d20 Modern: What Would you change part II

[Jackelope King]

Vigilance, something I've had some degree of success with thus far in my own little ruleset design was to simply fold the concept of knowledge checks into most of the other skills. For example, something like Knowledge (Nature) was subsumed into Survival, and Knowledge (Technology) became part of the Technology skill (which also encompassed Computers, among other things).

In essence, it lets a group fudge things and assume that if you have practical knowledge of something, then you also likely have some theoretical knowledge of it too. No more rolling your eyes when the local gearhead has all the ranks in Craft he needs to do his job, but can't pass a Knowledge check about his field to save his life, or for a more D&D-centric example, chuckling when the Ranger succeeds on his Survival check to know that those berries are poisonous only to respond with "I dunno" when asked what kind of berries they are.

 

[Sketchpad]

Personally, I'd take a page from d20 CoC and use one class that could be hyper modified with Talent Trees ala SWSE.

 

[Vigilance]

Vigilance, something I've had some degree of success with thus far in my own little ruleset design was to simply fold the concept of knowledge checks into most of the other skills. For example, something like Knowledge (Nature) was subsumed into Survival, and Knowledge (Technology) became part of the Technology skill (which also encompassed Computers, among other things).

In essence, it lets a group fudge things and assume that if you have practical knowledge of something, then you also likely have some theoretical knowledge of it too. No more rolling your eyes when the local gearhead has all the ranks in Craft he needs to do his job, but can't pass a Knowledge check about his field to save his life, or for a more D&D-centric example, chuckling when the Ranger succeeds on his Survival check to know that those berries are poisonous only to respond with "I dunno" when asked what kind of berries they are.

For the most part that's what I did. Life sciences is part of medicine, physical sciences is part of Engineering, etc.

Also, Academics, my version of the knowledge skill, can be made more useful, because you can use a perk to have it apply to multiple skills.

 

[Vigilance]

Hey guys, just wanted to drop a line that playtesting is continuing, and that there's an assortment of new, higher level NPCs up for those interested in seeing how the characters are developing and how my players' strategies are evolving as they get to know the rules better.

 

[Baduin]

I have one suggestion. Get rid of the Tank class. That is one of the most unfortunate inventions peculiar to RPG games - a character who wants to be hit. The only literary character who wants to be hit is the hero of "Venus in furs" by baron von Sacher-Masoch - and he isn't a resilient brute. In fact, he is remarkably wimpy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_in_Furs

On the other hand, there is a great deal of literary characters who are improbably resilient. Amber Diceless made me realize that - since Corwin has there Enduranceas his main ability. They are in fact exactly such characters - Corwin himself, most of Zelazny heroes, Philip Marlowe, hero of Die Hard films, even Indiana Jones, many heroes of MacLean etc.

They are not bullet proof and don't want to get hit. Get rid of Damage Reduction and Energy Resistance. But they are able to heal quicker, to fight even when wounded etc. Something like Second Wind from Saga would be better. They are also lucky - extra Action Points would be quite proper, or perhaps extra uses for Action Points.

They are emphatically not stupid muscle-bound brutes. You have Strong hero for that, anyway, and there is no need for a second class which is essentially the same. They are the most versatile characters. They are not specialized in any skill, but can do virtually anything if necessary. Some general bonus to all skills, or ability to gain a temporary competence in a skill (but only moderate competence) would reflect this well.

In short, this type of hero is best shown in a class like Factotum in D&D, not tanking classes from MMORPGs. The actor you should think of is Bogart, not Schwartzenegger.

 

[Vigilance]

Thanks for the input, but... (and you knew there was going to be one)

I disagree entirely on there being no characters in literature who want to get hit.

Colossus is the character who takes hits that would level many of the X-men such as Storm or Nightcrawler.

In fact, you could insert the Brick from any super hero team into that sentence, followed by two physically weaker members of the team.

Goliath for Scarlet Witch, Wonder Man for Wasp, etc.

Also, what is a Bodyguard/Secret Service Agent?

I'd also put John McClean (I think that's his name), the lead character from the Die Hard movies in this category. His defining characteristic to me is soaking up TONS of punishment.

And finally, there is the iconic pulp boxer with the iron jaw, who absorbs tremendous punishment while winning the boxing match.

The character who is physically resilient and soaks up punishment is much more of a literary icon than you seem to be aware of.

Finally, I don't see the Powerhouse and the Tank as being redundant at all. More like two sides of the same coin.

In fact, I see the Powerhouse, Speedfreak and Tank as being three sides of the same coin (ok, a non-euclidean coin but still).

They're all three combat specialists who get the job done in different ways. Wolverine, Nightcrawler, Colossus.

And yes, that's another X-men reference, but I honestly find comics a better template for RPGs than most other types of fiction.

