First thing I would do is make some modifications to the skill system. Instead of 4 times as many skill points at first level, you would get a +3 for being trained in a skill. Synergy bonuses come in at 2 ranks and max ranks is a character's level. For some reason I noticed there is no skill focus feat, I'm not sure why so I'll leave it out for now.
Next lets merge some skills together because honestly I think there are way too many skills.
Merge Spot, Listen, and Search into Perception which is a class skill for everybody who got anyone of those as a class skill
Merge Hide and Move Silently into Stealth which is a class skill for everybody who got anyone of those as a class skill
Merge Bluff, Disguise, and Forgery into Deception which is a class skill for everybody who got anyone of those as a class skill
Get rid of concentration, concentration is made based on your level, plus con or charisma for undead characters, +3.
Those are the most obvious to me
www.rpgobjects.com/index.php?c=product&p...
...change...aakkk!
Blasphemy!
I wholeheartedly support the "use Saga as the new d20 Modern" movement. GREAT game. It is, already, pretty much d20 Modern. It is just a more up to date, streamlined, version of the d20 Modern game... with starships and Jedi.
Well Neurospasta (Dias ex Machina games), when it is released, will pretty much be a 4e-ized d20 modern. Some of the same rules made it into Amethyst, but since Amethyst classes used alongside standard 4e classes you still have heavy combat emphasis and they couldn't introduce any non-4e compatible rules.
After playing D&D4E since it came out and reading Cyber-Daves review of Amethyst I realy don't see 4E as a viable solution for Modern. Saga does a better job and e20 will be even better when it comes out.
Being more specific about modern/future 4e mechanics however, I see a LOT of equipment that grants powers. Weapons with burst and auto settings that grant combat powers; optical equipment that grants visual utility powers; speedloaders and extra clips that grants a per encounter, nearly instant reload; consumable per encounter weapons like genades and molotov cocktails.
For classes I see something akin to the 4E hybridization feature; where a 4e modern class is cobbled together from occupations & backgrounds (to determine skills and general flavor), and class features chosen by the player (with each role, including a non-combat role, having different lists of class features to choose from). This divorces role from class, which is an improvement in my opinion, and allows members of any class to fulfill any role.
Without seeing what Neurospasta does with a modern/futuristic 4E environment, I think Dave has it right when he says it would look very much like Saga.
Being more specific about modern/future 4e mechanics however, I see a LOT of equipment that grants powers. Weapons with burst and auto settings that grant combat powers; optical equipment that grants visual utility powers; speedloaders and extra clips that grants a per encounter, nearly instant reload; consumable per encounter weapons like genades and molotov cocktails.
For classes I see something akin to the 4E hybridization feature; where a 4e modern class is cobbled together from occupations & backgrounds (to determine skills and general flavor), and class features chosen by the player (with each role, including a non-combat role, having different lists of class features to choose from). This divorces role from class, which is an improvement in my opinion, and allows members of any class to fulfill any role.
That sounds a lot like Neurospasta. Except for the any class filling any role bit, but the hybridization-type mechanic does allow you to tweak the class more than normal. Honestly I don't really understand your idea about allowing any class to fulfill any role by each role having a different list of features. At that point, what's the difference between a list of role features and a list of class features?
That sounds a lot like Neurospasta. Except for the any class filling any role bit, but the hybridization-type mechanic does allow you to tweak the class more than normal.
That's good to know. I'll definitely have to check out Neurospasta. I don't know if it's out at the moment, but even if it is I'll have to wait till the next time my finacial situation becomes more fluid.
Honestly I don't really understand your idea about allowing any class to fulfill any role by each role having a different list of features. At that point, what's the difference between a list of role features and a list of class features?
My assertion is that, instead of defining the role, a class should provide the means of fulfilling any given role. Looking at D&D, there is no reason why a fighter couldn't be a melee striker if it had different features. By the same token, a barbarian could be a defender with some feature tweaking. IMO, class is mostly about flavor and should have as limited a pigeonholing effect on a character as possible.
I recognize that my opinion is "outside the box" of current 4E design theory, but I still believe it would be a better way to handle things.
My assertion is that, instead of defining the role, a class should provide the means of fulfilling any given role. Looking at D&D, there is no reason why a fighter couldn't be a melee striker if it had different features. By the same token, a barbarian could be a defender with some feature tweaking. IMO, class is mostly about flavor and should have as limited a pigeonholing effect on a character as possible.
Yes, but by changing features and powers, you are creating a separate class (or in the case of the slayer, a subclass). And since you use those examples, it is generally acknowledged the fighter's secondary role is striker and the barbarian's is defender. There's no need to let a class fill a role that another class can fill when you can just take the other class instead. For example, we could make features that allow the fighter to function as a lightly armored, highly mobile, ranged striker, but we already have the ranger. However, making a fighter that functions as an armored ranged defender is perfectly legitimate.
I completely disagree that classes are for flavor. Classes are for balance and roles. The "pigeonholing" is what allows you to ensure that each class has their niche and no one class will invalidate another. The greatest thing 4e did was divorcing the mechanics from the flavor so that you can easily reflavor classes as needed.
What you seem to want isn't really a class-based system at all but rather something like point-buy systems.
I completely disagree that classes are for flavor. Classes are for balance and roles. The "pigeonholing" is what allows you to ensure that each class has their niche and no one class will invalidate another. The greatest thing 4e did was divorcing the mechanics from the flavor so that you can easily reflavor classes as needed.
What you seem to want isn't really a class-based system at all but rather something like point-buy systems.
Divorcing role-fulfilling features from classes would simply be yet another example of "divorcing mechanics from the flavor". It is a class' features after all that actually allow it to fulfill its role, not the class itself. Allow me to illustrate:
1) A Fighter is an armored, melee-focused character that relies on their martial skills. This in no way states whether the fighter is a defender, a striker, a controller, or a leader. Only the mechanics stuffed into the class (heavier armor proficiencies, marking, high HP, etc.) make it a defender.
2) A Wizard is a scholar of things arcane that has learned to manipulate the forces of magic. This again does not imply a role, only a method of fulfilling it.
As to your comment about point-buy systems: While I can't say that I dislike them (I do enjoy at least one game system that uses point buy: the Cinematic Unisystem games), I don't think it would be good for D&D. It may well be a good way to go for a 4E modern, but it is not something I was espousing.
Divorcing role-fulfilling features from classes would simply be yet another example of "divorcing mechanics from the flavor". It is a class' features after all that actually allow it to fulfill its role, not the class itself. Allow me to illustrate:
1) A Fighter is an armored, melee-focused character that relies on their martial skills. This in no way states whether the fighter is a defender, a striker, a controller, or a leader. Only the mechanics stuffed into the class (heavier armor proficiencies, marking, high HP, etc.) make it a defender.
2) A Wizard is a scholar of things arcane that has learned to manipulate the forces of magic. This again does not imply a role, only a method of fulfilling it.
As to your comment about point-buy systems: While I can't say that I dislike them (I do enjoy at least one game system that uses point buy: the Cinematic Unisystem games), I don't think it would be good for D&D. It may well be a good way to go for a 4E modern, but it is not something I was espousing.
Yes I completely agree with those examples. However, those are basic concepts, but as you point out in that form they lack the ability to fulfill any roles. So you would then have to create abilities and powers that fit each role. Now what is the difference between the wizard selecting the striker role, which comes with certain abilities and powers, and selecting a sorcerer, which comes with powers and abilities that make him a striker? I just don't think there's any difference between having builds for multiple roles and classes for multiple roles.
I think people feel classes are pigeonholed because they limit themselves. How many times have the forums seen a post about someone who wants a ranged fighter, but yet after getting a description of the character concept it is a perfect fit for ranger, the only problem being that the player wants to call his character a fighter, not a ranger, and can't get past the class names to look at mechanics and concept?
