|
|
e20 Core ClassesRe: e20 Core Classes
Something that I am not quite clear on: what is the criteria for what makes a talent vs a feat vs a skill vs an enhancement. To my mind things like Ambidexterity, Acrobatic, Eidetic Memory belong under enhancements. They are static bonuses that affect the character, but are not unique to any level or class (in an SF setting any of those could be achieved by either being born with it or through cybernetics later on). Things like Power Attack and Disarm should maybe be talents in combat trees? Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon and Shield Fighting, Single Weapon fighting are ALL skills, not damn feats. Gun Kata is a feat, learning how to fight with two blades is not. Whirling blades (for a cinematic campaign) is a Feat, Disarm is a skill, Feint is a skill or Talent. Which brings up the question why have the four different areas? This is almost going back to AD&D modularity. Why not have some generic skills that are accessible to all, enhancements, and skills that carry a Class/Level prerequisite for learning them. You need a combat class to learn two-weapon fighting styles and you need to be 2nd level in Vanguard, Corsair or Guardian. Since I can freely multi-class, say I'm a 4th level Vanguard and gain enough XP for level up, I can choose instead to take 1 level in Savant instead meaning I can select skills carrying a Savant prerequisite. If you want the split call the class/level specific skills "Primary or Dynamic" (they scale in effectiveness with level) and the others "Secondary or Static" (they are either trained, untrained or focused, but aside from these tiers are unaffected by class and level)
Re: e20 Core Classes
I honestly have no idea what definition of these words you are using that makes a Gun Kata a feat but disarm a skill? Here are the definitions that I think we are all working off of: Talent: Provides a new specific capability. A new move. I.E. very similar to a 4e power. Feat: Provides static bonus (numerical) or other boon to a current capability. Skill: Fairly broad category of knowledge/ability. These are the things that you earn a new capability/move in. I learn a new martial arts move. I learn a new climbing move. I learn a new hacking move. I don’t think having different fighting styles as skills would be very helpful and they would add unnecessary rules clutter. Best to let different talents and feats support/improve different fighting styles. Enhancement: Seems to be some disagreement but I don’t think the intent is to restrict them mechanically like the above three. The restriction should be in their uniqueness. I.E. if just anyone can learn it, then it should be a feat, talent or skill.
I understand your point with 4e, but it seems like you are blaming the codification of Roles for all the things you don’t like about 4e. I absolutely agree on not worrying about Roles for noncombat stuff since 1) it is so varied that it would be impossible to do correctly and 2) even if you could there would be no point because there is no need to balance or synch the group in this regard. It is much better to let the character just pick what they want to know. The thing that strikes me as funny when we apply this same thought to combat, is that no matter how you try not to, whatever character you make in any system will function as one of those Roles. Or maybe several. They are there regardless. As long as we stay away from defining the character concept by its combat Role, codifying the Roles is hugely beneficial in creating a party that works well together and for helping a player create a character that functions well mechanically without having to have encyclopedic knowledge of the rules. That is one thing that I think was good about 4e. Every time a character got a new Power he had like 5 choices, all of which were pretty decent. As opposed to say SWSE, where the character might have as many as 30 choices, only a handful of which were actually good choices for the character concept and making the character mechanically effective. There was also no guarantee that talents with these two (fit concept, mechanically effective) would be one and the same. Not that 30 choices isn’t awesome. It would just be beneficial if the talents were organized first by game effect and next by thematic element. Heck, I am not even saying that you need classes. Let characters choose whatever talents they want. As long as you either divide talent trees by Role or label different talents as to the Role they support (and make sure the effect tied to different Roles are all balanced with each other), I think you achieve the goal; make it easy for a player to create an effective character that provides a needed benefit/fills a gap in the group’s capabilities without having to be a rules lawyer. I do think that characters should get baseline features at the start of character creation. I think it would be best to group at least some of the features in packages where the features are mutually supporting and create whole greater than the sum of its parts. For instance, all characters start with 4 features. 3 of the features are bought as a package and the last is a freebie. Again I think you should at least create these packages with different Roles in mind. You wouldn’t need to necessarily restrict them. For instance, a player could choose one of the Guardian feature packages, a Leader freebie feature and Striker and some Controller talents. In fact, assuming it can be balanced, I am all about classless as long as things are clearly labeled. However, I think it will be much harder to create a balanced system when every character has complete freedom to take any talent. The only way I would think you could do it would be to have trees that required characters to have prerequisite Talents prior to getting the better ones; a “Talent Stack”. However, assuming these “Talent Stacks” are organized along Role lines it probably ends up being about the same as having classes. But, the balance issues are complete speculation on my part. Hopefully it isn’t an issue and we can go completely classless.
I just don’t think organizing it this way will get us where we want to go. The problem is someone saying that I am creating a Dextrous character sounds like the character’s concept is being described. It tells me nothing about the actual effect only how the effect might be achieved. For instance I could be a Dextrous character that darts in and out and does a lot of damage (Striker) OR a dexterous character that is great at dodging attacks and keeps enemies occupied by taunting them into making useless attacks at the character (Guardian) OR a dexterous character that can dart over to a maneuvering enemy and lock them down or push/pull across the battlefield (Controller) OR a dexterous character that uses acrobatic maneuvers to aid his allies attacks by darting into flanking positions or tripping the enemy up so that his allies can move (Leader). If we divide these talent trees by Dexterity the dexterous character is going to probably take many of the talents from these trees in order to get the most out of his high ability score. However, the character will probably end up being ok at a bunch of things and not particularly focused at achieving a game effect…and not that there is anything wrong with that. But if we clearly label the Talents with Role or organize the Talent Trees by the Role than at least it is easy for players to understand the underlying methodology and make an informed choice. Ok, I can choose a bunch of random Talents that work well with Dex or I can be more focused to a game effect that the group needs. Just as a side note, I really dislike the idea of basing character concept on Dextrous or even anything to do with fighting style. I am a two weapon fighter, or I like big guns are not character concepts to me. That is a fighting style. Which is cool and great and all but I think d20 games in general breed a thought process where your character concept is your character mechanics. Obviously the two are pretty closely bound. But I think something that breeds this issue is the limited resources you get in d20 games. In a skill based game I can spend a few XP to get a skill or ability that affects my character concept without having to consider that that single choice might prevent my character concept (i.e. how good I am whooping butt) coming to fruition 10 levels later. Why, because theoretically I have no absolute XP cap and there is no set progression. I think they way we defeat this within the level system is by having SC and NSC Talents chosen from different and specifically defined pools of resources. If we do that, never again will a character wanting to expand his repertoire of gambling abilities have to consider whether that will screw him out of a cool combat move 10 levels later.
Interesting idea, but I think it can be better. Essentially you have talent with some super generic effect (say +2 to hit) and then you have to buy a feat for the talent to have it create the effect specific to your role/class. To make it better, I would just define the Talent and make the added effect an automatic part of the talent depending on your class. You could just add the class name before the Talent name so that everyone would know the exact effect, i.e. Vanguard Double Tap (Encounter * Weapon Roll: Dex +2 vs Reflex, Hit: [B] + 1[W] + Dex modifier), Guardian Double Tap (Encounter * Weapon Roll: Dex +2 vs Reflex, Hit: [B] + Dex modifier. Target is suppressed until the end of its next turn (may only take move actions)) .
Re: e20 Core Classes
The only reason I broke it up the way I did was taking some inspiration from 4e. Every class had a feature that let you "toggle" a bonus effect to some of your powers. I felt that in 4e a LOT of powers ended up redundant since they were doing the same thing sans some flavor text and an ancillary effect. If, for example, double tap was a general "Modern" talent, then individual classes would be able to flavor its ancillary effect; rather than making 6 different versions of the same talent. A 4e failure in my opinion. Moving on. This is a thread devoted to discussing potential e20 Core Classes built on the assumption that e20 will use a class based system. There is a thread discussing e20 as a potential classless system. I would encourage those who like a classless system to direct their comments to that thread. And I would encourage those who like a class based system to direct their comments to this thread. To that end, there are also a number of threads discussing core mechanics like feats and talents, I think further discussion on those specific points would work best there. I think this thread would do well to discuss potential class feat and talent trees in general terms, since those would be some of the core defining features of a given class. I think this keeps the information a little better focused and organized this way. Plus it gives a good guage about the level of energy (positive or negative) a given topic generates based on its viewership and post count. Questions: How do you feel about the proposed classes? Vanguard Dreadnought Corsair Savant Sentinel Envoy What would you change? If you like a class, how do you think it should be structured (get as crunchy as you like)? Edit: Changed Guardian to Dreadnought, was scrubbing the list off the top of my head. Last edited by JaredGaume on Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: e20 Core Classes
The more I think about it, the more I like very simple names for the classes based on what they describe. When I look at the term "Vanguard", I have no idea what that means without looking it up in the book. But "Strong", a brand-new player gets that immediately. It also avoids the trap of assuming certain jobs/roles/personalities when merely assigning a particular set of bonuses based on physical attributes.
