- Mostly based on 4E Mechanics. But certainly not a D&D with GUNS ;(
- An understanding that «healing surges» are not simply a representation of Hit Points but rather a representation of a characters overall resiliance.
- A condition track system similar to SWSE that takes into account the healing surge mechanic.
- Modern 4.S remains a CLASS based RPG as opposed to a point buy system like GURPS
- The 6 base classes (smart, charismatic, strong, tough, fast, dedicated) should be turned into ROLES that replace the 4 D&D roles.
- As in 4e all classes (gunslinger,etc) would be tag with a role.
- Skills should be collapse in much the same maner as in SWSE
- Talent trees converted to Power Disciplines
- Powers remain usable following the At-will, Encounter, Daily, Utility dictum BUT healing surges can be «burned» to recup some powers. Encounter 1 surge, daily 2 surges (?)
- Multiclassing needs to be expended. Into what ? No idea yet.
(and ONLY atanakar)
I havent seen Smart and Charismatic classes mentioned anywhere in your posts
What are you thinking for addressing PC's that play supporting characters... the commonly refered to group of NonCombat characters ( engineers / pilots / navigators or mechanics / scientists / Face's ). WiIl they gain Encounter powers helping thier primary purposes just as the fighty guys gain fight helping powers?
To wit:
For the Anime thread I was starting to lay out a Teen Angst system,
and that included putting Angst Powers in the class power lists to be availible to choose in lieu of Cleave or whatever fighty power. Not every character choose to take Cleave, just as not every character chooses to take "Hair Superiority" TeenAngst power instead of Cleave at that level. Some Angst powers were usable in combat, but mostly they were general effect or social (combat or noncombat). Fighty classes had fewer and less potent Angst powers in their class power lists, and the Angsty classes had more choices of more potent Angst powers and fewer 15[w] attack powers
atanakar-
(and ONLY atanakar)
Sorry, this is a thread, and anyone who wants to gets to respond.
What are you thinking for addressing PC's that play supporting characters... the commonly refered to group of NonCombat characters ( engineers / pilots / navigators or mechanics / scientists / Face's ). WiIl they gain Encounter powers helping thier primary purposes just as the fighty guys gain fight helping powers?
Both 4e and Saga edition did a lot to try and achieve balance between all characters. All classes, in both systems, have the potential to be potent combat characters. No class is supposed to be a "supporting character," all classes are designed to play primary characters (though of potentially different roles). Engineers, pilots, navigators, mechanics, scientists, and faces, in both Saga and 4e paradigms, are not "non combat characters." The original poster clearly stated that this is a thread to work on a 4.S E game; this is a thread to work on a 4e and Saga edition hybrid. As neither 4e or Saga edition have the concept of a "non combat class," the assumption is that no such thing as a non-combat class should exist in this proposed project either.
Perhaps, as it is possible to some degree in Saga, the original poster desires that some classes offer a choice of taking a non-combat talent/power instead of a combat talent/power. However, all classes will have/should have an option to be, within reason, equally potent in combat (if they choose to be). If that is not the paradigm you want to work in, please respect the OP wishes and do not contaminate this thread. If that is the paradigm you want to work in, welcome to the discussion.
Though, I too would like to know what Antakar envisions should be done with smart and charismatic characters. I think those two types of characters are important, and have a place both within Saga and 4e mechanics. The bard seems pretty bang on for a charismatic hero in 4e, the wizard pretty bang on for a smart hero. The noble, likewise, seems like a mix of the smart and charismatic hero rolled into one class. Of course, one way or another, the mechanics will require translation for this project. Its not like bards or wizards will fit into Modern. :P
Fighty classes had fewer and less potent Angst powers in their class power lists, and the Angsty classes had more choices of more potent Angst powers and fewer 15[w] attack powers
Please keep your hyperbole out of this thread. There are no 15[w] powers in 4E.
apparently, any further questions I have for you I will have to PM
Dave
Perhaps, as it is possible to some degree in Saga, the original poster desires ......
PERHAPS?
What, you dont know?
Well, I guess it is ok for you not to know, since YOU ARE NOT HIM
and I did ask HIM AND ONLY HIM the question
maybe, just maybe, you shouldnt get upset with me asking him a question that you cant answer
However, all classes will have/should have an option to be, within reason, equally potent in combat (if they choose to be). If that is not the paradigm you want to work in, please respect the OP wishes and do not contaminate this thread
Holy cow, you are already kicking me out for something you are guessing at the OP wanting?
as long as we're just gonna guess what the OP wants and freak out over it, my turn:
Perhaps the OP doesnt want your hostile and attack filled posting,
that brings the inevitable defensive posts,
dragging his thread off to petty bickering tangentland
Your post could have been just your question to the OP without the animocity toward me,
and yet that is not what you chose
Holy cow, you are already kicking me out for something you are guessing at the OP wanting?