I can't speak for anyone else, and I can't speak to 4e in particular because I've never played it, but I like the variations that Talents offer within a class because it means that you can effectively have one class write-up that contains within it the possibility of many, many different "roles." If the Fighter had talent trees called "Wilderness Warrior," "Favoured Enemy," "Bowmaster," and "Dual-Weapon Duelist" then we might not really need a whole Ranger class. Again, I don't know if 4e has already done this because I don't play the game, but it just seems much more efficient to go the "optional talent paths" route rather than the "five books of character classes" route.
4e does something a bit like that through the builds available within a class. For many classes, your build determines part of the class features you get and influences your powers.
I can't speak for anyone else, and I can't speak to 4e in particular because I've never played it, but I like the variations that Talents offer within a class because it means that you can effectively have one class write-up that contains within it the possibility of many, many different "roles." If the Fighter had talent trees called "Wilderness Warrior," "Favoured Enemy," "Bowmaster," and "Dual-Weapon Duelist" then we might not really need a whole Ranger class. Again, I don't know if 4e has already done this because I don't play the game, but it just seems much more efficient to go the "optional talent paths" route rather than the "five books of character classes" route.
As mecha said, they have this to a slight degree with builds, each class also usually has at least one secondary role, which you can build up with the right power and feat selection, and now with the essentials classes sometimes even the primary role changes with the build.
My thing is that a class fulfills its role through its powers and class abilities. So by having a build that fills a different role, it needs a separate set of abilities and a separate list of powers. That's practically a complete class right there, so having archer striker fighter, melee defender fighter, controller fighter, and leader fighter isn't really any easier than ranger, fighter, warlord, etc. And the builds would still get split up between books anyway, just like they already have, just like previous editions split up both classes and options for classes among multiple books. We've already seen this with the slayer class (the striker fighter). Not only is that "build" a complete class unto its self, but many people have said they would have preferred to have it listed as a separate class rather than a fighter.
But that's all I have to say about that...
I can't speak to 4e, but it's really not the case in any previous edition that the core classes were split up into different books. Sure, there was a thriving trade in Prestige classes for 3e, but they were always optional. The PHB contained all the basic archetypes of the D&D game, and feats allowed for a great deal of variety of application. Talents in Modern and Saga offered an even better mechanic for that variety. I won't repeat myself more than once, but it just seems far more efficient to develop a basic class "shell" and then fill it with talent-tree options.
But that's all I have to say about that...
This is true. In no edition, including 4e, have the core classes been split into multiple books. However, options for those classes as well as additional classes have been broken into multiple books. They want to sell books, thats how they make their money.
I can't speak to 4e, but it's really not the case in any previous edition that the core classes were split up into different books. Sure, there was a thriving trade in Prestige classes for 3e, but they were always optional. The PHB contained all the basic archetypes of the D&D game, and feats allowed for a great deal of variety of application. Talents in Modern and Saga offered an even better mechanic for that variety. I won't repeat myself more than once, but it just seems far more efficient to develop a basic class "shell" and then fill it with talent-tree options.
But that's all I have to say about that...
This is true. In no edition, including 4e, have the core classes been split into multiple books. However, options for those classes as well as additional classes have been broken into multiple books. They want to sell books, thats how they make their money.
I suppose it depends upon one's definition of core. In 4e, as of PHB3, psionics are core. In 2e, 3.0, and 3.5 there was a separate book just for psionic powers and classes. If you consider psionics core, then the current model (IMO) is simply expanding upon past precedent.
Breaking up options into multiple books is not qualitatively the same as breaking up whole classes, especially in a system that is basically without multi-classing, as I understand it.
There are actually 3 methods of multiclassing in 4e: Hybrid Classes, Multiclassing Feats, and Paragon Path Multiclassing. I'm not 100% on the details and effectiveness though as I haven't tried it yet.
I suppose it depends upon one's definition of core. In 4e, as of PHB3, psionics are core. In 2e, 3.0, and 3.5 there was a separate book just for psionic powers and classes. If you consider psionics core, then the current model (IMO) is simply expanding upon past precedent.
Psionics in D&D have been consistently added after the fact or in optional sections of text. They've really never been core material, which makes sense given that they're only tangentially related to the fantasy/pseudo-mediaeval genre of the game.
There are actually 3 methods of multiclassing in 4e: Hybrid Classes, Multiclassing Feats, and Paragon Path Multiclassing. I'm not 100% on the details and effectiveness though as I haven't tried it yet.
Breaking up options into multiple books is not qualitatively the same as breaking up whole classes, especially in a system that is basically without multi-classing, as I understand it. There is a more efficient way to design classes, and they have instead chosen the way that sells more books. I acknowledge their profit motive, but that doesn't mean I can't object to the way they want to make money. Crack dealers just want to make money; I'm allowed to object to that. As a consumer who doesn't want to buy six books when I used to buy one, breaking up the core classes seems like an unnecessarily crass practise.
Yes you are correct, options and classes are different. However, every edition (except maybe OD&D, I'm not sure if any new classes were added to that or just new options) has broken up both classes and options among multiple books. However, it is also true that every edition contains in a single book the initial core classes and you can have a complete game without buying any more player books.
And Mecha is right, there are forms of multiclassing. MC and power swap feats (which can also lead into paragon multiclassing or just taking another class's paragon path), hybrid characters, and you might even consider the half-elf dilettante a lesser form of MC.
Now as to your last point, you don't have to buy six books. The core classes are all available in the PHB1. You can buy PHB1, DMG1, and MM1, never subscribe to DDI or crack open another book, and still have a complete game.
Psionics in D&D have been consistently added after the fact or in optional sections of text. They've really never been core material, which makes sense given that they're only tangentially related to the fantasy/pseudo-mediaeval genre of the game.
Psionics were an integral part of OAD&D. Demons and Devils were had magic and levels of discipline in psionics, which made them really powerful. Also, when you created a character get to roll to see if you had psionics. Monks were also psionicists to some degree.
Now as to your last point, you don't have to buy six books. The core classes are all available in the PHB1. You can buy PHB1, DMG1, and MM1, never subscribe to DDI or crack open another book, and still have a complete game.
Tell my Bard that.
She did the town recon ahead of the party,
and setup the bail/jailbreaks when things go south.
Just what page of 4e PHB1 is the bard class?
The d20 Modern class plan is very cearly non-Role asserting: The stuff you do is not dependant on the basic Hero class you take... like the Strong/MA build for snipey riflemen.
Someone explain exactly what the mechanics are in game for the characters class's "Role".
Tell me the difference between a Strong/MA that claims to be a "Striker" vs a Strong/MA that claims to be "Defender"
Can a Smart guy with lots of Treat-Inj and Surgury be a "Leader"?
(regardless of if he is actuall in charge of the party ;) )
Why the hang up on Roles,
lets just make some Hero classes in the 4E mechanic, and the Role of your Strong is whatever you build it to be.... Knightly tank, KungFu killer, or even a Leader if you pick them skills/feats
Tell my Bard that.
She did the town recon ahead of the party,
and setup the bail/jailbreaks when things go south.
Just what page of 4e PHB1 is the bard class?
They decided not to make that a class in the first book. The "core" classes for the first book has changed depending on the edition. Bard wasn't a starting class until 2E. In 1E AD&D you had to take fighter and thief levels before you could become a bard.
Anyway I stumbled across the Warlords of the Apocalypse. It is a pathfinder post apocalypse setting. It seems to be targeting Gamma World fans.
Again, though, my point was not to rag on 4e. I just want classes to be delivered as efficiently as possible, and talents seem to be a better way to do that than anything else I've seen. I also don't really understand the point of making "roles" a mechanical feature of the game, but if I really want to answer that question, I'll just nose around the 4e area.
lets just make some Hero classes in the 4E mechanic, and the Role of your Strong is whatever you build it to be.... Knightly tank, KungFu killer, or even a Leader if you pick them skills/feats
While I don't know if classes tied to attributes is the best way to go, you are essentially reiterating what I was suggesting by divorcing role from class.
But all of this started with the question: "How would you 'Pathfinderise' or '4th-Ed.' Modern?" I think, personally, I'd lean towards Pathfinderisation rather than 4th-eding. I like d20 a lot, and 4e is practically a whole different game. Not worse or better, but definitely different. The best d20 update that I've seen so far is Saga. Reading through those rules, I can see how Wizards ended up at 4e, from what little I understand of 4e that is, and I would have loved to see the next D&D be basically Saga rules with, perhaps, a few tweaks here and there for genre reasons. The fact that we'll never see Saga rules in a Modern game bums me out.
Even when Backstabbist agrees with you, he phrases it as if he's looking for a fight. C'est la vie. (No offence, man. You know it's true!)
I type with GUSTO !
Besides the Roles discussion, other stuff to ponder...
it would cut a LOT of upcoming arguement out of the subject if the Pathfindization use generic weapon rather than irl gun names. All the hooey over the 50BMG and the 5.7FN, the AUG vs M16, full 10mm vs Short&Weak... all that can be skipped over if we just didnt use those names and used just Sm Med Lrg Mag Pistol etc.
Talk is cheap, killing is cheaper. How many thousands of dollars of computer equipment will a 3rd level hacker get, and how many tens of dollars of explosives can his pal the 3rd level killer get? Will we have to make bleach cost $25, cause it makes a great weapon when thrown in some dudes eyes? Can a 1st level guy buy a $125 chainsaw, or is that a $2000 weapon that grants high level powers like... "Touch-With-HomeDepot-Chainsaw 3d8"?
Besides the Roles discussion, other stuff to ponder...
it would cut a LOT of upcoming arguement out of the subject if the Pathfindization use generic weapon rather than irl gun names. All the hooey over the 50BMG and the 5.7FN, the AUG vs M16, full 10mm vs Short&Weak... all that can be skipped over if we just didnt use those names and used just Sm Med Lrg Mag Pistol etc.
I can't help but feel that I'm walking into a trap, but I agree with this sentiment. One of the reasons D&D doesn't have these problems with its weapons is that it doesn't specify exact blade lengths/weights for melee weapons or the draw strength of bows/crossbows.
Talk is cheap, killing is cheaper. How many thousands of dollars of computer equipment will a 3rd level hacker get, and how many tens of dollars of explosives can his pal the 3rd level killer get? Will we have to make bleach cost $25, cause it makes a great weapon when thrown in some dudes eyes? Can a 1st level guy buy a $125 chainsaw, or is that a $2000 weapon that grants high level powers like... "Touch-With-HomeDepot-Chainsaw 3d8"?
The bleach is a situational weapon, most likely. It could be covered as an improvised weapon of some kind (maybe Improvised, Chemical is a weapon), or as an environmental combat option (which was covered in the DMG2). The chainsaw could itself be a weapon (it is iconic in modern horror afterall), an exotic two-handed Repurposed Power Tool (a cordless screwdriver, nailgun, etc. could be one-handed versions). Again, if you happened to be fighting in a garage or something, it could be an environmental combat option.
The costs of equipment I prefer to hold off on for now as it is a trickier subject (as the current Wealth system indicates).
it would cut a LOT of upcoming arguement out of the subject if the Pathfindization use generic weapon rather than irl gun names. All the hooey over the 50BMG and the 5.7FN, the AUG vs M16, full 10mm vs Short&Weak... all that can be skipped over if we just didnt use those names and used just Sm Med Lrg Mag Pistol etc.
Do we want generic weapons or do we want to get bogged down in the caliber/damage vissue? Personally i'd like jsut generic weapons
it would cut a LOT of upcoming arguement out of the subject if the Pathfindization use generic weapon rather than irl gun names. All the hooey over the 50BMG and the 5.7FN, the AUG vs M16, full 10mm vs Short&Weak... all that can be skipped over if we just didnt use those names and used just Sm Med Lrg Mag Pistol etc.
Do we want generic weapons or do we want to get bogged down in the caliber/damage vissue? Personally i'd like jsut generic weapons
Definitely generic weapons.
it would cut a LOT of upcoming arguement out of the subject if the Pathfindization use generic weapon rather than irl gun names. All the hooey over the 50BMG and the 5.7FN, the AUG vs M16, full 10mm vs Short&Weak... all that can be skipped over if we just didnt use those names and used just Sm Med Lrg Mag Pistol etc.
Do we want generic weapons or do we want to get bogged down in the caliber/damage vissue? Personally i'd like jsut generic weapons
Generic weapons
Talk is cheap, killing is cheaper. How many thousands of dollars of computer equipment will a 3rd level hacker get, and how many tens of dollars of explosives can his pal the 3rd level killer get? Will we have to make bleach cost $25, cause it makes a great weapon when thrown in some dudes eyes? Can a 1st level guy buy a $125 chainsaw, or is that a $2000 weapon that grants high level powers like... "Touch-With-HomeDepot-Chainsaw 3d8"?
The costs of equipment I prefer to hold off on for now as it is a trickier subject (as the current Wealth system indicates).
Okay, I think I may have figured out what I would do to pathfinderize or 4E the modern wealth system. I would hybridize it. Characters get money and credit. Money and credit are determined by a character's occupation (other modifiers are possible). When a character wants to buy something, they can eaither buy it outright with money or buy it on credit.
Money is a character's monthly income in U.S. Dollars (most likely). Subtract costs of living from this and you have the character's monthly disposable income (which is what matters to most of us). As I have no interest in making this into an accounting rpg; we can simplify this by having a table of lifestyles (ranging from hand-to-mouth to obscenely lavish) from which the player chooses one for the character to maintain. Clothes, food, housing, transportation, and entertainment will all be covered by a character's cost of living.
Credit takes the familiar form of the current Wealth bonus. Every item (particularly the expensive ones) has not only a monetary cost but also a credit level. Credit works like the Wealth system we have now, but with the DC 15 threshold modified by the lifestyle a character maintains. As a character makes purchases on credit, their credit diminishes (much like a RL credit score). Credit can be increased by purchasing additional credit with money. This can take the form of: paying off loans (and other debts), laying down collateral, etc.
That's just a rough outline. Any thoughts?
Edit: I know it's a little more complicated than having a straight money or straight wealth bonus system; but I think WotC biggest problem with money in Modern was that they tried to squish something as esoteric as credit and something as simple as paying for stuff into a single mechanic.
You have a Wealth score, and depending on the circumstances, you can usually access it directly through debit machines, credit cards, or the like. If you want to obtain cash, however, you have "buy" it from your Wealth score, which is essentially what I do when I take cash out of the bank or get an advance on my credit card. I can then use that cash for whatever nefarious purposes I decide I'm interested in.
Such a system would simulate the difficulty and unusualness of having to put together a whole wad of cash all at once, and it would lend a teensy bit of realism to the whole thing. If you find a bag of money, then you find a bag of money, not a bag of Wealth +6. Once you have time to deposit that money into an account, then it's integrated into your Wealth.
Now, this all leaves the problem that neither of us probably wants to face: converting Wealth to currency. One of the many reasons I love the Wealth system is that in the real world, there are many kinds of money, but I can run my d20M games in Canada using Wealth and without having to close my eyes and pretend that I'm not spending greenbacks.
If you want to have a game in which there are both cash values and PDCs, then you'll need to come up with a clean, simple conversion mechanic, and you'll need to make very clear that all the costs listed in the book are American. And then you'll have to update all your equipment costs every three or four years as prices shift. What a pain.
I'm not trying to pile on, here. It's just that this is the reason why Wealth was invented: to avoid all that stuff (to a degree, anyway. Prices still shift relative to each other, and international costs aren't merely a function of converting dollars to euros to rupees, but that's a whole other thing).
I hope that's helpful!
Now, this all leaves the problem that neither of us probably wants to face: converting Wealth to currency. One of the many reasons I love the Wealth system is that in the real world, there are many kinds of money, but I can run my d20M games in Canada using Wealth and without having to close my eyes and pretend that I'm not spending greenbacks.
If you want to have a game in which there are both cash values and PDCs, then you'll need to come up with a clean, simple conversion mechanic, and you'll need to make very clear that all the costs listed in the book are American. And then you'll have to update all your equipment costs every three or four years as prices shift. What a pain.
I'm not trying to pile on, here. It's just that this is the reason why Wealth was invented: to avoid all that stuff (to a degree, anyway. Prices still shift relative to each other, and international costs aren't merely a function of converting dollars to euros to rupees, but that's a whole other thing).
I hope that's helpful!
The above quote, except for the bolded part, isn't really appropriate criticism. Currencies fluctuate in price, it happens. It could happen in D&D too (as governments vary the amount of precious metals in coins) but they don't put it in the rules because it's boring. Why would you then expect a new modern to account for currency fluctuation as well? Also, it doesn't make a lick of sense as the priced in D20 Modern are themselves listed in $. Maybe you were simply nitpicking, but most people equate $ with U.S. currency. That being said, there's no reason why you can't assume it's any currency you want it to be (I'm trying to work out the mechanics of money/wealth not the fluff).
As for the bolded part of your quote, the $'s to Wealth DC chart in D20 Modern would be a good place to start and might even be usable as is.
You have a Wealth score, and depending on the circumstances, you can usually access it directly through debit machines, credit cards, or the like. If you want to obtain cash, however, you have "buy" it from your Wealth score, which is essentially what I do when I take cash out of the bank or get an advance on my credit card. I can then use that cash for whatever nefarious purposes I decide I'm interested in.
Such a system would simulate the difficulty and unusualness of having to put together a whole wad of cash all at once, and it would lend a teensy bit of realism to the whole thing. If you find a bag of money, then you find a bag of money, not a bag of Wealth +6. Once you have time to deposit that money into an account, then it's integrated into your Wealth.
This part is actually decent feedback but it fails in the same ways that the current wealth score does. First, there is no variable threshold for automatically reducing wealth by 1 when purchasing an item of that DC or higher. Second, if you allow ATM/bank transactions against your wealth score then there is nothing stopping a character from repeatedly drawing out cash until they can buy mansions and private airplanes (consider a wealth 10 character repeatedly pulling out cash equivalent to Wealth DC 9 with no limit because it doesn't lower his wealth) or until they have enough to buy an increase in their own wealth score.
Second, whether it's boring or not, prices just aren't the same in one country to the next, and any game that goes from country to country should take that into account. If it's really that boring to keep track of, then go back to straight-up Wealth. I respect your desire to inject cash into the game, I really do, but once you embrace cash, you end up bringing in a whole lot of annoying complexity.
I would also point out that if you're not from America, you don't assume that "$" means US dollars, especially if you're from a country like mine that has its own dollars. When I see "$," the first thing I want to know is what kind of dollars we're talking about: American, Canadian, Australian, etc. It's also not just a matter of "deciding" that that "$" actually means "£," or "€," or even "¥" because things have different values in different countries even when the exchange rate is in place. I can buy fountain pens in England for half the price that I can buy them in Canada because they're made in Germany.
So now, to put that in gaming terms, let's say you end up in Spain chasing an international supervillain and you need to stock up on weapons and pick up a hummer in order to perform the raid. Those aren't going to have the same costs in Spain for some very obvious reasons; Spain doesn't have nearly as much ready access to firearms or as many manufacturers, and hummers are not easy to find in Europe. I'd argue that it just doesn't make sense to use the US$ values outside of the US for those kinds of reasons. It's acceptable (barely) if you're using Wealth because Wealth is deliberately abstract, but once you shift to cash,
html_removed
it just stretches verisimilitude too far, at least too far for me.
Again, if a modern game wants to leave the US, the system should be robust enough to handle different forms of currency (and this game really ought to allow you to leave the US, don't you think?). It seems clear that the designers of Modern decided to go with an abstracted Wealth system partly to avoid that kind of problem, but you're proposing to use cash, so I'm trying--honestly, I am!--to help you think that problem through a little.
Finally, I entirely agree that a player could, theoretically, go back to the ATM and take out US$20 every 10 minutes for a week and then buy a corvette. That's a serious problem. I propose solving it by asking your players to not act like jerks. Seriously! A lot of problems at the gaming table could be solved by just looking your fellow gamers--theoretically your friends--in the eye and saying "Why you gotta be like that?" A little honour would do a world of good. I have this written into Phoenix somewhere, but there are words I can't say on this board, so I'll have to paraphrase: When you find a loophole in the rules, one that allows you to be richer, stronger, more powerful than you know you're supposed to be, and you start to think "Tee hee, I'm smarter than everyone else!" it probably means that you're being a jerk. Stop that.
(Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not directing that italicised portion at anyone here.)
Money is a character's monthly income in U.S. Dollars (most likely). Subtract costs of living from this and you have the character's monthly disposable income (which is what matters to most of us). As I have no interest in making this into an accounting rpg; we can simplify this by having a table of lifestyles (ranging from hand-to-mouth to obscenely lavish) from which the player chooses one for the character to maintain. Clothes, food, housing, transportation, and entertainment will all be covered by a character's cost of living.
Credit takes the familiar form of the current Wealth bonus. Every item (particularly the expensive ones) has not only a monetary cost but also a credit level. Credit works like the Wealth system we have now, but with the DC 15 threshold modified by the lifestyle a character maintains. As a character makes purchases on credit, their credit diminishes (much like a RL credit score). Credit can be increased by purchasing additional credit with money. This can take the form of: paying off loans (and other debts), laying down collateral, etc.
That's just a rough outline. Any thoughts?
I wouldn't worry about monthly expenses. Just assume the player maintains a certain lifestyle and any money he gets during the game is his spending money. Or link the credit bonus to the money he pours into the lifestyle. But I don't know how to do that easily. Or you could just go to a monetary system, and allow the character to take out loans if needed
We always used real money in our Modern games. We determined life style expenses according to character background and the rest was paid with money earn from contracts. We cut corners to avoid failling into the accounting trap. Really its the same thing as in D&D. High priced items are the equivalent of magic items. We've been buying castles with gold for 30+ years why are we bogged down with the act of buying a house with cash? ...LOL.
As with all new systems some other things will need to be tweaked a bit) Purchase DC's and Actual Currency Costs will need to be added)
Passive Wealth Score (PWS): A PWS is basically a source of income separate from the normal currency system. It represents a stable consistant income that a player always has access to, even when low on hard cash or credits, you may not be able to purchased that customized Plasma Rifle you want with it, but it allows you to go day to day within your lifestyle.
Source examples for a PWS include but are not limited to Monthly Annuity/Settlement Checks, Interest on Savings Account, Work Check, Inheritance, Lottery Winnings, Steady Paycheck or barterting/doing favors.
A passive wealth Score is Equal to 5 + Starting Occupation + Feat Bonus (If Any) + GM Granted Bonus (If Any). There would be no rolling. All item tables would have a Currency Cost & a PWS check. As long as your PWS equals the PWS score required to purchase some items you do not lose money purchasing said item as it fits into your lifestyle. However if you have a PWS of say 7 and the item you wish to purchase is an 8 you would instead have to pay out of your other funds.
It would be used for Lifestyle (food & drink, transporation, lodging, Entertainment) & General Merchandise only (think things you get at a typical grocery or general store).
Items purchased VIA PWS would not be resellable, so characters would not be allowed to buy and resell these items to increase their currency.
Currency Cost System (CC): The easiest solution may just be to do a quick mod of the 3.5 system.
Fantasy Setting Modern Setting Future Setting
1 CP 1 Penny 1/100th of a Credit
1 SP Half a Dollar Half a Credit
1 GP 1 Dollar Bill 1 Credit
1 PP 10 Dollar Bill 10 Credits
Now in a future game I would cut out the CP value equivelant, except in the most extreme poverty stricken areas. Also the PP equivelant in a future game is not quite as useful as CREDITS would be electronic currency.
Now at this point what we need to do is go through the Wealth Purchase DC's of items and give them an actual GP/Dollar/Credit value.
Some specilized feats could also be added into the game to give some expansion of the PWS score. Perhaps a feat that allows the use of the PWS to purchase average quality arms and armors. Nothing Magic, Superior or Mastercraft/work. And again any items purchased via a PWS are not resellable.
Now as far as items costing more or less in some areas, I think that is good and makes the world seem more alive. But you don't need to bog yourself or players down with to much work for these situations. You can use a simple Slightly More Expensive (10% higher PWS/CC, Fairly More Expensive 25% PWS/CC, Much More Expensive 50% PWS/CC system.
If i mug some guy who much does my wealth go up by?
Seriously, I think that for very short-term uses, switching to cash is a great idea. Find a $20 on the bus, rummage through a drug-dealer's pockets, whatever. You have a small amount of cash that you can spend using real-world prices.
That's just a rough outline. Any thoughts?
I wouldn't worry about monthly expenses. Just assume the player maintains a certain lifestyle and any money he gets during the game is his spending money. Or link the credit bonus to the money he pours into the lifestyle. But I don't know how to do that easily. Or you could just go to a monetary system, and allow the character to take out loans if needed.
I think you're right about the need to simplify the proposed system. The existing Wealth system, with a few tweaks, can cover almost all of what we need it to do. That being said we still need cash for immersion purposes (so characters aren't finding +X Wealth in game).
So lets look at how we can make this monster work. What do we need?
1) We need a way to shift the automatic wealth loss threshold; or we need to eliminate it altogether.
2) We need to add actual cash to the system so we don't have the system shock of finding +X Wealth.
3) We need a way for cash and Wealth to interact with each other.
My first stab at a fix.
1) Nix the threshold altogether. The Wealth score itself accomplishes a shifting threshold on it's own.
2) Use the $ to Wealth DCs chart for determining the cash value of items. This allows characters to purchase items with any hard cash they may have. Rewards will also be in cash (with the value of cash rewards, that were formerly Wealth bonuses, to be determined later).
3) Use the $ to Wealth DCs chart and the existing rules for selling goods to allow cash to be traded in for wealth. To prevent abuse I would either make this a one-way transaction (cash to Wealth only).
Other considerations.
1) When selling an item you can choose to either sell it for an increase in wealth or for cash (you get an amount of cash based on the $s to Wealth DCs chart entry for the item's Purchase DC resale price; 3 less than it's original sale price).
I think that falls under "Profession: mugger."
Seriously, I think that for very short-term uses, switching to cash is a great idea. Find a $20 on the bus, rummage through a drug-dealer's pockets, whatever. You have a small amount of cash that you can spend using real-world prices.
and what about long term stuff like a mortage payment or credit card debt etc..? Iknow the current wealth system isn't perfect and nothing short of D20Account is going to be.....
Okay, I think I may have figured out what I would do to pathfinderize or 4E the modern wealth system. I would hybridize it. Characters get money and credit. Money and credit are determined by a character's occupation (other modifiers are possible). When a character wants to buy something, they can eaither buy it outright with money or buy it on credit.
seems reasonable on the surface
each gaming group can decide how much they want to lean either way.. some guys will shy away from the credit side to play a more cash oriented game, while others are free to have even their morning cofee be a Wealth Roll.
By not declaring all the details of a credit system,
it leaves those details free to be houseruled without conflic.
Okay, this is leading me to a thought. Astrogation (cool word, by the way) is hideously complicated, but once people have really started roaming the stars, they have astonishingly sophisticated computers that do 80% of the work. The DCs therefore start high, but the computers grant high bonuses, and an emergency kit grants only a very small bonus. That way, you can hop around the galaxy without too much trouble if your systems are working, but if they're not, you have to fall back on a kit. If you Take 10/Take 20 and go somewhere nearby, the kit will do the job, but the more complex you make the jump and/or the faster you try to do it, the more you risk trying to fly through a star, or ending up lost in hyperspace, or whatever.
So...
Astrogation DC:
-starts at 30, rises for distance/complexity (+2 per parsec, or whatever)
(I'm happy using Pilot as the skill, here, on the assumption that space pilots have to do this all the time.)
Astrogational Computer ("navicomp" because people are anachronistic sometimes):
-grants a +15 bonus at least, +20 for high quality, +25 or more for professional quality
Emergency Astrogation Kit (EAK!):
-grants a +5 bonus only
How's that look?
To reverse route is also possible. If the character needs a very high bonus in an aspect of a skill you can create «skills specialisation». A character with a specialisation would get an extra +4 on top of the trained +4 skill bonus. In the case of astrogation in a low PL environnement a specialisation in that field would prove to be invaluable !
All in all having a simple generic skill system you can customize according to your campaign needs is more desirable to me than a really complex and time consuming (creating npcs) skills system. In other words its better to have a basic module onto which you graft complexity.
Shesheyan
To me, there's no need to condense the skill list all that much. The real culprit is skill points. They're a pain, especially, as you say, for creating NPCs. I have a spreadsheet I use for it, and it's still a pain. Switching to a Saga-style "trained/untrained" system is more appealing to me.
In either case, what I'd want to see is both options laid out in the text. My ideal RPG has various elements that the GM and players have to decide on for themselves: granular skills or trained skills? condensed list or long list? Building those options in in such a way that you don't gum up the rest of the game is not easy, but I think creative minds could do it.
I think there are better ways to create complexity, though. I should say, I think there are ways that create complexity in ways that I happen to like. All of this is really subjective.
To me, there's no need to condense the skill list all that much. The real culprit is skill points. They're a pain, especially, as you say, for creating NPCs. I have a spreadsheet I use for it, and it's still a pain. Switching to a Saga-style "trained/untrained" system is more appealing to me.
In either case, what I'd want to see is both options laid out in the text. My ideal RPG has various elements that the GM and players have to decide on for themselves: granular skills or trained skills? condensed list or long list? Building those options in in such a way that you don't gum up the rest of the game is not easy, but I think creative minds could do it.
Are you suggesting we should create a collective to design the perfect open source RPG ?
Funny you should mention. There's a website I'm on that does that.....................
Are you talking of (shameless plug) modernd20unlimited ?
Ah, good thinking. It's an emergency kit. The more you try to get out of it, the less useful it is.
Okay, this is leading me to a thought. Astrogation (cool word, by the way) is hideously complicated, but once people have really started roaming the stars, they have astonishingly sophisticated computers that do 80% of the work. The DCs therefore start high, but the computers grant high bonuses, and an emergency kit grants only a very small bonus. That way, you can hop around the galaxy without too much trouble if your systems are working, but if they're not, you have to fall back on a kit. If you Take 10/Take 20 and go somewhere nearby, the kit will do the job, but the more complex you make the jump and/or the faster you try to do it, the more you risk trying to fly through a star, or ending up lost in hyperspace, or whatever.
So...
