hunting and war. This is worth using a slot for Great.

Courtier - This is a skill the character has, but it's not something they love and there's no reason to think they're exceptional. Call it Fair.

Knightly Weapons (Sword, Lance, etc.) - We've got a fighting person of the noble class, and one with a particularly martial bent at that. We also have a Great slot remaining. I'm thinking Great.

Rapport - It's an interesting aspect for the character to be more socially adept outside of court, more at home among soldiers and hunters than courtiers. There are two Good slots remaining, this could fit in there just fine.

Finance - Somehow, I suspect that a character like this would generally find a way to stick this duty on somebody else. There's still some level of training they would have received, but I wouldn't be optimistic about actual ability. Mediocre.

Tracking - What sort of hunter can't track? Stick this in Good, and call it a day.

Falconry - It comes with hunting, though I don't envision it as a primary skill. There's plenty of Fair slots remaining, assuming that you don't want to move something to emphasize this more.

So, we already have a character which is in multiple roles and fits them all just fine. There are also seven slots remaining to assign later as things come up.