Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should there be a "Skill" based class?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Should there be a "Skill" based class?

    Originally posted by Darkdreamer View Post
    Then most game systems don't "do it right"
    You are absolutely right. But watch something like Critical Role and/or Titansgrave and you'll see social things can be handled much better without leaving every player just sitting there and only having a couple of rolls. I think dice rolls should determine a lot of the results, but someone saying "I negotiate for a better price: (roll dice) 25! Alright I get a discount" really is dull but if that's how people want to play then that's their prob.. er.. prerogative.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Should there be a "Skill" based class?

      Originally posted by AndrewD2 View Post
      You are absolutely right. But watch something like Critical Role and/or Titansgrave and you'll see social things can be handled much better without leaving every player just sitting there and only having a couple of rolls. I think dice rolls should determine a lot of the results, but someone saying "I negotiate for a better price: (roll dice) 25! Alright I get a discount" really is dull but if that's how people want to play then that's their prob.. er.. prerogative.
      Then why have a bargaining skill? Or Persuade? Or Seduce? Role-playing is a component, but ultimately places aren't tested on their ability to swing an actual sword, cast an actual spell, or any such thing. The characters are being tested, not the players, otherwise you end up with an intelligent player solving problems.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Should there be a "Skill" based class?

        Originally posted by shonuff View Post
        Then why have a bargaining skill? Or Persuade? Or Seduce? Role-playing is a component, but ultimately places aren't tested on their ability to swing an actual sword, cast an actual spell, or any such thing. The characters are being tested, not the players, otherwise you end up with an intelligent player solving problems.
        I guess I Just find that boring. If I wanted to play a numbers game I'd play a video game. Numbers + RP = Fun Game, Numbers Only = Video Game, RP only = Movie/TV show. I like combining both. Enough thread derailing.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Should there be a "Skill" based class?

          Originally posted by AndrewD2 View Post
          I guess I Just find that boring. If I wanted to play a numbers game I'd play a video game. Numbers + RP = Fun Game, Numbers Only = Video Game, RP only = Movie/TV show. I like combining both. Enough thread derailing.
          It's not an either/or, though. Just because you use the dice doesn't mean there's not a place for RPing.

          And it pertains to the overall discussion. Without some other (non-existing) mechanic, there's no real need for a non-combat class. The existing stunts for RP/exploration are underdeveloped at best, there's no crafting system (other than a base Crafting focus, there's no alchemy, etc. Without creating multiple sub-systems, everything a scholar would do is covered (if a little poorly).

          And then as Darkdreamer said, there'd be little for a non-combat character to do with the group. Other systems use macro-time or have extensive outside combat opportunities. Dragon Age, not so much, when the majority of your baddies are either black hat monsters or animals.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Should there be a "Skill" based class?

            Originally posted by AndrewD2 View Post
            I guess I Just find that boring. If I wanted to play a numbers game I'd play a video game. Numbers + RP = Fun Game, Numbers Only = Video Game, RP only = Movie/TV show. I like combining both. Enough thread derailing.
            I think that's the right on the money, you can roll dice & roll play each encounter from combat to solving problems to bargaining. Have the player roll the dice, don't tell them if they passed or failed but have them role play the encounter and then let them know if they have passed or failed.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Should there be a "Skill" based class?

              Originally posted by The Rockerdog View Post
              I think that's the right on the money, you can roll dice & roll play each encounter from combat to solving problems to bargaining. Have the player roll the dice, don't tell them if they passed or failed but have them role play the encounter and then let them know if they have passed or failed.
              I do it the reverse. How they role play affects their roll.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Should there be a "Skill" based class?

                Ok just cause it seems like people don't think it can be done or that it wouldn't be useful.....

                Here is a quick version of a class for a scholar. (and by quick I mean I came up with this in like 30 minutes and it is still freaking cool and useful)

                Specializations coming soon.


                Scholar
                (This class can also be used for Tranquil Mages)

