Mental classes in D20 Modern?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I got an answer from Rich Redman

For example, let's say that character A has ranks in Knowledge (tactics). He's about to go into battle against guerrillas in Whammyzammystan, and the player tells the GM he wants to make a Knowledge (tactics) check. If he succeeds, the GM tells him what kind of forces he's likely to face and how they typically behave in combat. Character B has the Plan talent. He looks at his team and their capabilities and uses that to set an ambush. Now, if I were the GM, I would rule that he wouldn't know where to set that ambush unless he (a) saw the enemy coming and had a minute to prepare, or (b) made a Knowledge (tactics) check.

Let me give you a real world example: Suppose you're in a military and you're in combat with an opponent trained in Soviet doctrine. You see a few vhicles which you recognize as light scouts. You report this information up the chain of command - and at this stage, it's only information. The battalion military intelligence officer (the S2) recognizes the unit as an advanced recon element, and according to Soviet doctrine, it's 3 miles ahead of the next element, and about 8 miles ahead of the main body. Now the information has become intelligence, interpreted information, and that change is what I would use Knowledge (tactics) to govern. Planning comes in as a response to intelligence, for example requesting artillery and air strikes about 8 miles behind that advanced element, and allowing the advanced element to pass unmolested in order to lure the main body into a kill zone - set up using Plan.

Hmm. A few thoughts.

1) Saying "Smart/Charismatic heroes are weak in a combat-heavy game" is a bit like saying "Strong heroes are weak in my CSI:Interpol game", when said game deals primarily with noncombative jewel thieves. The game is good for what the GM puts into it.

True, but combat is run almost the same way in every campaign, whereas non-combat situations are not. It's no easier for a GM to run non-combat situations than combat situations, but there aren't any rules to define that - or rather, very few - and any such rules tend to be simplistic.

(Make Diplomacy check. Success? NPC agrees.)

I don't think any GM actually runs their game like that, but that's the rules.

In any event I'm expecting heroes of each class to be balanced with each other in combat and out. Any hero can take social skills and, more importantly, how you play your character is more important in a non-combat situation (except investigative) than you stats and skill points. IME, of course.

However, I couldn't be sure whether the Smart was weak or not because I didn't know how the Plan talent really worked, hence the threads.

2) Comparing d20 Modern heroes to D&D heroes is not always a great idea. The classes are balanced in different ways and intended for different sorts of campaigns. I know that Joshua Dyal runs a game that uses those classes together, but unless you're really good at keeping plates spinning as a GM, you shouldn't be combining those classes -- and you definitely shouldn't be trying to power-balance them. D&D characters win. Really. Almost all the time. d20 Modern heroes are a fair amount weaker. That's the way the designers wanted it -- they wanted heroes to be afraid of getting caught in a hail of gunfire even at mid-to-high levels. They wanted it to require a difficult and focused choice to have a BAB equal to your level -- and even more difficult for a ranged-attack specialist.

I have to disagree. A low-level Modern characters owns a low-level DnD character, if they're not a spellcaster. For instance, a Charismatic can pull off the same king of benefits as a bard (even faster at the lower levels) without spending slots. A low-level Strong or Strong/Soldier can quickly out-damage a fighter. (Strong 3/Soldier 2 gives you +4 damage before Strength modifiers!)

Not that I'm expecting them to match their DnD counterparts,

3) Like most things in d20 Modern, this stuff isn't great all by itself. It's all in how you combine it. Back before the errata changed the way the Soldier's tactical aid ability worked, I had a field day with a Smart/Soldier. He was an officer -- not as good a shot as his sergeant or as tough as his men, but if he could set up a battle plan, he could give his boys a much better chance to come out of there alive. (Plan plus Tactical Aid, pre-errata.)

Yeah, I know what you mean. Unfortunately Tactical Aid was outclassing Plan by a significant margin.

4) I don't know if I'm breaking a rule with this interpretation, but I ruled that the plan-timer doesn't kick in until a predetermined point. If you and the bad guys are 300 feet away from each other, and you're going to spend the next three rounds moving in at a jog, it seems lame to have the plan expire by the time you close -- especially if the plan is "Okay, as soon as we're in close, Billy, you hit them from the side, Tom, come in straight up the middle and harry their inner circle, and Mitch, hang back behind cover and pick off anybody who breaks out of the fight." I don't start the timer until the first roll that would be modified by that plan starts.

I got this from Bullet Points, just yesterday:

When can a Smart hero use his plan ability? Can he make a plan before storming through a closed door even if he has absolutely no idea what is on the other side? Also, how far in advance can a plan be made? Can he make multiple plans in advance to be ready for several encounters?