Personally, I think classes should merely be a shortcut to help cut down on the time it takes to create a new character. Each class could have a "these folks are particularly good at…" suggestion box, but I don't think any class should start with skills, talents, or feats that don't make sense based purely on attributes. A character with a focus on high Constitution should get more hit points, perhaps, or better fortitude, or whatever, but it doesn't follow that they also start off being good at simple weaponry. That sort of skill/feat/&c should be determined by a separate selection of role, according to the character's past. Class, to me, should be pure biology, not history. My two cents.
Re: e20 Core Classes
Mr. Darl, above when I mentioned that if a person wants to make a Dextrous character, I wasn't being literal...if anything, I think that's a horrible way to design a character. I personally am all about the character's story, background, and life...to me, my characters are "Not Strikers." No, they are people who grew up and learned about themselves, had a series of unusual situations occur in life, and from all of that the person made a few key choices in which determined which "Class" was a best fit for the character.
I never, ever, intentionally make a character with the notion "I'm going to make a Striker this time." I aboslutely hate that kind of mentality and thinking. That's not a character...that's a Role, and it shoehorns people into a very specific niche, well, at least 4e did for me, which is MY reason why I am really beginning to hate the game. I love 4e for how combat works, I think the combat system is fantastic, but I do not like how the classes and roles are so shoehorny. On these boards we are in three camps about classes... 1) those who want to keep them and go with the very generic d20Modern-esque class names 2) those who want to keep them and go with other broad, fairly genre neutral classes that fill in the character's role in the party 3) those who want to go classless but keep levels I'm in the third camp myself... I see no reason to keep classes, especially if we have free multiclassing... eliminate classes, no need for multiclassing rules, free's up more space for other things... But, I do like the idea from Darl that characters start with a Core Package of abilities. These Packages can represent the various Professions and Archetypes that characters can choose from, and start with 3 to 4 Package Powers/Abilities/whatever. These can determine starting health modifiers, skill training, defenses, etc... But that's all they do. As far as leveling is concerned, your Core Package only effects what happens at first level. After that, its all about Talents. Talents should be their own thing, and not tied to any specific Profession Package. So you have your Talent Trees...and maybe at first level people can pick 4 Talents. And each level after that they gain another Talent or two. I'd even go so far as to remove Feats from the game and go with Talents and Enhancements, and take all those standard Feat chains and turn them into Talent Trees. Then, you can have those special Talent Trees that have prerequisites to enter, this can take the place of those old Advanced Classes and Prestige Classes. Make everything Talent based. This would also free up the balance issue of... which class will get which talent trees, and are there an equal share between all the classes so that they each get their fair share to do in combat, or non combat situations, and all that other crap that creeps up because of classes.
Re: e20 Core Classes
jigsawjones, an interesting take on classes.
I have an inverted perspective though. I think Race should be pure biology, and class is a line of development/concentration. Using the d20 Modern model I can see people in certain classes like Strong, Tough, Fast, Smart, Dedicated, or Charismatic. Strategies for how to deal with situations. Am I more inclined to beat someone down or talk my way through? Do I tough it out or get out of the way? Do I fall in line and do as I am told or do I continue to argue my point? etc...
Re: e20 Core Classes
Race = Nature Class = Nurture "Things will get better. Then they will get worse. Then they will get better again. Just remember, if it's not good, than it is not the end."
- Author Unknown
Re: e20 Core Classes
My problem with Race being the indicator of "all things nature" is that it only allows for one type of each race (unless you add a huge table for each race to show the gamut of all likely stats within that race). This means assuming that all humans are One Specific Way, not allowing for the fact that there are generally recognized to be three sub-forms (endomorph, mesomorph, ectomorph) with very different basic biological body types and, therefore, different assumptive starting stats.
Using Class to indicate whether someone is an endomorph or mesomorph seems the easiest way of sub-categorizing a Race into specific types. Development/Concentration, to me, seems better described by Starting Occupation, i.e. the specific line of study the character has pursued.
Re: e20 Core Classes
Using Gary's table, effectively e20 becomes a hybrid of 4e and SWSE. We have a table that denotes when we get feats and talents (powers), as well as ability score boosts. While, at the moment, character classes give us access to "talent trees" in order to select our powers, it is very similar to 4e's set up. I am trying to figure out exactly what it is a character class will grant a player. Probably hit points at 1st level and at each additional level, one or two static class features, enhancements based on class, number of trained skills (since the skill list will be universal), and maybe weapon/armor proficiencies (very unlikely given weapon skills).
"Things will get better. Then they will get worse. Then they will get better again. Just remember, if it's not good, than it is not the end."
- Author Unknown
Re: e20 Core Classes
Sorry. That seemed like it was directed at you. I didn’t have that impression of you. However, I do think it is an issue with d20 games in general. Your wording just gave me a convenient example.
And I think that is the point I am trying to make. We can still have the great combat of 4e without shoehorning players. To do that the Roles need to be explicit, both in the writing and in the design process to ensure that they are balanced and clearly articulated. This is regardless of whether the character construction actually forces characters to assume the Roles.
I think feats (a la 4e where they generally provided an improvement to an existing capability)have their niche. If the two –new capabilities and improvements to those capabilities- aren’t clearly delineated I think you will get trouble. Sure you could just make them all talents and delineate between two types, but that is essentially the same thing as having feats and talents.
Yeah, but it makes another balance issue where all combinations are possible. So that means when designing the game you have to make sure (at least to a reasonable degree) that there are 0 possible combinations of talents that are unbalanced. I think that might end up over-restricting talent power levels.
Not sure what you are talking about here…the Fighting Style feats?? Anyway…
Totally got it. My point was it is even less redundant to have the talent listed once, with the ancillary effect specific to each class and the character gets the whole package (generic plus class specific effect) when it grabs the talent. Otherwise you have to get the talent and then search through the feat chapter in order to find the feat that modifies that particular talent.
Personally I am undecided on whether it should be classes or classless…but I will play your little game.
Don’t like ‘em. Ok, maybe that is a little harsh. The names are concepts are not uncool. However, I can tell that these classes will end up defining/influencing a lot about the character…role in combat, how much combat focus, non combat role and even…
Personality!! Huh?? Really?? I need a class to define my personality (or at least part of it)? Why can’t I have a character with great physical strength that is a whiz with technology, doesn’t like to confront problems head on, spends too much time gambling and is not particularly adept at hand to hand but great with guns? Reinforcing arbitrary archetypes is not a worthy design goal IMO. The only benefit that classes provide is a convenient method to structure character traits in order to balance combat. Let players define all the other aspects of their character by picking and choosing what they want. As for the need to make a class tied to a single ability score in order to build talents that make the most of that ability score; easily solved by letting players pick a primary and secondary physical and mental ability score and just building talents that use one or the other. The character then applies the appropriate score. This also gives the player more freedom in choosing ability scores that fit it’s concept rather than the ones that are most mechanically effective. Of course I still favor new ability scores with combat stats based off derived statistics. So I say if we are going to have classes, let it be “choose your own class” and have it define as little as possible about the characters traits except those that apply to skirmish combat. But…let’s say you completely disagree with me and you want to go with classes that tell me what my favorite color is (I’m being facetious). Seriously though, if we are going with the general vein of these six classes, each tied to one primary ability score, there is one thing I would recommend. Let’s get away from the idea that certain classes will be more combat focused than others. I think all classes should have the potential to be equally useful in combat and outside it. Obviously each class’s combat (and noncombat) methodology would be different, but their overall effectiveness would be the same.
I have to completely disagree. Anytime we make classes we are restricting character versatility; which is sometimes a good idea for game balance and in certain settings because certain combos/archetypes simply don’t exist. However, restricting character versatility for the sole reason of cutting a few minutes off character creation time? I can’t back it.
Ok, I agree that character’s shouldn’t get skills or talents based off how strong, smart, fast, etc they are. The system you seem to be suggesting is that a character picks his ability scores, the highest of which determines his class. Then, the only thing that having this class does for the character is give him additional bonuses to the things that having a high ability score already give him a bonus in (so essentially a double bonus). How is that even a class?
That’s why there are ability scores. It doesn’t change the fact that an Orc is born with the genetic trait of Darkvision and human is not. That is what he means by nature. You can’t nurture having 4 arms or growing horns.
That is what ability scores already do. [/quote][/quote] This is what people are normally talking about when they think of class.
Re: e20 Core Classes
That's what I meant by a shortcut; I suppose I'm advocating getting rid of any real class bonuses, while maintaining classes as purely descriptive terms. I.e., the Class is purely a descriptor of what sort of ability scores the character has. Class as Adjective. So instead of saying "My character has a high Strength stat, and therefore gets x,y,z bonuses" you can say "I'm a Fighter." Brevity of language, and a shortcut to understanding the bonuses in a "classic" context, while not actually limiting any freedom in character creation. Also, a (perhaps highly unusal) reversal in thinking as to the logic of class bonuses. I'm the sort who prefers to roll up ability stats before determining what a character's class will be. I like to think that a person born with certain abilities is likely to follow certain paths. E.g., in 4E, a Fighter has a +2 Fortitude. It seems odd that they would get that as part of some signing bonus to become a Fighter; I prefer thinking of it that they had a predisposition to that +2, so studied to become a Fighter because it drew that out of them.
