Greetings, all. I've been toying with an idea for a while now, and I finally got around to sharing it with my table. We had a good conversation, and I think a homebrew might be gestating. I think I'm taking it a little more seriously than they, but only in that I'd like to offer it up to the interwebs when (when? if!) it's done.

As such, I wanted to run an idea by you all, namely, the idea of "feature packs" instead of "classes."

Some Assumptions: (1) This would be for a specific setting, not universal. (2) The characters would use bounded values, a la Dungeon Slayers - you would rarely get better at your main shtick, you'd just develop a bigger toolbox to solve problems. (3) I might make some references to 4E. I know there's a lot of hate here for 4E, but it's my most recent class-based experience - my 3.5X/AD&D are a little rusty, and HERO and Fate aren't in the vein of what I'm trying to do. (4) This isn't necessarily fantasy, but I'll stick to fantasy because it offers a lingua franca.

The Idea

The idea is this: instead of picking a "class," you pick a "feature pack" (or just "feature"). At 1st level, you pick one (1) feature. The 1st level choices might be rather limited, say, Warrior, Rogue or Wizard. Warrior might be +1 to hit with weapons. Rogue might be +1 dodge or whatever not getting hit is. Wizard is the ability to cast spells (from a narrow spell list).

When you level (let's say, for tradition, 30 levels max), you get a talent/feat/edge, whatever (herein "talents"). These are all specific, so that bonuses don't get out of hand, mindful of bounded values. Wizards can know 1 spell/level (though they have to find it). That's how that works.

When you hit 6th level (and every 5 levels after, or some other number), you pick a new feature. Options might be Healer, which allows you to heal adjacent allies, or Hunter, which gives you the Sneak Attack ability. If you want, at 6th level, you can also take one of the features offered at 1st level (a "swordmage" is just a 6th level character with both the Warrior and Wizard features).

Others might have prerequisite features. Defender gives some kind of taunt/mark ability, and Berserker gives you a nice rage 1/day, but both require that you took Warrior. Warlock and Enchanter would both open up new spellcasting routes, but would require Wizard.

Talents would function off different feature packs and could grant new "powers" - so, the Invigorating Blow talent would let you strike for extra damage AND heal once per day in the same action, but would require both the Warrior and Healer talents (a "paladin"). Same could work for spells - "Mass Cure Light Wounds" heals all allies in a burst, but requires both the Healer and Wizard features.

The Gist

I appreciate classes because they allow a player to get into the game quickly and operate off of commonly-accepted stereotypes. But I dislike them (I'm a HERO vet from the ol' BBB) because they lock you into the designers' concept of what classes should do. This way, the players start off working in broad strokes (Warrior, Wizard, Rogue), but can slowly customize their class into something resembling what they really want. (You want a bow-wielding monk/necromancer? That's just three features!)



That's all she wrote, for now! Feedback requested and appreciated. Please feel free to critique harshly. Thank you kindly for taking the time to read this!

WFRP careers.

I can borrow it from a friend to look through, so good to know.

Is it exactly what I'm describing? Am I just reinventing the wheel?

In WHFR each profession has a list of abilities you can select, including skills and 'talents' from a general list, and 'advances' which are increases to the attribute values like Weapon Skill, Wounds, Strength, and so on. It doesn't have levels; buying a new 'profession' costs you xp and each improvement costs XP.

When I read you thing I actually thought of Savage Worlds; in that characters can get extra 'Edges' as they advance, including 'Professional Edges' which are a bit like classes, and feat-like abilities, or they can improve skills or stats directly. It is mostly a skill-driven system, rather than class-based, but it seems to have a 'horizontal' rather than 'vertical' advancement scheme like you seem to be after - more options rather than bigger numbers.

I do like Savage Worlds, and there is something to be said for a completely open system like that. The catch is that when you start out, you're inundated with options. A class system tends to limit options a little bit - you're presented with classes, and if the system uses talents/feats, there's usually a recommended talent, and boom, pick a weapon/spell and you're done.

I guess there's always going to be a tradeoff between simplicity at the one end, vs. customizability at the other...and everyone has a different preference so whatever works for you.

It seems like your idea reduces up-front complexity, by shifting most of the options to higher levels. Its a workable idea; the downside is perhaps that customizability is also moved up to the higher levels i.e. someone can't play their archer-monk-necromancer at level 1. I suppose that's an incentive to go kick some orc butt, mind you.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;553592I guess there's always going to be a tradeoff between simplicity at the one end, vs. customizability at the other...and everyone has a different preference so whatever works for you.