According to the talent description, a plan must be drawn up prior to a "dramatic situation" -- basically, prior to an encounter. In fact, the talent might be stated better if the first sentence simply said, "Prior to an encounter, the Smart hero can develop a plan of action to handle the situation."

Creating a plan takes 1 minute. Once that minute is over, the bonus from the plan kicks in, and the clock is ticking. (The Smart hero, like all characters, can spend all the time he wants "planning" in advance, but the actual bonus comes from the 1 minute spent preparing and reviewing the specifics of the plan before the encounter.) For this reason, the Smart hero can't ever have more than one plan in effect (or "queued up").

The Smart hero needs no specific information about the encounter before creating his plan. He bases it on primarily what he knows about his group's strengths and on what he intuits about potential pitfalls, not on the specific circumstances of the encounter. If the Smart hero happens to have a great deal of specific, accurate information about the upcoming encounter, the GM might consider giving him a +2 circumstance bonus on the Intelligence check for the plan. But if he's just throwing together a plan before busting through a door and he has little knowledge of what's on the other side, that's OK.

So what restrictions are there on the use of the plan talent? Only those that arise from its preparation requirement and time limit. For example, it may be impossible to spend a minute muttering over a plan on one side of a door when a bunch of bad guys are waiting on the other side. They may hear the hero talking to his comrades, or a bad guy might randomly walk out the door during the minute that the group is huddled outside. The bonus from the plan lasts for only a few rounds, so if it takes a few rounds to get from a spot where the group can discuss the plan to the actual starting point of the encounter, the plan doesn't do much good.

The plan talent should be useable fairly often, but when it isn't practical, the heroes must do without it.

You are technically breaking the rule if they're not talking during those rounds of jogging, but I wouldn't be a PitA to my players about it.

5) Another note about these classes in combat: The designers were big on multiclassing, and you should be, too. The classes were designed, I believe, to work best when multiclassing.

And it can cause problems, too. You take longer to get some of the better talents (like Plan), so, if for instance you were playing a Strong/Smart military officer, you might not see Plan until 5th-level. You start playing at 1st-level.

Plus it can wreak havoc with your BAB... this can be solved if you "smooth" the BAB progression for multiclass characters (and Fast Defense bonuses, too).

IME mental classes don't multiclass well with each other if you have any interest in combat, whereas they mix well with physical classes (and the physical classes generally mix well with each other, BAB excepted).

Sure, you can maximize your Savant or Fast-Talk ability by taking levels solely in Smart or Charismatic -- that's your choice -- but don't complain about it when a Strong/Charismatic mix is able to have more fun in combat. They paid for it. The Strong/Charismatic mix is good for a hard hitting sergeant who can also inspire his troops or work the system to get his men special treatment. A Tough/Charismatic works well for this, too -- less damage output, but he gets the reputation as the iron-jawed sergeant who can survive anything, and who gets his troops through the worst situations by yelling at them until they're more scared of him than of the enemy.

6) I don't believe that Fast-Talk applies to combat bluffs, since a feint in combat isn't an attempt to lie, dissemble, or bend the truth through words. I could be way wrong, though.

After looking at a stat block in Columbia D20, I'm inclined to agree. I simply added the bonus to all the affected skills. (Oops.)

7) In comparing the Charismatic Hero to the Smart Hero, remember that the Smart hero not only has more skill points, but more class skills to choose from. Where most d20 Modern folks have to either accept that their character is focused in a limited area, or spread out with lots of skills that don't have a ton of ranks, the Smart Hero has the ability to excel in a ton of skills. With Savant, as you mentioned, and with skill synergies, you've got the class capability to do some crazy stuff. Of course, as I mentioned before, the class is limited to doing great intelligent stuff on its own. It's probably more fun to play if you combine it with a physical class, like Fast. A Fast/Smart hero with the Criminal, Adventurer, or Athletic occupation can be amazingly fun to play, and useful as well.

8) To reiterate something about the importance of skills: This is something I've come up with myself, so no clue as to whether this is what the designers intended, but I believe that a good baseline for "skill DC that a hero should have to make for an average, not-critical-and-non-retryable check" is 14+level. A GM should be giving 1st-level PCs lots of DC15 skill checks -- not necessarily checks that are "succeed or you blow the mission", but checks that provide good ways to accomplish their objectives. A character with max'd ranks and a +0 ability modifier makes a DC14+level check 50% of the time. A character with max'd ranks, a +2 ability modifier, and some feat or talent that adds a +2 bonus succeeds 70% of the time.

This is good advice. I'll have to see what a 9th-level Smart Hero can do before I finish converting Klick Klack, however. (They can get some insane bonuses, as you've mentioned.)

 

[takyris]

True, but combat is run almost the same way in every campaign, whereas non-combat situations are not. It's no easier for a GM to run non-combat situations than combat situations, but there aren't any rules to define that - or rather, very few - and any such rules tend to be simplistic.

