Multiclassing/Dipping Shame

[RandomPeasant]

HERO is, I believe, an effects-based system. That would naturally make it easier to actualize a character concept, because the restrictions it has aren't really at the level of character concepts.

[Max_Killjoy]

HERO is, I believe, an effects-based system. That would naturally make it easier to actualize a character concept, because the restrictions it has aren't really at the level of character concepts.

It is very much a "what is going on here at the character/setting level, and how do we model that into the system mechanics?" thing -- very different from "here's the set of stuff that goes with this concept" or "here are a discrete set of abilities you can choose some from" that even many classless systems are trying to do.

[Jay R]

You have successfully identified the problem, but you've missed what causes it. It is not true that every idea should work in every game.

Meh. I'm not convinced classless systems are inherently better at giving players the options they want. The customization you have is never the customization the customer wants.

That depends on how you approach the game. I find that I can pretty much always design the superhero I want in Champions (classless), but that's because it's a generic, effects-based system. I can pretty much always design the musketeer-era swashbuckler I want in Flashing Blades (class-based), but that's because I want to play a rogue, soldier, gentleman, or noble. It's a narrow system, and I agree to play within that narrow approach.

If you draw a Venn diagram where the right circle represent characters possible in a system, and the left circle represents characters your players want to play, it's almost a given that whether the system is D&D or GURPS, the overlapping portion at the middle is tiny in compared to size of the circles.

If what the characters want to play isn't defined as a subset of the right circle from the start, then they aren't committed to playing the actual game in front of them. Their starting approach is flawed, and it leads to frustration.

If somebody in the football game wants to use a baseball bat, then the problem isn't that the football system doesn't give the right options; it's that the player hasn't agreed to play football. Similarly, if you want to play a superhero in a Flashing Blades game, the problem isn't the Flashing Blades system.

When you agree to play Paranoia, you have agreed to play a mutant Troubleshooter in a secret society.
When you agree to play Pendragon, you have agreed to play an Arthurian knight.
When you agree to play TOON, you have agreed to play a cartoon character -- and not just any cartoon character, but one who can be defined within the system of Muscles, Zip, Smarts, and Chutzpah, and a very narrow set of Schticks.

The solution to the (very real) problem you are pointing out is to stop coming up with character ideas that are outside the bounds of the game.

Since I started playing D&D in 1975 with just the original three pamphlets, I've always been able to design a character I would love to play -- even when I had to roll 3d6 six times, in order. But that's because I design my character within the system. I never had a desire to play a gnome who simulated fireballs and summoning spells with his illusions until D&D 3.5e came up with the Shadowcraft Mage.

"I have invented a character in my head. This game should let me play it." This approach will lead to frustration and difficulties. Don't start to play checkers and then get frustrated because you wanted to play on the red squares. Plan your strategy knowing you can only play on the black squares."

The right approach is "What cool character can I invent who will be fun to play in this world with these rules?" [And if the game works that way, "with these rolled stats".]

If the system doesn't allow your character conception, then you're trying to play a football player with a baseball bat.

[icefractal]

The right approach is "What cool character can I invent who will be fun to play in this world with these rules?" [And if the game works that way, "with these rolled stats".]If the system doesn't allow your character conception, then you're trying to play a football player with a baseball bat.

That's true, but OTOH there's nothing wrong with saying "actually I'd rather play a game which does support these type of concepts, let's do that instead".

Like it's fine to say "I'm going to run a game with only Dwarf Monk and Kobold Truenamer as options", but it's also fine to say "No thanks - but if you opened that up more I might be interested."

[quinron]

Honestly, I think the existence of a multi-classing system creates a temptation to combine things in a way that people might not otherwise try to. If you have a collection of "Artificer" abilities in your classless system, and a separate collection of "Berserker" abilities in that same classless system, people will generally pick Artificer abilities or Berserker abilities. They may combine combine their Artificer abilities with Alchemist or Gadgeteer abilities, but "Artificer/Berserker" is not a concept people naturally want to play. But if you say "here is an Artificer class, here is a Berserker class, combine classes as you see fit", people will be much more tempted to make Artificer/Berserker work.

