d20 Modern: What Would you change part II

[Vigilance]

Here's a crazy idea-- don't have any.

I really, really think classes are integral to the appeal of d20.

Seriously, if you are doing away with talents, the only classes you have are attack guy, hit points guy, defense guy, and skill guy-- maybe saves guy if you're feeling saucy that day. Sure, if you add "Reputation guy" (what a great class that would be), these basically map to the six Modern core classes, but is that a good thing?

Actually, you more or less nailed the direction I'm leaning.

Current working class names are Muscle, Speed, Tank, Brains, Empath and Star.

If talents are just feats for specialized roles, it seems like the rationale for getting rid of them is that Modern characters do not necessarily conform to the extremely focused archetypes that Fantasy characters do. If this is the case, then having classes-- a form of these specialized roles-- seems like a regression.

Characters in modern fiction frequently ARE however, modeled around concepts that I would consider to be a core attribute.

Willow was the "Brains", Buffy was the "Muscle", Cordelia was the Star.

On Smallville, Clark is the Muscle, Lex is the Star, Chloe's the Empath.

I'm not listing every character, because clearly some are multi-classed

But you get my point. It frequently is possible to identify characters in movies as being defined by being "tough" or "smart".

 

[jonrog1]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean but here is something (I think) that's similar.

Knowledge rolls should be part of the underlying skill. It doesn't make sense that a mechanic knows nothing about (car) technology without Knowledge: technology. It also confounds me, as a DM, when I have to pick between using the active skill and the knowledge skill associated with the same topic.

Treat knowledges differently. All active skills (like mechanics) include the ability to make knowledge rolls on that topic. However, if you character knows a topic (mechanics) from only academia and couldn't do it in practice he can take a hyper-specialized version of mechanics that only applies to knowledge rolls. These knowledge specialties are half-price.

If you use skill points (I would use Saga skill training) you get two points in knowledges for each skill point spent. If you use Saga you get skill training in two knowledges for each slot used. I might also give a character a knowledge skill for each point of Intelligence bonus (like languages) or if it is a low language universe you could use your language slots for knowledge slots instead.

Aaaaaaah, I get what you're going for now. Essentially re-purposing all skills to be "action" or "do X with a skill" with Knowledge as the secondary as opposed to the primary focus. Neat, and I would've been too tunnel-visioned to come up with it.

The one-point/two-point spread on specialization -- you HAVE been reading Passages, haven't you?

As to the classes, those six seem right, although it feels like, and I"m just deriving this from your own writing, there's a more specific, verb-oriented definition for those that'll lock in game design a little tighter.

 

[FraserRonald]

I really, really think classes are integral to the appeal of d20.

Then my approach is doomed!

I have, however, redesigned Skills once again trying to pare them down, but keeping some that I consider important for character design and flavour.

However, I was also going to use this as a basis for a Spec Ops RPG (and, like Baroque, may never see publication), in which case I think I'd be leaning very heavily toward a skill system like you've got in Modern 2.0.

Huzzah!

 

[Vigilance]

Then my approach is doomed!

Or I could be dead wrong.

 

[Psion]

I truly, honestly, have no idea what you're talking about here.

The system I'm using (everything is feats, classes get a feat every level, there's a general feat list and a feat list for each class) is exactly how True 20 does things, and I haven't run into a lot of "hyper-optimized one-note" characters.

When I ran D&D with boosted feats, I found that it was necessary to make rules limiting choices of the extra feats to other than the longer feat chains, or players would plow feats into the longer feat chains with more choice end feats.

With D20 modern, I didn't feel the need to do that. With talents that serve more of a utility purpose, this gave the players a venue to add variety to the character instead of just being "real good with my axe" etc.

 

[Mokona]

I really, really think classes are integral to the appeal of d20.
...
Current working class names are Muscle, Speed, Tank, Brains, Empath and Star.

The mass success and appeal of Dungeons & Dragons strongly supports your theory (I happen to agree with you) that classes are important. Classes are fundamentally about K.I.S.S. in gaming (Keep It Simple, Silly ). A lot of classless systems exists and are cool but they've never taken off significantly beyond double-hard core roleplaying gamers.

Somewhere on these boards I've said it before but I'll repeat in case you didn't see it. Characters already have six attributes (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, and Cha). They don't need another primary fact based on those same six concepts. Taking character classes and mapping them to the attributes drives all flavor out of those classes.

Also, players have a hard time conceiving of character concepts that mix mis-matched attributes with attribute-derived base classes. Lots of players find tension in character creation between having a strong fighter or a agile fighter or even a tough fighter. Few debate if they'll have a strong Muscle, an agile Muscle, or a tough Muscle build.

The Strong, Fast, Tough, Smart, Dedicated, and Charismatic hero classes of D20 Modern are the probably the worst mistake R&D at Wizards of the Coast ever made. I give big props to Spycraft here for a better choice and execution in its class system.

 

[Committed Hero]

I really, really think classes are integral to the appeal of d20.

....

Actually, you more or less nailed the direction I'm leaning.

Current working class names are Muscle, Speed, Tank, Brains, Empath and Star.

Why not make classes that fit party niches instead (ie, include Eagle Eye, Sneak and Handyman in your list)?

 

[Vigilance]

Why not make classes that fit party niches instead (ie, include Eagle Eye, Sneak and Handyman in your list)?

After much thought and discussion with Chris, we decided that somewhat generic classes, with a robust background, occupation and hobby system, would be the best approach.

 

[Vigilance]

I posted a more basic occupation in my blog, but here's an example of what my players are calling "advanced occupations" (I don't and the book probably won't break them out like that-some occupations just aren't available at 1st level).

Assassin
You kill for profit.
Prerequisite: Firearms 10 ranks or Stealth 10 ranks or Weapons 10 ranks, Sneak Attack, Critical Strike
Professional Skills: Firearms, Stealth and Weapons
Improved Feats (any two): Crippling Strike: your target suffers two points of temporary Strength damage, Critical Strike: when you inflict bonus damage with this feat, that bonus damage is increased by +3 points; Enemy: if you possess the Contract Killer or License to Kill perks you may designate any target derived from one of these perks as your “enemy”; Sneak Attack: your attack bonus is increased to 1.5 per feat, rounded down (+1 to attack rolls for one feat, +3 to attack rolls for two feats, +4 to attack rolls for three feats, etc.)
Occupation Specific Perks: Contract Killer: you might take work as a hit man, earning a Wealth award equal to the level of any target you are hired to kill; License to Kill: you may find work for a government agency that will aid you in assassinating specific targets chosen by that government agency

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Which I agree with.

I am of the other camp that thinks the six base classes are the best-to-date blend of Classed and Classless gaming, giving the structure and direction that aids play while not flogging Designer X's 'vision' of this or that trope archetype.

I like the "adjustable" classes of, say, Saga ... but at the end of the day I PREFER the generic classes by a great margin.

--fje