Personally, I wouldn't switch the Land of Nod from the Saga rules to a modified version of the Amethyst rules. That is not, however, because I think the Saga rules are any better for a Modern game. Rather, with only 4 tech based classes, and 4e's limited multiclass system, Amethyst just doesn't give me as much sci-fi/Modern character variation as Saga does. Of course, Amethyst is designed to be played with other 4e fantasy classes, and if used with those classes there is plenty of character variation... a lot of it just won't be "Modern" but rather "Fantastic," which in Amethyst is the point. Amethyst is better at running the type of game it wants to be then Saga is: that is to say, I think that 4e D&D modified/bolstered by the Amethyst rules makes for a better sci-fantasy game than Saga would. However, if you are looking for a more up-to-date system (compared to d20 Modern) with which to build a generic heroic Modern or Sci-Fi game, and you are not interested in heavily using Fantasy elements/and or themes/tropes, I think Amethyst might feel a little restrictive. However, considering what we have been told about Neurospasta, I imagine that Neurospasta will feel a good deal less restrictive in terms of its sci-fi specific character creation options, so I think that is something to really look forward to (as I am fairly impressed with Amethyst).
All in all, I really suggest that anyone interested in using the 4e system to run a Modern/Sci-Fantasy game give Amethyst a look, and pick it up.
EDIT: On a low note, as I look through the book I keep seeing balancing issues. The stalker is supposed to be the techan striker (its a sniper/gunslinger). All in all, it seems fairly underpowered. Some of its epic tier daily attacks deal only 1-4 [W] damage, and it really doesn't have any sort of striker damage bonus worth writing home about past heroic tier. Meanwhile, the only techan healing mechanic heals less then 1 healing surge worth of hitpoints at epic tier, even if your character has a fully optimized healing skill. Those low notes are fairly upsetting.
lets take the example party I used in a classic thread-
Flyboy & The Four Fasts
Tommy TwoShivs
Sniper Dan
2ndStory Steve-o
XXXXX the Ninja (he wont tell us his name)
Captain Jim, the fighter ace that assembled the team
in d20 Modern they would all be Fast Hero variants-
(unless we sub in KungFu Joe for the ninja guy)
F&tFF has a striking Fast sniper,
a defending Fast twf
a controling Fast burgler (skillbucket)
a leading Fast fighterjock <"lead" as in he is in charge, cant talk your HP back>
and the Fast ninjaguy XXXX... he wont tell us what his roll is
but how would we have to build Capt Jim's gang in Amthist?
Pre-Release Review of Amethyst: Foundations by Dias Ex Machina (Part 1)
Pre-Release Review of Amethyst: Foundations by Dias Ex Machina (Part 2)
It's interesting although the lack of Divine power source and regular races seems a little disappointing. It's not really what I'm looking for so I haven't picked it up yet.
how well can it represent a typical modern party,
lets take the example party I used in a classic thread-Flyboy & The Four Fasts
Tommy TwoShivs
Sniper Dan
2ndStory Steve-o
XXXXX the Ninja (he wont tell us his name)
Captain Jim, the fighter ace that assembled the team
in d20 Modern they would all be Fast Hero variants-
(unless we sub in KungFu Joe for the ninja guy)
F&tFF has a striking Fast sniper,
a defending Fast twf
a controling Fast burgler (skillbucket)
a leading Fast fighterjock <"lead" as in he is in charge, cant talk your HP back>
and the Fast ninjaguy XXXX... he wont tell us what his roll is
but how would we have to build Capt Jim's gang in Amthist?
A typical modern party, huh. Please let me know how the typical Modern party has a fast-hero capable of acting like a defender in any shape or form? While you are at it, please let me know how you have a fast hero capable of acting like a controller, or how a "skillbucket" character equates to a controller? And which fast hero gives you a leader's capabilities in a typical modern game again?
Feel free to post in one of my threads again when you are not being disingenuous backstabbist.
about how it is done in Amythist
rather than get snippy about how its done it d20Modern
how well can it represent a typical modern party,
lets take the example party I used in a classic thread-
Flyboy & The Four Fasts
Tommy TwoShivs
Sniper Dan
2ndStory Steve-o
XXXXX the Ninja (he wont tell us his name)
Captain Jim, the fighter ace that assembled the team
There you go Dave,
how do those guys get represented:
TWF guy
Sniper Guy
Sneaky Guy
Punchy Guy
Fighter Ace that tells the team what to do, the team Captain, the Anchorman (we used to call putting a team together and telling them what to do leading)
So again, how do these get built in Amy?
"Please let me know how the typical Modern party has a fast-hero capable of acting like a defender in any shape or form?"
Do not confuse someone defending with the "Role" named "Defender",
just like we shouldnt confuse someone leading with the healer now roled "Leader".
I didnt say they were of "Defender" role, I said he was defending, just like the guy that dont heal is leading the party without "Leader" role
Capt Jim needed somebody to stop folks from walking up and punching SniperDan, and Tommy TwoShivs is great at "Stand next to Dan and keep him alive". Who are we to tell Tommy's player that he cant take a twf guy cause he has to take a Defense Role class
Instead of getting huffy over what you percieve as ingenuous on my part, and using that as an excuse to not answer the question... whynot answer the question as to how Amy does it while in a huff?
Instead of getting huffy over what you percieve as ingenuous on my part, and using that as an excuse to not answer the question... whynot answer the question as to how Amy does it while in a huff?