                Level 1: Your primary abilities are: Communication, Cunning, & Perception
                Health: 20 + Con + d6
                Weapon Groups: Brawling & Staves
                Starting Talents: Choose 2 (Lore, Linguistics, Chirurgy, Oratory, Observation, or Music)
                Ability Focus: Choose 2 from Cunning Focuses
                Level 2: Stunt Bonus: Speedy Search (1SP) because your mind is quicker then those around you. Also you can use this talent in the same roll up to 3 times to reduce the time taken if you have the stunt points for it.
                Level 3: You gain a new talent
                Level 4: Stunt Bonus: Upper Hand (3 SP) your wit is quick and therefore you should be a bit quicker
                Also you gain an additional ability focus this level of your choice OR become trained in an additional Weapon Group (Any including Dueling, Lances, or any other usually reserved) You learn this thru study warriors aren't the only ones who can learn to pick up a weapon.
                Level 5: You gain a new talent
                Level 6: You gain a new specialization
                Stunt Bonus: Defensive Stance (1SP) One thing you know best is how to protect yourself and your mind.
                Level 7: You gain a new talent
                Level 8: You gain a new specialization
                Level 9: You gain a new talent
                Hit them with your mind: You can add your Cunning score to the damage & attack of any melee attack you make, by judging up your opponent you know just where to hit them that will hurt most.
                Level 10: You gain a new specialization
                Level 11: You gain a new talent
                Level 12: Stunt Bonus: When using the Resources at hand stunt you gain a +3 instead of a +2 in the chosen focus. You can also use this stunt in combat or roleplaying encounters as well now. There just isn't anything you can pick up. Even if it is only for a little while.
                Also you gain an additional ability focus this level of your choice OR become trained in an additional Weapon Group (Just like at level 4)
                Level 13: You gain a new talent
                Level 14: You gain a new specialization
                Level 15: You gain a new talent
                Stunt Bonus: The Object of your attention (2SP) & Stunned Silence (2SP) yup you are just that good. Once something has your attention you can totally figure out all the aspects of it. And when you go to explain things well the whole room is left speechless.
                Level 16: You gain a new specialization
                Level 17: You gain a new talent
                Mind your surroundings: You are always aware of what is around you. Which is more then you can say for your opponents. When in an encounter where the environment adds special stunts or where stunts like skirmish could send someone off a cliff or put them in a bad way, opponents must spend an additional point to use those stunts and they cost one less for you (in the case of skirmish the first point would be 0 and the rest would cost 1)
                Level 18: You gain a new specialization
                Level 19: You gain a new talent
                Level 20: Epic Scholar you may choose from (combat, roleplaying, exploration or organization/plot stunts) that's right you get an extra choice and it's a 2 for 1 because you really are the brains of the operation.


                So yeah it can be done. And it would be a good addition to a group. And it's not really like a mage (no magic) and not like a rogue (no backstab) and not like a warrior (because this one hits you with it's mind not just brute force).

                So not sure why something like this is considered to not fit in the setting or in an action oriented rpg. Honestly that would be like telling Indiana Jones (or Brother Genitivi) he should just stay in a library. And well if Genetivi stayed in the library we wouldn't have as many codex entries to read and the world of Thedas would has a lot fewer books. Which would be a crying shame. But maybe that is just me.
                Last edited by exdemon13; 07-07-2015, 08:30 PM.
                Campaign Codex

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Should there be a "Skill" based class?

                  So much talking about being a scholar rather than an action-oriented class and you create a class that has access to ANY weapon group and then - by default - adds Cunning to melee attacks and damage. He can also avoid dexterity-dependent activities to wear heavier armor with little actual adverse effects (what's a -3 to dexterity when you don't use the attribute).
                  If you pick, say, heavy blades and alternate between strength and cunning you end up outclassing rogues. Even with average starting stats, our 2-handed-sword wielding scholar at level 9 gets to have:
                  +12 attack (5 Strength, 5 Cunning, heavy blades focus)
                  3d6+10 damage (average above 20 per attack)


                  You say that he doesn't have a backstab - but really, how different is Hit them with your mind? It uses your mental superiority - in melee this basically means surprising your opponent and sticking your pointy thing where it hurts; so you strike quick and smart rather than hard - guess what, that's the reasoning behind backstab. Only it's much more powerful here because you got inspired by Lethality so "hit them with your mind" requires no preparation rolls and just gives Cunning (and it gives the bonus to both attack and damage, even), most likely completely outclassing the bonuses rogue would get even from perfectly executed backstab.
                  So, tell me again. Why not just stick to the rogue, since ultimately you end up giving your new class similarly themed special powers? Rogue is a broad class. And yes, it DOES include scholars. But let me explain it by giving a couple other examples. What are rogues? They're many things, among them spies, rangers/hunters, archers, thieves, scholars, priests, craftsmen. Let's take a look at each possibility
                  1. Spies. Even backstab doesn't seem to fit them all that well, since it's rarely their job to really kill anyone. They have to blend in, be smart, be able to hide themselves. They definitely don't use bows a lot - yet Rogue class forces quite a lot of ranged focus on them with Lethality and Quick Shot.
                  2. Rangers/hunters and archers in general. Wow, why would people like that have a backstab? Or dirty fighting? Or have "slippery" power? They train with their bows, they do they best to not end up in melee. Why would they have any advantages in such a situation?
                  3. Thieves. They could bump into you and steal your pants in the process, but they're not adept at fighting, so... why would they get backstab? Or Lethality, or Quickshot?
                  4. Scholars - like thieves: not fighters, not archers, not even talkers.
                  5. Priests - a bit like Scholars, just they are more peoples's people rather than bookworms. Not necessarily very smart, but definitely outspoken, somewhat similar to Spies.
                  6. Craftsmen - well, they're not fighters or archers, not assassins, they're not especially learned nor quick-witted...