This is kind of what I was getting at with one of my earlier comments - as certain folkloric and literary tropes get transformed in different ways into the core features of classes, you get more and more kits to bash together to make your concepts. One of my favorite characters I've ever developed was an acrobatic thief who got sinister power from his fiendish great-grandfather; I never would've come up with anything like that if it weren't for the 3.5 Warlock class and its weird new features, the Uncanny Trickster prestige class, and the (really weird and probably not very good) bloodline rules from the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana book.

[Second Wind]

If somebody in the football game wants to use a baseball bat, then the problem isn't that the football system doesn't give the right options; it's that the player hasn't agreed to play football. Similarly, if you want to play a superhero in a Flashing Blades game, the problem isn't the Flashing Blades system.

When you agree to play Paranoia, you have agreed to play a mutant Troubleshooter in a secret society.
When you agree to play Pendragon, you have agreed to play an Arthurian knight.

Right, but those are strongly-themed games. D&D is kitchen sink fantasy stuffed with random crud pulled in helter-skelter from popular culture and blended with its own oddball gimmicks. The default setting is deliberately incoherent so that any goofy monster, trap, or treasure could be lurking around the corner. There's no rhyme or reason to which fantasy goes in and which fantasy stays out. So, when a fantasy character concept is prohibited, there's no thematic justification. It just happens not to have rules support. (Maybe in the next book...?)

[Vahnavoi]

You have successfully identified the problem, but you've missed what causes it. It is not true that every idea should work in every game.

I pretty much said the same thing as the italicized parts a few pages ago:

Well duh. There isn't any universal reason for a game to allow any arbitrary character.

Moving on:

If what the characters want to play isn't defined as a subset of the right circle from the start, then they aren't committed to playing the actual game in front of them. Their starting approach is flawed, and it leads to frustration.

[ ... ]

The solution to the (very real) problem you are pointing out is to stop coming up with character ideas that are outside the bounds of the game.

I posited a Venn diagram with small overlap, not one with no overlap. I was riffing on the same problem as you, with the same (implied) solution. We aren't in disagreement over this.

[Morgaln]

Honestly, I think the existence of a multi-classing system creates a temptation to combine things in a way that people might not otherwise try to. If you have a collection of "Artificer" abilities in your classless system, and a separate collection of "Berserker" abilities in that same classless system, people will generally pick Artificer abilities or Berserker abilities. They may combine combine their Artificer abilities with Alchemist or Gadgeteer abilities, but "Artificer/Berserker" is not a concept people naturally want to play. But if you say "here is an Artificer class, here is a Berserker class, combine classes as you see fit", people will be much more tempted to make Artificer/Berserker work.

Most classless systems don't work that way. They don't present "class" packages. They just have discrete abilities that you can mix and match any way you choose; they may have abilities that would be considered "berserker" in a class system, and other abilites that are considered "artificer" in that system, but in the classless system, they are not separate. They all are abilities that are part of the same pool of "abilities a character can learn." Therefore the question of combining "berserker" with "artificer" doesn't even come up. Instead you select abilites you want to have for that character, independent from other abilities.

That can very well lead to a character that can (in a fictional classless version of D&D) fight with his hands as if they were weapons, turn undead, go into a berserker rage and create alchemical bombs to throw, just because I liked all of those abilities and wanted to have them. It's up to me to decide how to make sense of that fluff-wise (of the top of my head, he's a holy man from a monastery that teaches alchemy, and who uses substances that drive him into a battle frenzy). But I can just as well go in with a concept in mind (e. g. "I want to be similar to Conan") and pick abilites that complement that concept(in the Conan example, fighting abilities, burglary skills and some stuff appropriate for sailors). And if I decide to pick up backstab some time later I can do so, without getting everything else that is part of the "rogue" package.

Depending on the system, there's a sliding scale of how this works. If there is some prepackaging, the most common thing to happen is to put "magic" as a distinct package you need to unlock access to during character creation.