Astrogation DC:
-starts at 30, rises for distance/complexity (+2 per parsec, or whatever)
(I'm happy using Pilot as the skill, here, on the assumption that space pilots have to do this all the time.)
Astrogational Computer ("navicomp" because people are anachronistic sometimes):
-grants a +15 bonus at least, +20 for high quality, +25 or more for professional quality
Emergency Astrogation Kit (EAK!):
-grants a +5 bonus only
How's that look?
That looks perfectly acceptable to me. It maintains an air of realism without being too simulationist or giving up too much for simplicity. I like it.
There's a much bigger ruleset to be written around this.
The only other question is the negative consequences of doing the maths wrong. I like the idea that you would simply miss your target. For every point by which you miss, you're taken one unit off. Alternatively, what if FTL jumps are exponential? For every point, you procede by doubles: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. That might be too much. Depending on the PL, a bad jump might accidetally take you to the heart of a star, but better FTL might "bounce" you off of solid objects.
There's a much bigger ruleset to be written around this.
While that last part is certainly true, it's not neccessary to account for it as part of the skill rules. It is an aspect of the technology itself. For the purpose of the skill, it's enough to know when something is a "spectacular failure" (like maybe a failure of more than 5 on the roll). the safeties that are (or are not) built into the technology will help the GM determine the rest.
As for the negative consequences of a standard failure, I think you've got the right idea. If we go with a failure of 5 or more as a sepctacular failure, then even the more extreme distance gets limited to 16 units off at most. What I would likely do though is break it into 2 distances. Long distances use the linear progression whereas extreme distances use the eponential one. Just to throw things out there (I have no expereince with how it's currently done so I have no comparison); maybe long distance is less than half the galaxy and extreme distance is more than half.
All depends on the scale of your game. If you really are zipping around the galaxy, then sure, but even the far-flung magiscience in Star Trek acknowledged just how mind-bendingly big the galaxy is. It might be easier to explain it all in "GU's" (Galactic Units) or something that, in order to avoid placing a number on it that will inevitably sound ridiculous to anyone who's studied astronomy.
Yeah, I don't know as much of the whole interstellar distances as I should for a Trekkie. The only ones I actually know are AU (astronomical units) and Light Years. If I were detailing how far off course a ship is I would determine it in hours of travel, as that seems most relevant to game play. Another option would be to go with something like this:
fail by 1: Within the system but X hours from destination.
fail by 2: Within a different system adjacent to the destination, another jump is needed.
fail by 3: Within a different system non-adjacent to the destination, another jump is needed.
fail by 4: Within a different system but no closer to the destination, another jump is needed.
fail by 5: Spectacular failure. Effects determined by type of drive system.
I like that list a lot, actually. That's the kind of game-relevant failure that appeals to me. Actual number of megameters away? Who cares. Where do they end up? That's what I want to know.
I can't really take credit for doing it on the fly (though I am pretty proud of putting it together quickly). After reading D20 Future; it struck me how ships with different speeds, when combined with a "distance from the destination" navigation failure mechanic, would just make more work for the GM (as they then have to do the math to figure out how long it takes to get where they were going).
I feel like we should be writing this down somewhere more permanent. Hey look:
http://modernd20unlimited.freeforums.org/astronavigation-t328.html
Acrobatics (Balance, Escape Artist, Jump, Tumble)
Climb
Computer Use
Deception (Bluff, Disguise)
Craft
Drive
Endurance
Gamble
Gather Information
Handle Animal
Investigate
K-Bureaucracy (Business, Legal, Regulations, Organizations)
K-Galactic Lore (Arcane Lore, Current Events, Planets, Homeworlds, History, Space Sectors)
K-Life Sciences (Biology, Botony, Genetics, Archaeology, Xenobiology, Medince and Forensics)
K-Physical Sciences: Astronomy, Astrogation, Chemistry, Mathematics, physics and Engineering)
K-Social Sciences (sociology, Psychology, Philosphy, Theology and Criminology)
K-Tactics
K-Technology
Linguistics
Mechanics (Disable Device, Demolitions, Repair)
Navigate
Perception (Sense Motive, Search, Spot)
Perform
Persuasion (Diplomacy, Intimidate)
Pilot
Profession
Research
Ride
Sleight of Hand
Stealth
Survival
Swim
Treat Injury
I am going with the Pathfinder method 1 SKill Rank Per level, no x4 SP at level 1. I am currently testing that as is with the standard amount of skillpoints. Also not counting skills that are repeated or have subchoices such as (Knowledge, Perform, Craft) D&D 3.5 has 36 Skills, Modern has 39, Pathfinder has 26, My version has 34. In Pathfinder the classes still retain their original Skill Points totals per level (such as rogue's 8+Int) so I think I am ok here. If if ends up feeling too powerful I was debating of dropping the amount of Skill Points classes get each level by 2. Just like any revision it needs to be tested, though thus far it seems fine (at least with my group).
Really for most of my Hybrid system I am using D20 Modern just adjusted to pathfinder standards. So while I changed up the skill system once I make skill adjustments most of what is left over of the original class is good to go.
It is a big undertaking and I am sure I will make some fumbles/over sights along the way. So suggestions and feedback will always be most welcome on things I post.
Seems to me that you haven't eliminated very many skills, so keeping the skill-point totals where they are is reasonable. The next problem, though, is translating skill points to number of skills, which is a bit trickier. What's the basic formula you're using? If I have a skill in your houseruled system, what do I roll?
Without hearing more, I think it works just like it does in Pathfinder (I don't own it myself, but you can find the skills section of the Patfinder SRD here).
Wow, what a power creep! The number of ranks are the same, but cross-class skills get +1 per rank and class skills get +3 per rank, unless I'm reading that wrong, and that's on top of reducing the total number of skills. I have to imagine that they just raised all their DCs to match or something, otherwise nobody in Pathfinder will ever fail a skill.
You actually did read that wrong. There is a chart to the right of the section about "Taking 10" that makes it much more clear than the wording does. For ease of reference, it says:
Untrained Skill: 1d20 + ability modifier + racial modifier
Trained Skill: 1d20 + skill ranks + ability modifier + racial modifier
Trained Class Skill: 1d20 + skill ranks + ability modifier + racial modifier + 3
Anyway, to each their own. If it's fun then you're doing it right.
Aha, that's a lot better, but still, I hope they've compensated for the power creep that's there. Cross-class ranks are worth twice as much and class skills get a +3 across the board, and that's not even looking at the reduction in the number of skills.
Anyway, to each their own. If it's fun then you're doing it right.
Class skills all get a +3 because they did away with giving 4x skill points at first level. As I said though, I don't own it myself (I've never even played it) so there may well be power creep issues.
Edit: If one is going to continue to use the skill points system instead of the trained/untrained system, I think Pathfinder's skill system is a good improvement on the existing d20 Modern skill system.
to start a new topic in this dicussion,a while back I was thinking about using the psionics the way the force is handled by saga a single skill but you declear what power your using and you roll for the DC,adding your skill rank in it..but this owuld still require the wild talent in order to acess the skill
Force powers are balanced a specific way. If you want to use SWSE's force rules to handle psionics (which is a great fit, IMO) I would recommend you go with the feats from SWSE: Force Sensitive (which gives you the Use The Force skill as a trained skill) and Force Training (which grants you a number of powers equal to 1 + your Wisdom modifier, with a minimum of 1 power).
Force sensitive will work a bit differently depending on which skill system you use. If you go with the trained/untrained system, no changes are needed. If you go with Pathfinder's skill system, you might want to grant an automatic 2 skill point investment in the Use The Force equivalent psionics skill (to give you the +5 you would get under the SWSE system). If you go with the RAW Modern skill system, you'll have to figure out how you want to handle giving the character the +5 bonus you get from training in the SWSE system.