Indeed, there are plenty of games where there is no Starting Occupation, and Class covers that ground. Personally, I think if there's going to be a Class system AND a Starting Occupation (perhaps a spurious assumption based on d20), then there has to be a clear reason why the two things aren't the same. Based on various other things you've written here, I think we may agree more than it might seem. It may be partly a matter of semantics, rather than mechanics. In closing, I'd be perfectly happy doing away with classes altogether, and splitting that material up between pure ability stats and professions (a la "Basic Roleplaying" et al). Also, opinions expressed in these posts should be considered uncaffeinated until proven otherwise, and as such may not be as logically clarified as might be hoped.
Re: e20 Core Classes
To sum up your position: you prefer a classless system but feel that it is important to label all characters with a "class." This label would essentially mean the same thing as strong, fast, tough, smart, wise or charismatic, but woudn't have to be those actual words. So the character's class would have zero game effect but you feel it would help people to create and understand their character better?
I do think we agree on the mechanics pretty closely. I am just baffled by what benefit you see to labeling character's with this "class." I know it wouldn't do anything for me in terms of helping me create a character. Maybe it would help other folks. I assume you would find it useful?
I always kind of assumed the character was made tougher by the training/experiences that led him to be a Fighter. Afterall, its not like he woke up one morning went to the unemployment office and they handed him the fighter job, then "poof" he got a +2 to Fortitude. I think the point of the classes in 4e is that the character spent many years developing a set of core attributes which culminated in the character becoming a Fighter (an archetype). Which seems silly in realistic terms but is useful in a game specifically about playing sword and sorcery heroic fantasy. IMO, in a genre neutral RPG the need for enforcing archetypes is minimal at best. Which I think we agree on.
Re: e20 Core Classes
feat mid-14c., "action, deeds," from Anglo-Fr. fet, from O.Fr. fait, from L. factum "thing done," a noun based on the pp. of facere "make, do" (see factitious). Sense of "exceptional or noble deed" arose c.1400 from phrase feat of arms (Fr. fait d'armes). feat 1 (fēt) n. A notable act or deed, especially an act of courage; an exploit. An act of skill, endurance, imagination, or strength; an achievement. Obsolete A specialized skill; a knack. feat1 [feet] Show IPA –noun 1. a noteworthy or extraordinary act or achievement, usually displaying boldness, skill, etc.: Arranging the treaty was a diplomatic feat. 2. Obsolete. a specialized skill; profession. Gun Kata is "a specialized skil"; so I define it as a feat. d20 has, for whatever reason, come up with things that they choose to call feats that have no connection to the meaning of the word. Feats are NOT passive. The meaning of knack is unclear. I looked through the different synonyms in the Theseaurus on dictionary.com for knack and NOT one has feat as a synonym. Knack does also carry the definition of a specialized skill. Disarming is part of what you learn when studying fencing. Same as the first thing you learn is parry-riposte until it's a natural movement that is executed as one move. Or attack-parry-riposte if you are initiating the attack. Playing the piano is a skill, parrying, blocking, punching in boxing, writing these are all skills by the normal use of the word. Since we have the capabilities that scale by level (Talents) at least some of these (parry, punch, lunge, block, takedown) go into Talents. Shooting a gun is a skill, using them as Preston does in Equilibirium, that's a feat. A standard disarm move is a skill, something that's taught as part of basic swordsmanship, Drizzt's Whirling Blades defensive move is a feat. That was the criteria I used. I just wonder if having the 4 separate mechanics is really necessary or if one couldn't just simplify everything by only having 2 or 3.
Talent is generally considered passive in common usage, but we have inverted the meanings here. I have had to spend a fair amount of time explaining to my mom and others that d20 uses Feat in a different sense than is normal in English. She had little trouble understanding the idea behind THAC0 by comparison. Enhancements are supposed to cover anything from the +n bonus on magic weapons to the effects of magical items to granting a character a bonus (such as +2 to unarmed combat after completing a difficult unarmed fight, Gary gives the example of Fists of the Dragon which grant a +2 to unarmed attacks). Enhancements can cover things like Ambidexterity, Animal Empathy (arguably would fit with the definition of "Talent" normally), Acrobatic or Eidetic memory. Similarly you could enhance a gun by adding a laser sight or recoil dampener, a computer tower by replacing your intel 950 motherboard with an i7 quad-core. Or enhancements to a ring could grant a defensive spell or effect, healing effects, bonuses to healing or defense etc. We have had this discussion before and I seriously doubt that it will be chanced, those playing d20 are pretty much set on keeping the definition in it's iconoclastic use for d20. My point was that by introducing the broad, flexible mechanic of Enhancements along with Skills and Talents made having the fourth category of Feats unnecessary: Talents can cover the active capabilities (Power Attack, Improved Feint, Uncanny Dodge which are actually logical going by the definition of feat) while skills or talents could handle Two Weapon Style or Weapon and Shield Style (both are learned skills), Enhancements cover the passive boons and bonuses (enhance the capabilities the same way Enhancements can enhance an item or character). knack [nak] Show IPA –noun 1. a special skill, talent, or aptitude: He had a knack for saying the right thing. 2. a clever or adroit way of doing something. 3. a trick or ruse. 4. a sharp, cracking sound. 5. Archaic. a knickknack; trinket.
Re: e20 Core Classes
I don't know... The only real reason I've seen on these boards to keep classes is because of familiarity... its a d20 game and people have expected Classes to be in d20 games in some way, shape, or form, and it has become a standard... but we've come so far in game design and theory, especially in this thread, about classes, with the talk of free multiclassing so there isn't any hassle between picking talents from different classes, and yet some still want to keep to the old style where each class focuses more on a single attribute, and that alone will always lead to min-maxing in the game. If someone is a Vanguard, and its the "Strength" class, than every single Vanguard at the table will have Strength as its highest Attribute...it wouldn't make sense otherwise, game mechanically speaking, to not put Strength as the highest.
This example alone is one of the reasons why I despise Classes. The other reason people have stated to keeping them is 'niche protection.' Now, can someone help me with this please because I don't understand why people need their "Niche" protected. That makes no sense at all to me. So I ask this because I am curious and confused by the very notion of niche protection. The third reason why people have stated that keeping them might be a good idea is game balance. This one, to a certain degree, I can understand. So, allow me to ask a hypothetical question, this regarding SWSE... What would happen to the game balance if you took all the Talent Trees from the five core classes and said to people that they can pick talents from any Talent tree from any core class instead of limiting them to just their class talents? The same for bonus feats, what would happen to the game's sense of balance if this was allowed? I can at least say one thing for sure... You wouldn't have any messy or confusing multiclassing issues with a system like that.
Re: e20 Core Classes
You also wouldn't have much difference between characters. People would most likely flock to the obviously more powerful/useful talents for the most part, with the occasional cherry-picking of another talent for "flavor". Classes add variety to the characters, plain and simple.
Re: e20 Core Classes
I tend to disagree with that statement. Take a game like Runequest - where there is no classes, only skills to define characters. Without a doubt, the players can design very different characters with the rules set. Now add some special talents (which Runequest do not really have), and you can really build a different character. I perceive classes as being a limitation to variety. I perceive classes to be a crutch that helps new players define their characters. At some point, the more experienced players will need to drop the crutches. We have to trust the players with these things - let's not take them for stupider than they are. We can always add templates on different types of characters for those who are unsure about building their characters from scratch. As for niches, I have DMed many classless-system games and it all comes down to sitting down as a group and making sure nobody steps on another's toes. If you bring a decent variety of talents and feats, I do not see a niche issue. And the power of a talent is all relative to situational factors. Improved evasion isnt worth much in an adventure where you mostly need to hack thru computers - the guy with skills mastery, computer will be powerful in this situation... I am all about a classless system. The question is: is the world ready? I know i've been ready for a while. Alright you Primitive Screwheads, listen up! You see this? This... is my boomstick! The twelve-gauge double-barreled Remington. S-Mart's top of the line. You can find this in the sporting goods department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retails for about a hundred and nine, ninety five. It's got a walnut stock, cobalt blue steel, and a hair trigger. That's right. Shop smart. Shop S-Mart. You got that?
Re: e20 Core Classes
I'm going to ask you a question here... Have you ever played any point based role playing games? Like Hero system, d6 System, Shadowrun, Gurps, Alternity (okay, Alternity isn't so much a point based game as it is a game that presents Professions and then gives you a bunch of points to pick your skills and other powers from). I'm really curious and if your experiences with these games showed that the majority of people picked the same, overall characters because some ablities might be more powerful/useful. If designed well enough, it is the enterprising players who think more outside the box that will take the less uncommonly chosen abilities and prove just how truly useful they can be, especially if the focus is an overall roleplaying experience and not just a combat hack fest, which has been the motif of the majority of d20 games.