I'm not sure I agree that combat is run almost the same in every game. I've had radically different combat styles -- what kinds of enemies you're likely to face, what kind of arms they're gonna be packing, and so forth -- with the same group in different campaigns, which range from X-Files to Enter the Dragon as far as influences. In one campaign, fighting is this ugly desperate gamble while trying to get far enough away for guns to work. In another, it's a chance to shine. In still another, it's what you do when you run out of grenades or the bad guys have closed to the point where you'd be fragging yourself.

As far as non-combat situations not being run in the same way -- in some ways, that's good. In a finance game, I want to roll for the intricacies of my money matters. In an Action Island game, I want that to be handled for me. However, I still maintain that you get out what you put in. If you're running "Monk" or "CSI" as a d20 Modern game, you probably won't get a ton of Strong/Fast heroes. The real issue is that a lot of people are using d20 Modern to run D&D -- high-combat, low non-combat-related-skill-use games. This is fine, if they're enjoying it, but yeah, that makes the Smart hero a ton weaker. Just like the Strong/Tough hero is a big ol' loser in a comedy of manners.

In any event I'm expecting heroes of each class to be balanced with each other in combat and out. Any hero can take social skills and, more importantly, how you play your character is more important in a non-combat situation (except investigative) than you stats and skill points. IME, of course.

Hm. I disagree here. I don't expect heroes of each class to be balanced with each other in combat and out. I expect Thug Batterson, Strong/Tough/Fast, to shine in combat, while Alister Wainwright, Smart/Charismatic/Dedicated, provides support and assistance. Similarly, I expect Alister to shine in information gathering, intelligence processing, and people handling, while Thug pretty much sits on the sidelines.

A Strong hero can take Bluff and Diplomacy with the Entrepreneur occupation -- and darn, it's fun to do so and blow people's preconceptions out of the water -- but he's spending most of his skill points to get decent at those, and none of his talents or bonus feats are going to make any of that stuff better. Again, you can do it, and it's great to do so, but it's also unrealistic to expect a Strong Hero to out-talk a Charismatic Hero built for the same purpose (say, making friends and lying his way out of sticky situations), just as it's unrealistic to expect that Charismatic Hero to out-perform a Strong Hero built for the same combat purpose (say, melee combat). The Strong Hero's occupation and the Charismatic Hero's choice of talents can both provide some helpful support for the other party member, but really, using a Strong Hero with the Entrepreneur occupation for your primary Face-man is like using a Bard as your primary healer.

However, I couldn't be sure whether the Smart was weak or not because I didn't know how the Plan talent really worked, hence the threads.

Thanks for the quote confirming that it does indeed work in a way that I think is stupid. Ah, well. I'll be House Ruling that one into common sense. I don't always give my PCs a full minute to react -- so I think giving them the chance to delay it is fair.

I have to disagree. A low-level Modern characters owns a low-level DnD character, if they're not a spellcaster. For instance, a Charismatic can pull off the same king of benefits as a bard (even faster at the lower levels) without spending slots. A low-level Strong or Strong/Soldier can quickly out-damage a fighter. (Strong 3/Soldier 2 gives you +4 damage before Strength modifiers!)

And a Strong3/Soldier2 can be taken down by a single grenade (lower saves on average, and our good friend the MDT), whereas a Fighter5 will keep on truckin'. At low levels, yes, the flexibility of the d20 Modern classes gives them an edge, but at mid-level and beyond, the D&D power curve goes up a bunch, whereas the d20 Modern people remain relatively stable in terms of their power -- they're getting better, but at a pretty steady rate.

d20 Modern characters tend to have lower BABs, lower Defenses, and lower saves. There are exceptions, of course, but generally speaking, I believe this to be true. And I think it's a good thing -- it keeps things interesting. I can send a high-level d20 Modern bad guy against my party and have it be interesting, rather than a cakewalk or an automatic deathtrap. High-level people can still die with an unlucky roll, and everyone seems to have more flexibility at the cost of focused power.

re:Multiclassing:

And it can cause problems, too. You take longer to get some of the better talents (like Plan), so, if for instance you were playing a Strong/Smart military officer, you might not see Plan until 5th-level. You start playing at 1st-level.

I see that as another focus/flexibility tradeoff. One interpretation is that the hero should get Plan at 5th level, so that he's got that bonus as quickly as possible. Another interpretation is that he should get it at 7th or 9th level -- it takes longer to get, but he's getting other stuff all the while, and now, by the time he gets it, he can actually do some fun stuff with it, since his BAB is gonna be higher. It won't be "Use plan to raise my chances of hitting from miniscule to tiny". It'll be a really viable option for giving yourself an extra boost when possible.

