There was OneWinged4ngel. He was greatly respected for having plenty of good ideas, but rubbed a lot of people the wrong way (I had no problem with him, for the record). He got banned for reasons I am not particularly clear on. I really don't recommend asking a lot of questions about what happened - it's kind of a touchy subject around here.
Meg actually did a post explaining that. It was pretty clear, and he was asking for it (no really, he asked to be banned, so they did).
Elennsar: ToB already has that Diablo II style groupings of abilities. It's been done. Is that what you've been wanting? Being a Warblade gives you access to higher level Iron Heart manuevers, but you can pick from a large set of abilities. Being a Swordsage lets you pick from a set of abilities, and only Swordsages can have the higher level Shadow Hand, Setting Sun, and Desert Wind manuevers.
Also, Fighters have that, leading up to the Figher only (well, Warblades too, but they're the Fighter replacement) Weapon Supremacy.
And Rangers, with their unique spells (just ignore Archivists for the moment) and their three style options (TWF, Archery, Wild Shape).
So, that's what you wanted?
Jaron: First, I'm not saying "can't ignore me". I'm saying "ignoring me because you're not trying to understand what I'm proposing is a bad idea." My thread is "if you're not interested in this project, then this thread has nothing to do with you." There's a difference between saying "people who don't care for X need not apply" and "stay out ____."
Everyone in here tries to understand you, and realized you were wrong about a lot of stuff. Then your thread was "people who accept my basic premise can post" and most folks ignored it. You may not have realized it, but your basic issues are wrong, in the minds of a lot of people.
As for the problem:
The problem is that multiclassing means that "I am a paladin." for instance means absolutely nothing whatsoever. Even if the class isn't gimped (a seperate problem).
Why is it bad that having the Paladin mechanics do not mean you have to say you're a paladin in game? Or that you can be an in game "Paladin" without taking the class levels? Maybe your character concept was that you wanted to be a Lawful Good champion of righteousness, and liked the idea of Paladins in general, but didn't want that particular rules set, so you wanted to use Crusader instead because that felt more like how you wanted to play. Or maybe you thought Paladins should be more connected to their dieties, so you prefered Cleric. Why is that wrong? Again, all you're saying here is that people should play the way you want. But they shouldn't. They should play the way they want. You can play a Paladin and be a pure Paladin, and that's no problem, so what you want already exists... it seems your only problem is that what other people want also exists.
And it should. Being a paladin should mean "There are things that I can do because I'm a paladin that only other people who are paladins can do."
Yeah, you've got a set of abilities that only Paladins have. Okay, that already exists. So what? Are you saying that because they're your abilities, no one else should be allowed to come at it from a different angle? Again, this boils down to "nobody else should have my abilities" but I don't see why it's bad for people to be able to chose, for example, to have the charisma bonus to saves without divine casting. Maybe my concept was a charismatic arcane tank. Paladin won't cut it, but being so charismatic that I can turn aside spells with my force of will sounds cool... hey look, Hexblade!
Otherwise, you have essentially a clumsy substitue (due how Nina, for instance, gets medium/heavy armor even though they have nothing whatsoever to do with why she was gaining fighter levels) for a classless system.
It's not that clumsy. It's just clumping together abilities in (theoretically) balanced manners. You want Wizard spells? Okay, you don't get armour proficiency. You want lots of skills? Okay, you can chose the following mechanical clumps: Bard, Factotum, Rogue, Scout, Ranger, Cloistered Cleric, Expert, CA Ninja, Swordsage. Which of those options best works with your character? Pick it.
And it works. It works great in fact. Maybe if Nina didn't want those armour proficiencies she should have picked Martial Rogue for her bonus feats.
Why have classes if they're not providing actual distinctions that mean "I am a Barbarian. I can do things because I am a Barbarian that not just anyone can do."
Because they help inspire imagination, for one thing. Here's how I see the character creation process happen all the time. A new player comes up to me and says "I want to play, but I don't know what to play." I say, "okay, well, which is most appealing: having the mundane skills to deal with whatever situation pops up, being awesome at hitting things with weapons, or casting spells? You can pick multiples if you want, but let me know your favorite." They say (well, this is what happened last time) "I want to be able to do logical things in a given situation, so I guess skills." I say "okay, skills. Here's some options. You could be a Bard, and have a little magic and musical abilities. You can be a Factotum, and be super adaptable to any situation. You can be a Rogue, and have sneaky attacks that do more damage, etc." And they say "oh, Factotum sounds great!"
Now, if it were totally classless, that process would get FAR more complex for a beginner. You'd have to sit there looking at hundreds of possible first level abilities all randomly picked. By grouping them together into classes, it's pretty easy to narrow down what you are. But by allowing free multiclassing, you CAN get exactly what you want if you want... or you can just stick with one class and that works pretty good too. This really helps with character creation. Also, once we've decided on a class that fits the person somewhat, I can show them the class and it inspires their imagination. "Oh, I can do this too? Hey cool, then that means I can..." and this sets them on a good path.
Now, as stated by Frank, there ought to be a good sized "general anyman" abilities, that anyone sufficiently qualified can take, but a Monk is not a Bard. Monks know kung fu. Everyone else can hit people unarmed, but only a guy who knows kung fu can kill you with his pinky and ki for instance.
Yeah, Frank has some stuff I REALLY don't agree with. Still, every man does have access to craft and profession, if that helps any, and everyone can hit someone with something (just not well). And Monks aren't Bards... they're quite different. Now, there are multiple ways to play "guy who knows kung fu" including Unarmed Swordsages, Monks, Shou Disciples, and so on. All of them require a "kung fu" class, really, or a magic item that helps with that. So... that already exists.
Honestly, to use someone's (I forget who) example unarmed bear loving barbarian, that in order to do that he has to be a monk and a barbarian...just because the unarmed and such stuff is not available to barbarians...sucks.
Finally you pick an example! And as always, it's wrong. Unarmed Varient Swordsage with a specialization in Tiger Claw manuevers. You got your rage, you got your savagery, and you got your unarmed strikes. Nothing to it. Or how about Druids, who can fight without weapons and love bears just fine? Now, it might be more fun to be a Barbarian/Bear Warrior, but that's what PrCs are for. Or if you really wanted, you could be a Barbarian with Improved Unarmed Strike and Superior Unarmed Strike, and be done with it. See? Works fine. And of course if you want to multiclass you can do this... which is the point of multiclassing to begin with. Got anything else you don't know how to make? Just ask.
If you don't want "I'm a Paladin." to be a statement with great meaning, then it would be a lot easier if there weren't classes to group out different kinds of abilities to begin with.
It has an in game meaning, which is the Paladin fluff. It has great meaning. But without the classes you lose a LOT. And that's bad.
There is something wrong with "I want to be able to rage." meaning a whole seperate I-don't-care-for-this has to be tacked on as part of gaining the ability to rage if it is meant as "sure, anyone can do it".
Not anyone... anyone who also has X abilities. They're grouped, in theory for balance, but also to make life easier on the players.
But most importantly: you know how people kept telling you to go play 4e, and you took it as an insult? It's not. 4e does that Diablo II style class thing. What you're suggesting is 4e. Go play it. Play it now. Try it out and see what your system is like in practice. Then you'll understand.
JaronK