Re: e20 Core Classes
I have played Shadowrun, I believe it was 3e. I really enjoyed it. Also have played Earthdawn and RIFTS (RIFTS isn't point based, I know), and played around with GURPS. The first RPG I played was a homebrew system which was actually point-based, we had points to distribute among attributes. Then we selected a set of +/- modifier pairs for the character, e.g. Forest + /Plains -, Above + /Below -. Magic was free-form (we made up our spells, though they were based on the FF for NES spell lists). Combat/skill resolution was roll 1d6. 1-3 succeeded, 4-6 failed. The modifier pairs were applied to the roll. In combat if you scored a success, you attacked again until you failed, then it switched to the opponent. It actually worked really well, and was quite fun to play. At the time when I was playing it was really only in AD&D where I tended to pick characters for their power, although I preferred to play Magic-Users (for potential future power) or Thieves (for their quick advancement).
Now, I play pen and paper RPGs for the things that computer RPGs cannot do. The social, intrigue type games so I am less concerned with combat mechanics and more on the non-combat mechanics (resolutions for programming, puzzles and so on, as well as just saying screw the rolls and actually solving the puzzles). If I want to play a hack-and-slash dungeon crawl type game I'll dig out my copy of the Diablo series or play something like Guild Wars or Perfect World International, where min/maxing is taken into account in the design and the system balances for it. The reason for this is that computers are much more capable of handling crunchy mechanics and as such can make use of much more complex mechanics for min/max balancing and the combat flows much faster. Even in Baldur's Gate series which uses the AD&D 2nd Edition rule-set with some modifications, I find it less problematic for combat than the table-top variant. The computer simply is much faster at being able to crunch numbers and calculate hit and damage rolls than humans can.
Re: e20 Core Classes
Of course, that can be done in a sidebar, with classes as the default, which is a way to add options (this system can be played as a classless one) rather than removing options (this system does not have classes). Also, if multiclassing is made painless enough (which should be fairly simple, using the one-half level skill progression and weapons as skills) then you don't even really need to do that, since the player can just change classes whenever he likes. In the Sage Edition houserules that I used, multiclassing was absolutely painless, and the players were free to choose whatever combination of classes they thought best fit their character or best allowed their characters to excel at what they wanted to do, or whatever.
Re: e20 Core Classes
jazzencat, touche on the word etymology. Regardless, the definitions I gave are the current working ones within the games structure. If we were to use your definition of enhancements then I would agree that you could probably cut down to 2 or 3 different mechanics as opposed to 4. I will just share my thoughts on enhancements...previously posted in another thread:
Stacie_GmrGrl, I agree with all of your points...and I have no clue on niche protection. Honestly, SWSE might be more balanced without classes because you couldn’t scarf up extra starting feats by multiclassing into a new class, nor could you play the game of multiclassing through several new classes to get like 3 talents in row. And since multiclassing was completely unrestricted anyway, I don’t see what you would lose in character variety. On the point about balance, (and I think you are aware of this, but just so it is explicit to everyone)…if there was a class system, the one that I am suggesting would be much more restrictive (at least for SC) than SWSE or even 3.0 in regards to multiclassing. You would basically have a set pool of SC talents that your character could choose from their entire career. The only exception being the ability to swap talents through a multiclassing feat. Of course, when it comes to NSC you would be almost completely unrestricted in talent choices. Maybe it wouldn’t even be necessary. I haven’t done a meta-analysis, but my suspicion is that if you took the 4e combat model and opened up all the powers and class features to free choice there would definitely be unbalanced combinations.
I do too, but I include combat in the thing the computer RPGs can’t do. Don’t get me wrong, some of the video games have spectacular combat scenes. Although the ones I try to emulate in my games are generally from action games and not RPGs. However, at least at this time video games can’t, IMO, compare to the imagination of a GM. Particularly on a variety front. Pretty much any combat encounter I can come up with, a video game can do better. However, for sheer variety, it can’t match. Video games are absolutely restricted by the rules (the program) that guides them. With a table top RPG you don’t have that restriction. No current video game could create the variety of combat encounters I created in my last Star Wars game.
Re: e20 Core Classes
Computers simply don't bog adventure pace down during fights. In D&D it can take a minute or two (if you don't have major power-gamers or meta-gamers) to resolve what happens in about 6 seconds. nWoD takes about 20 to 30 to determine the result of 3s of combat if you have a one-on-one fight, and nWoD is one of the more stripped down systems. Because of this I have often heard arguments about why more actions (normal actions) should be allowed per round or arguments against capping the number of actions per round. nWoD's round is 3s. I tried throwing an accurate punch every 3s while ducking and weaving as I would in a boxing match. It was very hard to keep up. Their limits are about right. If you go for total defense you cannot attack. D&D, being heroic level of course allows a bit more for 6s but they're pushing it. The length of time to resolve combat skews the frantic feel of combat that a computer can manage while keeping a nice crunchy system. They fall short in adaptability to creative solutions, but for me tabletops do not have the edge in combat-heavy games that computers do. I guess the 6-attribute 6-class trope is fine, especially with free multi-classing.
I would like to see something that allows for multi-classing at 1st level as was possible in AD&D 2E. Specialization would be another option. A specialist might get access to more abilities in a single tree. Also I would contend that a generalist or multi-classed character might have slightly higher requirements for stats than a specialist. It's easier to gain competence in a narrow field than the same competence in a broader field (say, generalists need 12 in the relevant attributes vs the specialist's 10 or something on that order). Instead of locking one stat to one class, maybe allow 2 stats to link to a class as primary? You can build a Str-based Fighter or a Con-based fighter in D&D 4E. What about a Con-based Savant? or a Dex-based Vanguard ...
Re: e20 Core Classes
Yep. I totally understand your reasons. Doesn't change that I enjoy combat around a table top with friends more than I do on a video game; especially RPG video games whose combat scenes generally don’t come anywhere close to an action game’s scenes like God of War or Ninja Gaiden. The reason I brought it up was you seemed to imply (and maybe you weren’t) that we should spend more effort on the noncombat stuff and not worry as much about the combat stuff. I am just saying that I think we should spend equal effort on both since gamers are of all types and not everyone is going to have fun at the same stuff you do...and based on how spun up people tend to get on the best mechanics for combat I would imagine the percentage in my camp is not insignificant. I would be interested in your thoughts on the puzzles, etc. I have usually found the best is a mix of an abstract puzzle with some skill checks. For example, I did a “tense” slicing scene by taking a several completed Sudokus, blacking out a squiggly line through the numbers from one end of the puzzle to the next. I then timed the players on how long it took them to fill in the line. Depending on how well they did they either got a bonus/penalty to the check or were able to make additional checks (I forget now); with an overall time limit for the entire slicing job which had to be completed in several steps.
This is a little off topic, but why the heck is 1st level for the Hero of the story the same 1st level for everything else in the game world. I think characters, as default should start at higher than 1st level…6th is the new 1st (characters go to 25th level and beyond). I think this leads to all the convoluted problems where games need to make the regular 1st level civilians so fragile a stiff shot of whiskey might cause them to implode so the basic civilians aren’t almost as tough as a the hero of the story.
Here is my thing…it is obvious from the FAQ that characters receive feats and talents based on their total character level. This is unlike SWSE or d20 modern where you received talents and feats based on your current level in a particular class (disregarding the feats gained from total character level). So, if multiclassing is free and characters don’t gain new abilities based on their relative level in a particular class, only their total character level, what is the point of even having classes? At a particular level, whatever class you wanted to gain a talent or feat from, you would just take a level in the class that had access to that talent or feat (if like 4e feats are restricted by class). Certainly your class might determine starting skills, HPs, defense bonuses etc., but in this case that is probably more akin to a template. If we are allowing free multiclassing, classes become increasingly pointless. If you want to do classes, make the purpose of the class mainly to define combat attributes. Class gives starting HPs, defense bonus, etc.; gives you some features and fairly rigidly defines your selection of SC talents. Then leave the vast majority of NSC talents open to any class…OR…just go completely classless.
While I am generally not in favor of the 6 ability score, 6 class idea, I think if we were going to do it, I would definitely want each class tied to multiple ability scores like you suggest. I know Gary's argument is that we want to avoid dump stats (which I think is better done using my ability scores and using derived combat statistics) by having each class tied primarily to one ability score. But why not do like you said. You could simply tied each class to two ability scores or even three. As long as each ability score got equal love you still accomplish the same thing without every single member of a class have the exact same highest ability score.
Re: e20 Core Classes
Oh, I see what you're missing: Your level in a class determines which talents you can take. Let's take a familiar 3.0/3.5 example -- the Wizard -- and see how it might be applied in e20. Let's say the Wizard talent tree has the following talents (among others): Magic Missile (prereq: Savant 1st) Invisibility (prereq: Savant 3rd) Fireball (prereq: Savant 5th) Polymorph (prereq: Savant 7th) Teleport (prereq: Savant 9th) etc. So, if you have a 9th-level Savant, he can use any of these talents. If you instead made a Savant 5/Vanguard 4, you couldn't use Polymorph or Teleport ... but, in exchange, you would have access to some Vanguard talents. Does that make more sense now?