[Max_Killjoy]

Most classless systems don't work that way. They don't present "class" packages. They just have discrete abilities that you can mix and match any way you choose; they may have abilities that would be considered "berserker" in a class system, and other abilites that are considered "artificer" in that system, but in the classless system, they are not separate. They all are abilities that are part of the same pool of "abilities a character can learn." Therefore the question of combining "berserker" with "artificer" doesn't even come up. Instead you select abilites you want to have for that character, independent from other abilities.

That can very well lead to a character that can (in a fictional classless version of D&D) fight with his hands as if they were weapons, turn undead, go into a berserker rage and create alchemical bombs to throw, just because I liked all of those abilities and wanted to have them. It's up to me to decide how to make sense of that fluff-wise (of the top of my head, he's a holy man from a monastery that teaches alchemy, and who uses substances that drive him into a battle frenzy). But I can just as well go in with a concept in mind (e. g. "I want to be similar to Conan") and pick abilites that complement that concept(in the Conan example, fighting abilities, burglary skills and some stuff appropriate for sailors). And if I decide to pick up backstab some time later I can do so, without getting everything else that is part of the "rogue" package.

Depending on the system, there's a sliding scale of how this works. If there is some prepackaging, the most common thing to happen is to put "magic" as a distinct package you need to unlock access to during character creation.

For me, perhaps the worst part of the class-based systems is all the junk that doesn't fit the character that has to be picked up along the way, because that's what comes next in the "progression" and is between here and where the abilities that actually fit the character might be.

[RandomPeasant]

This is kind of what I was getting at with one of my earlier comments - as certain folkloric and literary tropes get transformed in different ways into the core features of classes, you get more and more kits to bash together to make your concepts. One of my favorite characters I've ever developed was an acrobatic thief who got sinister power from his fiendish great-grandfather; I never would've come up with anything like that if it weren't for the 3.5 Warlock class and its weird new features, the Uncanny Trickster prestige class, and the (really weird and probably not very good) bloodline rules from the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana book.

As the saying goes, restrictions breed creativity. Defining character concepts has value, both in that it provides roleplaying hooks and in that people simply like having defined classes. Getting to say "I'm a Necromancer" and have that mean something has real value to many people.

So, when a fantasy character concept is prohibited, there's no thematic justification. It just happens not to have rules support. (Maybe in the next book...?)

But that happens in classless systems too. Certainly you can cover more ground if anyone can take an ability (though there are advantages to classes that are being ignored), but the book is finite in any case. If D&D was classless, that would allow you to make a Death Knight character in core D&D by taking martial and necromancy options, but it wouldn't allow you to play an Insect Mage, because there isn't any insect magic for you to have.

Most classless systems don't work that way. They don't present "class" packages. They just have discrete abilities that you can mix and match any way you choose; they may have abilities that would be considered "berserker" in a class system, and other abilites that are considered "artificer" in that system, but in the classless system, they are not separate.

I wasn't saying they were. But again, look at Shadowrun. You can take Mage abilities as a Street Samurai or Rigger abilities as an Adept. But people generally don't. Some of that is mechanical incentives, but part of the appeal of multiclassing absolutely is mixing things that aren't intended to mix.

For me, perhaps the worst part of the class-based systems is all the junk that doesn't fit the character that has to be picked up along the way, because that's what comes next in the "progression" and is between here and where the abilities that actually fit the character might be.

Again, that's far from unique to classed systems. Any system is going to group abilities in some way, and that creates the same potential that you might be forced to take abilities you don't want to get ones you do. Maybe attributes are divided up so that you can't be clever without also being agile, or so that your toughness is always proportional to your strength. Maybe skills are grouped in a way that forces you to pick up lying to get sneaking, or so that the only way to know a lot about magic is to be really good at doing magic. Maybe sorcerous disciplines have talents you want locked away after talents you don't. Maybe the key attribute for the skill or magic you want your character to do doesn't line up with the attributes you imagine them having.

