D&D Without Character Classes (not my system)

[GreatWyrmGold]

In this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ-yyhZcXQU), Zee Bashaw discusses a classless version of D&D. I'm going to copy-paste the character creation rules from the description:

First: Generate attribute scores and pick a race
Then:
Pick 2 feats/cantrips
Pick 4 proficiencies
You can trade proficiency at a rate of 2 proficiency for 1 level 2 spell. (each can be cast 1 time per short rest)
To get heavy armor proficiency

light/medium armor prof first to get Heavy armor prof
simple weapons prof to get Martial weapons prof.
Also, 10+(Con mod) hit points. The description left that out.
He also briefly talks about level-ups (where you can pick 5 HP, two ore proficiencies, +1 to Proficiency modifier, 1d4 sneak attack, of half of an Attribute point) and suggests starting these characters with a reasonably powerful magic item for the feeling of "normal people with extraordinary tools".

I'm curious what you guys think of this system, as far as usability, balance, etc go.

[Unoriginal]

Dungeons & Dragon without Dungeons & Dragons... is that the new "Garfield without Garfield"?


Joke aside, those rules only allow characters who are at best clunky and at worse unplayable, and even the best will be rather weaker than any by-the-book adventurers. Just one example: everyone who wants an attack spell will just pick Eldritch Blast and be much better at combat with less investment than the guy who took the Martial Weapon path.


As for the "normal people with extraordinary tools", I don't see how that'd be accomplished like that.

[Zorrah]

As for the "normal people with extraordinary tools", I don't see how that'd be accomplished like that.

Remember that little nothing town guard that crit you for 2d8 +2 because he wasn't that strong and you weren't worried because you were a level 5 bear barbarian, and a good workout just isn't a good workout unless it deals 2d8 +2 points of damage to you? Well, now you're dead because for some reason that little nothing town guard was wielding a vorpal short sword.

And on a more serious note, I'm taking the classless approach less seriously when talking 5e because the subclasses make each class so much more than what it is and is really the feature that made me fall in love with 5e. Yeah, there's a thread right now about fighter subclasses being mediocre, but you know what? Back in my day, fighters hit things with their weapon and didn't summon their sword to their hand, or tack a +d8 to hit onto their attack. /oldmanrant I think that the subclasses of fighter are pretty amazing, even if there could be a couple of changes to buff them up. And I should go rant at that thread too. A little later.

[Pex]

If you want to play a game without classes, go play one. They exist. People like them. Find those people and play with them.

[Unoriginal]

If you want to play a game without classes, go play one. They exist. People like them. Find those people and play with them.

This. Dungeon World, GURPS, etc.

[Mr.Spastic]

Most Chaosium games are "classless." They use a d100 system and you roll under your percent score to pass checks. Based on your character background certain checks will be higher than others. They have two games that I know well enough to suggest.

Call of Cthulu. Basically a sixties horror story with ancient aliens.

Runequest. It's a Greek style adventure game with a heavy aspect on what gods you worship.

[Cybren]

This. Dungeon World, GURPS, etc.

Dungeon World not only has classes, the dungeon world classes often have a stronger narrative and mechanical identity than D&Ds classes. After all, in dungeon world YOU aware the Fighter. There might be warriors, mercenaries, or soldiers, but there’s only one fighter (at least at first).

Anyway I feel like this variant wants to be Generic Classes, a variant I strongly wish 5e had and have made several attempts to port

[Capac Amaru]

Geez. A lot of people seem to have taken the 'awkwardly hostile' class, rather than the 'everyone can play how they like' class.

[Arkhios]

Geez. A lot of people seem to have taken the 'awkwardly hostile' class, rather than the 'everyone can play how they like' class.

It's not hostile to point out that classes are a vital part of D&D. If you strip them away, you're playing something else entirely. It's not 'wrong' per se, but it's a long leap from what D&D is and has been for 44 years.

[Vorpalchicken]

I took a look at the video. I think the idea is that this is supposed to be used for a quick fire one shot. Like if you want to only take 1 minute for character generation and start playing right away. Also pretty sure this could only be for a tier 1 adventure.
While I think it's strange that all spells are level 2 (except from feats and race) found it interesting that certain spells have shifted in value because of the lack of class features. For example no one can get extra attack and they will likely not need to concentrate on any other spell so flame blade is a lot better.
The leveling up is wonky. A +1 to all proficiency bonuses is way better than half a stat point. Would definitely need a bit of change

[GreyBlack]

Question.

You said you pick 4 proficiencies. Does that include your save proficiencies?

Overall, while the do like the system, I don't think it could work for the majority of tables. These will result in comparatively weak characters. While I personally like it, I don't think that other tables will.

[Sigreid]

Most Chaosium games are "classless." They use a d100 system and you roll under your percent score to pass checks. Based on your character background certain checks will be higher than others. They have two games that I know well enough to suggest.