                  All the above are in DA:RPG modeled as rogues. But none of them fits perfectly. So, yeah, you probably could rename Rogue to be an assassin and create four more classes: Archer (ranged focus), Scholar (clever guys), Thief/craftsman (enchanced non-combat skills), Spy (talkers, artists, priests). But is it worth it? Isn't it preferable to just take what the system provides and use that, even if it does include a couple skills that don't 100% fit your concept?
                  It's like the Mage class with Arcane Lance that - going by descriptions - seems to be mostly part of Circle Mage training; it doesn't really fit a self-taught hedge mage, especially in more advanced forms that come later - but these are abilities forced upon all the mages. And it's quite possible for such a mage to have a choice of Lore and Linguistic starting talents - neither seems like a fitting choice for someone who likely shouldn't even be able to read. Yes, there could be a distinct Hedge Mage class - but is it worth it? This system paints things in broad strokes. And this means, that sometimes things don't fit perfectly. Houseruling has its place, but I don't think creating new classes is really the way to go. If you REALLY feel the need to change something, I'd stick to minor alterations. Add "Lore" Talent to Rogue's starting choice, for example. Perhaps include some bonus (maybe an additional Talent choice from some short non-combat list) that can be taken instead of Backstab. But don't go reinventing the whole thing from scratch, it's just not worth it.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Should there be a "Skill" based class?

                    I just created the civilian class in esoterica 4. fulfilled the criteria I needed.
                    [url=https://www.dropbox.com/sh/556jwwh3xbxlhrl/AAAkLkSF39KdOVtmencs8cyDa?dl=0]Esoterica from Thedas Volumes 1-4[/url]

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Should there be a "Skill" based class?

                      Looking at the upcoming Blue Rose RPG for the AGE System, it looks like they are coming out with some kind of Scholar Class. Its called the "Expert" class and it might be right up the alley if you're looking to break the mold of the Warrior/Rogue/Mage archetypes.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Should there be a "Skill" based class?

                        Originally posted by darkfire14 View Post
                        Looking at the upcoming Blue Rose RPG for the AGE System, it looks like they are coming out with some kind of Scholar Class. Its called the "Expert" class and it might be right up the alley if you're looking to break the mold of the Warrior/Rogue/Mage archetypes.
                        Do they mention it in addition to, or instead of, the rogue? The True20 Rogue equivalent was the Expert, and while it was somewhat broader than a rogue, it still had a lot of potential and actual combat capability.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Should there be a "Skill" based class?

                          Originally posted by exdemon13 View Post
                          Ok just cause it seems like people don't think it can be done or that it wouldn't be useful.....

                          Here is a quick version of a class for a scholar. (and by quick I mean I came up with this in like 30 minutes and it is still freaking cool and useful)

                          Specializations coming soon.


                          Scholar
                          (This class can also be used for Tranquil Mages)