[Max_Killjoy]

Again, that's far from unique to classed systems. Any system is going to group abilities in some way, and that creates the same potential that you might be forced to take abilities you don't want to get ones you do. Maybe attributes are divided up so that you can't be clever without also being agile, or so that your toughness is always proportional to your strength. Maybe skills are grouped in a way that forces you to pick up lying to get sneaking, or so that the only way to know a lot about magic is to be really good at doing magic. Maybe sorcerous disciplines have talents you want locked away after talents you don't. Maybe the key attribute for the skill or magic you want your character to do doesn't line up with the attributes you imagine them having.

There are systems that don't group abilities, or require taking them in any particular order, or taking one ability to unlock others (that is, they don't have progression or trees even on discrete unclassed abilities).

However, one of my pet peeves with a lot of systems is that effort to reduce the number of characteristics -- getting so extreme as to have three, such as "physical stuff", "brain stuff", and "social stuff" -- such that you can't be tough without being strong and agile, or you can't be book-smart without being perceptive, or you can't be resistant to manipulation without being good at manipulation.

But as noted, not all systems do that.

Also note that system shortcomings are not the same as setting details. A setting in which sorcery does depend on wits, willpower, and learning isn't making a system restriction by tying sorcery to a "brain stuff" characteristic, it's reflecting the facts of the setting.

[RandomPeasant]

A setting in which sorcery does depend on wits, willpower, and learning isn't making a system restriction by tying sorcery to a "brain stuff" characteristic, it's reflecting the facts of the setting.

But what about a setting where everyone who has gained Earth Shape also has Earth Sense? Any mechanics can be a reflection of the world (and, I would argue, mechanics and the world should reflect each other). It seems to me to be arbitrary to accept "sorcery uses willpower" as a legitimate setting decision, but to reject "you must learn fireball before wall of fire" as junk that doesn't fit the character.

[Max_Killjoy]

But what about a setting where everyone who has gained Earth Shape also has Earth Sense? Any mechanics can be a reflection of the world (and, I would argue, mechanics and the world should reflect each other). It seems to me to be arbitrary to accept "sorcery uses willpower" as a legitimate setting decision, but to reject "you must learn fireball before wall of fire" as junk that doesn't fit the character.

We're not talking about a direct sequence of bigger and bigger variations on the same basic spell.

We're talking about things that are completely unrelated beyond being assigned to the same predetermined supposed "concept", such as "you must take armor-wearing skill to take weapon-using skill" or "you must take Fast Hands to take Supreme Sneak" or "you must take Uncanny Dodge at level 5, before you can take Blindsense at level 14", or "you have to take ability X on the tree to unlock ability Y, even though the two aren't in any way related."

[Satinavian]

But what about a setting where everyone who has gained Earth Shape also has Earth Sense? Any mechanics can be a reflection of the world (and, I would argue, mechanics and the world should reflect each other). It seems to me to be arbitrary to accept "sorcery uses willpower" as a legitimate setting decision, but to reject "you must learn fireball before wall of fire" as junk that doesn't fit the character.

Even many point buy systems use prerequisites for higher grade powers when it seems appropriate. No need for classes just for that.

[RandomPeasant]

We're talking about things that are completely unrelated beyond being assigned to the same predetermined supposed "concept", such as "you must take armor-wearing skill to take weapon-using skill" or "you must take Fast Hands to take Supreme Sneak" or "you must take Uncanny Dodge at level 5, before you can take Blindsense at level 14", or "you have to take ability X on the tree to unlock ability Y, even though the two aren't in any way related."

But isn't that more true of attribute assignments? "You have to be smart to shoot lightning from your hands" sounds much more like "you have to be able to fly to shoot lightning from your hands" than "you have to be able to shock grip someone in melee to be able to shoot lightning from your hands". Certainly there's a spectrum of reasonability to prerequisites, but as with any spectrum it's very difficult to justify saying "right here, that's where it goes from 'okay' to 'not okay', not anywhere else".

[Satinavian]

As the saying goes, restrictions breed creativity. Defining character concepts has value, both in that it provides roleplaying hooks and in that people simply like having defined classes. Getting to say "I'm a Necromancer" and have that mean something has real value to many people.