Call of Cthulu. Basically a sixties horror story with ancient aliens.

Runequest. It's a Greek style adventure game with a heavy aspect on what gods you worship.

Really on Runequest? Back when I played it it wasn't Greek at all.

[Capac Amaru]

It's not hostile to point out that classes are a vital part of D&D. If you strip them away, you're playing something else entirely. It's not 'wrong' per se, but it's a long leap from what D&D is and has been for 44 years.

Go away and play something else isn't hostile? Lol

This is no different than any other homebrew, and no one is forcing anyone to do anything.

If somebody wants to use D&D to play 'something else entirely' then power to them.

If you don't want to play 'something else entirely' then I hope you're ready to start pruning, because Chainmail sure has a lot of stuff in it these days that is 'something else entirely'.

[Spriteless]

Really on Runequest? Back when I played it it wasn't Greek at all.

Well, depends on where you go. It's definitely bronze age, though. And very mythic. When I played it we moslty sailed to islands of adventure, while trying to avoid the big hole in the center of the ocean.

[Arkhios]

Go away and play something else isn't hostile? Lol

This is no different than any other homebrew, and no one is forcing anyone to do anything.

If somebody wants to use D&D to play 'something else entirely' then power to them.

If you don't want to play 'something else entirely' then I hope you're ready to start pruning, because Chainmail sure has a lot of stuff in it these days that is 'something else entirely'.

Speaking of hostility, may I suggest to take a look in the mirror.

[ImproperJustice]

It feels like a starting point similar to where True 20 ended up.
Deconstructing classes down to features, feats, and ASIs, and then determining their relative value, before allowing PCs to “build what they want” from the base parts.

I think 3.5 was an easier system to break down in this way, as 5e has been so finely tuned around various tier thresholds and certain class “niches” that it more easily falls apart.

Chances are, it would just be a lot simpler to employ a different system like Savage Worlds or True 20, and plunk ot down in the D&D universe.

While I like Zee Bashew’s videos, I think his rough draft of a classless system needs some more fine tuning. An example would be how the Magic Initiate Feat disrupts his economy.

[Capac Amaru]

Speaking of hostility, may I suggest to take a look in the mirror.

I'm very hostile when it comes to accepting varying play styles. I guess?

[Anonymouswizard]

If you want to play a game without classes, go play one. They exist. People like them. Find those people and play with them.

This. GURPS, Savage Worlds, and The Dark Eye are all great options for fantasy games without classes.

Not that classes aren't great, I'm making a fantasy game where classes are even more central than 5e. But if you want a point buy game there's more then enough options.

Baator, you want to take 5e's core rules and build a classless system on top of it go ahead. Sounds like a great idea. But you're going to need a lot of work to make it good, at which point you're not really playing D&D anymore, but a homebrew system based on D&D.

[Dr. Cliché]

Whilst I can understand someone not liking classes (they're a bit of a weird concept in terms of what they're supposed to represent), I can't say I'm enthralled by this fix.

Unless your summary has missed out a lot of stuff, then classless characters just sound really dull and lacking in both flavour and fun/interesting rules.


I think if you really wanted to do this, you'd basically need to allocate points to every class ability (possibly along with a minimum class level) and then give each character a number of points each level to spend on abilities.

[Pex]

I've seen it way too many times. The DM, not satisfied with the game rules, starts to tinker it. More than just house rules, he changes the foundation of how the game works. Those changes make rules he didn't change not work, so now he has to change those rules. Eventually he's not satisfied with the changes he makes and changes them again. He repeats this, and every session players have new rules to learn. The DM grows frustrated the rules are not the absolute perfection he wants, ends the campaign, and quits playing altogether.

Stop tinkering. Play the game or play something else. House rules are fine, but don't make the game not the game anymore.

[Sigreid]

Well, depends on where you go. It's definitely bronze age, though. And very mythic. When I played it we moslty sailed to islands of adventure, while trying to avoid the big hole in the center of the ocean.

That makes sense. When I played it was more British and spirits, not gods were the players.

Edit: As far as it being hostile to suggest that they try a game designed from the ground up to not use classes, I don't see it. It's no more hostile than suggesting to someone who walks into an Italian restaurant and says "This is a real nice place, but have you considered being a burger joint instead?" would be better off in a burger joint.

[Arkhios]

I'm very hostile when it comes to accepting varying play styles. I guess?

No, you seem to be hostile towards me only because I made a neutral observation about the circumstance at hand, and towards the people who think that removing classes degrades what D&D is.

Basically you're saying that, because someone has an opinion that's different from yours, they are 'hostile' towards people who think otherwise.

And somehow that seems to justify a hostile reaction from you, towards them and anyone who disagrees with you.