I think that a lot of people get caught in the D&D mindset, where, really, it's silly for a wizard to multiclass for any reason beyond roleplaying, since their power scales so hugely that a Fighter5/Wizard5 who finally gets Fireball at 10th level finds himself with a spell that's useless against the things his party is fighting. In d20 Modern, those talents seem to be pretty useful at all levels.

Plus it can wreak havoc with your BAB... this can be solved if you "smooth" the BAB progression for multiclass characters (and Fast Defense bonuses, too).

Another tradeoff. I sometimes let my players use fractional BAB progression (ie, Smart1/Charismatic1/Dedicated1/Tough1/Fast1 gets a BAB of .5 + .5 + .75 + .75 + .75, not +0), but really, having the BAB rules in effect as they are keeps players honest in terms of getting a class for more than one level.

IME mental classes don't multiclass well with each other if you have any interest in combat, whereas they mix well with physical classes (and the physical classes generally mix well with each other, BAB excepted).

Well, yes. Very true, at least in terms of damage dishing. On the other hand, depending on what kind of d20 Modern campaign you're running...

- In an armed forces campaign, a 10th level Smart/Charismatic can inspire his troops a bunch, use Plan to help out his team before engagements, and has a BAB high enough to use Autofire and grenades in combat. He's not a sniper by any stretch. The sniper is the sniper. The sniper also probably has all of five skills with any significant ranks, whereas the Smart/Charismatic is all over the place.

- In a Demon-hunting campaign, a 10th level Dedicated/Smart can use Improved Aid another to increase his friends' chance to hit, making himself the world's most lovable flanking partner, and he's got the Knowledge ranks to know that the big scaly thing with the big purple ramlike horns is vulnerable to weapons soaked in green tea. (IMC, the party loves the Smart/Field Scientist/Techie, who can't fight terribly well but whose combination of mechanical improvisation and arcane knowledge lets the party dish out damage with improvised flamethrowers and figure out why their bullets aren't hurting the animated skeletal bikers...)

Mental folks are only useless in combat if your idea of combat effectiveness is limited to how much damage you personally dish out or your GM sets up combats so that you've got no real chance to inspire people, come up with plans, or use Knowledge ranks to help yourself out. If that's true, then yeah, that's a bad campaign to play a mental person.

Weirdly, we've got a lot of combat, but nobody in my group is playing a Strong Hero. Well, one guy is Strong2/Charismatic5, but he's not exactly a tank...

 

[Vigilance]

I'd like to point out that my Blood and Guts book has things that work with the Knowledge (tactics) skill and classes geared toward Smart Heroes (special forces medical and communications Sgts come to mind).

Also, Im writing a book that will (I hope) do for Smart heroes what Blood and Fists did for martial artists.

Chuck

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'd like to point out that my Blood and Guts book has things that work with the Knowledge (tactics) skill and classes geared toward Smart Heroes (special forces medical and communications Sgts come to mind).

Also, Im writing a book that will (I hope) do for Smart heroes what Blood and Fists did for martial artists.

Chuck

Does Blood and Guts have any sample characters (eg a "typical" military officer) or something like that?

I'm not sure I agree that combat is run almost the same in every game. I've had radically different combat styles -- what kinds of enemies you're likely to face, what kind of arms they're gonna be packing, and so forth

Noentheless, all those modes are supported by the D20 Modern rules. Make an attack roll, describe your action, etc.

As far as non-combat situations not being run in the same way -- in some ways, that's good.

I didn't say they weren't

Hm. I disagree here. I don't expect heroes of each class to be balanced with each other in combat and out. I expect Thug Batterson, Strong/Tough/Fast, to shine in combat, while Alister Wainwright, Smart/Charismatic/Dedicated, provides support and assistance.

This does mean they're both contributing to combat. (I'm not expecting Alister to actually bust heads, you know.)

And a Strong3/Soldier2 can be taken down by a single grenade (lower saves on average, and our good friend the MDT), whereas a Fighter5 will keep on truckin'.

Don't forget at the low levels that Strong/Soldier will still have a better Defense value

I see that as another focus/flexibility tradeoff. One interpretation is that the hero should get Plan at 5th level, so that he's got that bonus as quickly as possible. Another interpretation is that he should get it at 7th or 9th level -- it takes longer to get, but he's getting other stuff all the while

And that other stuff may not be as fun or useful, unfortunately. (Although Savant (Demolitons) is a lot of fun.)

Mental folks are only useless in combat if your idea of combat effectiveness is limited to how much damage you personally dish out or your GM sets up combats so that you've got no real chance to inspire people, come up with plans, or use Knowledge ranks to help yourself out. If that's true, then yeah, that's a bad campaign to play a mental person.

I don't know how a GM could prevent Inspire, but in the case of Plan a GM would only not use it if they didn't know how to use it.

