[Md20] The generic classes

[Matthias]

The "stat classes" of d20 Modern give me the impression that the makers tried to get as close as possible to CofC classless without forsaking classes entirely.

Yet, even CofC can't escape the temptation entirely (i.e., the profession templates).

I'd say a good alternative approach would have been to initalize d20M characters as CofC-style classless characters, with prestige classes later. I would omit the offensive/defensive modes for classless characters, however. (Ironically, in the CofC universe, if it is played true to genre, such distinctions should be utterly inconsequential [evil grin]). One base attack bonus progression, one base save progression, etc. If a player wants his character to be good in combat or be extraordinarily good with his saving throws, he can pick up feats for that sort of thing.

There would also be several prestige classes available for characters to work their way into. (Of course, these would need only to be referred to as "classes" for the same reason that 3rd Edition is not called Advanced D&D.)

 

[danzig138]

Yet, even CofC can't escape the temptation entirely (i.e., the profession templates).

I think in d20 CoC, the preofessional templates were a nod to the same system used in BRP, and, for my players at least, those are good things, since sometimes my players have difficulties organizing their thoughts.

 

[Crothian]

I don't find the classes generic. Sure they are stat related, but that doesn't mean every character with the highest score of strength is going to have a Strong Hero class levels.

 

[evildmguy]

More thoughts

Greetings!

[off topic]
Wesley may have picked up recent levels in Tough or Fast, but he is still primarily a Dedicated hero. Obviously, this is in my opinion but here is why. We saw him for a half season on Buffy as a Dedicated (Watcher) hero. When he went over to Angel, he may have been trying to be a Strong or Tough hero but it didn't last. In fact, for two and a half seasons, he was still the Dedicated probably with levels of Smart because he was the research person. Even Fred went to him for questions of the occult and supernatural. Even now, we still see him doing research and being a leader (Dedicated or Charismatic) more than fighting. Not that he hasn't but two things on that. One, all classes improve in fighting ability with time, so seeing him fight more is inconclusive. Two, anyone can score a critical and kill someone! *grin*

Hmmm. If anything, Wesley is tough to figure out. Smart or Dedicated? Fast or Tough? I don't think you can argue Strong but Charismatic could be argued, although probably not too well.

Good mental exercise, thanks!

[on topic]
Jeph: A very good idea! If that holds true, that is a neat way to handle it. Can I infer then that if a person multi classes, they get 9 points again to figure their new class abilities? Or did you have something else in mind?

MDT: The more I think about it, the more I like my massive damage threshold rules. It uses the HP rules by allowing people to fight until they are out.

From the book:
A character's hit points (hp) determine how much physical damage a character can withstand before dying.

So, my idea allows character to fight until they are out of hps, instead of one hit potentially taking them out, but at a potential penalty that can get to be quite significant. For those characters with ranks of Tough hero, and a high CON, it will be much tougher to do but it should be as that's what they do! Take damage and keep going.

If people use VP/WP, then perhaps the MDT could wipe out a characters VPs (doesn't this cause fatigue IIRC?) but they still have a little left in them to keep fighting.

Classes
I agree that just because a character's highest attribute is CON doesn't mean that they are going to be a Tough Hero. Having said that, I think people (and therefore characters) tend to drift towards that which they are naturally good. That doesn't mean there aren't challenges for those characters even in the areas they are naturally proficient. They can still be challenged. It does mean that they drift, for lack of a better word, towards what they can do.

I think that most systems do this, which to me shows the games are trying to mimic something that real life does. I don't think that's a bad thing.

Also, if a character "fights" what they are good at doing naturally, they might get frustrated because they aren't as good at that compared to if they had done something else. This would especially show up if two characters with the same stats, or close, were different classes.

For example, I see myself as a Smart Hero. I would love to know martial arts but that would be a huge struggle and a very big change for me. Meanwhile, picking up a new computer language is a struggle but doesn't take me as long and sticks with me for that much longer. Again, I think grouping skills like that, regardless of what you want to call the classes, works.

Thanks for the good discussion all!

edg

 

[Desdichado]

Interesting note: I was working on a system that used levels, and base 8 skill points, and which used skill points for purchase of EVERYTHING - from saves, to base attack bonus for certain weapon proficiency groups, to feats and class abilities. It came to me when I realized that the CoC offensive and defensive classes simply assigned two "good" columns out of four choices: Reflex, will, fortitude, and Base Attack Bonus.

If you raise the max. skill points to max class level +4 instead of +3, then you can buy Base attack Bonus and saves by a metered formula. Then, assign a cost of, say, three skill points for purchase of a bonus feat or pool of low-powered class abilities. Start with a d4, and require one skill point per hit die increase. The rest of the points go into skills, on a one for one basis, and forego cross-class skills and class skills.

I never fleshed it out beyond rudimentary status, but in theory, one could use such a system to make a d20 system of Levels ONLY.

Add HD to that list, convert skill points into XP somehow and you've also eliminated levels. Conceptually, it's not that much farther.

I'd rather have level-less than class-less, frankly. The generic classes have eliminated any remaining concerns I've had relative to classes, although the ease of multiclassing and the relative ease of making up specific classes that fit your needs had already mostly eliminated my concerns already.

 

[Bagpuss]

Personally I prefer levels to classes, as levels tend to give a rough idea of the power of a character that is not always easy to see in a level-less system.

 

[Tonguez]

Okay a system I was toying with goes like this

Base class:
Wounds (Con) + VP d4,
Skills 6+int,
Feats 10

Skills divided into General (1pt), Expert (2pts), Master (3pts)
BAb, Def and Saves are Master Skills

All feats stack and Feats are also used to increase Skill points (Training Feat +d4 skill points) and VP (Toughness feat +2) eg a Barbarian would take the Toughness Feat 4 times to get VP (9 - 12)

All class skills etc are turned into feat chains (or should that be Talent trees)

Characters gain an additional feat for each 2000XP (adjustable depending on 'Power level' of the game eg a Supers game might gain a new feat for 1000 XP)

- Classless and levelless, customise as you desire...

 

[Visceris]

Wesley, from Buffy and Angel, is what I would consider a multiclassed character. Started out as a smart hero on Buffy, became a Dedicated hero earlyin Angel, and with the recent events he would be considered a Fast Hero.

2 Levels of Smart
3 levels of Dedicated
2 Levels of Fast.

 

[Mistwell]

Wesley, from Buffy and Angel, is what I would consider a multiclassed character. Started out as a smart hero on Buffy, became a Dedicated hero earlyin Angel, and with the recent events he would be considered a Fast Hero.

2 Levels of Smart
3 levels of Dedicated
2 Levels of Fast.

Seriously, it sounds like you are speaking in tongues to me, and probably to a lot of other people. Do you really think references to the Angel TV show were universal pop culture references understandable by most of your audience? Come on now, that show has a 2.6 rating, ranked at 108, below "Half And Half" on UPN and "Reba" on the WB.

 

[Visceris]

It was only an example. No need to go down my throat about it. Sheesh.