Are you really upset because someone disagrees with you?

FWIW, I have nothing against homebrews. I
have a bunch of them myself, but honestly, class removal is just too radical change.

And regards to your argument on Chainmail being 'something else entirely'. Do note that while D&D's roots may be in Chainmail, Chainmail itself isn't same as D&D. D&D was first published in 1974. At the time, Chainmail had already existed for 3 years, since its first edition was released in 1971.

[Mr.Spastic]

That makes sense. When I played it was more British and spirits, not gods were the players.

Have you looked at the new release of Runequest? The art and themez are very bronze age hence why I said Greek. I think giving it a British twist would be cool though.

[Sigreid]

Have you looked at the new release of Runequest? The art and themez are very bronze age hence why I said Greek. I think giving it a British twist would be cool though.

I haven't but the book I had revolved around picts in the examples.

[Anonymouswizard]

Edit: As far as it being hostile to suggest that they try a game designed from the ground up to not use classes, I don't see it. It's no more hostile than suggesting to someone who walks into an Italian restaurant and says "This is a real nice place, but have you considered being a burger joint instead?" would be better off in a burger joint.

This. I could hack away at 5e and make a classless game, or I could just pick up my copy of The Dark Eye, or Keltia, or GURPS, or Savage Worlds, or Fate (or Shadowrun, or Qin: the Warring States, or Victoriana, or Space 1889, or Traveller, or Demon: the Fallen, or Werewolf: the Apocalypse, or Vampire: the Requiem). Sure, not all of those are capable of D&D-style fantasy, but that's actually great and why I own so many games (and that list is after I got rid of half my collection and removed the classed games).

Now it's different for those who only own the one game, but still there are many cases where 'buy a different system to play your game' really is the simplest answer. See the occasional annoying threads about 'how do I run sci-fi in 5e'.

[noob]

This. I could hack away at 5e and make a classless game, or I could just pick up my copy of The Dark Eye, or Keltia, or GURPS, or Savage Worlds, or Fate (or Shadowrun, or Qin: the Warring States, or Victoriana, or Space 1889, or Traveller, or Demon: the Fallen, or Werewolf: the Apocalypse, or Vampire: the Requiem). Sure, not all of those are capable of D&D-style fantasy, but that's actually great and why I own so many games (and that list is after I got rid of half my collection and removed the classed games).

Now it's different for those who only own the one game, but still there are many cases where 'buy a different system to play your game' really is the simplest answer. See the occasional annoying threads about 'how do I run sci-fi in 5e'.

the "how do I run sci fi in 5e" question can make sense in some cases(for example a lot of time goes while the adventurers are trapped in a dimension were time goes slower than in the material plane then they go back in the material plane 5000 years later and are pursuing the villain that was in the dimension and run toward him in a city full of cars and stuff like that(some fun dangerous stuff to add interest to the chase))

[Unoriginal]

the "how do I run sci fi in 5e" question can make sense in some cases(for example a lot of time goes while the adventurers are trapped in a dimension were time goes slower than in the material plane then they go back in the material plane 5000 years later and are pursuing the villain that was in the dimension and run toward him in a city full of cars and stuff like that(some fun dangerous stuff to add interest to the chase))

Or if the PCs find a Spelljammer.

[Luccan]

the "how do I run sci fi in 5e" question can make sense in some cases(for example a lot of time goes while the adventurers are trapped in a dimension were time goes slower than in the material plane then they go back in the material plane 5000 years later and are pursuing the villain that was in the dimension and run toward him in a city full of cars and stuff like that(some fun dangerous stuff to add interest to the chase))

Also, ya know, Spelljammer.

To answer the thread itself: Certain races are at a much larger advantage than they would be in a classed game. This is because they aren't balanced out by the suite of abilities, spells, and proficiencies provided by classes. The Feat or Cantrips rule is bad because Magic Initiate provides more casting to any character than choosing a single cantrip. Also, inherent casting on some races is much stronger due to maxing out spells at level 2 and not providing an option for obtaining more spells. Proficiency bonus increases at a ludicrous rate and has no reason not to be tied to character level as it already is in regular games. Similarly, your sneak attack damage could increase much faster than a rogue's, which could cause problems in terms of damage output. If you take Tough as a feat, you never have any reason to select HP on level up, since it doesn't take your Con mod into account again.

It's an interesting start, but it has a lot of issues that haven't been thought through.

Edit: To provide an example of what I mean about races, Dragonborn are already a tough sell to people trying to get the most out of their race. Now, however, they're worse warriors than Mountain Dwarves from the start and in exchange they can fall back on... basically nothing. A dragonborn is spending his proficiencies and possibly feats on weapons and armor just to catch up. Meanwhile, a Mountain dwarf snaps up his heavy armor proficiency and is already taking feats that put him even further ahead.