You missquoted me. What I wrote was:
If that is not the paradigm you want to work in, please respect the OP wishes and do not contaminate this thread. If that is the paradigm you want to work in, welcome to the discussion.
I didn't kick you out at all. However, it seems like your first post is already riding on the "we need non-combat classes" high horse. I explained why the OP first thread already implies that he has no desire to include non-combat classes. Its not part of the paradigm of Saga or 4e, and so has no purpose in a 4e/Saga hybrid. If you are going to stick to your guns about the need for "non-combat classes," you should probably leave, because what you want seems to be antithetical to the OPs goals. On the other hand, if you are not proposing that non-combat classes necessarily must be included, as I stated, welcome to the discussion.
atanakar-
(and ONLY atanakar)
I havent seen Smart and Charismatic classes mentioned anywhere in your posts
What are you thinking for addressing PC's that play supporting characters... the commonly refered to group of NonCombat characters ( engineers / pilots / navigators or mechanics / scientists / Face's ). WiIl they gain Encounter powers helping thier primary purposes just as the fighty guys gain fight helping powers?
To wit:
For the Anime thread I was starting to lay out a Teen Angst system,
and that included putting Angst Powers in the class power lists to be availible to choose in lieu of Cleave or whatever fighty power. Not every character choose to take Cleave, just as not every character chooses to take "Hair Superiority" TeenAngst power instead of Cleave at that level. Some Angst powers were usable in combat, but mostly they were general effect or social (combat or noncombat). Fighty classes had fewer and less potent Angst powers in their class power lists, and the Angsty classes had more choices of more potent Angst powers and fewer 15[w] attack powers
People do sleep once in a while. No need for PMs... LOL
About the SMART and CHARISMATIC : My apologies. I wrote my first post in a flash to get the discussion restarted.
1. So this means a major difference between D&D 4E and Modern 4.S. : 6 ROLES instead of 4.
2. All classes regardless of ROLE should be combat capable in there generic form. That's what 4E is all about. That why this tread OP specifically states that it has a BIAIS.
3. IF the player wants more customization there should be a system that lets him trade «combat option» for «utility options». Ultimately, one should be able to build a Princess if he/she wants to.
(I will read MechaPilots Anime thread latter this weekend. Angst Powers sound cool)
You missquoted me.
oh, I feel terrible about that... why dont you quote the misquote here.
Go ahead, just paste in this alleged quotation of you I did wrong.
Unless you are talking about how my reaction to your statements is not your exact text.
Yeah, funny how something that is neither in quotation marks nor a quote block, nor even atrribed as a citation... funny how my text is not a verbatim quote of you.
Its not a misquote, it it is not any kind of quote at all.
get a life other than trying to accuse folks Dave
3. IF the player wants more customization there should be a system that lets him trade «combat option» for «utility options». Ultimately, one should be able to build a Princess if he/she wants to.
However, all classes will have/should have an option to be, within reason, equally potent in combat (if they choose to be).
I see a recurring theme here,
that folks would have the choice to be less potent in combat if that is what they choose.
I think this has much potential.
Unless you are talking about how my reaction to your statements is not your exact text.
Yeah, funny how something that is neither in quotation marks nor a quote block, nor even atrribed as a citation... funny how my text is not a verbatim quote of you.
Its not a misquote, it it is not any kind of quote at all.
get a life other than trying to accuse folks Dave
Oh, so you mean, you did not quote the following piece of my statement:
However, all classes will have/should have an option to be, within reason, equally potent in combat (if they choose to be). If that is not the paradigm you want to work in, please respect the OP wishes and do not contaminate this thread
in quote tags, unfinished, and then claim that I was kicking you off the thread, while conveniently leaving this line out:
If that is the paradigm you want to work in, welcome to the discussion.
?
Oh, right, you did. Funny that. Do you ever bother with the truth, or is it an inconvenient reality in your attempts to slander folks these days?