I do not just perceive that you are being disingenuous, you are being disingenuous. Why use terms like defender, leader, controller, or leader, unless you are trying to bring loaded terms to the table in order to derail this thread via an argument. Why make disparaging statements about 4e (such as: "'lead' as in he is in charge, cant talk your HP back") in a thread clearly labeled as being a space for those interested in concepts related to a 4e iteration of the d20 Modern game, unless of course your real reason to post here is to bait and inflame any members of this community who do not share your opinions. Would you have us believe that you are a complete fool, totally unable to guess at the consequences of your actions, despite the fact that you have used those same actions to derail countless past threads related to 4e? Considering the number of posters who have sent me PMs, for one reason or another, telling me that they simply refuse to post in the Modern boards because of how hostile you specifically have made this place for anyone who does not share your irrational inability to accept that some might not prefer the same iteration of the game system that you do, and that your own personal preferences are not empirical truths, I think your presence in this thread is exactly what it seems like; your presence in this thread is an attempt to "bait." You are hoping to start a conversation where you can put people who like 4e on the defensive.
As such, no, I will not "Feel free to ANSWER THE QUESTTION," no matter how many times you write phrases in capitals, or add extra letters to the word question. I don't plan to defend 4e, or the capabilities of 4e, for your benefit. You have no interest in listening to any argument you don't want to hear. All you want to do is set up a conversation so that you will have the opportunity to lambaste 4e once again, no matter how undeserving the system might be of your violence. Instead I will point out how silly your question is in the first place. What could a fast hero ever do, in 3e d20 Modern, to actively defend a party member? What could any fast hero ever do, mechanically speaking, in 3e d20 Modern, that made them effective at standing next to another party member in order to keeping them alive by giving enemies a real mechanical incentive to focus on the fast hero instead of the enemies' primary target? Without house rules, or DM fiat, almost nothing. No typical d20 Modern group ever had a "defending Fast hero" in it, because a "defending Fast hero" either had to multiclass out of Fast hero and into a class capable of actually providing some sort of ally focused defensive capabilities (and from what I remember only one class in d20 Modern really offered any real ally focused defensive capabilities, and it wasn't one of the base six classes offered). Likewise, if you use the word leader in the sense of "leading the party" by "telling the party what to do," and not "offering mechanical advantages to the rest of the party designed to increase their effectiveness," then what exactly would stop any character from any game system from being a leader? That sense of the word has no mechanics attached to it. Anyone can be that sort of "leader," in any game system, just by saying that they are (and having the rest of the group agree). But if you are looking for some mechanical capabilities that allow you to bolster the party's effectiveness while you role-play leading them, please tell me, what fast hero class features gave you that capability? The answer, once again, is none. A typical d20 Modern game has never had a fast hero with mechanical capabilities that gave him (or her) the ability to mechanically defend his (or her) allies (with anything but a strong offense), or capabilities that grant their allies mechanical enhancements.
If almost any other posters have any questions about Amethyst I would be happy to answer those questions (to the best of my capability). You, backstabbist, have proven to me (in the past) that your only reason to participate in such a thread is to look for more ammunition to use as flame-bait against any posters that happen to like 4e, and who happen to want to see what a 4e iteration of d20 Modern might look like. The fact that you have already included comments in this thread where you lambaste the notion that hit points can be refreshed by words (never mind that nobody in this thread has suggested that they should be, at least as of yet, or that hit points are an abstraction that do not necessarily represent physical injury) suggests to me that nothing has changed. As such, I don't plan to answer a single question you (or any other poster with a similar agenda to yours) might have as a matter of principle. If you want to know anything about Amethyst you can either go out and buy the product, find someone who already has it and who is willing to tell you about it, or hope that someone else asks me a question you would like an answer to.
Are we really doing this again? Serioustly, stop baiting and stop taking the bait. We've been down this road many times. It's become kind of boring now.
I mean no offense when I say this Orion, but I am not Christian, and I don't aspire to Christian values. I have no desire to turn the other cheek, nor do I feel that that it is the most intelligent course of action that a person can aspire to perform. I will not break this web-sites CoC. I will not call backstabbist names, swear at him, or the like. But I also don't plan to sit here and ignore that, despite the fact that I do not attempt to derail any 3e threads with my opinions of the system, as soon as I post a thread about Amethyst and 4e Modern gaming (for those interested in such things), lo and behold here is backstabbist, like clockwork, trying to bait once again.
I will not break this web-sites CoC. I will not call backstabbist names, swear at him, or the like. But I also don't plan to sit here and ignore that, despite the fact that I do not attempt to derail any 3e threads with my opinions of the system, as soon as I post a thread about Amethyst and 4e Modern gaming (for those interested in such things), lo and behold here is backstabbist, like clockwork, trying to bait once again.
Dave, I sympathize with your position but you had to expect it. BS has already stated his opinion about the 4e system being spoken of on the Modern board (even if it's being spoken of for the purpose of another version of Modern):
they belong in a different forum than the d20Modern board
I'm not saying you shouldn't try. I'm just saying that you, and everyone else who has seen BS' posts in 4e oriented threads, should know that you have to be ready for a fistfight if you mention 4e on the Modern boards; even if you do it with the intent to support or revive role-playing in a modern setting.
With that out of the way heres what I think of this:
This thread really does belong in the GSL forum,but i understand why it was posted here. From what i've read on the review it doesn't seem like i'm interested it,.
I dislike having fantasy stuff auto included, I'd perfer it be totally optionial and i also dislike having magic interfere with tech. From what i'm reading about the non D&D classes (Whcih also turns me off) it looks like there isn't a class who does juwt talking to get info or into places where they shouldn't be (like a chrisametic would do)
Overall ,it does looke like it shows off the felxablity of 4E,but its just ndot something i'm iinterested in.
I dislike having fantasy stuff auto included, I'd perfer it be totally optionial and i also dislike having magic interfere with tech. From what i'm reading about the non D&D classes (Whcih also turns me off) it looks like there isn't a class who does juwt talking to get info or into places where they shouldn't be (like a chrisametic would do).