Re: e20 Core Classes
*guy in the back raises his hand with a question* Hey, umm, quick question. If talents (core, major, minor) are supposed to be balanced with one another using at-will, encounter, and daily mechanics, how come you have to have a higher level in a certain class to gain access to talents further up on the tree that are no more powerful than talents at the beginning of the talent tree? I can see if the talents further up on the tree are more specialized, but if there is no real power difference between magic missile and teleport, why not have all the talents available for a character to choose from? Obviously magic missile and teleport are two different monsters, so the comparison is a little unfair, but it seems like using class level to qualify for certain talents might hinder the versitility of the system more than help balance power. I could see if maybe talents from a particular talent tree tied to a class (lets leave FX talents alone for right now) had an effect based on effective class level (either your level in that class or one-half your character level, whichever was higher). Or you could even do what 4e did for multiclassing, have the 6 classes you begin play as, but as early as 1st level you can take a multiclassing feat that would a) give you a choice of one of the new class's class features (one or two class feature all classes get that scales with level), 2) grant you access to talents from that new class's talent trees, and finally) grant you the better of the two Defense bonuses for the class as well as access to class specific feats. If we went with free multiclassing (like the bard in 4e) then you could burn 5 feats to effectively gain 5 class features of the other five classes, effectively all good defenses, access to class based feats, and access to any talent tree in the system's core rules. Might make for a decent generalist character concept, but unless you choose carefully, you could easily find yourself unspecialized in any task. At most, players would probably stick with 1 or 2 multiclassing choices all revolved around a specific character concept... *the rest of the class just looks as me while teacher patiently waits for me to sit back down* Sorry... my mind tends to wander early in the morning. "Things will get better. Then they will get worse. Then they will get better again. Just remember, if it's not good, than it is not the end."
- Author Unknown
Re: e20 Core Classes
There is a difference between say a level 9 magic missile and a level 9 fireball.
From d20M: Magic Missile (lvl 9): 1d4+1 damage, fire 5 magic missiles (you can hit a single target with 5 shots dealing a total of 5d4+5 damage, up to 25 max, but not likely to trip MDT from any single hit. Or you can attack multiple targets in vastly different places dealing on ly 1d4+1 damage each). Fireball (lvl 9): 9d6 damage, 20-ft. radius (You can do the same amount of damage to multiple targets within the blast radius, up to 54 max each, and you are very likely to trip MDT on any given target). Even if you balance the damage output, the quality of the spells is vastly different enough that restricting by class level helps balance things out. Yes you use your character level to determine the power of the spell, but the effects may be more powerful for higher level stuff. Reworking for damage balance at level 9, may not hold true at higher levels, this is for purely illustrative purposes: Magic Missile (lvl 9): 1d10+1 damage, fire 5 magic missiles. (you can hit a target with 5 shots dealing a total of 5d10+5 damage, up to 55 max, but less likely to trip MDT from any single hit. Or you can attack multiple targets in vastly different places dealing 1d10+1 damage each). Fireball (lvl 9): 9d6 damage, 20-ft. radius. (You can do the same amount of damage to multiple targets within the blast radius, up to 54 max each, and you are very likely to trip MDT on any given target). For power restraint, multiclass characters have to weigh being a generalist with fewer options in any particular field, versus being a specialist able to fully realize his or her potential. The other multiclass restraint is familiar to d20M where your level also restrained how many hit points and other bonuses you got at that level. So a Tough 5/Smart 5 hero would have 5d10 + 5d6 (10 to 80 hp), or a Tough 9/Smart 1 would have 9d10 + 1d6 (10 to 96 hp), or a Tough 1/Smart 9 would have 1d10 + 9d6 (10 to 64 hp). I do also get the argument for allowing open talent progression once you qualify, i.e. multiclass. By the limited nature of available talent slots, the decision of selected talents will necissarily create the effect of having a limited level in one of your many classes, but without the artificial limits of class level. However, that assumes that class level is only restricting talent advancement and isn't also affecting other things (like hit point progression).
Re: e20 Core Classes
Much more so...thanks. I still reccomend a sharp division between SC and NSC talents. If classes are present, then the former being restricted as you mention (via muliclassing) or via a method similar to 4e and the latter being mostly class neutral. There would probably be some unique NSC talent trees but the vast majority I would leave up to player choice. There is simply no need to balance noncombat roles against each other or against combat roles. All the balance can be done via level. There is also no need to have any class be tagged as "combat-focused" and another class tagged as "skill focused." All classes should be able to fulfill either focus. Also, it should be an easy option (should the PCs and GM choose it) to equalize the party in terms of SC (like 4e) so that all players are able to equally contribute in SC encounters.
Re: e20 Core Classes
One possitive I thought 4e brought to the table was the idea of you have one primary class (don't yell at me just yet) and with having one primary class, you could balance starting mechanics more easily (hit points at 1st level/per level gained, number of reserves, starting skills/number of skills known, class Defense bonuses, class specific features/bonus class feats). Adding a multiclassing feat would allow you to gain a class specific feature of that class as if your character was also a member of that class, but you still gain hit points and retain the class skills of your particular class. In 4e you could gain access to a select number of powers from another class by taking more multiclassing feats (which could lead you into a paragon path of that class, which we thankfully have yet to worry about in e20), but along the idea of free multiclassing, if you have access to a class why not just gain access to that classes' talents as well? You are not throwing off the mechanics by allowing a player more or fewer talents than a non-multiclass character, you are simply allowing them to pick the best combination of talents to meet their character concept.
"Things will get better. Then they will get worse. Then they will get better again. Just remember, if it's not good, than it is not the end."
- Author Unknown
Re: e20 Core Classes
All these examples are absolutely perfect reasons why to get away from Classes and go classless... each and every single one of these examples showcases just how limiting the use of Classes can become.
If there are no classes, then there are no Class limitations to Talents or Powers, and therefore there is no limitation like Gary's Savant/Vanguard example above, which is exactly why Classes are, for the most part, such a bad idea. What do Classes do? In this case, it just totally limited the potential of the character. Plus, I know that was an example of FX talent limitations based on Class, I seriously hope that is not how this game will do FX, because that would be one of the worst ways to implement any sort of FX Talent system. Even if we do go with Classes, FX should most definately be class neutral and never tied directly to a class or that will seriously hamper the overall effectiveness of the game's supposedly versatility. And...those multiclass examples just posted showcase just how limiting multiclassing is when you use a Class system...as long as there are classes, there is no real "Free" multiclassing, because the very nature of classes themselves limits multiclassing to a certain degree. 4e is not a multiclassing system IMO, even if they label it that...its more like a sub-class tapping where you tap into a second class to gain a bit more versatility, but its not true multiclassing.
Re: e20 Core Classes
With the above examples... and I really hate to say it but a classless system does sound pretty good right about now... I see class as fulfilling the basic role of giving your character a unique feel to specialize in their given ability score. Hit points, class Defenses, number of starting skills, and a few attribute specific class features would be awesome for a class framework and let the talent trees follow themes based on skills and archtypes (advanced classes) with some doing better with certain character concepts than others, but all being available. While multiclassing could be used to gain access to certain class specific attribute enhancing features, you would still not be able to multiclass into tough hero and gain the tough hero's higher hit point gain, but you could get its higher Fortitude Defense bonus and maybe a Constitution based class feature to make you more resilient and survivable. "Things will get better. Then they will get worse. Then they will get better again. Just remember, if it's not good, than it is not the end."
- Author Unknown
Re: e20 Core Classes
What are the differences between stat-based classes? This is a question that must be answered, especially if class skills are separated and become part of starting occupation.
Str: greater carrying capacity? Dex: higher AC & Reflex? Con: more HP & higher Fort? Int: more skills? Wis: higher Will? Cha: reputation?
Re: e20 Core Classes
I think my main problem with the class system as it is currently stated is this: the 1-to-1 tie of 1 attribute being primary to 1 class. To me that seems like a step backwards to the D&D 3.x/AD&D 2e days when compared to how D&D 4E does it classes having 3 key ability scores. I don't have a problem with 6 core classes, it's a good number and given e20's design goals, the final rules should be such that one can add more, remove a few or all of them depending on what the troupe wants (sorry, group, ST term slipped in there). But I would rather see the classes assigned attributes along the lines of 4E rather than using the AD&D paradigm.
After all I can build a Cleric who is on the front lines, slugging it out next to the Vanguard character or a back-line support character focusing on healing, buffs and nerf-removal. I would love to see e20 take the class system in the direction that Guild Wars did. 4E did something similar by having variants of a class (Battle Cleric, Devotional Cleric). I realize this adds a level of complexity to the rules. Guild Wars might have a warrior as a Tank or Pressure-DPS or Spike-damage roles. The tank Vanguard would focus on talents and skills that let him draw opponents in and engage them and prevent them from disengaging to attack others, might only do moderate damage levels. Or the Vanguard might lead the charge as a Spike-damage build focusing on one opponent and taking them down really fast with massive damage hits, and so on. The Guardian type might act in a tank role as well, but do it by having skills that allow her to hold a choke point, or might function as a body guard to a caster type utilizing pressure-dps skills that keep the opponents constantly defending against attacks and damage and keeps them from being able to attack effectively. The Mesmer profession in Guild Wars is another good example. They have three skill-trees: Inspiration, Domination and Illusion. This lets a Mesmer function as a controller type, using Illusion to cause health degeneration in opponents, dealing damage over time and slowing them down with illusion hexes. The inspiration tree lets them drain energy from opponents and replenish their energy stores, health as well of those of their allies, and also gain protection from elemental attacks. The Domination tree allows them to function as anti-caster or anti-mêlée characters, preventing opponents from casting spells or using combat skills, dealing damage to a caster when they use magic or reflecting damage on a mêlée opponent each time they attack. Or they can prevent the opponent from drawing on their power source with domination hexes. This opens up many different play variants for each class, though it has the drawback of increasing the number of talent-trees, skills and feats that are tied to any given class.