However, all classes will have/should have an option to be, within reason, equally potent in combat (if they choose to be). If that is not the paradigm you want to work in, please respect the OP wishes and do not contaminate this thread
and we go back to the post I copypasted from
Perhaps, as it is possible to some degree in Saga, the original poster desires that some classes offer a choice of taking a non-combat talent/power instead of a combat talent/power. However, all classes will have/should have an option to be, within reason, equally potent in combat (if they choose to be). If that is not the paradigm you want to work in, please respect the OP wishes and do not contaminate this thread. If that is the paradigm you want to work in, welcome to the discussion.
and when we compare what he actualy said
However, all classes will have/should have an option to be, within reason, equally potent in combat (if they choose to be). If that is not the paradigm you want to work in, please respect the OP wishes and do not contaminate this thread.
to what I put in quotation of him
However, all classes will have/should have an option to be, within reason, equally potent in combat (if they choose to be). If that is not the paradigm you want to work in, please respect the OP wishes and do not contaminate this thread.
I am still not seeing any text I misquoted.
Dave, are you sure you know what 'misquote' means?
BTW, I'm sure everyone appreciates the way you are destroying this thread on developing Modern4.S,
cause we all would love yet another thread where you attack posters and they defend themselves rather than discussing the game
A misquotation is an accidental or intentional misrepresentation of a person's speech or writing, involving...Omission of important context...
When you cut out the part of my quote in which I welcomed you to the discussion, and then used the rest of my quote to claim I was kicking you off the thread, you misrepresented my quote via an omission of context. That is a form of misquote. Perhaps you should check up the commonly understood definitions of words in the English language before you claim that someone else does not understand them.
BTW, I'm sure everyone appreciates the way you are destroying this thread on developing Modern4.S,
cause we all would love yet another thread where you attack posters and they defend themselves rather than discussing the game
I am sure everyone of value understand that it is you that is attempting to destroy this thread. That I am doing nothing but defending my name and tastes. That I have done nothing but clarify the purpose of this post, and request that you stay within it, and not use hyperbole. That you then attempted to slander my name. That I will defend my name against slander. That you, as usual, are trolling in an attempt to destroy threads.
a) The same arguments are probably going to start up here as elsewhere and
b) I don't have Saga Edition, or any plan to purchase it.
So my suggestions would be limited to 4E adaptations. However so far I would say I disagree with substituting the Hero titles as Roles. Roles are pretty abstract entities for team building and vaguely define what that average Hero can do. I believe the Hero system can stay as the main class system of Modern, and each of them can be fit neatly into the Roles provided by D&D.
Unless there is an argument I have not heard yet for substituting Heroes=Roles.
So my suggestions would be limited to 4E adaptations. However so far I would say I disagree with substituting the Hero titles as Roles. Roles are pretty abstract entities for team building and vaguely define what that average Hero can do. I believe the Hero system can stay as the main class system of Modern, and each of them can be fit neatly into the Roles provided by D&D.
Unless there is an argument I have not heard yet for substituting Heroes=Roles.
I agree with Azisien. I think there should be six classes, but only four roles. Those four roles should be abstract, and lack any real mechanical definition. More than anything else, those four roles should suggest what the classes' mechanical capabilities are best at doing. They should be more of a rule followed during the design of a class, and less of a rule that actually effects the game once the class is designed and in play. Basically, they should be a way to help players build effective groups, because the game explicitly states what the developers designed the class to do. As usual, classes should always have a secondary role. One they are not quite as effective at completing, but one which they lean towards. For example, I see a strong hero as a striker with a choice between defender or controller leanings. His melee powers would have defender secondary abilities. His heavy automatic weapon powers would have controller secondary abilities. At least, that is the way I see things.
A misquotation is an accidental or intentional misrepresentation of a person's speech or writing, involving...Omission of important context...
When you cut out the part of my quote
cut out the part?
what part of your text wac cut out?
it was a contiguous block of your text.
As for misrepresntation,
I represented you ask attempting to become sherrif of Atanakar's thread,
that in your first post you are already trying to kick people out that wont conform to YOUR narrow minded appraoch to a modern use of some parts of 4e. I say Narrow Minded due to your posts in the poll that demostrate your unreasonableness having common ground.
No, you dont get to defend MyWay Or Highway type hooey
by claiming you are willing to let folks obedient to you stay.... especially since it is not your thread
If you want to say it was out of context,
then you should say that rather than claiming I misquoted you
So my suggestions would be limited to 4E adaptations. However so far I would say I disagree with substituting the Hero titles as Roles. Roles are pretty abstract entities for team building and vaguely define what that average Hero can do. I believe the Hero system can stay as the main class system of Modern, and each of them can be fit neatly into the Roles provided by D&D.
