Okay, what is exactly *is* Grim Tales?

[BryonD]

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).

Ok, but that doesn't change the point. Saves are effectively not class concept relevant.

Was speaking of skill points.

Skills <> Skill points. You said Skills.

Skill points are part of the entire package which must balance out somewhere. And, again, if you want a lot of skill points, give the char a high INT and then use whatever class works for you. A Int 16 Strong character gets plenty of skill points. Point being that, unlike D20M, in GT both skills and skill points are tied more to the character concept than the class. Yes, you can make an INT16 STR char in D20 modern. But the class skills are going to limit how you use those points in a way that GT resolves.

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.

How you personally "think" about an abstract concept is not part of the game mechanics.
But the differences between D20 Modern and GT are very significant.

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.

Nope. GT encompasses and exceeds D20M. You can use GT to emulate D20M if you want to. But you have vastly more options in GT.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I guess my problem comes, Thanee, is where's your balance? How long is it going to take to find the balance? If we have 100s of core classes (and WotC seems to be well on their way to doing that for D&D. Again.) then some are going to be better than others. Why? Because they're created at different times by different people to do different things and balance just can't map to that. When I run D&D I have to stipulate Core Books Only and then allow individual items in on a case by case, and then I still seldomly do as it's often hard to tell when something small will run a game into the ground.

If we have a point-buy or similar system, you rapidly run into the same problem in a new guise. There WILL be a sweet spot, players WILL find the sweet spot, and from there on out every character is going to be quite similar. I've played point buy systems before. Without severe and constaint reigning players gravitate toward the "best" choices and deviate ONLY to start finding some sort of "concept" afterward.

I've played all three kinds of systems, even within d20, and I find them all pretty equally fun, within what they do. I don't think anybody is going to convince you about GT and Modern, so I'm not going to. Just expressing my feeling that this ... middle ground ... brings for me the best balance between two ways of doing things ... Core Classes and A La Carte ... that allows me to maximize my choices and those of my players without creating or leaving open eggregious balance issues that I have to then come along behind with the hose and put out. But it is also fun to play those other ways.

EDIT: One of the closest systems I've played to One Class is "Savage Worlds" where you get ability points, skill points and "feats" to build your PC any way you want to. I like the system alot, would play it regularly if I could. Has a problem though. Within ten minutes of sitting down my brother-in-law and his friend had calculators out and were figuring out the exact probabilities for all of the "feats" and skills to find the sweet spot where they got maximum potentioal for their points. It's how they are, they're bath-tub game designers so they always want to know how everything works and how everything balances. And they were getting a handle on it after just a few hours. I'm sure by now they'll have gotten the prime scores mapped out from which they can deviate to create the best character for whatever they figure the game should involve. It's just there. Statistically if you think there WILL be combat, then certain things are best. From there you can decide if you want to scale back less useful things for your concept. So sure ou can make ANY scientist, but you tend to see the best possible combat scientist in systems like that.

--fje

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

There WILL be a sweet spot, players WILL find the sweet spot, and from there on out every character is going to be quite similar.

Just as a side note, having made a few GT characters, I still haven't found a sweet spot.

Every class has its advantages as a starting class (because of the way I gave 1st character level bonuses to "starting" classes).

Every class has good feats and talents.

I can say, though, that I think multiclassing to odd-levels (ie, 3/3 as opposed to 4/2) is obviously the most effective, and 3 levels in any one class is about the bare minimum I'd consider. Third level is a pretty sweet spot, I guess, but no one class has a corner on it.

Wulf

 

[Thanee]

There WILL be a sweet spot, players WILL find the sweet spot, and from there on out every character is going to be quite similar.

Absolutely, but that's true for every system.

Tho, in a perfect point-buy system there would be no sweet spots, but that's next to impossible to achieve.

You find the same in d20 modern. The Strong class is simply superior for melee fighting, than the Fast class, for example. So, every melee fighter will have to take levels in the Strong class, regardless of the concept (even if it does not involve being "strong" in the slightest).

But by doing so (this is my "problem" with the classes) you automatically get a bunch of other stuff, which you maybe do not want in that combination, like low number of skill points, or better Fortitude save. Of course, you cannot have all, there must be limits for balance's sake, but if you would have a more generic system, you could choose where your advantages and disadvantages lie (within level-dependant limits, other that point-buy, which normally sets absolute limits). This is what I would prefer.

I don't think anybody is going to convince you about GT and Modern, so I'm not going to.

That's also not necessary.

I'd like to give it a look, actually, but don't want to buy it without that... which is problematic, if the first isn't possible without the latter, tho.

Just expressing my feeling that this ... middle ground ... brings for me the best balance between two ways of doing things ... Core Classes and A La Carte ... that allows me to maximize my choices and those of my players without creating or leaving open eggregious balance issues that I have to then come along behind with the hose and put out.

Yes, that's the point of the system, to find a balance between pure "class-based" (with lots of classes) and pure "point buy" (without classes at all).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

You find the same in d20 modern. The Strong class is simply superior for melee fighting, than the Fast class, for example. So, every melee fighter will have to take levels in the Strong class, regardless of the concept (even if it does not involve being "strong" in the slightest).

There you go again.

Superior in what way?

What is your fixation on BAB? It's not a requirement to have a BAB equal to your character level to be considered an effective fighter. (Let go of your D&D preconceptions!)

The d20M classes assume multiclassing. The 100% pure Strong hero (or adversary) is so nearly non-existent that a class with the "normal" BAB progression (01233) IS the default "effective fighter."

Or is it the title of the class that bothers you? That the word "Strong" is in there. There's nothing particularly "Strong" about the class.

