Okay, what is exactly *is* Grim Tales?

[Wulf Ratbane]

Within the limits of those classes... Fast makes the best swashbuckler, but it's not what I would call a swashbuckler (because it's just a moderate fighter, not a highly skilled fighter as it should be).

Well, honestly you're just too hung up on getting level-for-level BAB.

A Strong Hero who follows that same route, never branching out to multiclass, is weaker than almost any multiclass "fighter."

BAB is not the sole definition of "highly skilled fighter."

A "swashbuckler" with, say, an equal mix of Strong/Fast levels can probably take any single-class Strong fighter in a heads-up fight; and the swashbuckler, as a character, is undoubtedly going to be more effective overall.


Wulf

 

[Thanee]

Well, it's just an example, trying to illustrate the point.

It's not just BAB, but also saves, skills, etc. All is bound to the six limited class concepts.

Sure, it allows more freedom than having specific classes like D&D, but it doesn't allow enough freedom for my tastes.

You look at it from a different angle than I do, and that's fine, of course, I just want more generic and more control (aka less restrictions) than what these classes offer (note, I do note really know GT, just d20 modern, but classes seem to be pretty much the same concept-wise), if I use a "generic" system.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

A "swashbuckler" with, say, an equal mix of Strong/Fast levels can probably take any single-class Strong fighter in a heads-up fight; and the swashbuckler, as a character, is undoubtedly going to be more effective overall.

Surely, but effectiveness isn't everything, it's also the concept, which I try to build, in this case a typical swashbuckler, a quick and witty fighter.

IMHO a swashbuckler would more look like Fast/Charismatic, but that wouldn't be a decent fighter, lacking the attack bonus is rather bad for fighting.

So, I cannot just pick the classes that fit the concept, but have to use classes, which are more like the opposite because I need the mechanics from those classes (i.e. the Strong's BAB), which the fitting ones do not offer. Yet, the Taunt talent (note: taken from d20 modern, if that's not the same in GT, just take it as the example it is meant to be) would fit very well, but it requires five levels in Charismatic to get there, so Strong/Fast would not lead me to it, and my swashbuckler's fighting ability suffers quite a bit from those five levels in the weakest fighting-related class.

Effectively, the classes have some "flavor" (the ability concept flavor, most mechanical specifics are based on that) attached to them, which eventually I have to ignore or twist and change to provide what I need (like turning Melee Smash into Finesse to have it fit with the concept of a swashbuckler, if I have to pick up classes in Strong, I get the talents automatically, so I have to make the best out of those for my concept). I then ask myself, why do the classes have this "flavor" attached to them in the first place. Why is it not left completely to the player to provide the flavor, why am I forced to have some class-related "flavor" when picking up such a class? Isn't the point of these classes to not have the kind of limiting "flavor" the D&D classes provide? Why can I not have a high BAB (again, just an example) without being "Strong"? It just seems like an unnecessary restriction to me.

Hope that makes a bit more clear what I mean.

Wulf, please take a look HERE for further reference. It's an idea for d20 modern, which I had a while back, not completely refined, but the general idea should be obvious enough and maybe illustrates a bit better what I mean.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

This is just a quick reply-- no offense intented by not replying to more of your post.

Why can I not have a high BAB (again, just an example) without being "Strong"? It just seems like an unnecessary restriction to me.

For the same reason you can't have a lot of hit points without being Tough, a lot of skill points without being Smart, good defense without being Fast.

It's a core assumption (and "weakness," I guess) of the six ability scores.

Sure, you may want to play a fighter who is very good with a blade but not particularly strong. And that's fine. But don't expect him to be as effective (and again, using your definition of "effective" as BAB alone) as the same fighter with an 18 Strength. You're not going to hit as often and you're not going to do as much damage and that's just the way it is.

Not a concept I invented, but certainly one I've been living with since D&D has been around.

Wulf

 

[BryonD]

It's not just BAB, but also saves, skills, etc. All is bound to the six limited class concepts.
Bye
Thanee

Are you aware that GT has its own method for both saves and skills?

Saves are lower. As a result, it hardly matters which class you take in what your saves are.
Over 20 full levels the difference in a good and poor save is only 3. Or, put another way, saves are far more bound to ability placement than they are to class. Getting a 16 in the appropriate ability will cover the entire 20 level spread.

There is no such thing as class skills. You pick ten core skills for your character at creation and that is it. Skills are not at all bound to the class concepts.

The point is, if you are hung up on the concept of "class concepts" then you are not going to get the pontential of GT. In D&D (and even D20 modern) you decide on a character concept and that tells you what class to play. Maybe you multiclass some to flesh it out. But you pretty much know what class to be.

In GT you are only limited by your imagination. I could easily do a modern setting college professor character who was a Strong5/Tough3 if that was my concept. Or a Fast8. Or Strong1/Dedicated6/Tough1. Or I could even just do Smart8. And I can do all these with the exact same ability scores. Str10 Dex12 Con14 Int16 Wis14 Chr8. Or anything else that fits MY vision. There are no limiting concepts in the classes. And it is the changes from D20 modern to GT that make this true.