What Role do you consider Princess to be... or the Engineer to be?
Or that singer character from the TV robotech... Minmay(???)
I see folk using combat activities to define party roles...
Why do roles have to be what the person does in combat instead of what the person brings to the party.
Saga is built around the paradigm that all classes should have the option to be well balanced against each other in combat.
What we are working on is a hybrid between those two paradigms. Please stay within them. The original post already requests that people do so. If those paradigms are not for you, this thread is not for you.
Keeping that in mind, there will be no princess, non-combat engineer, or non-combat singer classes in this system. There might be princess, non-combat engineer, and non-combat singer talents/powers [edit: that can be taken instead of combat talents/powers] if we begin to lean closer to the Saga paradigm then the 4E paradigm. Those powers/talents will still exist within a class that does come attached with a combat-role, and the option to be equally potent in combat as any other class.
EDIT: I added an edit for the sake of clarity.
Keeping that in mind, there will be no princess, non-combat engineer, or non-combat singer classes in this system
3. IF the player wants more customization there should be a system that lets him trade «combat option» for «utility options». Ultimately, one should be able to build a Princess if he/she wants to.
Dave, do you consider what you say before you say it?
Given that Dave want folks that cant follow what the OP wants to leave,
and the op clearly said ther can indeed be a Princess character,
and Dave is decidedly against letting a Princess exist in his mandated way to run the thread
.... doesnt that mean Dave is kicking Dave out of the thread?
Dave,
I didnt ask what role the Princess class would be under,
I asked what roll Princess would be.
and you failed to answer because you'd rather pollute the thread some more
Dave, do you consider what you say before you say it?
Do you? Do you read what other people write? Lets re-iterate shall we? You quoted the following piece of atanakar's writing:
3. IF the player wants more customization there should be a system that lets him trade «combat option» for «utility options». Ultimately, one should be able to build a Princess if he/she wants to.
However, you left out the 2nd tenant from that very same post of atanakar's. Lets take a look at that second tenant shall we?
2. All classes regardless of ROLE should be combat capable in there generic form. That's what 4E is all about. That why this tread OP specifically states that it has a BIAIS.
Now lets look at the entirety of my post which your last post just quoted:
4e is built around the paradigm that all classes should be well balanced against each other in combat.
Saga is built around the paradigm that all classes should have the option to be well balanced against each other in combat.
What we are working on is a hybrid between those two paradigms. Please stay within them. The original post already requests that people do so. If those paradigms are not for you, this thread is not for you.
Keeping that in mind, there will be no princess, non-combat engineer, or non-combat singer classes in this system. There might be princess, non-combat engineer, and non-combat singer talents/powers if we begin to lean closer to the Saga paradigm then the 4E paradigm. Those powers/talents will still exist within a class that does come attached with a combat-role, and the option to be equally potent in combat as any other class.
Please note the bold and underlined sections. So, what I posted perfectly falls in line with the paradigm of system outlined by atanakar. Your insistence that classes entirely dedicated to non-combat exist does not, and is explicitly outside of the paradigm of the system we are working on/discussing.
So, if you don't mind me stealing your phrasing for a moment:
Given that backstabbist wants folks that cant follow what the OP wants to design, and the OP clearly said there can not be a non-combat Princess class, only the option to use a class that in its base form is a combat class to build a non-combat princess character, and backstabbist is decidedly against following this mandated edict in regards to the direction of this thread, doesn't that mean backstabbist should either leave this thread, or begin to participate in it in an appropriate manner? After all, we did, as a community, agree that we should all follow RealOrion's rule that:
4. Sometimes the smartest thing to say is nothing.
-Provide feedback only when it is constructive to the goals of the original poster.
What Role do you consider Princess to be... or the Engineer to be?
Or that singer character from the TV robotech... Minmay(???)
I see folk using combat activities to define party roles...
Why do roles have to be what the person does in combat instead of what the person brings to the party.
I don't know who most of these characters are, however, if I recall a previous thread where you mentioned Princess, I think she would fall under the Controller Role.
Again, the roles don't define exactly what every character does, they are, in my opinion, an abstracted reflection of the classic "rogue, warrior, cleric, wizard" of D&D. Modern MIGHT be able to loosen things with respect to this, but due to your petty arguments with Cyber-Dave back and forth, we're a long way off from considering it.