Still true in a classless system

I wasn't saying they were. But again, look at Shadowrun. You can take Mage abilities as a Street Samurai or Rigger abilities as an Adept. But people generally don't. Some of that is mechanical incentives, but part of the appeal of multiclassing absolutely is mixing things that aren't intended to mix.

As someone who has played adepts with implants, mages that were also deckers and had a decker/rigger/streetdoc as one of the lngest played characters i completely disagree that point buy systems lead to people not mixing as much as in class based systems with multiclass options.

Again, that's far from unique to classed systems. Any system is going to group abilities in some way, and that creates the same potential that you might be forced to take abilities you don't want to get ones you do. Maybe attributes are divided up so that you can't be clever without also being agile, or so that your toughness is always proportional to your strength. Maybe skills are grouped in a way that forces you to pick up lying to get sneaking, or so that the only way to know a lot about magic is to be really good at doing magic. Maybe sorcerous disciplines have talents you want locked away after talents you don't. Maybe the key attribute for the skill or magic you want your character to do doesn't line up with the attributes you imagine them having.

That can happen, yes. But generally classless systems have far less of this nonsense.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That can happen, yes. But generally classless systems have far less of this nonsense.

Instead they have different kinds of nonsense. One of my strongest heuristics is conservation of annoyance. All game systems have about the same amount of nonsense/annoyance/edge cases. They're just distributed differently, sometimes locked in cabinets where they don't disturb the happy path (at the cost of creating a different happy path).

And not just game systems--physical theories (where I first developed that law), computer OSs, etc. No system is perfect, no system covers all the bases. Especially because "perfect" is subjective in many cases, so what's perfect for you might be highly inadequate and unusable for someone else.

[RandomPeasant]

Still true in a classless system

No, it isn't. A classless system does not have a Necromancer. That's what "classless" means. If I tell you that my 3e character is a Dread Necromancer, you have a very good idea of what that means and what kind of capabilities he has (assuming you know the system well enough to know what a Dread Necromancer is). But if I say that my character in a classless system is a "Necromancer", your knowledge of what I mean is far more limited, because I could have bought or not bought any of the necromancy-related abilities in the system. Can I command undead? Maybe, maybe not. Can I drain the life from others? Maybe, maybe not. Can I shoot blasts of bone or shadow energy? Maybe, maybe not. And that's not to mention the role-protection effect of classes. Part of what "Necromancer" means in a class system is that I don't have the abilities (or at least the unique abilities) of the Assassin or Priest classes, and they don't have the unique abilities of my class.

That can happen, yes. But generally classless systems have far less of this nonsense.

And classed systems have far less of other kinds of nonsense. Yes, "pick whatever you want" results in a greater degree of "having the things you want and not other things". That's true, but that's not really an accurate look at the tradeoffs of classed and classless systems, any more than the fact that the real world scores higher on "can you Google places the players want to go and get useful information" is an accurate look at the tradeoffs of setting a game in "the real world, but with magic" versus "a fantasy world".

All game systems have about the same amount of nonsense/annoyance/edge cases.

That goes too far. It is absolutely possible for systems to be better or worse, not just different. Just as it is possible (if difficult) to fix bugs in software without inducing them, you can make rules better.

[Max_Killjoy]

But isn't that more true of attribute assignments? "You have to be smart to shoot lightning from your hands" sounds much more like "you have to be able to fly to shoot lightning from your hands" than "you have to be able to shock grip someone in melee to be able to shoot lightning from your hands". Certainly there's a spectrum of reasonability to prerequisites, but as with any spectrum it's very difficult to justify saying "right here, that's where it goes from 'okay' to 'not okay', not anywhere else".

The reasonableness of "you have to be smart to shoot lightning from your hands" depends entirely on how people gain the ability to shoot lighting from their hands in that setting.

The reasonableness of "you have to be able to backstab people and balance on narrow beams in order to be able to pick pockets or read scrolls" is... well, I can't find a way to make that reasonable.