Yea. Fantasy is definitely auto-included in Amethyst. Its rules can be used to house-rule a totally Modern/zero-fantasy game, but house rules would be required. Quite a few, in fact. And its classes are designed to create a number of very specific character types, all of which are essentially military personnel. It has a "non-combat" class. The operator is pretty much a tech-geek/medic. But there is really no ability to create a completely charismatic based character type using the Amethyst rules. In fact, there are a lot of character types that can not be created. It is pretty good at doing what it is trying to do (and even there, I feel that the game messes up in the balance department a little too often for my tastes), but it offers little more in the way of 4e Modern gaming. That is why I said that I think Saga is still a better system for most Modern/Sci-fi gaming needs.
However, it seems Neurospasta will be doing a lot more in the straight Modern department. The game moves away from the 4e class mechanic into something brand new. You choose a class (all of which are new, as the game uses no existing 4e classes), and something akin to a profession. You can then choose powers from either. I imagine it will also include multiclassing. And Chris has said that a number of Neurospasta classes/professions will be designed without a single attack power that actually deals damage. I am looking forward to seeing how Neurospasta handles the subject matter.
Either way, it seemed to me that a lot of people were looking to try and house rule a 4e Modern game. Amethyst will still make that process much, much, easier. So I thought I would let people know that it is out and kicking...
I will not break this web-sites CoC. I will not call backstabbist names, swear at him, or the like. But I also don't plan to sit here and ignore that, despite the fact that I do not attempt to derail any 3e threads with my opinions of the system, as soon as I post a thread about Amethyst and 4e Modern gaming (for those interested in such things), lo and behold here is backstabbist, like clockwork, trying to bait once again.
Dave, I sympathize with your position but you had to expect it. BS has already stated his opinion about the 4e system being spoken of on the Modern board (even if it's being spoken of for the purpose of another version of Modern):they belong in a different forum than the d20Modern board
I'm not saying you shouldn't try. I'm just saying that you, and everyone else who has seen BS' posts in 4e oriented threads, should know that you have to be ready for a fistfight if you mention 4e on the Modern boards; even if you do it with the intent to support or revive role-playing in a modern setting.
Oh, I know. I just don't care. This is not his board. This board is not the exclusive playground of those interested in 3e d20 Modern gaming. This is the board dedicated to the discussion of ALL things d20 Modern. 4e is still a d20 game, and people interested in a 4e Modern game are still interested in a d20 Modern game. This is the right place to talk about that interest. As Amethyst is directly related to that interest, this board is also the right place to talk about using Amethyst as a foundation for a 4e d20 Modern game. As such, this board is the right place to tell people that Amethyst is out, and the 4e Modern homebrewing using Amethyst can begin.
Since I don't aspire to Christian values, put plain and simply, if he can't play nice I don't plan to either. If he wants to turn this entire board into a war-zone once again I will gladly oblige him. Otherwise, he can play nice, stick to the 3e topics, and leave topics such as this one to those who are genuinely interested in positively participating. I will be sure to do the same, only in relation to the 3e topics he is currently participating in.
Dave, I didn't say anything abour Christianity, so I'm going to ignore that red herring, if you don't mind.
Backstabbist, for all that you're a valuable poster in many ways and I've had many really useful conversations with you, you also love trolling 4e posts, specifically Dave's 4e-related posts because, Dave, you keep taking the bait.
We all know what to do with trolls: ignore them. They get bored when no one reacts with sufficient rage to fuel their little troll hearts, and even if they keep posting their little troll posts, so what? Why even respond to posts that are merely designed to start fights?
Backstabbist, I'm sorry to be dissing you in public like this, but I'm pretty sure you know exactly what you're doing, so I'm calling you on it.
Dave, I don't mean this to sound like an "everybody's at fault" lecture. Backstabbist is at fault for trolling, but you could be helping the situation more than you are right now. Just let it go. I know you just well enough to know that you quite literally have better things to do with your time.
That's just my opinion. Take it for what it is.
Idea #1) Instead of equating their damage to bows and crossbows, as I had previously suggested, give them 2 damage values. The first is used for basic attacks with guns and does more damage than bows/crossbows. The second damage value is for when guns are used to deliver attack powers, and it is equal to bows/crossbows.
Idea #2) Another solution would be that firearm attacks have smaller [w] multipliers than their bow/crossbow counterparts.
Idea #3) Or perhaps, it could be part of the firearm weapon group's properties that it subtracts a ceartain amount of [w] from powers that do more than a single [w] in their damage.
instead of talking about each other in this Amethyst thread,
and instead of talking about D&D 4e in this Amethyst thread,
hows about we talk about AMETHYST in this amethyst thread.
I'll start... wait, I already have.
Twice.
Regardless of how D&D 4e does it, and regardless of who is asking this question,
again,
how well can AMETHYST represent a typical modern party?
lets take the example party I used in a classic thread-
Flyboy & The Four Fasts
Tommy TwoShivs
Sniper Dan
2ndStory Steve-o
XXXXX the Ninja (he wont tell us his name)
Captain Jim, the fighter ace that assembled the team
Its the Modern forum, in an Amethyst thread,
and someone is asking about how does Amethyst handle these modern charcters?
heres an idea,
instead of talking about each other in this Amethyst thread,
and instead of talking about D&D 4e in this Amethyst thread,
hows about we talk about AMETHYST in this amethyst thread.
I'll start... wait, I already have.
Twice.
Regardless of how D&D 4e does it, and regardless of who is asking this question,
again,
how well can AMETHYST represent a typical modern party?
lets take the example party I used in a classic thread-Flyboy & The Four Fasts
Tommy TwoShivs
Sniper Dan
2ndStory Steve-o
XXXXX the Ninja (he wont tell us his name)
Captain Jim, the fighter ace that assembled the team
Its the Modern forum, in an Amethyst thread,
and someone is asking about how does Amethyst handle these modern charcters?