The way I personally see it, is all six classes will have 1st level features that allow them to participate in combat. All characters will get them, no matter what. No matter how supportive a Smart Hero build decides to go with skills, feats, and powers, they should still have 1st level "predict enemy movement" for a 1 + one-half level bonus to ranged attack roll. Players can decide not to use these natural class features, that's up to them really. It really will boil down to how Powers get set up, but perhaps some kind of power substitution for Skill focus would appease non-combatants. That way instead of gaining a combat power, they could choose to gain another +5 in a skill or two of their choice. All just examples thus far.
Stop arguing.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
3. IF the player wants more customization there should be a system that lets him trade «combat option» for «utility options». Ultimately, one should be able to build a Princess if he/she wants to.
However, all classes will have/should have an option to be, within reason, equally potent in combat (if they choose to be).
It really will boil down to how Powers get set up, but perhaps some kind of power substitution for Skill focus would appease non-combatants. That way instead of gaining a combat power, they could choose to gain another +5 in a skill or two of their choice.
I see a recurring theme here,
that folks would have the choice to be less potent in combat to be better at noncombat if that is what they choose.
I think this has much potential.
[/b]
I see a recurring theme here,
that folks would have the choice to be less potent in combat to be better at noncombat if that is what they choose.
I think this has much potential.
It was a calculated suggestion I made on the fly in hopes of appeasing you...and only you, Backstabbist. :D
But hey, if there are substitution rules that don't break 95% of the rest of the system, I really don't see a reason not to.
you're right though, simple and effective trade off
(maybe some refinement later, but a good base plan)
I agree with Azisien. I think there should be six classes, but only four roles. Those four roles should be abstract, and lack any real mechanical definition. More than anything else, those four roles should suggest what the classes' mechanical capabilities are best at doing. They should be more of a rule followed during the design of a class, and less of a rule that actually effects the game once the class is designed and in play. Basically, they should be a way to help players build effective groups, because the game explicitly states what the developers designed the class to do. As usual, classes should always have a secondary role. One they are not quite as effective at completing, but one which they lean towards. For example, I see a strong hero as a striker with a choice between defender or controller leanings. His melee powers would have defender secondary abilities. His heavy automatic weapon powers would have controller secondary abilities. At least, that is the way I see things.
ROLES
Working Hypothesis #1 [Cyber-Dave/Azizen] : Contends that the four D&D 4E roles can emcompass any character class for a Modern type game. The six basic classes outlined in Modern 1.0 should be used to create all/any characters. (please correct me if I misrepresent your hypothesis)
Working Hypothesis #2 : [Atanakar] : Contends the four D&D 4E roles are too restrictive in their nature to encompass the reality of the Modern world. What were the six basic class in Modern 1.0 offer the perfect model to create a new set of roles for a Modern environment. All advances classes in Modern 1.0 are already KEYED to these basic roles. These advanced classes should in turn become entry level classes that include the appropriate «talent trees» of the former generic classes.
Please humor me. Let's go back in time a bit. As a former owner of a gaming store I was very happy when Modern 1.0. came out. I read the corebook and saw a big marketing flaw right from the start. I did not say anything to anyone and showed the game to all who had bought D&D 3.0 & 3.5 at my store.
The initial reaction was excellent. People were almost instant customers BUT 75% of customers were completely turned off by the basic class system (strong, charismatic, etc). A VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WANTED to be a Soldier, Gunslinger, Field Medic, Ambassador, right from the get go... Sales turnout to be abismal!
Modern never sailed as a product for WotC even after Urban Arcana (an attempt to bring in D&D players) came out. I attribute this to the marketing flaw they made with basic classes. You will notice that SWSE (which I consider to be 3.6 / Modern was 3.55) did not repeat the same mistake. Players get to be a Soldier, Jedi Apprentice, etc, from the get go.
So you see I respecfully disagree with your hypothesis on two grounds :
1. The Modern world is more complex than a Fantasy world. It needs different and more roles than 4E.
2. One doest not create a game system that will have no appeal for a large number of potential customers. That's the hardest part of game design. To capture interest without turning your product into over cooked noodles with no taste...LOL
ROLES
Working Hypothesis #1 [Cyber-Dave/Azizen] : Contends that the four D&D 4E roles can emcompass any character class for a Modern type game. The six basic classes outlined in Modern 1.0 should be used to create all/any characters. (please correct me if I misrepresent your hypothesis)
Working Hypothesis #2 : [Atanakar] : Contends the four D&D 4E roles are too restrictive in their nature to encompass the reality of the Modern world. What were the six basic class in Modern 1.0 offer the perfect model to create a new set of roles for a Modern environment. All advances classes in Modern 1.0 are already KEYED to these basic roles. These advanced classes should in turn become entry level classes that include the appropriate «talent trees» of the former generic classes.