Re: e20 Core Classes
One reason modern was able to do 6 classes is because the classes themselves could stand-alone (complex) or be combined to create your character concept. Albeit the entire system was underpowered, but at least it was mostly balanced within its limited walls. Trying to apply something as flexable to a 4e style system (yes, this is currently a 4e style set up) we run into some issues. Namely, since all class features are either gained at 1st level or given out regardless of your level in a certain class (you get 1st level class features, but all other class features are dependant on your total character level) we have to start arbitrarily (spelking error) assign a reason to maintain certain levels in a class (access to "higher" level talents in that class). My suggestion is to have talents broken into two types; Heroic and FX. Heroic talents will cover things that would fall under the normal perview of the core system, while FX encompasses everything that falls outside of it (supernatural). Each class would begin play with 2-3 class features that would minic talents or feats (depending on their mechanic) but be unique to that class, and would help enhance the most common use of that classes primary attribute. I am not saying "role," just the most common uses for that attribute (after all Strength is rarely applied to Medicine). For example, using the same talent trees from d20 Modern, the Strong hero gains Melee Smash (reduces a targets massive damage threshold by 5 with melee attacks), Ignore Hardness (reduces the hardness of an object by 5 with melee attacks), and Extreme Effort (takes a Strength based skill check that normally requires a swift, move, or standard action and perform the action as a full-round action, allowing him to reroll the check keeping the better of the two). Now we have three class feautres, two of them providing static bonuses that would function more like feats and one functioning more like a class talent. Continuing the example, Fast hero could get Evasion, Uncanny Dodge (improved uncanny dodge would be a feat I believe, but requires uncanny dodge as a prerequisite), and Increased Speed (I'd say a 2 square bonus to base land speed). Tough Hero could have Remain Conscious, Energy Resistance, Stamina (however we handle natural healing... they do it better). Smart hero could have ... well... I never really played smart heroes. Dedicated hero would have Empathy (mayhaps a prerequisite for some FX abilities?), Healing Knack, and Faith (okay... maybe not faith, but something similar) or Intuition. Charismatic hero could have Charm, Fast-Talk, and Inspiration. Just examples. You than create a multiclass feat for each of these class features. A character that chooses a multiclass feat gains that class feature as if they were a heroic character of that level, and they gain the Defense bonuses of that heroic class (since we only use the better of the Defenses, someone who takes alot or even all of the multiclass feats is not being overpowered). Each class still retains its strengths and weaknesses because they are focused at 1st level, but they have the same adaptability as d20 Modern. Just an idea. "Things will get better. Then they will get worse. Then they will get better again. Just remember, if it's not good, than it is not the end."
- Author Unknown
Re: e20 Core Classes
A more thoughtout example of my previous post, using the Wisdom-based character class or "Dedicated" hero. I am just throwing number in here and there, so please don't beat me up about too many hit points or too many trained skills. The multiclassing feats at the end are a means of giving characters options to "sub-class" as a noteworthy poster pointed out. While this system lacks the true versitility of "multiclassing," I think it provides structured character options that are a cut above what has thusfar been presented... except of course a truly classless system.
DEDICATED HERO You use your Wisdom score to best advatange, excelling in willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition. Abilities: Wisdom is the ability associated with this class, although Dedicated heroes often place high scores in Intelligence and at least one of the physical abilities. Class Defense Bonus: +1 Fortitude, +2 Will Hit Points at 1st Level: 15 + Constitution score Hit Points at Each Additional Level: 5 Trained Skills: 4 + Intelligence modifer Class Features: Empathy, Healing Knack, Intuition EMPATHY The Dedicated hero has a knack for being sensitive to the feelings and thoughts of others without having those feelings and thoughts communicated in any objectively explicit manner. This innate ability allows you to reroll skill checks involving social interaction uses of the following skills (Deception, Perception, Persuasion, and Survival) provided you spend at least 1 minute observing your target prior to making the skill check. You must accept the result of the reroll, even if it is worse. HEALING KNACK The Dedicated hero has a talent for healing. You may reroll any Medicine skill check, but the result of the reroll must be accepted, even if it is worse. In addition, whenever you restore hit points to a living creature from any source, you restore an additional 5 hit points to the target. INTUITION The Dedicated hero has an innate ability to sense trouble in the air. By making a DC 15 Perception check, a Dedicated hero gets a hunch that everything is all right, or she gets a bad feeling about a specific situation, based on the GM's best guess relating to the circumstances. A Dedicated hero can use this ability no more than once per encounter. MULTICLASS FEATS Empathic Hero [Multiclass Feat] You possess an empathic nature that aids you in your heroic life. Prerequisite: Wis 13. Benefit: You gain the Dedicated hero's Empathy ability. In addition you gain training in either the Deception skill, Perception skill, Persuasion skill, or Survival skill. Healing Touch [Multiclass Feat] You possess a healing touch that aids you in your heroic life. Prerequisite: Wis 13. Benefit: You gain the Dedicated hero's Healing Knack ability. In addition, you gain training in the Medicine skill. Intuitive Hero [Multiclass Feat] Your intuitive nature aids you in your heroic life. Prerequisite: Wis 13. Benefit: You gain the Dedicated hero's Intuition abiliy. In addition, you gain training in the Perception skill. Edit: Add ability score prerequisites for the three multiclassing feats and removed the Defense bonus benefit of multiclassing. Last edited by Imagist on Sun Mar 14, 2010 1:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Things will get better. Then they will get worse. Then they will get better again. Just remember, if it's not good, than it is not the end."
- Author Unknown
Re: e20 Core Classes
Are you my twin? Separated at birth perhaps... Alright you Primitive Screwheads, listen up! You see this? This... is my boomstick! The twelve-gauge double-barreled Remington. S-Mart's top of the line. You can find this in the sporting goods department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retails for about a hundred and nine, ninety five. It's got a walnut stock, cobalt blue steel, and a hair trigger. That's right. Shop smart. Shop S-Mart. You got that?
Re: e20 Core Classes
Perhaps...  remains to be seen, this universe is vast and full of untold possibilities... and... ok I'll stop myself from going all philosophical on you.As for classes or classless... I think Imagist just created an awesome class, for a modern version of 4e. As for an example of classless... lets say you take all the talents from the core d20Modern classes right, and set them aside for a moment. Then, you have just what left for classes. I'd see them as broad archetypes, very broad archetypes, and quite unnecessary to boot. But, one thing that d20Modern does have is Occupations, and the Occupations are broad enough to fit quite a wide variety of possible character concepts. Now, lets assume that all characters are built on a Core Build, and here's just an example of a Core Build: -- Starting Stamina (HP) = 10 -- Starting Defenses = pick 2 for primary, pick 1 for secondary -- Starting Attribute Points = 36 points to spend on the six Attributes (assuming we are still going with the old standard 6) -- Starting Skills = 3 Combat Skills, 6 Non-Combat Skills -- Starting Wealth = +0 (assuming a wealth rating system like d20Modern) -- Starting Core Power = pick a single power from a list of Core powers Now, we have Occupations...lets rename them Profession Packages. These Packages can do some, or all of, the following (please note that these are examples): -- Modify Starting Stamina. Let's say Athlete adds +3 Stamina, and White Collar Worker adds +1 Stamina, and Military Soldier adds +5. -- Modify Starting Defenses. Maybe some will Add +1 to Fortitude or Will, or +2 to a single Defense. Plus a Primary Defense bonus. -- Modify Starting Skills. White Collar Worker adds +4 Non-Combat Skills and 1 Combat Skill, while Military Soldier might add +4 Combat skills and 1 Noncombat Skill. -- Modify Starting Attributes -- Modify Wealth Rating -- Provide a bonus Talent/Feat -- and maybe other options Now, we have the Core Build + Profession Package. Somewhere in here we would also have a Race Package, like a racial template that fits on top of the above. The Race Package could possibly do the following: -- Racial Talents/Traits -- Modify Starting Attributes -- Modify Starting Skills. Maybe racial bonuses to certain skills or gaining a new skill or two as character skills. These could simulate skills learned from upbringing as a natural part of the race. -- maybe something else that we haven't thought of yet (or at least that I haven't thought of yet). Now, we come to Talents and Feats. After you have your Core Build from above, just pick and choose whichever Talents and Feats you want, from any Talent Tree. Your final Constitution modifier would add into starting Stamina, as usual. The thing here is that, you have your Core Build + Profession Package + Racial Package = Starting Character Package + Talents and Feats and Equipment and whatever else that the game might offer. Then, as you level up, you gain Talents each level, or every other level like in d20Modern and SWSE, and bonus feats. And whenever you gain a level, you just pick from the Talent tree you want. Like I said, this is one example of a classless build, and I think we'd have to add more things to the characters so each and every Attribute does something for the Starting Character Package so there are no dump stats. Like a Reputation factor (like the one in FantasyCraft, not the one is d20Modern) and other things.