As for the Knowledge skills, those are very useful out of combat, but I'm not expecting most of them to be useful within combat. Not that the situation is horrible; a Smart has so many skill points (and probably a high Int score) that they'll have lots of skill points to spend in every area

 

[takyris]

Noentheless, all those modes are supported by the D20 Modern rules. Make an attack roll, describe your action, etc.

I'm not sure what your point is here. (Really -- not trying to be rude.) All those modes are supported by d20 Modern rules, and all modes of skill usage are supported by d20 Modern rules, too. A PC with primarily mental class levels will be as useful or as useless as the campaign and GM allow him to be.

This does mean they're both contributing to combat. (I'm not expecting Alister to actually bust heads, you know.)

Right. Which is what I think happens. I think that mental classes do contribute to the combat. They just don't contribute as directly as the physical classes, or at quite the same level. They're good support people -- just like the physical class people can be good support people in skill usage situations (or at least the Strong and Tough are -- the Fast hero has enough points to get pretty good with the skills all by himself).

What confuses me is that I brought up these points because you said that mental PCs aren't as good as physical PCs in combat -- and now you're correcting me by saying that mental PCs do contribute to combats. So what exactly does this do to your original point -- which was, IIRC, something like, "I wanted mental PCs to be balanced in combat, but instead they're useless"? Am I radically misinterpreting you, or did you just disprove your own point?

Don't forget at the low levels that Strong/Soldier will still have a better Defense value

I'm confused again. Is this you being cute, or do you seriously believe that a 5th level fighter is less powerful than a Strong3/Soldier2? The Strong/Soldier has a better Defense value only if he sank a whole mess of feats into armor proficiency, because that Fighter got all three armor proficiencies for free, and will be wearing Full Plate unless he has some compelling reason not to. A 5th level fighter with a Con and attack stat (Str/Dex) of 14 has a BAB of +5, an attack at +7 with any weapon or +8 with a focused weapon, an average of (10+4d10+10) 42 hit points, and a Fort save of +6 without any save-boosting feats. A Strong3/Soldier2 with the same stats has a BAB of +4, an attack at +6 with any weapon or +7 with a focused weapon, an average of (8+2d8+2d10+10) 38 hit points, and that same Fort save of +6 -- but he's making that Fort save every time he takes 14 or more points damage from a single hit.

I certainly agree that a Strong3/Soldier2 is a lot more flexible than a Fighter5 -- he's got a wide range of bonus feats and class talents to choose from. But that's not what we're talking about. When I made the flexibility comment, you responded with:

And that other stuff may not be as fun or useful, unfortunately. (Although Savant (Demolitons) is a lot of fun.)

I really don't know where you're going here. You're tossing out unsubstantiated and inarguable stuff like "that other stuff may not be as fun or useful". Sure, it may be. A player who doesn't find the Smart talent trees fun and useful shouldn't play a Smart character. But based on your original post, a bunch of people responded with "Actually, in my game, we have a lot of Smart or Charismatic people," so the issue of them not being useful or fun is one that, while not wholly subjective, is entirely based on the player and the gaming group and the campaign.

To risk redundancy: I wouldn't play a Smart/Charismatic if I knew that the GM was going to have us kicking in doors and blowing away wave after wave of mindless zombies with nary a pause between. I might play a Strong/Smart or Tough/Charismatic or Fast/Dedicated, because that would let me fight decently, take hits decently, and contribute in some unique ways to the team. However, if I wanted to play it safe, it'd be a Strong/Tough, Fast/Tough, or Strong/Fast all the way.

A Smart/Charismatic, though, is a great choice for a skill-based intrigue game, or a game centered on alliances and diplomacy and problem-solving rather than combat. It's also a great choice for a character in a game that will have some combat but not a ton, and who is happy with taking a support role in such a game -- with Plan or Coordinate, he gives his teammates great bonuses (and Plan and Coordinate bonuses stack, since they're Circumstance and Unnamed (but likely Morale), respectively), and out of combat, he gives his buddies a much-needed edge in the skills arena.

I don't know how a GM could prevent Inspire, but in the case of Plan a GM would only not use it if they didn't know how to use it.

A GM could prevent Inspire by putting the party in a fight in which they can't hear each other (a fight in a loud machine factory, for example), and could prevent Plan by hitting the PCs with a surprise attack, or changing the circumstances in some other way so that the Plan no longer applies to the situation. It can be done. It's not particularly nice, and you shouldn't do it very often (any more often than you'd have enemies with Unbalance Opponent fight the PC who gave himself an 18 Strength -- every once in awhile, it's good for tension, but it's lame to overuse it to eliminate your PCs' powers), but it can be done.