Force powers are balanced a specific way. If you want to use SWSE's force rules to handle psionics (which is a great fit, IMO) I would recommend you go with the feats from SWSE: Force Sensitive (which gives you the Use The Force skill as a trained skill) and Force Training (which grants you a number of powers equal to 1 + your Wisdom modifier, with a minimum of 1 power).
Well i was thinking abiyt Force sensitivity= Wild talent but i forgot about the Force training, i guess oyu could roll both into wild talent and have a prequ for the feat itselft like a wisdom of 14?
Force powers are balanced a specific way. If you want to use SWSE's force rules to handle psionics (which is a great fit, IMO) I would recommend you go with the feats from SWSE: Force Sensitive (which gives you the Use The Force skill as a trained skill) and Force Training (which grants you a number of powers equal to 1 + your Wisdom modifier, with a minimum of 1 power).
Well i was thinking abiyt Force sensitivity= Wild talent but i forgot about the Force training, i guess you could roll both into wild talent and have a prequ for the feat itselft like a wisdom of 14?
I don't know if making Wisdom the Prerequisite helps the balance issue. If you need a Wisdom of 14, then you're automatically getting 2 more powers as part of fulfilling the prerequisite. I would make the prerequisite be a different ability score, but even then I don't know about the balance issues.
Edit: I would like to suggest that you discuss this on the Star Wars boards, as they would be more knowledgable about the force powers system and how it's balanced. Also, they would likely have more experience at tinkering with it. That being said, I'd love to hear what you come up with as I think the force power system would be a great way to handle spell-casters of all stripes in the Modern game.
when it comes to multiclass characters because it doesn't handicap their ability to do what their second class relies on skills to do.
I feel there should be a difference in abilities between
Strong10/Fast2
Strong2/Fast10
Strong6/Fast6
Sure, we see three Strong-Fast guys,
but one is a fightin guy that can do some sneak, one is a sneak that can fight in a pinch, and one is a generalist. INHO, we dont need to make all Strong-Fasts equal in skills with generous CC rules, the degree of skill focusing is determined by how the player chooses to divide his levels.
Whenever we consolidate the skill list, or make more generous CC rules,
we diminish the value of skill heavy classes.
MP saidwhen it comes to multiclass characters because it doesn't handicap their ability to do what their second class relies on skills to do.
I feel there should be a difference in abilities between
Strong10/Fast2
Strong2/Fast10
Strong6/Fast6
Sure, we see three Strong-Fast guys,
but one is a fightin guy that can do some sneak, one is a sneak that can fight in a pinch, and one is a generalist. INHO, we dont need to make all Strong-Fasts equal in skills with generous CC rules, the degree of skill focusing is determined by how the player chooses to divide his levels.
Whenever we consolidate the skill list, or make more generous CC rules, we diminish the value of skill heavy classes.
You're mixing two separate things here BS and have either misunderstood or misrepresented the nature of SWSE's trained vs untrained skill system. For the sake of the discussion, I'm going to assume this was not intentional.
To begin with, the SWSE trained vs untrained system doesn't work that way. When you select a second class, you do get more class skills; but you do not automatically get training in those skills. To get training in those skills you have to buy your trained status with the Skill Training feat (each selection of this feats gets you training in only a single skill from your class skill list). So the degree of skill focus is dependent on the character spending a finite resource, it's just that the resource has changed from skill points to feats.
Under the 4e multiclass system (the one presented in the PHB), you get a class feature from the class you are multiclassing into, as well the use of that class' implements, and (relevant to the discussion on skills) you get training in only one skill from that class' skill list. To get trained in other skills you must, as in SWSE's skill system, select the Skill Training feat for each additional skill you want to be trained in.
4e also offers the Hybrid system where you put two classes together. In this case, you choose half of your trained skills from one class' skill list; and the other half of your skills from the other class' skill list. To get trained in other skills you must, again, select the Skill Training feat for each additional skill you want to be trained in.
Hopefully you can now see why various incarnations of a lvl 12 Strong/Fast hero are not all the same in their skills under the existing trained vs untrained systems published by WotC.
Moving on to the quote. The quote you cited was of me speaking in reference to the way Pathfinder handles class skills. Pathfinder still uses skill points and not the trained vs. untrained system employed in both SWSE and 4e. The only real difference between Pathfinder's skills and Modern's skills is that 1) you don't get 4x skill points at first level, and 2) you get a +3 bonus to any class skill you have invested at least one skill point in (if you didn't put a skill point in it, you don't get the +3 bonus).
Example: I'm working on my refined consolated skills list (I'll post it when I'm closer to being finished), and there are some skill uses that seem to fit thematically into more than one skill. Particularly, the Escape Bonds skill use. Under both the SWSE and 4e consolidated skills, Escape Bonds is a use of Acrobatics (using flexibility to escape). Personally, I can see this skill use also falling under whatever skill covers sleight of hand (Stealth in SWSE; Thievery in D&D 4e).
I'm aware this is one of the pitfalls of the skill consolidation system. Also, I'm not so wedded to it that I can't consider using the Modern skill list "as is". I'd just need to make the number of trained skills to select larger if I were to forego consolidation.
That said, if you have players who aren't douchebags, then it should run just fine, and I personally really like the idea of a little fluidity in the game rather than the very systematic approach that Skill X does only Job Y even though it makes perfect sense for Skill Z to also be able to do it.
Proceed at your own risk is what I'm saying.
Proceed at your own risk is what I'm saying.
That's certainly good advice, and I will bear it in mind. The other system I mentioned is loose enough and free-form enough that skills cover very broad categories; so it's easy for them to get away with doing it that way. My system likely won't be that broad. As I mentioned, I'm basically just tweaking the SWSE skills and adding some other skills from Modern that defy reasonable consolidation.
General Skills
Acrobatics Athletics Deception Endurance
Gather Information Initiative Mechanics Perception
Persuasion Pilot 1 Handle Animal 2 Stealth
Survival 3 Treat Injury Use Computers
1 Astrogation and Navigation have been folded into the Pilot skill as "trained only" uses.
2 Ride has been folded into the Handle Animal skill. Training an animal is a "trained only" use.
3 Navigation (overland/wilderness) has been folded into Survival as a "trained only" use.
Acrobatics Athletics Deception Endurance
Gather Information Initiative Mechanics Perception
Persuasion Pilot 1 Handle Animal 2 Stealth
Survival 3 Treat Injury Use Computers
1 Astrogation and Navigation have been folded into the Pilot skill as "trained only" uses.
2 Ride has been folded into the Handle Animal skill. Training an animal is a "trained only" use.
3 Navigation (overland/wilderness) has been folded into Survival as a "trained only" use.
Explain again what a 'special' skill is compared to a 'general' skill?
Special skills are those skills that possess a limited range (either because they don't translate well from one situation to another or because their impact is infrequent) or are preparatory in their use. Some examples:
Profession is a specailty skill because it only matters when your character is first created, and then again each time you level.
Craft is a specialty skill because it is preparatory. You use it to prepare things like medicines, remote detonators, molotov cocktails, improvised explosives, traps, etc. ahead of their intended use.
Gamble is a specialty skill because it is highly situational. In order to use the skill you must first find a card game to play in, have the time to play in it (often this is at least a few hours), have at least a +1 Wealth bonus (unless you don't plan to win any money from playing), and all this must be done during an adventure because you can't use it between games.
As for what the mechanical implications of being classified a specialty skill: When you make a character you get to select a number of special skills equal to 1 + your Intelligence modifer (this may change after playtesting), with a minimum one 1 special skill. This replaces the number of languages known under the D&D model as many people today are as likey to have a special skill (play an instrument, make something, or even be fluent in an area of knowledge) as they are to know a foreign language.
There will be two skill training feats in my system. The first is for general skills and gives you training in one general skill. The second feat is for special skills and gives you training in three special skills (usually realted ones but this is not mandatory).
