Class Design poll

[The Shaman]

I started working on advanced classes for a d20 Modern game - I had fifteen advenced classes and plans for at least three prestige classes.

Then I said #@%^&+ it and decided to use Mutants and Masterminds instead, lazy sod that I am.

I had two ideas in mind: first, to emulate the two-AdCs-per-base-class model of the core rules, and second, to cover all of the archetypes for the campaign setting. The character archetypes that I came up with exceeded 12 AdCs, so the first point went by the wayside, though I still have at least two AdCs per base class. The second point I think is much more important: what do your AdCs offer your campaign that can't be achieved through the base classes and talent trees? That's what I was working on at the time I chucked it.

 

[Turanil]

I'm using the 10 level Base classes, 10 level Advanced classes and 5 level prestige classes. To match the D20 modern style of class design. I was going to add two new base classes (based upon the two additional attributes in T20), 30 Advanced classes and 16 prestige classes. Too many, not enough, Thom is insane?

Tjoneslo, I don't understand what's your intent. As shortly explained here, it seems you try to rewrite d20 Modern as is. Why bother in such a case? Well, can you tell us why exactly you want to rewrite; what's to be different? Myself I always found there were too much classes with rogue bab. See: the Soldier (d20m) has the same bab as the Ambassador (d20f); isn't that ludicrous?

 

[tjoneslo]

The second point I think is much more important: what do your AdCs offer your campaign that can't be achieved through the base classes and talent trees? That's what I was working on at the time I chucked it.

That is a good question. I don't have a good game mechanic reason for prefering few classes/many talent trees vs many classes. I've co-opted the Prestige class idea of the character joining an organization to be a part of the class. For example, Imperial Line Marine as a class. So there is a in-game, roleplaying reason for the class even if the feat/skill set largely overlaps with another class (e.g. the Imperal Army soldier). Is this sufficient reason to have many AdCs?

 

[Christopher Lambert]

That is a good question. I don't have a good game mechanic reason for prefering few classes/many talent trees vs many classes. I've co-opted the Prestige class idea of the character joining an organization to be a part of the class. For example, Imperial Line Marine as a class. So there is a in-game, roleplaying reason for the class even if the feat/skill set largely overlaps with another class (e.g. the Imperal Army soldier). Is this sufficient reason to have many AdCs?

I don't see those as a good reason for creating an AdC.

How is an Imperial Army soldier different from a Soldier? Do they get some special kind of training that other soldiers don't get? Are those things that could be better used as feat, because I have a hard time picturing no one else learning those training methods (or, worse, someone defecting from the Imperial Army and teaching those techniques). Most likely some other body has learned at least some of those techniques.

Same thing for the Imperial Line Marine. The Soldier class can already cover Army soldiers, Marines, SWAT, snipers and lots of similar concepts. It seems to me both of those AdCs are better covered by using the Allegiance system.

Myself I always found there were too much classes with rogue bab. See: the Soldier (d20m) has the same bab as the Ambassador (d20f); isn't that ludicrous?

Seems to me the problem is the Ambassador. D20 Future has lots of unbalanced AdCs; just look at the Field Officer and especially the Tracer.

 

[tjoneslo]

I don't see those as a good reason for creating an AdC.

How about for creating prestige classes?

 

[Vigilance]

tj I think it depends on what your goal is.

If you're trying to make a d20F version of T20 then you should probably try to replicate as many of the classes as you can.

If you just want a d20F game that works in the Traveller universe... then you could probably get rid of a lot of the T20 classes as either redundant with the d20M/F classes or redundant with each other.

Chuck

 

[Christopher Lambert]

How about for creating prestige classes?

Maybe. I'm not too familiar with D20 Modern/Future prestige classes. The only ones I've liked are the SpecOp and the Mastermind (and the latter only for limited purposes).

 

[tjoneslo]

tj I think it depends on what your goal is.

If you're trying to make a d20F version of T20 then you should probably try to replicate as many of the classes as you can.

If you just want a d20F game that works in the Traveller universe... then you could probably get rid of a lot of the T20 classes as either redundant with the d20M/F classes or redundant with each other.

In other words, do I want the classes to reflect the setting or the setting to reflect the classes. Well, since I have a 25 year old setting I really like, the classes get changed.

Thank you all for your advice, it was very helpful.

 

[HellHound]

I voted for the first, although I really feel that the six core classes are too many - we have cut down to a single core class for our games, with many talent trees.