[Satinavian]

No, it isn't. A classless system does not have a Necromancer. That's what "classless" means. If I tell you that my 3e character is a Dread Necromancer, you have a very good idea of what that means and what kind of capabilities he has (assuming you know the system well enough to know what a Dread Necromancer is). But if I say that my character in a classless system is a "Necromancer", your knowledge of what I mean is far more limited, because I could have bought or not bought any of the necromancy-related abilities in the system. Can I command undead? Maybe, maybe not. Can I drain the life from others? Maybe, maybe not. Can I shoot blasts of bone or shadow energy? Maybe, maybe not. And that's not to mention the role-protection effect of classes. Part of what "Necromancer" means in a class system is that I don't have the abilities (or at least the unique abilities) of the Assassin or Priest classes, and they don't have the unique abilities of my class.

And still i have no problem whatsoever of talking about necromancers in classless systems and people having a good grasp what that means. I mean, i literally did that. And people know that the character will have an assortment of whatever the system has in terms of undead mastery, ghost summoning and death magic and that a big chunk of his points have gone there.
Something doesn't need a class to be understood. If i use D&D and say my character is a horse-archer, people understand that as well without needing some horse-archer class.

And classed systems have far less of other kinds of nonsense. Yes, "pick whatever you want" results in a greater degree of "having the things you want and not other things". That's true, but that's not really an accurate look at the tradeoffs of classed and classless systems,

Sure. It not complete analysis of the tradeoffs. Just a single point of advantage of point buy. One has to judge for oneself whether the advantages of class based systems (whatever those may be) are woth more or less and then pick a corresponding game.

[RandomPeasant]

The reasonableness of "you have to be smart to shoot lightning from your hands" depends entirely on how people gain the ability to shoot lighting from their hands in that setting.

The reasonableness of "you have to be able to backstab people and balance on narrow beams in order to be able to pick pockets or read scrolls" is... well, I can't find a way to make that reasonable.

Well, the latter is not something classed systems (even D&D) say, so that's not really a good example. But ultimately, you're not really rebutting the point. It's certainly possible to make claims that violate suspension of disbelief, but you're never going to be able to draw a bright line and say "this right here is the point where you've bundled abilities together too much".

And still i have no problem whatsoever of talking about necromancers in classless systems and people having a good grasp what that means.

If you can't tell the difference between "I have some selection of things that I think is worth calling 'Necromancer'" and "I have these specific necromancy abilities", I don't know what to tell you. There is an obvious difference between those two things, and being able to say the latter does have value. The exact thing you are complaining about classes doing by definition gives them better descriptive density than concepts.

If i use D&D and say my character is a horse-archer, people understand that as well without needing some horse-archer class.

I never said classes are the only thing with descriptive value. But it should be obvious that saying "my character is a horse-archer" tells people a lot less about what your character is doing than saying "my character is a Ranger with the 'Mounted' combat style".

[Tanarii]

And still i have no problem whatsoever of talking about necromancers in classless systems and people having a good grasp what that means. I mean, i literally did that. And people know that the character will have an assortment of whatever the system has in terms of undead mastery, ghost summoning and death magic and that a big chunk of his points have gone there.

You left out "psychic who talks to the dead, but otherwise has no other special powers".

Because "Necromancer" is a word that will be both world and system specific. It's not a word that that has very specific meaning, other than some kind of supernatural power related to the dead.

Something doesn't need a class to be understood. If i use D&D and say my character is a horse-archer, people understand that as well without needing some horse-archer class.

Someone who is useless as soon as the adventure goes into urban, underground, or non-plains natural terrain?

[Cluedrew]

One of my strongest heuristics is conservation of annoyance. All game systems have about the same amount of nonsense/annoyance/edge cases. They're just distributed differently, sometimes locked in cabinets where they don't disturb the happy path (at the cost of creating a different happy path).

That goes too far. It is absolutely possible for systems to be better or worse, not just different. Just as it is possible (if difficult) to fix bugs in software without inducing them, you can make rules better.

I agree with general idea of both of these statements, you can't make a system good at everything but quality still matters. And if you need any proof annoyance is not conserved, just try and increase it.