No. Sorry. I have already told you that I will not be answering any of your questions backstabbist.
Though, it should probably be noted that Amethyst is a D&D 4e Campaign Setting that takes place in the Modern world, so D&D 4e is integeral to any understanding of how Amethyst does it what it does. Asking people not to talk about 4e in an Amethyst thread would be like telling people not to talk about the Modern world in an Amethyst thread. It is not really possible.
You cannot create a "modern D20"-style group as indicated above using Amethyst character classes. You can create many variations of modern or science-fiction classes using our system and you can create even more given some homebrewing. The priority of Amethyst was to create a science fiction- fantasy and the classes were built with that in mind. Further, because D&D 4E pushed more combat than role playing, we built our classes as combat classes. The remaining 171 pages is dedicated to the setting and various ways you can role play in the setting...because I wanted to share this world with others. That was the reason why I wrote it, not the 100 pages of classes.
So...to settle the issue. You CAN create dozens of varieties of modern/sci-fi classes using Amethyst as long as they have a combat background. Yes, NeuroSpasta will allow for ANY type of modern class you can imagine (AND MORE) from D20 Modern.
Exit stage left...
Yes, NeuroSpasta will allow for ANY type of modern class you can imagine (AND MORE) from D20 Modern.
Exit stage left...
That's the one I'm wating for. Any time frame yet for the release?
Yea. Amethyst has really whetted my appetite for NeuroSpasta. Seeing what they can do with the 4e game engine once they completely remove 4e classes, and create their own method of character creation, REALLY excites me. 4e is a pretty solid game system. Unfortunately, while its power system is great, its class system is needlessly restrictive. That is fine for D&D, but it doesn't work so well when trying to model certain other types of narrative tropes. I look forward to seeing what NeuroSpasta can do once it opens up the class system into a "create a character from a pallet/buffet of options" system.
I totally agree about 4e classes being a bit narrow. I would like to see role divorced from class, so that it would be possible to build fighters who are strikers or controllers. Taken in a modern setting this would then let the player choose a role for their character: so someone could be a technical specialist controller, or whatever else fits.
I do think every character should have options that let them contribute to combat on an equal footing. If you want your character to be a total non-combatant you could always just not select or not use any of those abilities. This is, of course, actually possible under the 4e system. If I wanted a wizard who was a ritual caster with no attack spells; I just don't have to take any of them when creating my character. Throw skill powers into the mix, and this becomes less of a handicapping option than it has been before the PHB 3 was released.
I totally agree about 4e classes being a bit narrow. I would like to see role divorced from class, so that it would be possible to build fighters who are strikers or controllers. Taken in a modern setting this would then let the player choose a role for their character: so someone could be a technical specialist controller, or whatever else fits.
Don't get me wrong. I like the way D&D 4e does it for the purposes of running a D&D game. But when running a Modern game, I would prefer a system that is a little more open ended in the character creation department.
I do think every character should have options that let them contribute to combat on an equal footing. If you want your character to be a total non-combatant you could always just not select or not use any of those abilities. This is, of course, actually possible under the 4e system. If I wanted a wizard who was a ritual caster with no attack spells; I just don't have to take any of them when creating my character. Throw skill powers into the mix, and this becomes less of a handicapping option than it has been before the PHB 3 was released.
Yea, I don't really agree. Not using any of your attack powers in 4e is a MASSIVE handicap. That is not really an option in 4e. And while I do agree that all characters should be able to contribute in combat in Dungeons and Dragons, in a Modern game I would hope that some character's might be able to contribute in combat via a selection of attack powers that don't deal any damage.
One of the reasons I prefer Saga over 4e for Land of Nod is because Saga gives you the option to create "non-combat characters." 4e, and Amethyst, really don't. Even the operative is fairly combat oriented, and that has to be the least combat oriented 4e class I have seen to date.
I do think every character should have options that let them contribute to combat on an equal footing. If you want your character to be a total non-combatant you could always just not select or not use any of those abilities. This is, of course, actually possible under the 4e system. If I wanted a wizard who was a ritual caster with no attack spells; I just don't have to take any of them when creating my character. Throw skill powers into the mix, and this becomes less of a handicapping option than it has been before the PHB 3 was released.
Yea, I don't really agree. Not using any of your attack powers in 4e is a MASSIVE handicap. That is not really an option in 4e. And while I do agree that all characters should be able to contribute in combat in Dungeons and Dragons, in a Modern game I would hope that some character's might be able to contribute in combat via a selection of attack powers that don't deal any damage.
One of the reasons I prefer Saga over 4e for Land of Nod is because Saga gives you the option to create "non-combat characters." 4e, and Amethyst, really don't. Even the operative is fairly combat oriented, and that has to be the least combat oriented 4e class I have seen to date.
I respectfully disagree. Using the skill challenge mechanic, it is entirely possible to run an entire campaign (from 1 to 30) without a single combat encounter. Most people don't, but that doesn't mean that such a thing isn't actually built right into the system.
As for not using any attack powers being a handicap: If your game is a combat oriented game then hell yes it's a handicap. If you're playing in the aforementioned campaign, it might be possible for every player to skip that part of character creation.
4e clearly can create "non-combat characters". Can it create "non-combat characters that contribute to success in a combat encounter"? That is a different question, and it's one that is a bit circular in it's logic.
Maybe you should explain whether you mean totally non-combatant, or simply does no damage; because 4e can handle the latter (just say that all your powers do zero damage). A wizard will still act like a controller, pushing, pulling, and creating interfering terrain, even if they deal no damage. The only role that is severely hamstrung by a zero damage fiat are strikers.
I respectfully disagree.
That is cool. I don't mind agreeing to disagree. No reason we have to have the same opinion.
Using the skill challenge mechanic, it is entirely possible to run an entire campaign (from 1 to 30) without a single combat encounter. Most people don't, but that doesn't mean that such a thing isn't actually built right into the system.
Yea. You could. But the game would feel a little bare-bones (in my opinion). There are just not a lot of utility powers that relate specifically to skill use and skill challenges. There are some! In fact, some classes get quite a few! Other classes have almost none. Still, I admit you could.
As for not using any attack powers being a handicap: If your game is a combat oriented game then hell yes it's a handicap. If you're playing in the aforementioned campaign, it might be possible for every player to skip that part of character creation.
Your game does not have to be combat oriented for this to be a handicap. Your game only needs to include an occasional combat encounter here and there for this handicap to become blatantly obvious. A character who chooses not to use their combat attack powers will be at a massive disadvantage in those encounters. In fact, the whole group will be at a massive disadvantage. Either the combat encounter will become too tough (because it will be scaled under the assumption that there is one more character contributing then there actually is), or the group will be getting less EXP then it should (because it will be scaled to be a challenge for a group with one less person than the number of people actually playing). A very small amount of house rules can easily fix this of course. But unless you include a drastically larger number of house rules, one thing that can not be fixed is the fact that the "non-combat" character will not actually feel like it has an edge in "non-combat" encounters. It will feel exactly like a combat character, but without combat powers. Which begs the question, why choose to be a non-combat character in that game? Even if the game only features a few combat encounter's here and there a player is better off choosing to play a combat character, who will be just as good in any non-combat encounter as a non-combat character.
4e clearly can create "non-combat characters". Can it create "non-combat characters that contribute to success in a combat encounter"? That is a different question, and it's one that is a bit circular in it's logic.
Maybe you should explain whether you mean totally non-combatant, or simply does no damage; because 4e can handle the latter (just say that all your powers do zero damage). A wizard will still act like a controller, pushing, pulling, and creating interfering terrain, even if they deal no damage. The only role that is severely hamstrung by a zero damage fiat are strikers.
To me a non-combat character is a character that "feels" like it is not designed to participate in combat. It can be created in one of two ways, depending on the assumptions of the game system: the first method of creating a non-combat character is by allowing a character to give up a significant portion of its combat capabilities in favor of a significant edge in its mechanical capabilities relating to non-combat encounter resolution; the second method of creating a non-combat character is by creating the illusion of a non-combatant. You create a character with as much capability in combat as anyone else, but who has combat attack powers balanced in such a manner that they do not need to cause damage in order to remain roughly equal to any other character. Instead the powers appear to be flavor manners by which a character uses its "non-combat" capabilities to bolster its group, hinder its enemies, and generally keep it alive in the face of danger. Your "just remove all damage from your character's powers" idea doesn't really cut it, in my view, because that is a flat subtraction that doesn't do anything to really keep the character roughly equal to the effectiveness of all other characters.
Now, 4e does allow you to give up some combat effectiveness to boost your non-combat effectiveness. You can do this in the area of feats. Indeed, you can even give up significant combat effectiveness in order to boost your non-combat effectiveness. But you will almost always be forced to have 2 at-will, 4 per encounter, and 4 per day attack powers which make all 4e character's feel like they are combatants. Mind you, a few characters come very close to feeling like they are non-combat characters. The illusionist wizard can select 4 per day attack powers that don't deal damage. Instead they impose powerful status effects on his enemies. The artificer can select 4 per day attack powers that don't deal damage, instead they temporarily enhance one of the group's weapons. Even the illusionist and the artificer, however, will have 2 at-will powers and 4 per encounter powers that deal damage to their foes (and thus "feel" like they are combat focused abilities).
In terms of D&D this really doesn't bother me at all. This doesn't really bother me in Amethyst at all either, because Amethyst, at its heart, is a D&D game. For a 4e Modern game, however, I think it would be nice to have a few builds that don't deal any damage. Instead, even their at-will and per encounter powers would look something like the per day powers available to the artificer or the illusionist wizard. Powers that allow allies to attack in your place are acceptable as well.
This is, of course, just my 2 cents. Nobody needs to agree with me.
1) Ensure the success of Amethyst to help fund future books.
2) Release a follow-up to Amethyst to show our continued support of the line.
3) NeuroSpasta
Now that's out of the way, here is a quick rundown as how our class system works.
There are (currently) ten classes: COMBAT AUTHORITY, FACEMAN, GUNSLINGER, HEAVY, INFILTRATOR, MAN-AT-ARMS, MANIPULATOR, SNIPER, SPECIALIST, VANGUARD
COMBAT AUTHORITY, FACEMAN, SNIPER, and SPECIALIST are non-combat (meaning they have powers which don't "attack" other targets. COMBAT AUTHORITY, GUNSLINGER, HEAVY, INFILTRATOR, MAN-AT-ARMS, SNIPER, and VANGUARD are combat (yes, Combat Authority can do both. They are identical to classes from D&D except they are about 60-70% the size (save for our hacker, MANIPULATOR, which is full size)
Then we have the Ladders. Ladders are generic paths you select at 1st level. They offer additional power choices, level-based class features, and other bonuses which can actually alter the class you are going into. You only pick one ladder and base your choice on your two dominant attributes.
BORN LEADER (Charisma, Intelligence), JUGGERNAUT (Constitution, Strength), RUNNER (Dexterity, Intelligence/Wisdom), SAVANT (Intelligence, Wisdom), VETERAN (Charisma, Wisdom), WARRIOR
(Dexterity, Strength)
Your ladder affects your class. Juggernaught uses Constitution for his attack and damage with firearms while Warrior uses Strength and Runner uses Dexterity, etc. You CAN powergame and "smurf-out" your build but you may be surpised which combinations work really well. VETERAN, for example, is a fanastic firearm ladder despite his strength being with Wisdom.
Feats also play a much more important role. With feats, you can also alter your class, especially with Vanguard, which is our melee fighter. Each feat is a martial art discipline, altering how you perform your powers (at least, that's the plan).
Obviously, a lot of Amethyst was carried over. The Grounder is the combination of Heavy and Man-At-Arms while Stalker is the combination of both Sniper and Gunslinger. Ladders also offer you level based bonuses as you progress. You can choose to either gain money (as a credit windfall) or the special ability. Via this technique, you can choose to purchase no cybernetics or improved weapons and strictly be "au naturel". This helps with games where DMs wish to remove the constant obsession of players to acquire money.
That's basically it. Ladder is between race and class but it is not a profession. Classes are not a profession as more of "what you do." We also have lifepaths, which are "where you're from."
SO....
RACE: What you are.
LIFEPATH: Where you came from.
LADDER: What you become.
CLASS: What you do.
PROFESSION: Who pays you.
That last one we don't deal with. That's a campaign. You role play that one.
This is, of course, just my 2 cents. Nobody needs to agree with me.
The only problem I have with your position is that you are assuming there will be no list of noncombat powers a player can choose from instead of choosing from the combat powers list (or selecting a mix from the two lists). If we're talking about making a 4e game where one can have non-combat characters, I feel this is an improper assumption to make.
I'll grant you that no current 4e system game offers a list of non-combat powers, from lvls 1-30, intended to replace combat powers. The fact that it hasn't been done yet however does not mean that it can't be done within the confines of the 4e system. That is why I am adamant in my assertion that 4e can do non-combat characters; it just hasn't been a design and develoment focus yet.
This is, of course, just my 2 cents. Nobody needs to agree with me.
The only problem I have with your position is that you are assuming there will be no list of noncombat powers a player can choose from instead of choosing from the combat powers list (or selecting a mix from the two lists). If we're talking about making a 4e game where one can have non-combat characters, I feel this is an improper assumption to make.
I'll grant you that no current 4e system game offers a list of non-combat powers, from lvls 1-30, intended to replace combat powers. The fact that it hasn't been done yet however does not mean that it can't be done within the confines of the 4e system. That is why I am adamant in my assertion that 4e can do non-combat characters; it just hasn't been a design and develoment focus yet.
Oh, I think non-combat powers and options could very easily be added to 4e. I never meant to say or imply that the system can not be used to add/model non-combat characters. I mean that (in its current existing form) it just so happens that it doesn't.
Cyber-Dave have you taken a look at wrecan luck power source? Would that be satisfy your desire of a non combat character?
Hahahahaha. That is hilarious! Yes, that would be a "non-combat" class. Though, that wasn't exactly what I was thinking of though.
I don't actually have desire of a "non-combat" class in D&D. The thing is, in fantasy worlds brains are still deadly and dangerous. I don't mean as in, "they can mess up your life by doing something like hacking your files." I mean as in, "they can throw a fireball into your face." The "non-combat character" niche in D&D is filled by such things as wizards, bards, rogues, and the like, and each of these stereotypes can still be great at out and out mayhem. Of course, a "non-combat character" in fantasy can also be the "useless" character who acts as comic relief, but somehow still saves the day; the thing is, in all honesty, I never really wanted to either play that character or DM for someone who is playing that character.
In modern games that is no longer true. The "non-combat" character can not necessarily create out and out mayhem. The computer hacker can't kick an elite soldier's backside with a computer program. Magic works that way, not the modern day world. But in stories that feature such characters they always find some way to put their skills to good use, even in combat encounters. It just so happens that what they don't tend to do is deal damage. Instead, they usually find some way to make the situation more favorable for themselves so that they can either a) run away or b) allow a more combat oriented ally to do the "heavy lifting," so to speak. These smart characters, however, are not mere sidekicks. Case is the main protagonist, even if Molly Millions can kick his butt. I like 4e a lot. I like Modern gaming a lot. I just want a 4e Modern game that attempts to model the Modern genre, complete with "non-combat" character who can contribute to combat situations by doing something other than "combat," as in attacking in order to deal damage to a foe.
I'll take it.
You cannot create a "modern D20"-style group as indicated above using Amethyst character classes. You can create many variations of modern or science-fiction classes using our system and you can create even more given some homebrewing. The priority of Amethyst was to create a science fiction- fantasy and the classes were built with that in mind. Further, because D&D 4E pushed more combat than role playing, we built our classes as combat classes. The remaining 171 pages is dedicated to the setting and various ways you can role play in the setting...because I wanted to share this world with others. That was the reason why I wrote it, not the 100 pages of classes.
So...to settle the issue. You CAN create dozens of varieties of modern/sci-fi classes using Amethyst as long as they have a combat background. Yes, NeuroSpasta will allow for ANY type of modern class you can imagine (AND MORE) from D20 Modern.
Exit stage left...
Thank you for your assessment of how well it would handle a 'modern' party: Poorly
My follow up question is how Amethyst handles a generic sci-fi party,
Han, Chewy, Luke and Leia ( or Mal, Wash, Jane et al, if you prefer)
how would Amethyst classes handle those character?
Since we have no space combat in Amethyst, the Star Wars comparison is completely moot. Most of the roles mentioned are actually non-combat classes, which also renders the conversation moot.
Our inspiration for our classes resides in military roles, in both films and games. We took inspiration from Gears of War, Crysis, F.E.A.R, as well as Aliens, Black Hawk Down (which I watched while I was writing powers), Equilibrium, Wanted, Tombstone, and about a hundred other war and Hong Kong gun-fu films.
So if you bring up examples which have relevence, you can see the dozens if not hundreds of roles you can fill. Offering up examples which include concepts alien to a post-apocalyptical fantasy game, like space travel, makes it difficult to counterpoint.