Please humor me. Let's go back in time a bit. As a former owner of a gaming store I was very happy when Modern 1.0. came out. I read the corebook and saw a big marketing flaw right from the start. I did not say anything to anyone and showed the game to all who had bought D&D 3.0 & 3.5 at my store.
The initial reaction was excellent. People were almost instant customers BUT 75% of customers were completely turned off by the basic class system (strong, charismatic, etc). A VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WANTED to be a Soldier, Gunslinger, Field Medic, Ambassador, right from the get go... Sales turnout to be abismal!
Modern never sailed as a product for WotC even after Urban Arcana (an attempt to bring in D&D players) came out. I attribute this to the marketing flaw they made with basic classes. You will notice that SWSE (which I consider to be 3.6 / Modern was 3.55) did not repeat the same mistake. Players get to be a Soldier, Jedi Apprentice, etc, from the get go.
So you see I respecfully disagree with your hypothesis on two grounds :
1. The Modern world is more complex than a Fantasy world. It needs different and more roles than 4E.
2. One doest not create a game system that will have no appeal for a large number of potential customers. That's the hardest part of game design. To capture interest without turning your product into over cooked noodles with no taste...LOL
Atanakar, I am a little confused. The body of your post does not seem to support your hypothesis or conclusion. It seems to work on a completely different set of issues. Your hypothesis and conclusion seems to be that the four combat roles of D&D are not robust enough to describe the purpose of all Modern classes. But the body of your post has no real argument to support that, at least that I can see. Instead, as far as I can tell, the body of your post makes a very convincing argument that the "Type Hero" naming convention is a poor system of marketing the game, and that more interesting/exciting naming conventions are thus required...
I seem to be misunderstanding something. Can please connect the dots for me. What am I missing?
Please bare with me as english is an aquired language for me. It takes me far longer to write anything than either Backstabbist or YOU! ;)
Leader: Dedicated Hero, Smart Hero
Striker: Strong Hero
Controller: Charismatic Hero
Defender: Tough Hero, Fast Hero
Also remember because of their abstraction, the roles are not set in stone. For instance in the example above, a Fast Hero is to me also a decent Striker. Classes can have secondary, even tertiary roles by the nature of their powers and feats and so on.
Now, if your claim is the that the advanced classes fit neatly with all the basic classes already, then beefing up this role list is an easy affair.
As to your argument about the Hero system being a poor marketing tool for a new Modern: I can't really comment on how real that statement is, aside from the obvious Modern 1.0 not being THAT popular [and many other variables contribute to this...i.e. NOT being Star Wars, Star Trek, D&D, or other nerd bait]. However, the Hero system should stay intact to me. What may not be obvious is the Hero system to me is not the naming convention of the basic classes, the Hero system is the division of basic classes and the blueprints of their powers based on a single ability score. If we renamed the six basic classes into something else, but kept their core principles, it is merely a semantical alteration for the sake of marketing? And I see no real problem with that.
To drive a nail in the coffin then [the first nail, not the last ;)), Dave and I could attempt to put every class of Modern 1.0 into the four D&D roles.
Leader: Dedicated Hero, Smart Hero
Striker: Strong Hero
Controller: Charismatic Hero
Defender: Tough Hero, Fast Hero
Hehe. I agree, but I would divide the classes a little differently. This is the way I would do it:
Leader: Dedicated Hero, Charismatic Hero
Striker: Strong Hero, Fast Hero
Controller: Smart Hero
Defender: Tough Hero
The Smart Hero, Dedicated Hero, Tough Hero, and Fast Hero would be pure role classes. The Strong Hero would be a striker/defender hybrid. The Charismatic Hero would be Leader/controller hybrid. However, the classes primary roles would be as listed above. But really, that is just my semantic preference. I agree with Azisien's point.
Mechanically, this would be a group of powers that spend your actions to 'buy' the enemy's actions. For example, you could have:
- 'Give Chase', which makes enemies move towards you.
- 'Suppress', which makes enemies shoot at the cover you're hiding behind.
- 'Grovel', which uses up your turn and the turn of nearby enemies.
Yeah it's demeaning, but you don't care about fighting anyway, right? Also, you're letting the combat guys have more enemy-killing fun. Which is only fair when you get to bust out all your cool skill stuff while they do something demeaning.
P.S.: I'd put down my thoughts on skill usage, but they're a bit too in-depth to tack on here. That and WotC might nick 'em.
However, the Hero system should stay intact to me. What may not be obvious is the Hero system to me is not the naming convention of the basic classes, the Hero system is the division of basic classes and the blueprints of their powers based on a single ability score.
your text makes it sound like you are wanting to have Basic classes (6heros) and an open multiclassing environment for AdC etc... am I reading you right?
Az, what are your thoughts regarding multiclassing in the "Hypothesis CD/Az" style?
And regarding it in general for modern games?
You know what a good non-combatant combat role would be? The Burden. Basically, someone who stalls the enemy without actually harming them
Did you read the discussion on the value of Charismatic Surrender?
For reference material on its usefulness in modern situations,
try this thread, start around post 9 or 10
[INDENT]As a Charismatic hero, she Surrenders to one of them, and then 1 or 2 of them have to hold her while the rest of us fight. BigAl is far less dependable with his Axe for taking guys out in the first round. By the time the fight is over, Princess has already mentioned the rate that her captors team have been dieing, and usually has him surrender to her[/INDENT]
Azisien-
your text makes it sound like you are wanting to have Basic classes (6heros) and an open multiclassing environment for AdC etc... am I reading you right?
Az, what are your thoughts regarding multiclassing in the "Hypothesis CD/Az" style?
And regarding it in general for modern games?
As of right now the simplest way to organize advanced classes is to make them into the Paragon Path equivalents from D&D. It would be a step away from the current Modern multiclassing potential which is...well, it's all about multiclassing really. However it's too early for me to have a clear idea of how that could fit together, and WotC doesn't pay me enough to work hard on such things. :D
does that mean levels 1-10 in just the attrib archtype Hero class one chooses?
snipers burglers and fighter-pilots spend 10 levels in the same clone tank Dex class?
Also, I want to make clear that I view this thread is a DISCUSSION GROUP not a DEBATE FORUM. It' s place to exchange ideas about what Modern 4.S could be. Each is entitled to his own working hypothesis.
Everyone is more than welcome to comment constructively on each hypothesis. Lets not repeat what has happened in other threads already. Barrages of words and counter arguments do not interest me. If I want that I'll read the other threads.
@ Cyber-Dave : It would be pretty awesome if you could synthesize your working hypothesis here. It's well developped but its spread out all over the board in different threads.
@ backstabbist and Azisien : What are your 4.S working hypothesis ?
oh no, I'm not getting baited into posting some modification to 4e I'd like in m4.S
just so 'folks' can manufacture epic rants against it.
Squangos-
Yes, anyone may surrender, even Fighters/Toughs, but the qualities of a Charaismatic chracter help vastly when attempting it.
Az-
Oh, yeah, there are feats and power choices that each make to tailor thier char in that one class.
However, it does bring in a long term lock on the one class party:
[indent]Tommy TwoShivs
Sniper Dan
2ndStory Steve-o
XXXXX the Ninja (he wont tell us his name)
and Captain Jim, the fighter ace that assembled the team[/indent]
.... and we have 10 levels of playing the Single Class Party: Flyboy & The Four Fasts
which also would be the SIngle Role Party
F&tFF has a striking Fast sniper,
a defending Fast twf (ranger, I'm looking at you and scratching my head)
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
..... all "Striker" Fasts
However, having an all striker party isn't so much a systems problem as it is poor group building. The point of the roles is to go, metagame of course, okay Steve and Jim are playing Strikers, I better be a Leader and Nancy should be a Controller else we're going to have a lot of trouble. That doesn't make it impossible to play with said party (the offensive output of 5 Strikers would be immense), of course.
One thing I noticed 4e didn't expand on very much (possibly for balance reasons, but only experimentation will tell) is multiclass feats (similar to those Hero Plus feats from Future), which would broaden options.
One thing I noticed 4e didn't expand on very much (possibly for balance reasons, but only experimentation will tell) is multiclass feats (similar to those Hero Plus feats from Future), which would broaden options.
Out of curiosity Az', have you seen any of the "Power" books? Each one of them has extra multiclassing feats. For example, there is a new ranger multiclass feat in the Martial Power book that allows you to duel wield two weapons of the same size.
@ Cyber-Dave : It would be pretty awesome if you could synthesize your working hypothesis here. It's well developped but its spread out all over the board in different threads.