Most novels and films, for instance, are based around the lone hero.

Whereas comics frequently feature large groups where each character has a role to fill.

 

[Baduin]

I read a book about the ways to detect lies. Apparently according to some research policemen are not better at detecting lies than normal people. Only Secret Service agents had a clear advantage - because they have to constantly observe the crowd. They have to look for a man who will draw a weapon and react before he shoots, so they must be able to detect his intention from his face.

In fact, Secret Service agents are not selected because they are impervious to bullets. They must have iron nerve, perfect aim and a sixth sense. Perhaps you have sometimes to throw yourself on a grenade - but it is not because you are sure you will survive.

And I hope we are not speaking about Mutants&Masterminds here? A superhero invulnerable to bullets is quite popular, but normal men generally have to do without that remarkable ability.

An iron-jawed boxer has certainly a high Constitution. But why a separate class should be necessary for him? Why should he have skills different from another strong, but glass-jawed boxer? Constitution bonus to hit-points shows the difference nicely.

The characters who keep going regardless of situation are certainly popular - I think I mentioned some. Wolverine is a good example - although you need to remember that his invulnerability is due to supermetal and superpowers, not training. On the other hand, he certainly doesn't seem to be unskilled or stupid, I think? I would dare to say that he is quite competent. Similarly Batman, or Bond in the latest film. Both are good examples of a character class I would wish to see.

The examples of that archetypes usually aren't mountains of muscle. In fact, among normal men the highest Constitution should be typical for a marathon runners etc. They don't look like they are invulnerable to bullets.

That is why I think that the present Tough Hero or Tank class should be partially removed and partially combined with Strong Hero.

But I think there is a need of another class, both resilient and skilled. There is no lack of archetypes for it. I think a generalist who is able to do something in any situation, and who can keep going when all others lack either endurance or ideas should also be useful in a party. He could call such an archetype Hard-baked, Survivor, Die-hard or something similar.

 

[Vigilance]

I really have no clue where you got the idea that the Tank wasn't going to be skilled.

I basically took a page from Grim Tales, which took the 6 base classes (each based on ability score) and extended them to 20 levels.

That seemed real popular with folks (one of those folks being me), and as I thought about it more, I realized how many characters you could model with classes based on the 6 attributes, turned into archetypes based on party roles.

But I never meant to imply that the tank was dumb.

I basically have three variations on the combat specialist, and three variations on the skill specialist.

There might not NEED to be 6 classes, but that was the route that felt most natural to me for a variety of reasons.

Also, I think you're missing how modifiable these 6 archetypes are.

You get to pick a background, an occupation, a hobby, a class, feats and character disadvantages.

You can also change your class after 1st level through multi-classing, and change your occupation.

So the classes are far from being a straight-jacket.

They're just there to do what classes SHOULD do (in my opinion): that is, provide party roles, niches that help smooth the process of creating a balanced party.

One of those niches, both in games and fiction, as you yourself pointed out, is "dude who can really suck up damage".

I feel that's a perfectly legitimate niche for building a class around.

I agree there's plenty of other archetypes I could have used, including a "generalist" archetype.

However, my personal experience is that players prefer a strongly defined niche from a class over something general. I count this as the reason no one can write a Bard class that folks are happy with.

So I went with "fighter who is good at pressing the attack", "fighter who is good at avoiding damage", "fighter who sucks up damage", "tech-based skill guy", "skill guy with great saves" and "skill guy who knows how to get folks to see his way/leader guy".

These types of options are so popular in games, we see them in games that don't even HAVE classes.

For example, Fallout assumes players will tend to fall into "melee combat boy", "ranged combat boy", "stealth boy" and "charisma boy".

Now sure, that's 4 archetypes not 6, but variety is the spice of life.

 

[iwatt]

But I think there is a need of another class, both resilient and skilled. There is no lack of archetypes for it. I think a generalist who is able to do something in any situation, and who can keep going when all others lack either endurance or ideas should also be useful in a party. He could call such an archetype Hard-baked, Survivor, Die-hard or something similar.

But isn't that what multiclassing is for?

Most Indy builds I have seen are Tough-Smart (Tank-Brainiac). Indy is a smart guy who also happens to have a high resiliency. He isn't the msot skilled combatant, or the strongest, or the fastest. But he's tough and he's smart. And lucky

Most Die-Hard builds I've seen are Tough-Charismatic (Tank-Star), or Tough-Dedicated (Tank-Empath). And if you saw how he defeats the hot kungfu chick or the main bad guy in Die Hard 4.0, you see a guy who definitely uses his toughness to his advantage.

Spoiler

He freaking shoots through himself for pete's sake! And I want a class that represents that

 

[Vigilance]

I so need to see that movie.