Re: e20 Core Classes
I will use a character building example. Michael (okay, me) wants to build a heroic character. He decides his character is going to be in his mid-twenties, resilient, willfull, and a support character for the party. He decides to begin with the Dedicated hero class, feeling his character's Wisdom score is going to be his primary. He is also going to focus on Charisma and Constitution as his secondary ability scores.
STEP ONE - ABILITY SCORES Michael uses preselected stats (16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) so he will be on par with everyone else in the party. After allocating his +2 bonus for being Human, he gets the following Scores: Str 10, Dex 11, Con 15, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 14. STEP TWO - RACE, CLASS, AND BACKGROUND The GM decides all the characters are going to human in this campaign using the core rules. Michael selects the Dedicated hero class for his character because it provides a moderate range of hit points, trained skills, and class features that reflect his character's intuitive and empathic nature. It also grant him a class Defense bonus to Fortitude and Will, which also reflect Michael's character concept. For his character's background, he decides to focus on the character's Educated background (stating to the GM his character had studied abroad in Europe and Japan) and adding Japanese to his known languages. STEP THREE - FEATS AND SKILLS AND TALENTS Michael decides he wants his character to be more resilient than a standard Dedicated hero, so he picks up the [Die Hard] multiclass feat to give him access to the Tough hero's Remain Conscious class feature (allowing his character to remain active while at 0 hit points so long as he has reserves remaining) and giving him Endurance as a bonus trained skill. He also wants his character to be a reassuring presence to the rest of the party so he picks up the [Inspired] multiclass feat to give him access to the Charismatic hero's Inspiration class feature (granting a constant +1 morale bonus to all party member's attack and damage rolls, including his own) and giving him Persuasion as a bonus trained skill. Having used up his two feats for being first level, he is left with 1 bonus feat for being human and 5 trained skills. Since he gains the Simple Weapon combat skill as a trained skill for free, and has already gained training in Endurance and Persuasion, he decides to round his character out with the Sidearms combat skill, the Unarmed combat skill, Athletics, Perception, and Streetwise. With his last feat, Michael selects the unarmed combat style of Aikido (allowing his character to use Wisdom instead of Strength on Unarmed combat skill checks, as well as picking up grapple and trip benefits for when fighting unarmed). Aikido also reflects an influence of his studying abroad in Japan on his character's outlook on combat (Aikido is, after all, the Art of Love). Since we don't really have any talents ready to work with... lets just say he selects some talents that would help him with social interactions, melee and ranged combat, and supporting other party members. STEP FOUR - OCCUPATION To pay the bills, Michael selects the Investigative occupation (which requires a starting age of 23+, training in either Unarmed or Sidearms, as well as training in two of the following skills: Analytic, Perception, Streetwise, or Survival) which Michael's character qualifies for. STEP FIVE - BUY EQUIPMENT AND SET ENHANCEMENTS Michael's character uses his starting Wealth bonus of 7 to buy some simple equipment (clothing, a few personal effects, as well as a down payment on his apartment, and an AEK-906 9mm revolver), and he has access to enhancements available to humans, Dedicated heroes, Tough heroes, and Charismatic heroes to begin play. He allocates Jack of all trades (enhancement bonus on untrained skill checks) from being human and Remain Alive (enhancement bonus to all Defenses when reduced to 0 hit points) from multiclassing into Tough hero. STEP SIX - PLAY DA GAME Michael has created his character: Allan Shepherd Educated Human Male age 24 Dedicated Hero 1 (Investigative) Hit Points: 30; Massive Damage Threshold: 14 Abilities: Str 10, Dex 11, Con 15, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 14. Trained Skills: Athletics, Endurance, Perception, Persuasion, Streetwise; Sidearms, Simple Weapons, Unarmed Feats: Aikido, Die Hard, Inspired Defenses: Fort 14, Ref 11, Will 15 Class Features: Empathy, Healing Knack, Intuition, Inspiration, Remain Conscious Talents: 4 core, 1 major, 1 minor Equipment: A sweet revolver, clothing, an appartment, and some personal effects. Enhancements: Jack of All Trades, Remain Alive Languages: English, Japanese Just an example. "Things will get better. Then they will get worse. Then they will get better again. Just remember, if it's not good, than it is not the end."
- Author Unknown
Re: e20 Core Classes
Frankly, having the talent simply scale by level making a 1st level talent much more powerful if you start by taking a hard-hitting combat class (e20's XP system currently seems to be extremely combat oriented for progression) and level it up for a while and then switch over to taking spell-like talents because the talent's efficacy is based on total character level not level in the relevant class, really strikes me as a Bad Idea. I am Vanguard-18 and level up, so I select Savant-1. First of all, going from level 18 to level 19, I have earned far more XP than is needed to go from level 1 to level 2. Now I have a Savant-1 with access to those skills, but they are far more powerful than a Savant-1 character could ever have, or a Savant-18 character for that matter. This makes no sense to me. I would think that increased efficacy in a talent as you level up comes from using the talent and training it over time. All of a sudden I decide I'm going to select a new class and all of a sudden all talents I have access to in this new class are jumping to 19th level efficacy even though my character has NEVER used them, trained them or even bothered with the relevant attributes for them? Just because I have a PhD in Formal Logic doesn't mean that if I start studying Cosmology that I automatically start with Masters or PhD level skill in that new field. Someone whose power-source is martial shouldn't automatically be able to use an arcane-based talent set at the same level as his martial-based talents. Sure, I can have a Warrior/Mesmer in Guild Wars and have Illusion Magic be as effective as any Mesmer Primary, but I have to invest THE SAME AMOUNT of attribute points in Illusion Magic to get the same level of efficacy as the Mesmer primary. Just because I'm a level 18 Warrior and I switch from Ranger secondary to Mesmer secondary, it doesn't mean I'm more effective than a 16th level Mesmer primary, that only happens if I invest the necessary number of attribute points. While it does suck to have a level 19 warrior not be able to have more oomph behind the magic missile than a level 1 mage, it also does make sense. The PC as a warrior has NEVER EVER used arcane magic. Why would his level automatically let him be more effective just by switching than a mage is who has used this ability since the start? Maybe when you initially switch your second classes talents only function as a character with 1/2 your primary's level of experience or 1/3 and gains efficacy as you use it. I would like to actually see talents, skills go up in efficacy through use and not just how many xp points the character has received. If you use your Power Attack talent often against foes but don't use the disarm one then Power Attack should be more effective than disarm. And while both can increase as you level up, the unused ones shouldn't go up by the same amount as the frequently used ones.
Re: e20 Core Classes
The more I think about it, the more I don't like the idea of "free multiclassing" between levels. I still don't like the idea of a classless system, at least not in regards to a generic starting block of X HP, X to two Defenses, X skills. I DO think every character should have access (or potential access) to the same class features, feats, and talents/powers to meet their character concept. Right now, we have all the building blocks... its just about finding out which ones go best together and in which order. I'd rather see something like 4e where you have your primary class (in this case your primary ability score) and you can multiclass into other ability score based classes (gaining class feature benefits) to denote the secondary ability scores of your character. Yes, you have to spend a feat to do it, but typically you get a decent class feature AND a bonus trained skill. I think that is a fair and balanced trade off. Since characters get two feats at 1st level regardless of race, they could have two secondary "class" selections at 1st level allowing for 1st level multiclassing.
Having FX based on the Focus skill, I personally believe, is going to be one of the unifying mechanics and a saving grace for the e20 system. Anyone of any level of any class can gain training in the Focus skill and use it effectively because it represents two things; your character's experience channeling their heroic nature (1/2 character level) and their training to harness such a nature (trained skill bonus). How a character channels their heroic nature is another matter. Some channel it in heroicly mundane ways and others utilizing superheroic traits such as magic, psionics, or super powers. The key factor, one utilized by all power sources and the Focus skill itself, is visualization; imagination manifest. To me, it makes sense that a "Fighter" who is level 18 who suddenly picks up the [Magical Heritage] feat and takes the Eldritch Blast talent could use the talent with a [force] descriptor to create a magic missile effect as well as a "Mage" of the same level with the same feat and talent selection, because both have focused their minds and their heroic natures into visualizing and achieving their abilities. A fighter as trained with sword and shield, and while different, the process is ultimately the same to channel a "magic missile" as it is the channel a "great cleave." Albeit, a good "Mage" has probably taken feats to enhance their FX talents as well as taken more FX talents so their magic would be more versitile than that of our example "Fighter," but that is more an example of feat allocation and primary playing styles than it is of "practice" or "gaining experience" with a certain combat style. Another saving grace of the e20 system is going to be retraining. If you could take some down time and "retrain" your character within your allotted talents, feats, and trained skills if your character build doesn't really match your character concept, you can do your "practice" or "experience in a certain fighting style" during the down time. Bonuses characters get from leveling are typically considered earned ability a character has been working on while they have been adventuring. Who is to say the "Fighter" hasn't been practicing his "magic" during his down time between levels? I think trying to apply "real time" spent practicing with talents or feats are going to hinder the e20 system more than assist it. Just my opinion. "Things will get better. Then they will get worse. Then they will get better again. Just remember, if it's not good, than it is not the end."