I haven't read Amethyst, so I can't really try and stat out Jane or Mal, but I can give you their archetypes (and how they might be made in D20Modern/future)
Mal = gunslinging captain. In D20Modern/Future he'd be some amalgamation of Fast/Charismatic/Field Officer/Gunslinger (and maybe not even actually a gunslinger), with decent ranks in Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, and Pilot.
Jayne is a bruiser/shooter. The kinda guy you can trust to kick serious butt when you need him to; just don't bring him along for negotiations where intimidation should be kept to a minimum. Strong/tough/soldier. He might also be a Dedicated hero, but his wisdom and intelligence suck, so...
Most of the roles mentioned are actually non-combat classes, which also renders the conversation moot.
Our inspiration for our classes resides in military roles <..>
Well, that tells me what I needed to know.
Of course, I mentioned characters that had more depth than a pigeon hole 'Role' with a cast in stone Class... but we dont need to nit pick over it. Amethyst appears to be setup for the Fight Fight Fight sytle that is en vogue, which suits some folks while unsuitable for other folks.
just to hit the highlights:Most of the roles mentioned are actually non-combat classes, which also renders the conversation moot.
Our inspiration for our classes resides in military roles <..>
Well, that tells me what I needed to know.
Of course, I mentioned characters that had more depth than a pigeon hole 'Role' with a cast in stone Class... but we dont need to nit pick over it. Amethyst appears to be setup for the Fight Fight Fight sytle that is en vogue, which suits some folks while unsuitable for other folks.
But just to be clear:
The fact that Amethyst does not do explicitly non-combat classes does not mean that it cannot be done within the framework created by the 4e gaming system.
(not to be read as "The D&D 4e Mechanic", but as the "4e Mechanic" that D&D is built on)
to take up the d20Modern/Future campaigns ( or SW/Firefly games)
But it was made pretty clear that Amethyst is NOT that game.
Asking how a d20Modern Strong/MA can be played as a sniping marksman is not a moot conversation, but asking how Amethyst can be played with some less than combative chars in the party has been declared moot.
OK, I can accept that response.
I have no need to somehow prove Serena's answer wrong:
Amethyst is for a specific genre in a specific period.
Fine, there are lots of games out there that dont cover the stuff Modern covers
... like D&D4e for example, or LEG Rhand.
Can a game be made on the 4e mechanic that could handle d20Modern/Future well? Of course.
Is Amethyst it? Nope
(well, thats what I'm told)
It is, however, true that the dichotamy of combat power available between a "combat character" and a "non combat character" in Amethyst is not as great as the dichotamy found in either d20 Modern, or Star Wars Saga, which happens to be one of the reasons I would not use Amethyst rules for The Land of Nod instead of the Saga rules I currently use for it.
Like I said in my first post, Amethyst is great for certain types of games, including certain types of "d20 Modern" games. It is not great at running other types of games, including certain types of "d20 Modern" games. The type of games the Amethyst system is designed to run is far more accute than the type of games the d20 Modern system is designed to run. As a result Amethyst manages to be better at running the type of games it is designed to run, and worse at running a number of other types of games.
A Snipey guy
A TWF guy
A KungFu guy
A military guy
and a sneaky guy
... that somehow folks infer I'm promoting noncombat character classes and play
But then, who considers Han, Chewy, & Luke to be NonCombat chars / campaign
( Jayne Cobb as a noncombat char????)
All this hullabaloo over Noncombat Chars and 'he hates 4e'
is a bunch of hooey that I didnt bring to the thread.
its odd how a plethorette (mini-plethora) of posts arguing over Combat Chars vs NonCombat Chars sprung forth from a question on
A Snipey guy
A TWF guy
A KungFu guy
A military guy
and a sneaky guy
... that somehow folks infer I'm promoting noncombat character classes and play
But then, who considers Han, Chewy, & Luke to be NonCombat chars / campaign
( Jayne Cobb as a noncombat char????)
All this hullabaloo over Noncombat Chars and 'he hates 4e'
is a bunch of hooey that I didnt bring to the thread.
Well, I have played the free zombie adventure that is available on Amethyst's website with some friends, and it was pretty chaotic. This guy's got my vote for 'Thing I will buy as soon as I get the money'.
Having not played, I'll try my hand at your follow up question:
My follow up question is how Amethyst handles a generic sci-fi party,
Han, Chewy, Luke and Leia ( or Mal, Wash, Jane et al, if you prefer)
See Serena's note:
There are (currently) ten classes: COMBAT AUTHORITY, FACEMAN, GUNSLINGER, HEAVY, INFILTRATOR, MAN-AT-ARMS, MANIPULATOR, SNIPER, SPECIALIST, VANGUARD
I would hazard that:
Han Solo : Gunslinger
Chewbacca: Heavy
Luke: Infiltrator or possibly n00b (is that a class?)
Leia: Faceman (er, woman)
Seems about right.
Skritti
Backstabbist: Have not bought Amethyst yet, but am considering it. I like what Serena Dawn is saying.
Having not played, I'll try my hand at your follow up question:
My follow up question is how Amethyst handles a generic sci-fi party,
Han, Chewy, Luke and Leia ( or Mal, Wash, Jane et al, if you prefer)
See Serena's note:
There are (currently) ten classes: COMBAT AUTHORITY, FACEMAN, GUNSLINGER, HEAVY, INFILTRATOR, MAN-AT-ARMS, MANIPULATOR, SNIPER, SPECIALIST, VANGUARD
I would hazard that:
Han Solo : Gunslinger
Chewbacca: Heavy
Luke: Infiltrator or possibly n00b (is that a class?)
Leia: Faceman (er, woman)
Seems about right.