It just occured to me: You could make an Int8 Smart10 character with 5 different Savant Talents and make Rainman.

 

[Thanee]

Are you aware that GT has its own method for both saves and skills?

Nope. That's why I said repeatedly, that I can only work from the d20 modern classes, which seem to work very similar conceptually. But saves are lower there, too (starting at +1 usually).

There is no such thing as class skills. You pick ten core skills for your character at creation and that is it. Skills are not at all bound to the class concepts.

Was speaking of skill points.

The point is, if you are hung up on the concept of "class concepts" then you are not going to get the pontential of GT.

Oh, I do get the potential (it's certainly similar to d20 modern there), it's just that I think it's only going half the way.

And it is the changes from D20 modern to GT that make this true.

Ok, I cannot say anything about that, since I do not know about those changes... from what I have heard so far, the classes are almost the same.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Angel Tarragon]

This sounds very interesting so far. Can't wait to get my hands on it!

 

[Thanee]

For the same reason you can't have a lot of hit points without being Tough, a lot of skill points without being Smart, good defense without being Fast.

Right. These are other examples of the same thing, and that's the core of the "problem" (well, problem is certainly a bit much said there, but it's why I don't/wouldn't like it), that these abilities are bound to single classes instead of just being seperated from them to allow more freedom in character creation.

It's a core assumption (and "weakness," I guess) of the six ability scores.

Yep. Especially the part in parantheses, which these classes emphasize instead of alleviate.

Sure, you may want to play a fighter who is very good with a blade but not particularly strong. And that's fine. But don't expect him to be as effective...

...(and again, using your definition of "effective" as BAB alone)...

You are reducing what I said a bit too far there... but yes, basically a good (base) attack bonus is a necessity for an effective fighter. It's about the most important mechanical stat for them. Hitting things is quite important, if you want to defeat them (in melee combat).

...as the same fighter with an 18 Strength. You're not going to hit as often and you're not going to do as much damage and that's just the way it is.

Why not? With "Weapon Finesse" (I'm sure there is something similar) and a high BAB, I'll have the same attack bonus. Damage is probably a bit lower, but that's part of the concept, as it is more finesse than brute force.

The "traditional big, brawny guy", I'd only give a moderate BAB (less skilled) and high Strength (more muscled) in comparison, so attack bonus would actually be lower, but damage higher. I guess this archetype would work well with a Strong/Tough (more tough than strong) combination, the swashbuckler archetype does not work well, however.

Not a concept I invented, but certainly one I've been living with since D&D has been around.

In 3rd edition D&D I can play such a character. And it would be highly effective, too.

(...and please, do not respond with "Then play D&D!" now... )

The "problem" of D&D is, that it needs dozens of classes to achieve this, not just a couple.

In a generic system, the number of classes is reduced and the number of "concepts per class" increased, if you take a look at the above linked idea, it goes even further (not just the half way) and reduces classes to a single one and thereby further increases the number of potential concepts. That's what I'd call generic, or what I'd like to see in a generic system.

I think my basic claim is, that I don't see the class system as being generic. More like quasi-generic, so to say.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Ok, I cannot say anything about that, since I do not know about those changes... from what I have heard so far, the classes are almost the same.

They are the same, at least in terms of the point-based stuff (BAB, saves, Defense, Rep).

I would not hesitate to say that I don't think Grim Tales is for you.

But then, I don't think anything d20, being a class-based system no matter how you slice it, is for you, either.

I happen to think that the class-based system is the best (as opposed to classless or point buy or whathaveyou) for many of the same reasons that the 3e designers did-- and it's not just nostalgia for "the old ways," either. From a design perspective, it best meets the needs of the most players.


Wulf

 

[Thanee]

I would not hesitate to say that I don't think Grim Tales is for you.

I think it's only the classes, really. I'm sure I'd like the rest, from what I've heard about it.

But then, I don't think anything d20, being a class-based system no matter how you slice it, is for you, either.

Well, I very much like D&D and I think the classes are totally fine there.

I happen to think that the class-based system is the best (as opposed to classless or point buy or whathaveyou) for many of the same reasons that the 3e designers did.

Class-based has its benefits for sure (at least for heroic roleplaying... for a more realistic approach, I think it's not so good, at least not the D&D way with the hugely increasing power curve - I seem to dislike most of the class-based systems, which try to be more realistic (i.e. Cthulhu d20 to name one example).

I also made my idea for modern class-based (it's just based on a single "fit to all concepts" class ). It's not really a point buy system, tho it kinda looks like it, more like a "fit the class to your concept" approach, a mix of point-buy and class-based, really, with the advantages of both (IMHO at least).

...and it's not just nostalgia for "the old ways," either. From a design perspective, it best meets the needs of the most players.

That might very well be. My opinion is just a single one, after all.

Bye
Thanee