d20 Modern: What Would you change part II

[Psion]

I am strongly in favor of keeping classes in some form, and that those classes should have a meaningful theme. One of the big reasons I disdain True20 is that the classes seem too generic.

I agree that you could find a name better than "fightin' guy" for a class, but when you consider how players think about the role a character is going to play in a party, that's what it boils down to.

I do like classes to have more meaningful flavor than is presented in D20 modern. Etherscope is a great example.

 

[Vigilance]

I am strongly in favor of keeping classes in some form, and that those classes should have a meaningful theme. One of the big reasons I disdain True20 is that the classes seem too generic.

I agree that you could find a name better than "fightin' guy" for a class, but when you consider how players think about the role a character is going to play in a party, that's what it boils down to.

I do like classes to have more meaningful flavor than is presented in D20 modern. Etherscope is a great example.

Occupations and Backgrounds is where most of the flavor will come from in the rules Im writing. I think there's plenty of flavor in the Assassin occupation I posted above.

The fact that you can bolt that onto 6 different classes seems like a feature, not a bug, to me.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I think Modern could have used a little more tweaking in terms of BAB. I think either more classes should have gotten 1/1 or NO classes got 1/1. Giving Melee Guy both good BAB and flat damage bonuses did some wonky things for making melee combat occasionally superior to ranged combat.

I think a reason I like multiple "classes" for it is the nature of "classes". Classes should give you a balanced breakfast of Attack Bonus, Defense Bonus, Hit Points, Save Bonuses, and Skill Points. It's hard to balance all of those against themselves in one class that somehow can get either Good Attack, Good Defense, Good Damage Absorption, or Good Survival ... it's hard to tweak "Choose Two" with one class, where you can balance three classes against those statistics while offering the chance to blend.

I think one of the sticky wickets with d20 BAB progressions is the lack of fractional BAB tracking. So that, in Modern, you're rather heavily penalized for what should be something that is encouraged. It adds some complexity, but I tend to call out +0.25, +o.75, etc and add from there.

--fje

 

[iwatt]

I think one of the sticky wickets with d20 BAB progressions is the lack of fractional BAB tracking. So that, in Modern, you're rather heavily penalized for what should be something that is encouraged. It adds some complexity, but I tend to call out +0.25, +o.75, etc and add from there.

--fje

Yup, fractional saves and removing the first level save boost are a great fix to the save/BAB/Defense mechanic.

 

[Vigilance]

I think Modern could have used a little more tweaking in terms of BAB. I think either more classes should have gotten 1/1 or NO classes got 1/1. Giving Melee Guy both good BAB and flat damage bonuses did some wonky things for making melee combat occasionally superior to ranged combat.

I think a reason I like multiple "classes" for it is the nature of "classes". Classes should give you a balanced breakfast of Attack Bonus, Defense Bonus, Hit Points, Save Bonuses, and Skill Points. It's hard to balance all of those against themselves in one class that somehow can get either Good Attack, Good Defense, Good Damage Absorption, or Good Survival ... it's hard to tweak "Choose Two" with one class, where you can balance three classes against those statistics while offering the chance to blend.

I think one of the sticky wickets with d20 BAB progressions is the lack of fractional BAB tracking. So that, in Modern, you're rather heavily penalized for what should be something that is encouraged. It adds some complexity, but I tend to call out +0.25, +o.75, etc and add from there.

--fje

Hmmm. That's interesting.

I have been pondering in my head (cause I'm still writing up the large number of occupations the game will have) whether ANY class that doesn't get spells should have a low BAB.

I'm leaning toward no at the moment.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

How do you determine who gets spells?

I like the BAB gradations, but I wish there was a more elegant system for fractional progression. Or at least a more elegant description there-of that would be simple for people to pick up.

--fje

 

[Vigilance]

How do you determine who gets spells?

I'm saying without spells being a part of the campaign, I don't anything else a class could get is worth a low BAB.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Which is an interesting design philosophy.

That begins with the assumption of effectiveness in combat being a general prerequisite for the adventurous soul. Though it does raise the question of what sets the "combat guy" apart from the "skills nerd" if both are equally adept at basic fighting skill?

Not that I disagree that leveling a basic BAB is necessarily a BAD choice. I could see where all classes get 1/1 Attack Bonus with combat characters receiving talents and access to feats that generally increase their combat effectiveness to differentiate them from the skills nerds.

--fje

 

[Vigilance]

Which is an interesting design philosophy.

That begins with the assumption of effectiveness in combat being a general prerequisite for the adventurous soul. Though it does raise the question of what sets the "combat guy" apart from the "skills nerd" if both are equally adept at basic fighting skill?

Not that I disagree that leveling a basic BAB is necessarily a BAD choice. I could see where all classes get 1/1 Attack Bonus with combat characters receiving talents and access to feats that generally increase their combat effectiveness to differentiate them from the skills nerds.

--fje

Well, Muscle, the BAB specialist, has feats available to give him a better than 1/1 BAB. But mostly the difference will be better BAB (Muscle), better Def (Speed) and better HP (Tank).

But basically, when I think of "skill guy" I think McGuyver. When I think Charismatic Guy, I think Face from the A-team.

They weren't front-line fighters, but they weren't wimpy liabilities either.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Of course then the problem comes that you can no longer model somebody who wants to play somebody that IS a wimpy fighter.

But that's not necessarily a defect, again. One of the reasons I like classed systems is the class framework mandates a certain minimum efficacy level. Where-as in a freeform system you might be able to make a character that has 0 combat effectiveness, it then comes down to the GM having to deal with greater width of variance in his planning ... I.E. the skill nerd will always have +(Amazing) to skill checks, so challenges for skills become utterly unreachable by anyone but him, while the combat brick will always have +(Amazing) to combat or HP or whatever and any combat designed to be challenging for that character becomes unbearably lethal for anyone else in the party who takes part.

A universal 1/1 BAB then forces changes to how Defense progresses.

--fje