Is it better to call it the "Fighting Hero" class? Would you be ok with 1 or 2 or 3 levels of Fighting Man?

The Fighting Hero focuses his time on honing his weapon skills. He gets 1d8 hit points, same as the Swashbuckling Hero [the Fast Hero], but he suffers somewhat in terms of Defense bonus and skill points. However, his Deadly Combatant Talent [Melee Smash] allows him to add 1 point of damage to any melee attack each time it is chosen.

 

[Thanee]

There you go again.

Hey, it's just the example I picked.

Superior in what way?

Damaging opponents. A fundamental concept of fighting.

What is your fixation on BAB?

Nothing, it's just an example. And IMHO the most easy one to explain my thoughts, since there is only one class with a good BAB, so if you want a better than average BAB, you need to take levels in the Strong class.

But it's more of the combination, which combine into the whole package, which you are forced to take with a class, than any single ability.

It's not a requirement to have a BAB equal to your character level to be considered an effective fighter.

No, but it's certainly very helpful.

(Let go of your D&D preconceptions!)

The d20M classes assume multiclassing.

I can see that. But it's not a requirement, or is it?

The pure characters are extreme cases. Extreme cases are always good to get a grip on how the system works.

The 100% pure Strong hero (or adversary) is so nearly non-existent that a class with the "normal" BAB progression (01233) IS the default "effective fighter."

Yeah, but the Strong hero will hit more often (and have more attacks faster, and deal more damage (due to talents)), so is effectively... more effective in downing opponents, which is a rather important part of fighting.

Therefore I'm quite sure, that the most effective fighter concepts will involve a few levels of Strong for sure. So, Strong ~ Fighter (you even said something similar yourself), but isn't that exactly what the system is meant to get away from?

Anyways, that's not really my point...

The point is (as said above), that if you want one thing, you get a bunch of other things, which are bundled together based on a specific theme (based on the attribute in question).

Or is it the title of the class that bothers you? That the word "Strong" is in there. There's nothing particularly "Strong" about the class.

More the theme (or too much of a theme) of the class than the name.

Bye
Thanee

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Absolutely, but that's true for every system.

Tho, in a perfect point-buy system there would be no sweet spots, but that's next to impossible to achieve.

You find the same in d20 modern. The Strong class is simply superior for melee fighting, than the Fast class, for example. So, every melee fighter will have to take levels in the Strong class, regardless of the concept (even if it does not involve being "strong" in the slightest).

But there you're getting hung up on the "Name" again. As I've said before, it's not about the name. Call it "battle ready" if that's what you want to call it. If you want something very badly that CLASS X offers, take some CLASS X, realizing that you're trading out something else for it. That's what its doing.

But by doing so (this is my "problem" with the classes) you automatically get a bunch of other stuff, which you maybe do not want in that combination, like low number of skill points, or better Fortitude save. Of course, you cannot have all, there must be limits for balance's sake, but if you would have a more generic system, you could choose where your advantages and disadvantages lie (within level-dependant limits, other that point-buy, which normally sets absolute limits). This is what I would prefer.

Broken, quothe I. Or, on the other hand, you'll take a very long route to get to where GT and Modern already are.

I imagine your dream system IS possible, where everybody could have their cake and eat it too, but it would take playtesting in bucket and bucketloads before it got fixed, even after somebody figured out enough of it to make it workable. I don't think a single "somebody" could do it, either. That's the sort of thing several good designers would need to work on for quite a while.

Different saves interact with different abilities interact with skill points with BAB ... everybody can have 1/1 BAB and Good saves down the board and 4sp a level and, what? What gets traded for that? Hit points? Feats? I'll pay some Ref save for that, actually, and bring my HP back up because high HP and more feats can let me shore up any disads that Ref brings. Etc etc.

I'd play a system that did that perfectly. Or even really really well. But here's the OTHER thing ... it needs to be simple enough to play. So the trades and balances need to be obvious and simple enough that characters can even be made. Dozens of tables just won't do. "For 1/1 BAB you must trade:" and thirty choices follow, that's no good.

And, again, I think even with a really good system like that, which is balanced, it'll come quite close to GT. Maybe you'll get more nudge in a couple areas ... maybe you can get more SP with that 1/1 BAB at the cost of bad saves across the board. Might work. Might be broken. Can't tell from here. Maybe I can get good Ref and more SP and lose Heavy Armor ... hrm. Maybe not, either.

--fje

 

[Thanee]

Broken, quothe I. Or, on the other hand, you'll take a very long route to get to where GT and Modern already are.

Have you looked at my link above? I think that's further down the road as far as the classes are concerned.

It's not finished, of course, just the idea outlined.

Bye
Thanee

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I looked. It looks interesting.

But, it's easily abusable. I don't see any reason not to buy up 1/1 BAB, for instance, unless you don't raise the CPs and still include Rep and Def on that buy, then I don't see any reason to ever TAKE 1/1 because it is too expensive. There's no reason to EVER buy feats unless you're mid level and can afford to totally leave behind everything but it and BAB and then only for 1 or 2 feats/talents. They're too expensive. And while you think skill-loading early is good, nobody will take more than 3sp after they've got the bonuses they want in a few skills.

I think its an interesting start, and it'll be more interesting when its in a playtest draft.

--fje

 

[Thanee]

Heh. Now you are exaggerating quite a bit.

But of course it is just a start... needs some fine-tuning to be completely balanced, of course, and maybe even a forced low progression for feats (similar to all the others), so you only "buy" bonus feats. But whatever, it's just the general idea, I'm talking about.

Bye
Thanee