It seems like your idea reduces up-front complexity, by shifting most of the options to higher levels. Its a workable idea; the downside is perhaps that customizability is also moved up to the higher levels i.e. someone can't play their archer-monk-necromancer at level 1. I suppose that's an incentive to go kick some orc butt, mind you.

I'm not sure that's a problem, because that is a character who has quite bit of experience to have all those abilities, so should be high level (Or utterly terrible at everything, which I guess few groups would prefer). A group that wanted those types of character could start their game at a higher level.

It's a bit artificial and gamey as a concept, but I think it would work. It's just a more elaborate feat tree structure.

Quote from: Ladybird;553636I'm not sure that's a problem, because that is a character who has quite bit of experience to have all those abilities, so should be high level (Or utterly terrible at everything, which I guess few groups would prefer). A group that wanted those types of character could start their game at a higher level.
 
It's a bit artificial and gamey as a concept, but I think it would work. It's just a more elaborate feat tree structure.

Starting at higher level could work, unless its just the one player who has some sort of (initially) unworkable concept. The system here does look a bit restrictive to me at 1st level, since its not just weird multiclassed characters that aren't doable; barbarian (w/ rage), paladin or assassin (sneak attack) also look like being higher-level concepts.
 
I'd admit my personal preference leans toward more customizability though, so YMMV; if it works for the intended audience, its cool.

Quote from: CitizenKeen;553536Greetings, all. I've been toying with an idea for a while now, and I finally got around to sharing it with my table. We had a good conversation, and I think a homebrew might be gestating. I think I'm taking it a little more seriously than they, but only in that I'd like to offer it up to the interwebs when (when? if!) it's done.

As such, I wanted to run an idea by you all, namely, the idea of "feature packs" instead of "classes."

Some Assumptions: (1) This would be for a specific setting, not universal. (2) The characters would use bounded values, a la Dungeon Slayers - you would rarely get better at your main shtick, you'd just develop a bigger toolbox to solve problems. (3) I might make some references to 4E. I know there's a lot of hate here for 4E, but it's my most recent class-based experience - my 3.5X/AD&D are a little rusty, and HERO and Fate aren't in the vein of what I'm trying to do. (4) This isn't necessarily fantasy, but I'll stick to fantasy because it offers a lingua franca.

The Idea

The idea is this: instead of picking a "class," you pick a "feature pack" (or just "feature"). At 1st level, you pick one (1) feature. The 1st level choices might be rather limited, say, Warrior, Rogue or Wizard. Warrior might be +1 to hit with weapons. Rogue might be +1 dodge or whatever not getting hit is. Wizard is the ability to cast spells (from a narrow spell list).

When you level (let's say, for tradition, 30 levels max), you get a talent/feat/edge, whatever (herein "talents"). These are all specific, so that bonuses don't get out of hand, mindful of bounded values. Wizards can know 1 spell/level (though they have to find it). That's how that works.

When you hit 6th level (and every 5 levels after, or some other number), you pick a new feature. Options might be Healer, which allows you to heal adjacent allies, or Hunter, which gives you the Sneak Attack ability. If you want, at 6th level, you can also take one of the features offered at 1st level (a "swordmage" is just a 6th level character with both the Warrior and Wizard features).

Others might have prerequisite features. Defender gives some kind of taunt/mark ability, and Berserker gives you a nice rage 1/day, but both require that you took Warrior. Warlock and Enchanter would both open up new spellcasting routes, but would require Wizard.

Talents would function off different feature packs and could grant new "powers" - so, the Invigorating Blow talent would let you strike for extra damage AND heal once per day in the same action, but would require both the Warrior and Healer talents (a "paladin"). Same could work for spells - "Mass Cure Light Wounds" heals all allies in a burst, but requires both the Healer and Wizard features.

The Gist

I appreciate classes because they allow a player to get into the game quickly and operate off of commonly-accepted stereotypes. But I dislike them (I'm a HERO vet from the ol' BBB) because they lock you into the designers' concept of what classes should do. This way, the players start off working in broad strokes (Warrior, Wizard, Rogue), but can slowly customize their class into something resembling what they really want. (You want a bow-wielding monk/necromancer? That's just three features!)



That's all she wrote, for now! Feedback requested and appreciated. Please feel free to critique harshly. Thank you kindly for taking the time to read this!

That's pretty much what Tropez does.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?631365-Tropez-Alpha-tear-sheet-and-teaser-summary

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=23230

Quote from: vgunn;553700That's pretty much what Tropez does.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?631365-Tropez-Alpha-tear-sheet-and-teaser-summary

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=23230

Tropez is certainly stunning! I didn't see much about how Tropez works though. I'm assuming that's not currently laid out anywhere yet?