As for the Knowledge skills, those are very useful out of combat, but I'm not expecting most of them to be useful within combat. Not that the situation is horrible; a Smart has so many skill points (and probably a high Int score) that they'll have lots of skill points to spend in every area

Agree here, of course, although one other interesting note: an often underutilized method of character building is to take classes for which you don't have a high score. A guy with a Strength of 12 really benefits from a few levels of Strong Hero -- he's doing more damage (or getting bonuses on his Jump checks, if you're into that kind of thing) and hitting more often. A guy with a Charisma of 11 and 5 levels of Charismatic Hero might not be the idiot you think: With Fast-Talk, he's given himself more than enough bonuses on Bluff and Diplomacy to make up for that relatively low Charisma, or with Favor, which isn't a stat-dependent talent, he can do some pretty useful stuff. Or the average-Int Smart hero, who takes a few levels of the class to gain a ton of skill points and some skill bonuses on Knowledge checks (through Savant, for example).

That's a side-note, though.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm not sure what your point is here. (Really -- not trying to be rude.) All those modes are supported by d20 Modern rules, and all modes of skill usage are supported by d20 Modern rules, too. A PC with primarily mental class levels will be as useful or as useless as the campaign and GM allow him to be.

What I meant was that the rules for combat are, well, useable. (Not that any rules are perfect.) They work whether you wanted to use D20 Modern to run Lord of the Rings, the Last Samurai, Hong Kong Knights, Delta Force or almost anything else.

The rules for a lot of the skills are also useable.

The rules for social skills are less useable - not that this is so bad. Usually GMs insist you role play your character interactions. However, this devalues the social skills (and then your Tough Hero might be nearly as good as the Charismatic hero in a social situation).

Right. Which is what I think happens. I think that mental classes do contribute to the combat. They just don't contribute as directly as the physical classes, or at quite the same level. They're good support people -- just like the physical class people can be good support people in skill usage situations (or at least the Strong and Tough are -- the Fast hero has enough points to get pretty good with the skills all by himself).

Yes. This is why I was talking about the Plan talent - since I didn't know how it was used (until the clarification) I couldn't be sure the Smart could contribute as well as a Charismatic Hero in a combat situation.

Now I know they can. Perhaps not as well, but they still can.

As for the Charismatic, although I stated he was "weak" (low BAB, low Defense, low hit points) I had no problem visualizing how he could use his talents to contribute (and be an equal team player).

What confuses me is that I brought up these points because you said that mental PCs aren't as good as physical PCs in combat -- and now you're correcting me by saying that mental PCs do contribute to combats. So what exactly does this do to your original point -- which was, IIRC, something like, "I wanted mental PCs to be balanced in combat, but instead they're useless"? Am I radically misinterpreting you, or did you just disprove your own point?

I said, at first, that they weren't, but the problem may have been misinterpreting the talents. It turns out the Plan talent is a lot more useful than I thought.

Which means mental heroes do have a place in combat.

I'm confused again. Is this you being cute, or do you seriously believe that a 5th level fighter is less powerful than a Strong3/Soldier2? The Strong/Soldier has a better Defense value only if he sank a whole mess of feats into armor proficiency, because that Fighter got all three armor proficiencies for free, and will be wearing Full Plate unless he has some compelling reason not to. A 5th level fighter with a Con and attack stat (Str/Dex) of 14 has a BAB of +5, an attack at +7 with any weapon or +8 with a focused weapon, an average of (10+4d10+10) 42 hit points, and a Fort save of +6 without any save-boosting feats. A Strong3/Soldier2 with the same stats has a BAB of +4, an attack at +6 with any weapon or +7 with a focused weapon, an average of (8+2d8+2d10+10) 38 hit points, and that same Fort save of +6 -- but he's making that Fort save every time he takes 14 or more points damage from a single hit.

No, not being "cute". You forget to take damage into account The Strong/Soldier gets to do +4 bonus damage (whereas the fighter gets to do only +2). Of course, the fighter gets a lot more feats, including the free ones for first level.

No, I don't see why you wouldn't entertain taking the Armor feats if you're a Strong character. They're really good There are a lot of feats that would be nearly "required" if you're going down a particular path.

To risk redundancy: I wouldn't play a Smart/Charismatic if I knew that the GM was going to have us kicking in doors and blowing away wave after wave of mindless zombies with nary a pause between. I might play a Strong/Smart or Tough/Charismatic or Fast/Dedicated, because that would let me fight decently, take hits decently, and contribute in some unique ways to the team. However, if I wanted to play it safe, it'd be a Strong/Tough, Fast/Tough, or Strong/Fast all the way.

Tha'ts not really what I was thinking about when I was talking about combat. A total-combat game would probably be less fun for some classes (not to mention some players) but I was thinking about a game in which there is some combat. In such a game, the mental classes should be able to do something.