Just sayin'.
The thing to keep in mind, though, is that if you do that then you are automatically making skills more powerful because they can now do more than one thing, and you're also inviting attempts by your more rules-lawyerish players to argue their cases for a particular skill doing a particular job that it's not traditionally associated with, and then you have the problem of setting precedents with Skill X doing Job Y under very specific circumstances that players then contrive over and over again until it becomes something that "we just do."
That said, if you have players who aren't douchebags, then it should run just fine, and I personally really like the idea of a little fluidity in the game rather than the very systematic approach that Skill X does only Job Y even though it makes perfect sense for Skill Z to also be able to do it.
Proceed at your own risk is what I'm saying.
IMHO escape artist should be a FEAT with player deciding if he uses St or Dx bonus.
IMHO escape artist should be a FEAT with player deciding if he uses St or Dx bonus.
While I like that idea thematically, I have to ask if it's really not a rip-off to the character. Just consider how many times a character usually faces an escape-artist situation. Each of the characters I've played have been in one or two of those situations at most, and some of them didn't need escape artist to get out of it. I had one character use Diplomacy on a guard, another managed to keep a pocketknife hidden until he was left bound and alone in a basement, I even had one character (highly focused in the Bluff skill) make the person binding her think the knot was so tight it was cutting off circulation when it was actually kinda loose (I was then able to escape by taking 20 untrained in the escape artist skill). I suppose what I'm getting at is this: there are enough ways to defeat being bound that making escape artist cost a feat (especially if we continue the current modern character progression) is an exorbitant cost (IMO).
Considering Mecha's post--it comes up rarely and there's a dozen different ways to handle it--I'd be willing to fold it into a different skill. It's a bit like Balance that way. When you need it, you really need it, but you don't really need it all that often.
If you made it a feat, you'd have to heavily alter the mechanic--it's a skill test right now, which is based on your bonus at that skill. That's not a bad thing, but it is a thing.
Considering Mecha's post--it comes up rarely and there's a dozen different ways to handle it--I'd be willing to fold it into a different skill. It's a bit like Balance that way. When you need it, you really need it, but you don't really need it all that often.
That is my experience with the escape artist skill but, as BS is fond of pointing out, rare situations in one persons' games can be common in another person's games. That being said, I really have never seen a game where escape artist scenarios (that cannot be defeated with other skills) come up with any kind of regularity.
Jimmy makes frequent use of Escape,
and Princess makes frequent use of alternatives to the Escape skill
Jimmy the Squeeler and Princess are like that.
Jimmy makes frequent use of Escape,
and Princess makes frequent use of alternatives to the Escape skill
That is my experience with the escape artist skill but, as BS is fond of pointing out, rare situations in one persons' games can be common in another person's games. That being said, I really have never seen a game where escape artist scenarios (that cannot be defeated with other skills) come up with any kind of regularity.
Called it!
Healing Surges Based on HD Type & on Mod
D4 1+Con Mod Healing Surges/Day
D6 2+Con Mod Healing Surges/Day
D8 3+Con Mod Healing Surges/Day
D10 4+Con Mod Healing Surges/Day
D12 5+Con Mod Healing Surges/Day
Your healing surge would be usable once per combat encounter as a standard action and heal you for an amount equal to 25% of your total HP. You could expend as many healing surges as you want out of combat (up to your max per day) as long as you take a 5 minute rest before doing so.
You would also be able to force a healing surge in an unconscious or dying ally by makeing a DC 15 Treat Injury, standard in combat/out of combat surge rules would apply for a forced surge.
May also include Ghostwheel's Expanded Surge rules.
I like surges, it allows players a better chance at survival in combat when there are no healers available. When they do have healers it allows those healers to have a couple rounds where they are not healbotting and can do some other spells.
What do you think? Would you implement this differently? Always open to suggestions.
Damn, that's eery.
SWSE is definately a mid point between the systems and I have definately been using it as a model.
Now that I have my skill system in place my biggest challenge is modifying and tweaking existing feats to mesh with my system. Once conversion was done many skill feats became underpowered. Currently I think what I am going to do is pull out all the skill feats and just make a completely new set of +2/+2 skill feats for my campaign, maybe keep some of the original D20M names as some of them will undoubtably work well.
Everyday I am coming closer to the system being complete enough to spend most of my time doing backgrounds and lore on my universe. 35 star systems and something like 150 planets to do info on. I have been running the skeletal version of the system because friends had been chmping at the bit to play a scifi campaign, so far its been very enjoyable.
One thing I have decided to implement is a variation of healing surges from 4th edition. Allowing characters to essentially shrug of damage, rally when things go bad, a surge of adrenline that keeps them going etc. I am still working it out but, it a variant of Ghostwheel's houserule, thus far I am thinking it will look something along the lines of...
Healing Surges Based on HD Type & on Mod
D4 1+Con Mod Healing Surges/Day
D6 2+Con Mod Healing Surges/Day
D8 3+Con Mod Healing Surges/Day
D10 4+Con Mod Healing Surges/Day
D12 5+Con Mod Healing Surges/Day
Your healing surge would be usable once per combat encounter as a standard action and heal you for an amount equal to 25% of your total HP. You could expend as many healing surges as you want out of combat (up to your max per day) as long as you take a 5 minute rest before doing so.
What I would personally do is start with 4 + Con modifier healing surges per day. This allows a character to heal up completely once during a day. My first stab at this would go as follows:
Healing Surges Based on HD Type & on Mod
D4 4+Con Mod Healing Surges/Day
D6 5+Con Mod Healing Surges/Day
D8 5+Con Mod Healing Surges/Day
D10 6+Con Mod Healing Surges/Day
D12 6+Con Mod Healing Surges/Day
One thing I have decided to implement is a variation of healing surges from 4th edition. Allowing characters to essentially shrug of damage, rally when things go bad, a surge of adrenline that keeps them going etc. I am still working it out but, it a variant of Ghostwheel's houserule, thus far I am thinking it will look something along the lines of...
Healing Surges Based on HD Type & on Mod
D4 1+Con Mod Healing Surges/Day
D6 2+Con Mod Healing Surges/Day
D8 3+Con Mod Healing Surges/Day
D10 4+Con Mod Healing Surges/Day
D12 5+Con Mod Healing Surges/Day
Your healing surge would be usable once per combat encounter as a standard action and heal you for an amount equal to 25% of your total HP. You could expend as many healing surges as you want out of combat (up to your max per day) as long as you take a 5 minute rest before doing so.
What I would personally do is start with 4 + Con modifier healing surges per day. This allows a character to heal up completely once during a day. My first stab at this would go as follows:
Healing Surges Based on HD Type & on Mod
D4 4+Con Mod Healing Surges/Day
D6 5+Con Mod Healing Surges/Day
D8 5+Con Mod Healing Surges/Day
D10 6+Con Mod Healing Surges/Day
D12 6+Con Mod Healing Surges/Day
Thanks for the suggestion Mecha, I was actually debating on whether or not to start out with a higher amont of surges so I will likely increase it as you suggest, that was just something I had tossed together in about 10 minutes after I decided I wanted to use a surge system
Going back to skills, I am not the only one who has made a revised skill list. One thing of note is that when you do this is messes with your feats that grant skill bonus's that give skill bonus's. So what I am trying is pulling out feats such as Acrobatics, Athletics etc.
I am to replace them with a single feat (Skill Expertise) that grants a +2 bonus on a pair of skills chosen by the player. They may take the feat over and over again, each time choosing two skills that they have not already chosen.
I'm going to go through this thread and put it together in an easy to read letter and send to in to WotC...if you wish to help with this project that would be greatly appreciated.
Hopefully this effort will at least get them to notice that we're still here waiting and hoping