Skritti
Skritti, you are getting NeuroSpasta confused with Amethyst. NeuroSpasta is going to be based on the 4e core game mechanics, but will include its own (entirely new) character creation mechanics. Amethyst uses the core 4e rules, including its character creation process, but includes 4 new (military themed) modern character classes.
Skritti, you are getting NeuroSpasta confused with Amethyst. NeuroSpasta is going to be based on the 4e core game mechanics, but will include its own (entirely new) character creation mechanics. Amethyst uses the core 4e rules, including its character creation process, but includes 4 new (military themed) modern character classes.
I think that clarification isn’t entirely accurate either. Let me explain it in a way using 4th Edition architecture.
In NeuroSpasta, everyone creates a class using a mechanic nearly identical to the “hybrid” rules presented in Players Handbook 3. However, instead of two classes, you pick one class and one ladder. Ladders don’t have starting hit points or roles or anything a class has starting out, though it does have certain features (and you get them in addition to your class features). As you advance, you can choose to select a power from your ladder or your class (which is why our classes and ladders offer half the number of powers as a standard D&D class). Ladders also have level based abilities which supplement a modern’s character need for magic items and enhancement. Like a hybrid, the combination of ladder and class creates something unique but unlike a hybrid, the ladder can actually modify the class it is being paired with (like your primary attack attribute).
Because of this mechanic, we actually have around 60 classes instead of 10. As it is meant to be a stand-alone system, we had no issue implementing this additional level of complexity. A recent modification now makes it still compatible with traditional D&D (from a mechanical standpoint anyway).
Now AMETHYST, trying to follow more the original D&D design philosophy doesn’t do this. Effectively, we have merged one or two NeuroSpasta classes (Amethyst came first but try to follow the logic) with their most desirable ladder to create a standard full class. The Amethyst Grounder class was split into Heavy and Man-At-Arms NeuroSpasta classes. The Amethyst Stalker was split into the NeuroSpasta Gunslinger and Sniper. The Amethyst Marshal, alternatively, is a combination of the Combat Authority class and the Born Leader ladder.
Of course, Amethyst’s first draft was written in 2008, well before Player’s Handbook 3 but you can begin to understand the mechanical nature of NeuroSpasta and Amethyst. The explosive and firearm rules are identical in both games, as are the stat lines for all the weapons.
So, in conclusion: NeuroSpasta’s class mechanic is essentially about using hybrid rules to merge two “half”-classes while Amethyst is more traditional, though using similar powers and similar class features.
it will be interesting to see what a Face brings to the party
but as CD just said, that is a different game
(yeah, earlier I speed read & made the same mistake till I started writing a post about it)
Skritti gets easily confused... and then he talks in the third person.
I have to say on the whole that the approach taken with NeuroSpasta with the greater flexibility of having a ladder and a class but less powers in each, makes it more interesting to me.
My experience with 4E is that it feels a bit like a straight jacket. 4E gives the illusion of choice, but its really just an illusion. When we play a Ranger we need to max out dex so we pick Elf. Our Elf Ranger at Level 3 or 4 can pick between Split the Tree and Cripple the Boar (or something to that effect) but Split the Tree is 37% more effective (you can just check the forums, some nerd out there will have done the math) so you'd never pick the Pig-Skewering one.
Because all the powers are essentially the same variations of x[w] damage you can easily figure out which ones are going to come out better. You just have to factor in the value you place in slide effects and you're essentially good to go.
I'd love a choice between a power in a Class that has a mechanical combat benefit and a power in a Ladder that has a skill challenge benefit. A choice between "Acrobatic Specialization: Re-roll your first failed Acrobatics check in an encounter." and "Slide 5ft 2[W]" is a real choice. As opposed to a choice between 2[W] + Int and 2[W] + Wis which will not be a choice at all, it will depend entirely on whether you picked the Int or Wis path of that particular class.
4E does give you some Utility powers but always in the same level so you never have the choice of taking an interesting non-combat power balanced against a combat power. Combat powers are compared to combat powers so Dr Math always makes the same choice.
There are 1000 combinations but only 7 characters anyone ever plays. "Now where's the Dwarf Cleric gone?"
Kudos on trying to develop a system that does more with the 4E mechanic than 4E has been able to do.
My 2 cents...
Skritti
My experience with 4E is that it feels a bit like a straight jacket. 4E gives the illusion of choice, but its really just an illusion. When we play a Ranger we need to max out dex so we pick Elf. Our Elf Ranger at Level 3 or 4 can pick between Split the Tree and Cripple the Boar (or something to that effect) but Split the Tree is 37% more effective (you can just check the forums, some nerd out there will have done the math) so you'd never pick the Pig-Skewering one.
While I do think Neurospasta offers more interesting choices, I disagree with your assessment of the choices available in 4e. First off, you don't need to max DEX, or any other stat, so you don't always need an elf or other DEX race. And even when it comes to choosing powers, the charop forums do help break the powers down for you in terms of usefulness, but even then there are caveats, like one power might be better overall, but another power is better for a particular build or concept. Usually there will be a one or two powers listed as "do not take ever" but it often comes down to a matter of personal taste as to which power you want. Not all powers can be perfectly quantified, especially when status effects come into play. Also, since there is a lower power difference between optimizers and non-optimizers, its easier to justify making a concept character. Maybe its just the people you play with, but my experiences with 4e have been completely different.
However, I will repeat that I like the Neurospasta sytem better, I do agree that it offers more choices, and sometimes more interesting choices, and my first impression of the ladder system was that it was what hybrid classing should have been.
Makes you think if Wizards should be giving me a call?
With the soon to be released Verion 0.75 of Neurospasta playtest rules, we might have just cracked the 4th Edition Modern paradox. Of course, that's just my opinion and I admit I am slightly biased.