Are we sure we need a skill guy?

[MoogleEmpMog]

I wouldn't mind seeing skills decoupled from a character's combat role. Actually, that would be pretty spiffy.

If starting from scratch, I would also be inclined to pare combat roles down to:

Ally Status Changer
Damage Dealer
Damage Soaker
Enemy Status Changer

Probably with ten classes (one 'pure' version of each role, and multiclass combinations of each).

Decoupling the skill system from the classes' combat role actually solves the last problem I had with this idea.

 

[Umbran]

Why is there necessarily a difference between the Heavy and Light fighters? Why not take it down one more level of abstraction - there's those who cast spells, and those who don't - Fighter, Caster.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

How about just Fighter/Warrior & Caster/Adept? These are, IMHO, the only two classes you really need.

If you make BAB, Saves, & spell casting skill-based (or skill-&-feat based), then you only need one class.

After talking over the options for my own d20 variant with my group, that was the direction they seemed most interested in. (I still lost interest in developing it after a few weeks, though...) Of course, when going that direction, you need to be able to answer the question: Why aren't I just using BRP, Gurps, &c.?

A couple of reasons leap to mind.

1. Power Level. BRP and Gurps both default to a 'gritty' power level that doesn't work for D&D. You could ask 'why not HERO or Mutants & Masterminds,' though.
2. Levels. Levels have a completely different function in game design than classes, and although the two traditionally go together, they don't have to. Even with generic classes or even what amounts to a point-buy system, you may have a valid use for levels.
3. Compatibility. You retain the use of REAMS of d20 material by making your system compatible with it.
4. Thought Process. Some players, particularly those who cut their teeth on 3.x D&D, find it easier to create a character using a skills-and-feats system than a pure point buy.

 

[RFisher]

2. Levels. Levels have a completely different function in game design than classes, and although the two traditionally go together, they don't have to. Even with generic classes or even what amounts to a point-buy system, you may have a valid use for levels.

Right. Levels was one of my big reasons. Also, even with the skills I was adding for combat & saves, I still preferred the shorter d20 skill list to games with longer ones.

 

[Henry]

Why even that? Make it one class - "person" -- and make casting skill or feat-based, too.

By the way, welcome to GURPS.

 

[Voadam]

What if we had only these 3 archetypes:

Heavy Fighter
Light Fighter
Caster

But any of them could have a lot of skills? I mean, what's the real need for the skill guy?

So

Barbarian (4 skill points/level)

Ranger (6 skill points/level)

Beguiler/bard/wizard (6 skill points/level or 2 + high int bonuses)

 

[Ry]

I just think d20 does fighters and casters - as separate groups - really well. But then things get complex as it tries to put these other concepts in as if they were archetypes.

 

[Umbran]

By the way, welcome to GURPS.

Ah, reductio ad absurdum at its best

Thus showing that the issue isn't how many you need. You can play a game without any preset archetypes at all, and it'd function. The question, instead, is how many built-in archetypes you want for the given campaign you want to play.

 

[Alnag]

I just think d20 does fighters and casters - as separate groups - really well. But then things get complex as it tries to put these other concepts in as if they were archetypes.

Well... and aren't they... actually... archetypes. As some of the previous contributors to the discussion pointed out, the question is too wide to be answered properly. The mechanics as they are need the skill-guy, because the were made with the skill guy in mind. But with some tweeking, you probably don't need him.

Does the actual gaming group needs skill guy? It depends. In my game for sure, but I can see the groups, that does not have that problem.

And finally, there is the favorite niche/archetype problem. Is the game about archetypes and niche protection for each player or not.

 

[WayneLigon]

But any of them could have a lot of skills? I mean, what's the real need for the skill guy?

With each of them having lots of skill points, there's not really a point since all of them are 'the skill guy'. Myself, I'd probably prefer that in some ways. It depends on how much you want to emphasize niches and protect class distinctions. Really, there's no good reason for the fighter-types not to learn a few spells and no good reason for the caster not to be able to wear armor, either. Virtually every other RPG on Earth that doesn't intentionally ape D&D does it that way.

The class system quickly becomes replaced with an archetype system, since still no-one can perform all the roles equally well. You take people from a class system and stick them in a non-class system, they go ape and try to be good at everything, then moan about how there is a lack of focus in characters blah blah yadda yadda. If they stick with it, though, they find out that you tend to sort back into various roles almost as if you had classes anyway.

Skills are a nessesary part of the system, though, unless you're just happy going with GM fiat. So, someone will need to make sure they have good skill ranks in certain things; ie, they begin to pre-sort themselves back into roles/archetypes/classes.