And as Rich Redman took the time to clarify the Plan talent (and Knowledge (tactics)), I see how the Smart would be useful in combat.

A Smart/Charismatic, though, is a great choice for a skill-based intrigue game, or a game centered on alliances and diplomacy and problem-solving rather than combat. It's also a great choice for a character in a game that will have some combat but not a ton, and who is happy with taking a support role in such a game -- with Plan or Coordinate, he gives his teammates great bonuses (and Plan and Coordinate bonuses stack, since they're Circumstance and Unnamed (but likely Morale), respectively), and out of combat, he gives his buddies a much-needed edge in the skills arena.

Yes, I have no disagreement with this.

 

[buzz]

Also, Im writing a book that will (I hope) do for Smart heroes what Blood and Fists did for martial artists.

Ooo!

Details? Or is this project still in hush-hush mode?

 

[Vigilance]

Heh. Well... I just GAVE you a detail

Chuck

 

[takyris]

The rules for social skills are less useable - not that this is so bad. Usually GMs insist you role play your character interactions. However, this devalues the social skills (and then your Tough Hero might be nearly as good as the Charismatic hero in a social situation).

Aha. Different problem -- it exists in D&D as well, although in D&D there aren't as many people who specifically specialize in affecting others through social skills.

I've got no argument with you that there's room for clarification on any skillset, but I've actually had a good time with the d20 Modern interpretations of skills. Bluff is really more "Persuade" then "Lie", since a bluff may contain a lie, but is not specifically defined as a lie -- it's defined as an attempt to get somebody to do something you want them to do, whether that be giving you the security keycard or letting you into the nightclub. The FAQ details this in a good way. A Diplomacy check is really just a "Modify their level of respect/favor for you" check -- it doesn't affect any particular decision, and the PC can't use it to manipulate people.

(Back in the General thread, I once posted a long hypothetical situation about using Diplomacy on a bunch of Unfriendly street thugs, rolling well, and turning them Friendly. The thugs aren't taking the PCs home to meet mama -- "Friendly", in this context, means "Will treat the PCs with respect as befitting the circumstances, will proactively do minor small things under the circumstances to aid the PCs, and will possibly be willing to do major things to favor the PCs -- within the context of the circumstances." For a thug, this might mean "Dude, this guy looks like a real cool customer. I'm not gonna start anything, and hey, if somebody looks like they're getting in his face, I'll tell them to cool it. But if my boss tells me to gun them down, I'm still gunning them down."

By the same token, using Diplomacy to turn a jailer Helpful won't make him let you escape. It will get him to give you better food, seeing as how you're a good sort who's had some hard luck to be in here. If he's ordered to torture you, he'll hit with the stick, and the bruises will be real, but he'll stop a long time before he'd stop on someone he didn't like. He'll bring you a clean bucket and might see his way to allowing you a few minutes of private conversation when your lady-friend comes to visit you, even though that's against the rules. If you do escape, and you do so in a manner that makes him look bad, the jailer is going to try to catch you, even while shaking his head at your vigor and audacity. If you escape in a manner that doesn't make the jailer look bad, he might not even try to catch you -- "Well, seein' as how you knocked out the king's own guard, I don't see how me tryin' to club you down would do any good. I'll come back with your dinner in a few minutes and raise the alarm. Take the stairs on the left -- those'll get you to the kitchens and out into the yard...")

Yes. This is why I was talking about the Plan talent - since I didn't know how it was used (until the clarification) I couldn't be sure the Smart could contribute as well as a Charismatic Hero in a combat situation.

Now I know they can. Perhaps not as well, but they still can.

Aha. Cool. Wasn't clear on fact that you'd changed your mind.

And yeah, I'd be lyin' if I said that the Smart Hero's stuff was every bit as good as the Charismatic Hero's stuff. Exploit weakness is a talent you take in order to make up for not having a good Strength or Dex -- and if you plan on shooting or swinging, it's probably better to just put points into Strength or Dex. Trick is pretty much "Taunt", except that it only works once per combat per opponent, which is a bummer. Plan and Savant are really where it's at.

No, not being "cute". You forget to take damage into account The Strong/Soldier gets to do +4 bonus damage (whereas the fighter gets to do only +2). Of course, the fighter gets a lot more feats, including the free ones for first level.

