Classes for futuristic science fantasy world

[ThoughtBubble]

Again, I rather like that the classes are based per attribute. However, you don't need to have a high strength score to be a strong hero (the attribute isn't defining). Rather, it's a bit more of a style thing. A strong hero is a guy who is good at all around knocking the crap out of things or pulling out extra muscle. He isn't necessarrally a huge bodybuilder, and he doesn't have to have a high strength.

I have fun statting up people as D20Modern characters when I'm watching something. Not necessarrally doing the numbers, but putting together the base classes they've taken, and in what ratio.

So, Techno, why get rid of the Strong and Fast heroes? I'm instantly wary because that leaves a hole in the ability to multi-class a concept out.

 

[tecnowraith]

Again, I rather like that the classes are based per attribute. However, you don't need to have a high strength score to be a strong hero (the attribute isn't defining). Rather, it's a bit more of a style thing. A strong hero is a guy who is good at all around knocking the crap out of things or pulling out extra muscle. He isn't necessarrally a huge bodybuilder, and he doesn't have to have a high strength.

I have fun statting up people as D20Modern characters when I'm watching something. Not necessarrally doing the numbers, but putting together the base classes they've taken, and in what ratio.

So, Techno, why get rid of the Strong and Fast heroes? I'm instantly wary because that leaves a hole in the ability to multi-class a concept out.

I never liked that concept for D20 Modern and it really does not fit my world. My is on another planet or world and it's not part of your typical fantasy or D&D cosmology. I did like the 10 level progession though for D20 Modern.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

So, you're saying that you don't like multi-classing, or don't like people who are good at offence/damage?

 

[Davelozzi]

hmm interesting no replies?

You might get more responses if you put your question in the thread title. A title like "what's better?" doesn't exactly reach out and grab someone as an interesting topic.

That said, I'm here now and I think both classes have their merits. The D&D classes are more interesting, but obviously suited to the fantasy genre. The d20 Modern classes are good for a more generic system intended to be used in a variety of genres, and so are great for d20 Modern. But in a game designed for a more specifc genre, even a modern one, more specific classes are better, in my opinion. For example, if I was running an espionage campaign, I'd rather use the classes in Spycraft than the ablility based classes in Modern.

 

[tecnowraith]

You might get more responses if you put your question in the thread title. A title like "what's better?" doesn't exactly reach out and grab someone as an interesting topic.

That said, I'm here now and I think both classes have their merits. The D&D classes are more interesting, but obviously suited to the fantasy genre. The d20 Modern classes are good for a more generic system intended to be used in a variety of genres, and so are great for d20 Modern. But in a game designed for a more specifc genre, even a modern one, more specific classes are better, in my opinion. For example, if I was running an espionage campaign, I'd rather use the classes in Spycraft than the ablility based classes in Modern.

Ok but would you keep it at 20 levels or do the 10 levels?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Seperate but Equal.

The d20 Modern classes are flexible, and not definate. They are broad, sweeping archetypes within which a lot of specific focuses are viable (the Advanced Classes). They are better for games in which chracters are versatile, broad, and capable of focusing later in their carreers. When class selection isn't one of the defining charactaristics of the character.

d20 Fantasy classes are definate. They are narrow, specific archetypes within which specific focuses can help differentiate individuals. They are better for games in which each character has an essential niche, and where class selection, from level 1, establishes a kind of play style.

You may want to wait for d20 Future, coming out at the end of this year. I'm sure WotC will make a choice.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

There are advantages to both...

...but I have to say that when it comes down to it I really prefer something like the classes from Star Wars.

The attribute classes are cool and I'm almost tempted to keep them, or some of them, as an option in any campaign world, but flavored classes actually give you an idea of how the world works and who/what is working in it.

The 3.5 classes work as a sort of generic flavor, but I think Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed pretty well demonstrated how much flavor that genre had.

So my conclusion is:

If you're a DM consider using the D20 Modern Attribute based classes.

If you're a World Builder then you should create something like the flavored classes of Star Wars, Oriental Adventures, or DnD.

 

[tecnowraith]

...but I have to say that when it comes down to it I really prefer something like the classes from Star Wars.

The attribute classes are cool and I'm almost tempted to keep them, or some of them, as an option in any campaign world, but flavored classes actually give you an idea of how the world works and who/what is working in it.

The 3.5 classes work as a sort of generic flavor, but I think Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed pretty well demonstrated how much flavor that genre had.

So my conclusion is:

If you're a DM consider using the D20 Modern Attribute based classes.

If you're a World Builder then you should create something like the flavored classes of Star Wars, Oriental Adventures, or DnD.

I am a World Builder so do flavored 20 level classes than Flavored 10 level classes.

 

[Snoweel]

I am a World Builder so do flavored 20 level classes than Flavored 10 level classes.

Make everyone a commoner and offer 3-level prestige classes.

 

[tecnowraith]

Make everyone a commoner and offer 3-level prestige classes.

Umm why??