Core Classes: More or Less? General or Specific? Static or Customizable?

[Psion]

Depends on what you consider the feel of D&D to be; lots of folks say that CoC d20 feels like D&D.

I would wager most people who say that have never played it.

 

[Psion]

Regarding special abilities, it seems like it's a major point of contention. Are rangers stealthy? Are they monster slayers? Are they archers? Are they two-weapon wielders? Paladins. Do they have mounts? Do they all have to turn undead? Do they all have to have remove disease?

This is why I adopted Green Ronin's Holy Warrior and relpaced ranger combat styles with bonus feats.

 

[Phibes]

I would wager most people who say that have never played it.

I would have to agree with that statement!

 

[Psion]

10 Feats per character class? Hardly! Look at the Wizard, and try to turn him into the Fighter... How many Martial Weapons are there, at one Feat each?

This is a ridiculous line of thinking. After the first martial weapon, each additional martial weapon is NOT worth a feat.

(Incidentally, I have a background feat in my game that allows the character to select three martial weapon proficiencies for the cost of a feat if it is appropriate to the character's home race/region.)

 

[jmucchiello]

While I love D&D/d20 I have always been a big fan of class-less systems (like GURPS) for the unlimited character costumization possible. On the other hand, the sheer number of choices available would be daunting for new players, so some sort of middle ground would be preferable.

I think every ability, including spellcasting etc., should be 'bought' at character creation and when you gain a level you can 'buy' whatever you like (and the DM allows.) The classes should be 'standard archetype packages' that new players can choose, which gives them every ability they need, and tells them how it works, including the standard choices to pick when you level up.

This way experienced players can costumize as much as they like, and new players can jump right in, by chosing one of the 'standard archetype packages.'

Every time one of these threads pops up, someone goes here and I try to send them to my book: Character Customization. So consider the book plugged. CC's main customization of classes is to chunk the abilities into larger quantities than feats called tracks and allow you to mix and match them. Give it a try if you like to mess with classes. It's 3.0 only at the moment. Those changes to 3.5 are hard to integrate but I will get them out eventually and for free to current owners.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

Actually, the idea of a "d20 Fantasy" or "d20 Medieval/Ancient" sounds quite appealing. Core classes could be a bit more set in abilities (typical archetypes like fighter, mage, rogue, etc., rather than the stat-based d20 Modern abstract core classes such as Strong Hero, Fast Hero, Smart Hero, etc.), but otherwise could be very flexible in creating various kinds/concepts of characters. Thus a "d20 Fantasy Fighter" could select feats to start off just like a D&D Fighter, or spend some of those feats to go with a different concept (an archer, a Finesse-focused warrior/swashbuckler/duelist, a woodsman/tracker/hunter/ranger, a knight/samurai/noble warrior, etc.).

The basic core races (but not subraces) could be listed/provided, as well as guidelines for creating/adapting new races for the game (including determining whether or not a race would start off with a +0 level adjustment or a +1 or higher LA).

On top of that, "d20 Fantasy" could provide "Occupation" modifiers &/or "Region" modifiers (much like the Regions in FRCS, or Occupations from d20 Modern). This way, a PC can have a noble background, a rural background, a jungle dweller background, etc., without having to create a new race, class, or PrC to cover it.

A basic Alliegiance system (ala d20 Modern) could be used, as well as guidelines for using something a bit more stone (ala Alignment) or different (ala OA's Honor).

And, a few other options could be listed throughout the book (Defense bonuses per class for low-magic campaigns; Action Points for more heroic games; VP/WP for more "harsher combat" games; etc.) to cover different styles of play & different campaigns (even though some of these things may pop up for D&D in Unearthed Arcana, it's adding these elements onto the existing D&D framework, whereas "d20 Fantasy" would have a different framework from the ground up).

Thus, "d20 Fantasy" could be a simple system that can be used to easily adapt to various games/settings (which could or couldn't fit into the D&D mold). It could be a small line--maybe 1 to 3 sourcebooks--and existing D&D material could easily be brought over to it if need be (not necessarily classes or PrCs, per se, but monsters, feats, spells, races, etc., could be).

It'd be a nice option to see available. And who knows--maybe it'd be more inticing for other companies/publishers to license & use for their own games/settings.

 

[MerricB]

So the monk shouldn't be included because you don't use it in your campaigns? Am I getting this right?

Absolutely!

Look, if Gary Gygax's campaign was the standard for AD&D, why can't my campaign be the standard for 4E?

In truth, I use the monk in some of my Greyhawk games, and not in others - based purely on the region of the game. I think that the monk works in D&D, and is worth including. However, it is the one class that doesn't quite fit into the mainly occidental mythology that D&D draws upon. So, I can see an argument for not including it in the core rules.

I say it stays.

Cheers!

 

[Tonguez]

Reply to above

Wizard
1 Simple Weapons
2 Summon Familiar
3 Scribe Scroll
4 Spellbook
5 School Specialisation
6 Spell Slot 0
7 Spell Slot 0
8 Spell Slot 0
9/10 Spell Slot (Lvl 1)

I admit that calculating the DnD Magic system is the hard task - but Spells are already reffered to as 'Feats of Magic' in the core rules"D

Fighter
1 HD + 2 (3-6)
2 HD + 2 (5-8)
3 HD + 2 (7-10)
4 Simple Weapons
5 Martial Weapons
6 Armour
7 Armour
8 Armour
9 Shields
10 Bonus Feat

So He's only got one Martial Weapon - but really how many does one person need at first level? NB I always thought aptitude with all weapons was silly anyway

Rogue
1 HD +2
2 Skills Training
3 Skills Training
4 Simple Weapons
5 Specialty Weapons
6 Armour: Light
7 Dodge
8 Evasion
9 Sneak Attack
10 Trap Finding

Ranger
1 HD +2
2 HD +2
3 Simple Weapons
4 Martial Weapons
5 Light Armour
6 Shields
7 Skills Training
8 Favoured enemy
9 Track
10 Wild Empathy

 

[Gez]

lots of folks say that CoC d20 feels like D&D.

I say that CoC BRP feels like Hawkmoon. And ElfQuest. Yeah, it feels like ElfQuest. And like Glorantha, too.

While CoC d20 feels like D&D, Wheel of Time, Judge Dredd, d20 Modern, and Star Wars d20. Oh, and like Mutants & Masterminds too.


And you know, either all this is true, or all this is false. Or both at the same time. After all, they all feel like RPGs...

 

[ciaran00]

I have to say, I really do hate generic classes (like "Adventurer"... I am an Adventurer. I go on Adventures. Did you want to go on an Adventure with me?)

I also really hate specific classes (like Paladin. I am a Good person. I want to do Good things. Did you want to go do Good things with me?)

ciaran