- Author Unknown
Re: e20 Core Classes
Ugh, that "retraining" is almost as bad as AD&D's dual-classing. I end up forgetting my capability in the previous skills to learn new ones. That's generally just lame. Giving up focus bonus in a skill I could see, if I don't frequently practice my top level of skill will decrease to a certain point, but it won't completely vanish. If I don't ski for a few years, my skill does drop some, but only to a certain threshold and it comes back pretty quickly after half a day on the slopes. I don't practice piano for a while, and I can't easily play the most difficult pieces I used to be able to do, but the ones that I knew really well and learned off by heart I can still play, even if I don't practice piano and "retrain" to saxophone. I really don't want to see this "erase one entry and replace it with another" excuse for retraining. Sure if you want to retrain you don't get your focus bonus anymore and your skill bonus might go from +5 for trained down to a +2 or +3 instead, but don't rule that you "lose" it all together. It's an artificial balance mechanic that I really don't like.
If you multi-class then have the talent be as effective as it is for a character who's 2/3s your total levels. Then for every level gained the talents gain 2 in efficacy. So if I have a 9th level character (vanguard-8, savant-1) them my savant skills function as level 6, vanguard functions as level 9 or 8, once i reach level 10, my savant is now functioning as level 8, at level 11 as a level 10, and at level 12 it's equal. I'm a elite swordsman, because I've learned to make my wishes reality with the blade this will translate to controlling arcane forces and make me an instant expert in them as well? At the very least these alternatives should be put in a sidebar.
Re: e20 Core Classes
I completely understand where you are coming from, logically it makes no sense to lose skills you have had since level 1 and retrain them in completely new ways. I think alot of what this mechanic is supposed to do is allow you to keep your character useful or adaptable to the campaign. When I first read about this part of e20 it also had a requirement to "maintain your character's core concept" so I can see if you want to be a gunslinger and you suddenly find your specialization into Called Shots (just an example, I swear) has stunted your ability to contribute to the team, so you would rather "retrain" into Aiming or Close Combat shots. I would want to avoid totally revamping a character, but tweaking a character should be okay within reason. For example, in 4e they allowed you to change one feat, power, or trained skill every level if you wanted to, which represented a more slow placed transformation. If you could change one feat, talent, or trained skill every level... in realistic terms it would be more believeable that you switched Skill Focus (something) for Skill Training (something else), losing the focus, but gaining a new set of skills, or even switching Skill Training (something) to Skill Focus (something else) in order to gain a greater focus on something else while only remembering the basics of what you knew before. In the above example it would be 2 levels worth of refocusing to do that, and that is ignoring all other refocusing avenues. Players don't have to refocus and some GMs might not allow refocusing. I would agree that refocusing would be better suited as an optional mechanic, a good rule of thumb, but not the standard. "Things will get better. Then they will get worse. Then they will get better again. Just remember, if it's not good, than it is not the end."
- Author Unknown
Re: e20 Core Classes
It's just an artificial mechanic to keep the number of capabilities open to player A, who choses to alter their character skill set, on par with player B who does not opt to change, I think. It's fine for a game like 4E which plays a certain way, but the implementation of feats, talents, skills and classes that I am seeing so far are not really that evolutionary, in my view. The method of implementation is forcing some mechanics that were in place in OD&D and AD&D editions. The others are still just maintaining book-keeping balance and are reminiscent of computer games. The current wish to have classes seems a little of an anathema to the stated goal of universality.
Re: e20 Core Classes
From the e20 lite document Gary has proposed the following classes and given them some Crunch:
Vanguard Dreadnought Corsair Savant Sentinel Envoy With something to look at now how do you feel about these classes? What would you keep or what would you change? (note: if you want a classless system, articulate your views in that thread)
Re: e20 Core Classes
Honestly, not a fan overall. Part of it is the naming conventions used, since I don't believe they fit a genera neutral setting when certain names are derived from things that could possibly not be invented yet (*cough* corsair *cough cough*) in a Past campaign. Part of it is the multiclassing system tied in with the character level based resources tied in with the party experience point pool. Part of it is the talents feeling too much like 4e powers tied to a non-neutral character class.
I'd rather work with raw mechanics than flavored mechanics. Don't get me wrong, a vanguard talent feels like a vanguard talent... but who says I want to play a vanguard? I want to play a Strength-based character. Since we don't have to have 150 different classes for a character to identify themself as, why do we need six classes with cool names our character's aren't even going to care about? Noah isn't going to care that he is a Fast hero, or a Corsair, or a Dexterity-based hero... he is going to call himself a Nomad, but he is going to use talents that are Dexterity based... and if we try to make all of the talents available flavored for what we think a Corsair is... we are losing something. "Things will get better. Then they will get worse. Then they will get better again. Just remember, if it's not good, than it is not the end."
- Author Unknown
Re: e20 Core Classes
See, I love these Class names, they evoke something cool and neat, whereas Strength....that's just so freaking bland and lame that I want to spit on them. But I think you are reading TOO much into the names chosen...and I might be reading too much into the d20Modern style names, but for the life of me when I read "Strength" for a Class name, I just close the book. Corsair, now, that is not just a damn ship and please look at it from a different paradigm. There is a great explaination in the first 150 posts as to why Corsair was chosen and why it FIT the overall theme of being chosen as the "Dextrous" class (as much as I hate to say that). This is all the problem of shoehorning classes to ability scores... and the Class style in Saga was way better, where you have the 5 Classes that fit the 5 distinctive Archetypes of Star Wars with some overlap to some of them, yet distinct, and none of them were tied directly to Attributes, and that is so far the serious limitation of e20, the direct tying to Attributes for Classes. The best generic names for Classes i can think of is Warrior, Sneak/Scout, Thinker/Savant, Face/Envoy. None of them are tied directly to single Attributes, all of them have broad, fairly generic yet distinctive places within a group, and there could be some, but not a lot, of overlap. They are almost as generic as d20Modern classes and yet they each tell you exactly what the class possibilities can be. Forcing classes to be linked to Attributes, bad idea.
Re: e20 Core Classes
I would argue that there was an explanation why everything else for the DEX class was just as bad, not that "corsair" had a very solid supporting argument, but that's just me.
 Ask yourself this, aren't these class names better than:
Because that's essentially what they are. - fo diggity
Re: e20 Core Classes
These I like. I get what they are, what they could be, without them being too bland OR genre-specific.
Re: e20 Core Classes
Between the two: no. Both do what they day on the tin, one set sounds a little more exotic. Same spam, different tin.
Re: e20 Core Classes
I'm partial to the four-class spread myself (warrior, scout, expert, social-person). I may have even suggested something myself. I can't remember--I often think of something without sharing and then assume I told someone because I spent so much internal dialogue on it. And darn it, I can't come up with a good social person name.
Re: e20 Core Classes
Points I favor:
1) Classes designed around a broad archetype, which grant access to various trees of traits/talents/feats/whatever ya call them. Number should be between 4 and 6. 2) No 3e-style Lego brick multiclassing. If a class is designed around access to restricted talent trees, multi-classing should be based around feats/enhancements that allow access to other classes' trees. 3) No single stat focused classes. I personally feels it forces the archetypes a little too much, which is why there's so much trouble giving names to the "Strong" class and the "Fast" class. Right now, I'm favoring the 4 class spread, each with talents based on 3 different stats. I'm going to use Firefly for examples, because, really, if e20 can't do Firefly, what was the point?  Soldier - The bruiser, the infantry, the martial artist. Characters with this archetype may have other abilities, but they're always the first to step up in a conflict. Talents based on Strength, Constitution and Intelligence. Examples: Jayne, River. Envoy - The fast-talker, the negotiator, the strategist. Characters with this archetype can hold their own, but their first instinct is to find ways to maneuver out of trouble. They often end up in a leadership role. Talents based on Charisma, Wisdom, and Strength. Examples, Mal, Shepherd Book. Savant - The scholar, the techie, the mastermind. Characters with this archetype are the masters of their chosen field. Usually the last ones in during a fight, they can nonetheless be formidable opponents due to their quick wits. Talents based on Intelligence, Dexterity, and Wisdom. Examples: Simon, Kaylee. Expert - The wheelman, the infiltrator, the lieutenant. Characters with this archetype are the masters of necessity. Experts impress not through sheer prowess, but with casual competence that makes everything look easy. Talents based on Constitution, Dexterity, and Charisma. Examples: Wash, Zoe.
Re: e20 Core Classes
I agree. Personally I don't care about the names but I don't see why 6 classes are necessary.
Why not just have them fill niches instead of one for each ability score? I like the talents and the way the classes work but the 6 classes just seems artificial. I'm repeating some of you but 4 or 5 classes sound do sound better. Soldier Noble/face, etc. Savant - techie, mage, etc... Rogue/scout/expert (I could see splitting rogue and scout though...) Sounds good. But then again where would we place the monk and priest?
Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest |
