[d20 Modern] New starting occupation: Feral

[The Shaman]

(Want to play Tarzan or Mowgli? Here's a starting occupation for you.)

Feral
Raised by wolves…or orangutans…or dingoes, feral characters were cared for by animals as children, and retain certain affinities as a result of the experience.

Prerequisite: Age 15+
Skills: Choose three of the following skills as permanent class skills. If a skill you select is already a class skill, you receive a +1 competence bonus on checks using that skill.
Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Handle Animal, Hide, Intimidate, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, Ride, Sense Motive, Spot, Survival, Swim, Treat Injury, Tumble
Bonus Feat: Select one of the following: Alertness, Animal Affinity, Brawl, Run, Toughness, Track
Wealth Bonus Decrease: -3

(Comments would be welcome.)

 

[jaker2003]

There is a Feral Template in the Savage Species book that might be more appropriate.

 

[The Shaman]

There is a Feral Template in the Savage Species book that might be more appropriate.

If you're not familiar with d20 Modern, starting occupations generally provide a bonus feat, a few class skills, and sometimes a Wealth or Reputation bonus - they have nothing to do with creature templates.

Starting occupations are detailed in the Modern SRD if you're interested in learning more.

 

[jaker2003]

oh, thnx

 

[Hashmalum]

IIRC, Ravenloft 3E had a Feral Rearing feat that could only be taken at first level that served a similar purpose. The interesting thing about the feat, though, is that it actually changed the character's creature type to animal! This mean, of course, that the character would be unaffected by things like charm person and the like. Would this be as much of an advantage in d20 Modern?

 

[The Shaman]

IIRC, Ravenloft 3E had a Feral Rearing feat that could only be taken at first level that served a similar purpose. The interesting thing about the feat, though, is that it actually changed the character's creature type to animal! This mean, of course, that the character would be unaffected by things like charm person and the like. Would this be as much of an advantage in d20 Modern?

It depends - one of the things about d20 Modern is that it can be used to create so many different kinds of games. I've created three different campaigns so far using the Modern rules: one based on 1970s cop movies (The French Connection, Serpico, Dirty Harry, &c.), one loosely inspired by The Nocturnals comic book, and a Sidewinder: Recoiled Wild West game (that also use the Modern SRD). The first and last had no magic or psionics (called "FX" in Modern) while the second has psionics, bioengineered supersoldiers, necromancers, incantations, and undead!

Note that the default Modern game does not include FX - magic-using and/or psionic classes are considered optional, and can be added in or not depending on the campaign setting.

The Feral Rearing feat would be an interesting addition to an FX-heavy game, and it would indeed be fun to change a character to the Animal subtype as you suggested. The Feral starting occupation I wrote is for a d20 Modern/Past campaign I'm developing based on African exploration in the 1860s - it's inspired by the fiction of Edgar Rice Burroughs, C.J. Cutliffe Hyne, H. Rider Haggard, Rudyard Kipling, and Joseph Conrad as well as the real-life explorers of Africa such as David Livingstone, Henry Morton Stanley, Richard Francis Burton, Samuel Baker, John Speke, and so on.

I can't have a fantastic Africa without a lord of the jungle, now can I?

 

[Angel Tarragon]

never mind.

 

[arscott]

If you're doing a tarzan/dr. livingstone campaign, then a feat that gives you animal type would probably confer a disadvantage. After all, you're going to want your tarzans and your jungle shamans to have animal influencing abilities.

My only gripe with the occupation, it that it has a negative wealth modifier. I've never seen an occupation that does that. And remember that the wealth bonus is flexible enough to cover barter goods and such. It might be better to get rid of the negative wealth bonus and instead impose specific limits on starting equipment.

 

[The Shaman]

If you're doing a tarzan/dr. livingstone campaign, then a feat that gives you animal type would probably confer a disadvantage. After all, you're going to want your tarzans and your jungle shamans to have animal influencing abilities.

Yeah, I wouldn't go with that either for the Feral starting occupation or the for the game I'm running at all - my campaign will be too low magic for that.

But I could see the animal subtype thing from Ravenloft in a higher magic game easily.

My only gripe with the occupation, it that it has a negative wealth modifier. I've never seen an occupation that does that. And remember that the wealth bonus is flexible enough to cover barter goods and such. It might be better to get rid of the negative wealth bonus and instead impose specific limits on starting equipment.

This is kinda funny in a way - when I posted this on the WotC boards a few weeks ago, I had a few posters tell me that I should reduce the Wealth bonus to zero outright - in fact, when I first statted it, I set it at -2 and was chided for having it too low.

The Wealth penalty is intended to be distinctive - the offset is supposed to be the selection of bonus feats available.

Thank you for the feedback!