Different strokes, I s'pose. +4 damage is indeed great, don't get me wrong, but I've seen far too many fights decided by MDTs to think that a even Strong/Soldier is as tough as a D&D fighter. I might have misspoken earlier -- I don't think that this is exclusively the fact that the classes are less focused (and therefore not as powerful in specific areas), although I do believe that that's true (you tend to have fewer hit points and lower BABs) -- it's the rules themselves. If you put a D&D fighter in a d20 Modern game, he's boned. No class bonus to defense, and he drops like a rock when a bad guy crits because he blows that Massive Damage save. In fact, to slightly reverse my position, I think that the Strong/Soldier might fare a bit better in a D&D world than a Fighter would fare in a d20 Modern world. The Strong/Soldier is just about flexible enough to turn himself into a Fighter-like-person if need be, using all his feats to get armor and weapons proficiencies, while the Fighter, with no occupation to give him other skills, is sort of adrift in a d20 Modern-rules world, even though he'll have more hit points and a higher BAB than most people his level.

No, I don't see why you wouldn't entertain taking the Armor feats if you're a Strong character. They're really good There are a lot of feats that would be nearly "required" if you're going down a particular path.

Well, it might not fit in the campaign, for starters. CSI's don't usually need to wear bulletproof vests. Trying to convince your DM that your X-Files-like conspiracy investigation game won't be disrupted at all if your character slaps on the Forced Entry Armor and has it on at all times unless otherwise specified is gonna be one heck of a social coup...

Agree with all the other stuff you said -- thanks for the clarification.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Aha. Different problem -- it exists in D&D as well, although in D&D there aren't as many people who specifically specialize in affecting others through social skills.

I've got no argument with you that there's room for clarification on any skillset, but I've actually had a good time with the d20 Modern interpretations of skills. Bluff is really more "Persuade" then "Lie", since a bluff may contain a lie, but is not specifically defined as a lie -- it's defined as an attempt to get somebody to do something you want them to do, whether that be giving you the security keycard or letting you into the nightclub. The FAQ details this in a good way. A Diplomacy check is really just a "Modify their level of respect/favor for you" check -- it doesn't affect any particular decision, and the PC can't use it to manipulate people.

Yes, I do recall the bullet point article on "Detect Lie" vs "Sense Motive". Still, your opponent must have Sense Motive to resist, or they have a very good chance of believing anything you say. (In fact, even if your opponent has Sense Motive as a class skill, they need to have a Wisdom score roughly matching your Charisma score, and if you have Charm or Fast Talk...)

There are a few house rules about this on the internet. Most deal with Diplomacy, since Bluff (even with it's balance problems) is at least clearer on what it can do.

And yeah, I'd be lyin' if I said that the Smart Hero's stuff was every bit as good as the Charismatic Hero's stuff.

Yeah, the Charismatic still has the edge. Plan has only one edge over Inspiration (but it's a decent one) - the Smart can still gain the bonuses. (Of course, Inspiration gives damage bonuses to ranged attacks and multiple bonuses at once and all that other goodness.)

Exploit weakness is a talent you take in order to make up for not having a good Strength or Dex -- and if you plan on shooting or swinging, it's probably better to just put points into Strength or Dex.

True, but it doesn't make up for a low BAB. Even if you are using Plan as well. However, it is pretty decent if you want to resort to occasional violence.

Different strokes, I s'pose. +4 damage is indeed great, don't get me wrong, but I've seen far too many fights decided by MDTs to think that a even Strong/Soldier is as tough as a D&D fighter.

Well, that's where different system comparisons start to break apart. We hardly discussed how hosed a Strong/Soldier would be when he comes up against magic. Low saves, low MDT... it gets worse.

I might have misspoken earlier -- I don't think that this is exclusively the fact that the classes are less focused (and therefore not as powerful in specific areas), although I do believe that that's true (you tend to have fewer hit points and lower BABs) -- it's the rules themselves. If you put a D&D fighter in a d20 Modern game, he's boned. No class bonus to defense, and he drops like a rock when a bad guy crits because he blows that Massive Damage save.

It depends on whether he uses the D20M or DnD MDT. I'm not sure which one he'd use.

In fact, to slightly reverse my position, I think that the Strong/Soldier might fare a bit better in a D&D world than a Fighter would fare in a d20 Modern world. The Strong/Soldier is just about flexible enough to turn himself into a Fighter-like-person if need be, using all his feats to get armor and weapons proficiencies, while the Fighter, with no occupation to give him other skills, is sort of adrift in a d20 Modern-rules world, even though he'll have more hit points and a higher BAB than most people his level.

Yes. It's one of the reasons why I prefer D20 Modern to other class-based D20 system. I really don't want to be told "you're a nobleman, play a Nobleman!"

Well, it might not fit in the campaign, for starters. CSI's don't usually need to wear bulletproof vests. Trying to convince your DM that your X-Files-like conspiracy investigation game won't be disrupted at all if your character slaps on the Forced Entry Armor and has it on at all times unless otherwise specified is gonna be one heck of a social coup...

But... but... sometimes suspects shoot back!

Actually, I don't think it would be fair to play an exclusively CSI game. Everyone would end up looking the same.

"You took Skill Emphasis (Investigate) too?"