To Necromancer: "Speaks to the Dead", or some sort of ghost whisperer is actually the (a?) traditional meaning of the term too. This corpse puppeteer meaning of the term seems to be quite new.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, the latter is not something classed systems (even D&D) say, so that's not really a good example. But ultimately, you're not really rebutting the point. It's certainly possible to make claims that violate suspension of disbelief, but you're never going to be able to draw a bright line and say "this right here is the point where you've bundled abilities together too much".

I am taking these examples straight from the 5e PHB, so don't sit there and tell me that it's "not something classed systems do".

You're trying very hard to elide the clear distinction between "being smart makes you better at doing X", which is no different from "being strong makes you better at lifting things"... and "here's are two unrelated abilities we've decided you have to take both of in order to get either of".

And again, it's not about suspension of disbelief, it's about the relationship or lack thereof between the abilities, and the way the abilities in a class are divorced from specific characters and instead require the player to choose a mechanical package first and then build the character (as in the "fictional person") around that grabbag of unrelated abilities.

[Max_Killjoy]

I agree with general idea of both of these statements, you can't make a system good at everything but quality still matters. And if you need any proof annoyance is not conserved, just try and increase it.

To Necromancer: "Speaks to the Dead", or some sort of ghost whisperer is actually the (a?) traditional meaning of the term too. This corpse puppeteer meaning of the term seems to be quite new.

Odysseus uses what was the thing that "necromancy" meant for most of the word's history when he summoned up the shades of the dead. It's literally "divination via contact with the dead".

https://www.britannica.com/topic/necromancy

I'm not exactly sure when the 20th century "necromancy" came to be associated with a caricature of certain faiths (that we can't talk about because).

[Satinavian]

I literally had ghost summoning as the second point in the list. So why this discussion again ?

[Max_Killjoy]

I literally had ghost summoning as the second point in the list. So why this discussion again ?

So you did.

Now I'm not sure why we got that tangent.

[RandomPeasant]

I am taking these examples straight from the 5e PHB, so don't sit there and tell me that it's "not something classed systems do".

That's not even something 5e does. Class skills are on different class lists, so you absolutely can have Decipher Script (or whatever it is in 5e) without having any particular other ability.

You're trying very hard to elide the clear distinction between "being smart makes you better at doing X", which is no different from "being strong makes you better at lifting things"... and "here's are two unrelated abilities we've decided you have to take both of in order to get either of".

That's exactly how being smart works. If you're smart in D&D 3e, you get a bonus to Search and Craft. If you're smart in other systems, you get other bonuses, but the nature of attributes is that they bind together multiple competencies that are not inherently related (consider that different games have different "smart" stats and different relationships between them and skills). You can say you find that less offensive than having to get Sneak Attack to unlock Evasion, but it's a difference of degree, not kind. Saying that "Intelligence Skills" is a justifiable relationship for the game to enforce but "Rogue Abilities" is not is not really a principled distinction. Especially if you look at transitionary things on the spectrum like "Shadow Magic unlocks these abilities in this order because that's how Shadow Magic works".

[Tanarii]

I literally had ghost summoning as the second point in the list. So why this discussion again ?

Because necromancer != ghost summoner

You listed a bunch of things including ghost summoning that are what some people might think of for a necromancer, and others might not.

Which is actually an argument in favor of classless. If the concept had a strong archetype with classic abilities, that'd be an argument in favor a class.

[Vahnavoi]

@RandomPeasant and Max_Killjoy:

It looks to me that you're in perfect agreement that class-based systems with multiclassing encourage weird conceptual chimeras, one of you just likes it while the other dislikes it.

This is distinct from allowing weird conceptual chimeras. I do think that classless systems often allow for more weird combinations, but they don't necessarily make these weird combinations more visible or desireable for play. For example, a Warrior/Cleric/Paladin/Monk from 3.5 D&D, taking descriptions of the classes at face value, implies a very specific background, ethos, limitations and abilities, something you could create in a classless point-buy system, but why would you ever?