                          Level 1: Your primary abilities are: Communication, Cunning, & Perception
                          Health: 20 + Con + d6
                          Weapon Groups: Brawling & Staves
                          Starting Talents: Choose 2 (Lore, Linguistics, Chirurgy, Oratory, Observation, or Music)
                          Ability Focus: Choose 2 from Cunning Focuses
                          Level 2: Stunt Bonus: Speedy Search (1SP) because your mind is quicker then those around you. Also you can use this talent in the same roll up to 3 times to reduce the time taken if you have the stunt points for it.
                          Level 3: You gain a new talent
                          Level 4: Stunt Bonus: Upper Hand (3 SP) your wit is quick and therefore you should be a bit quicker
                          Also you gain an additional ability focus this level of your choice OR become trained in an additional Weapon Group (Any including Dueling, Lances, or any other usually reserved) You learn this thru study warriors aren't the only ones who can learn to pick up a weapon.
                          Level 5: You gain a new talent
                          Level 6: You gain a new specialization
                          Stunt Bonus: Defensive Stance (1SP) One thing you know best is how to protect yourself and your mind.
                          Level 7: You gain a new talent
                          Level 8: You gain a new specialization
                          Level 9: You gain a new talent
                          Hit them with your mind: You can add your Cunning score to the damage & attack of any melee attack you make, by judging up your opponent you know just where to hit them that will hurt most.
                          Level 10: You gain a new specialization
                          Level 11: You gain a new talent
                          Level 12: Stunt Bonus: When using the Resources at hand stunt you gain a +3 instead of a +2 in the chosen focus. You can also use this stunt in combat or roleplaying encounters as well now. There just isn't anything you can pick up. Even if it is only for a little while.
                          Also you gain an additional ability focus this level of your choice OR become trained in an additional Weapon Group (Just like at level 4)
                          Level 13: You gain a new talent
                          Level 14: You gain a new specialization
                          Level 15: You gain a new talent
                          Stunt Bonus: The Object of your attention (2SP) & Stunned Silence (2SP) yup you are just that good. Once something has your attention you can totally figure out all the aspects of it. And when you go to explain things well the whole room is left speechless.
                          Level 16: You gain a new specialization
                          Level 17: You gain a new talent
                          Mind your surroundings: You are always aware of what is around you. Which is more then you can say for your opponents. When in an encounter where the environment adds special stunts or where stunts like skirmish could send someone off a cliff or put them in a bad way, opponents must spend an additional point to use those stunts and they cost one less for you (in the case of skirmish the first point would be 0 and the rest would cost 1)
                          Level 18: You gain a new specialization
                          Level 19: You gain a new talent
                          Level 20: Epic Scholar you may choose from (combat, roleplaying, exploration or organization/plot stunts) that's right you get an extra choice and it's a 2 for 1 because you really are the brains of the operation.


                          So yeah it can be done. And it would be a good addition to a group. And it's not really like a mage (no magic) and not like a rogue (no backstab) and not like a warrior (because this one hits you with it's mind not just brute force).

                          So not sure why something like this is considered to not fit in the setting or in an action oriented rpg. Honestly that would be like telling Indiana Jones (or Brother Genitivi) he should just stay in a library. And well if Genetivi stayed in the library we wouldn't have as many codex entries to read and the world of Thedas would has a lot fewer books. Which would be a crying shame. But maybe that is just me.
                          I have to agree with above that I'm not keen on the combat abilities. IMO, they seem out of place for a non-combat class to be running around with a 2H weapon. I also think Hit Them With Your Mind is going to translate to obscene bonuses. Part of my problem with the combat abilities is that they seem like they are there to give combat utility to a non-combat class. And again, I love non-combat characters, but I think you're better off with a different system, IMO.

                          One other design flaw is that there is no ranged attack option (until possibly level 4). I would recommend adding either Light Blades or Bows (probably Light Blades).

                          That aside, I'd require that one of the initial talents be Lore, and the initial foci should be the foundation of scholarship - Research and Writing. That would pretty much exclude Music and Chiurgy from being the second talent choice.

                          But I'd still argue that's there is not much here that isn't covered by another class. Warriors are your front-line fighters, rogues are your archers, mages haves magic. Scholars search faster and have access to focuses?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Should there be a "Skill" based class?

                            Originally posted by exdemon13 View Post
                            Honestly that would be like telling Indiana Jones (or Brother Genitivi) he should just stay in a library. And well if Genetivi stayed in the library we wouldn't have as many codex entries to read and the world of Thedas would has a lot fewer books. Which would be a crying shame. But maybe that is just me.
                            I remember Brother Genitivi being a useless waste of space. He got himself caught by the crazy Havenites. He was beaten and probably would have been killed if I hadn't showed up when I did. After I saved him and we went to find the urn, instead of going in and doing some actual research or investigating he stood at the door and waited on me to do all the work. So yes, Brother Genitivi should have just stayed in a library. Actually, Genitivi's complete lack of skill and curiosity makes me question whether he actually did any of the stuff he wrote about. He was probably Thedas' version of Robert Ripley.

                            And Indiana Jones is totally a rogue.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Should there be a "Skill" based class?

                              Originally posted by Alchemus View Post
                              I remember Brother Genitivi being a useless waste of space. He got himself caught by the crazy Havenites. He was beaten and probably would have been killed if I hadn't showed up when I did. After I saved him and we went to find the urn, instead of going in and doing some actual research or investigating he stood at the door and waited on me to do all the work. So yes, Brother Genitivi should have just stayed in a library. Actually, Genitivi's complete lack of skill and curiosity makes me question whether he actually did any of the stuff he wrote about. He was probably Thedas' version of Robert Ripley.

                              And Indiana Jones is totally a rogue.
                              To be fair, he almost needed to have his foot amputated.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X