You could look at the d20 game Legend, from Rule of Cool (you can download the PDF for free at http://www.ruleofcool.com/), which isn't classless, but it's very close to being so and seems very similar to your idea.

Each character gets 3 'tracks' that their abilities derive from, and they can switch out their classes secondary and tertiary tracks for ones from other classes.  

It's pretty easy to homebrew up new tracks without creating an entirely new class, and it would be pretty easy to turn this system into exactly what you are talking about by removing classes altogether and tying in some of the classes core features (to hit, HP, saves) into primary track choice.

Quote from: CitizenKeen;553766Tropez is certainly stunning! I didn't see much about how Tropez works though. I'm assuming that's not currently laid out anywhere yet?

It's getting there :-)

Really it's a simple d6 die pool that is a hybrid of 'keep highest/roll and sum'.

Characters have a trade, which is like a career from Barbarians of Lemuria, a central trait from Over the Edge, or a cliche from Risus. But it brings to mind the class/trope element as well. Characters have tools which act like side traits as well, these are things that work together with your trade. For example, Fighter [trade] Sword [tool].  When you try to something you'll most likely start with 1D for your trade and 1D for your tool.

Now each character is typecast. This is way others most often portray or envision. With that said, you'll get four iconic trademarks you can use to as bonus dice to your rolls. You know, the most common moves you associate with a particular class. For example a thief is attempting to knife an unsuspecting enemy, Thief [trade] Dagger [tool] Backstab [trademark] Sneak [trademark] is going to give you 4d6. Trumps work as special moves/abilities to further boost the roll or the effect of the outcome.

As you get better, you can add a trade, get more tools or new trumps to use.

Sounds similar to my Trait system in some ways.

Mine doesn't have pre-requisites or allow characters to pick multiple traits from the same tier, and is more vertical in some ways, more horizontal in others.

MGuy says that by the level cap Traits abandon any attempt at balance, so i need to work on it, but if you're looking for yet another source to draw ideas from, feel free to check mine out.

Mine was designed with traits defining Racial differences, while skills/spells were open to just about anyone to pick up. Skills/Spells are divided into groups, and each group has subdivisions of Ranks, and each Rank has a skill point cost to learn.

If you want to play a fighter, you build your points around that, pick an appropriate trait boost, and then pick a skill that best reflects your fighting style (defensive, evasive, ranged, swiftness, accuracy, burst damage, etc...)

Based on a skimming of the OP (apolgies for not delving deeper, but I've got a guy quizzing me on moral agency and objective good right now IRL... very distracting)...

... it may be worth at least looking into the system that underlies Talislanta (which I always felt got short shrift by having a way too complex world with way too little explanation... that and races as psuedo-classes...).


Essentially you get (buy?) things like Primary, Secondary or (uh? No?) combat training, which then determines how well you progress as a fighter.

And, of course, Primary and secondary Spellcasting (ditto, for blasting people)...

You spend XP on either specific bonuses, or on levelling (which then determines a bunch of fixed bonuses set by your basic abilities in combat and magic and so forth).

I've always thought it looked like an elegant little system, though merged to a (to me) unplayable setting.... though one with lots of nifty, evokative artwork.

I'm going to go read the rest of the thread now and then respond more fully, but my gut reaction is to love the concept, but hate the requirements aspect. When you start getting to Feature X requires Features Y and Z, and Talent A requires Features Q and Z, it tends to overload players and generally make things unfun.

That's why I dislike prestige classes, a feeling I recently discovered was shared by a lot of people after a D&D Next article was posted that said they were considering having prestige classes in 5e.

I'd be far more inclined to play such a game if Talents only required specific Features, or maybe attributes; perhaps even levels. I dislike having to game the system.

For clarity's sake: is the plan to have multiple Features for each class, or put other class features into Talents? For instance, a level 1 knight in D&D 4e gets six distinct class features:
* +1 attack with weapons
* a mark-like aura
* an attack that punishes enemies who ignore the mark
* two stances that add various effects to his attacks
* a feat which removes the skill check penalty for using a heavy shield
* Power Strike, which lets him increase his damage once per fight

Would each of those be a Feature or would some of them be Talents?

Quote from: CitizenKeen;553536I appreciate classes because they allow a player to get into the game quickly and operate off of commonly-accepted stereotypes. But I dislike them (I'm a HERO vet from the ol' BBB) because they lock you into the designers' concept of what classes should do.

I couldn't agree more. My wife and I are both GURPS geeks through and through so both like and dislike classes for the same reasons you do. That's why the game I'm designing is kind of like the GURPS Dungeon Fantasy series (aka "GURPS D&D") in that it is a point-buy game that looks like a class-based one. Specifically it will guide you through building races and classes for your players to choose from, in any genre you can imagine.