Yes, I can. But it will have to wait until after my appointment with my tattoo artist. I need to run or I will be late.
Out of curiosity Az', have you seen any of the "Power" books? Each one of them has extra multiclassing feats. For example, there is a new ranger multiclass feat in the Martial Power book that allows you to duel wield two weapons of the same size.
Naw, I haven't seen them yet. I just dropped $150 on the four big books, and I've not been sold on 4E hard enough yet until I actually get some playtime down before I even consider buying supplements.
One thing that might work well is, and I think this may have been Cyber-Dave's suggestion for a while now, the use of a massive general pool of powers and feats (feats are usually open anyway) despite being locked in a class for 10 levels. The distinction may be that if you're part of the Fast Flyboy team, you can choose whatever powers you wish to build your character, but you can only apply your Level Bonus (or Ability Bonus, or maybe even a Class Bonus) to Fast Hero-applicable powers/feats. So XXXXXXX the ninja may want to know Surgury to aid in party healing, but he might only add 2d6 + Wisdom modifier to an ally's healing surge, where a Dedicated Hero might add 2d6 + Wisdom modifier + Half-level.
I mean in my opinion, most ninjas are above 10th level anyway, too, so they might already be dabbling in two classes.
The new 4.S e Modern would be a mix of the sorts of mechanics used in 4e and Saga.
The primary base of the system would be 4E. This means: Base attack/Defense (replaces saves)/skill/power acquisition progression is the same for all classes.
However, each class will gain a flat bonus to a particular set of saves, each class will get different weapon proficiencies, each class will have different base class abilities. These will be used to simulate difference in capability between different classes.
Six classes will continue to exist. I will call these class Fast, Strong, Tough, Smart, Charismatic, and Dedicated. However, I am happy with these classes receiving a name change. I understand that some people do not find these names particularly appealing, and thus do not find that these names make a good marketing strategy.
Each of the six classes will be divided into one of four combat roles. The combat roles are defender, striker, leader, controller. The classes will be divided between these roles as follows:
Leader: Dedicated Hero, Charismatic Hero
Striker: Strong Hero, Fast Hero
Controller: Smart Hero
Defender: Tough Hero
The Smart Hero, Dedicated Hero, Tough Hero, and Fast Hero would be pure role classes. The Strong Hero would be a striker/defender or striker/controller hybrid. The Charismatic Hero would be Leader/controller hybrid. However, the classes primary roles would be as listed above. Other hybrid, or rather "secondary," role options for other classes should probably be decided upon. Ideally, all classes would have powers that lend themselves to one of two different builds. Maybe the "pure" role classes would have a secondary build that has slightly weaker powers in terms of their primary role, but would leave them with an option to gain some effects on their powers that lean towards a secondary role. I don't know. Specifics would need to be worked out.
Also, Charismatic based heroes would not gain the ability to heal allies ala D&D leaders. Instead, they would gain the ability to allow a character to spend a healing surge and gain a number of temporary hit points equal to what the dedicated hero can heal someone for with a med-kit. Its not that they can heal people with words, its that they can inspire people with words, causing people to push themselves harder then they otherwise would.
Each class would have a full list of Combat and Non-Combat powers. Attack powers can usually be considered "combat powers." All attack powers should be useful in combat. However, it should be noted that some classes, such as the Charismatic Hero, Dedicated Hero, and Smart Hero, should receive attack powers that are useful outside of combat. Being able to Dominate someone is always useful, whether you are in combat or not. The one theme that will be common among all attack powers is that they will all require an attack roll against one of an opponent's defenses. Utility powers will have a mix of combat powers (utility movement and self buffing capabilities that are only really useful during combat) and non-combat powers.
ALL classes should have a plethora of non-combat utility powers. All classes should be able to, if they so choose, pick utility powers that solely revolve around skill (non-combat) use.
Attack powers and utility powers should come from two separate set of resources. That is to say, as a person levels they get to choose a fixed amount of attack powers, and a fixed amount of utility powers. A person can not use an attack power slot to purchase a utility power. A person can not use a utility power slot to purchase an attack power. HOWEVER: An optional set of rules for trading attack powers for utility powers should exist. This should allow characters to build completely non-combat characters if they so choose, and their GM is ok with it.
Powers will be divided up into "class lists." However, unlike D&D 4e, all characters can choose a power from any classes list. This will simulate Modern's open multiclass system. However, when using a power from your chosen classes list, you should gain some sort of extra benefit. Thus, nobody is quite as good at using charismatic hero powers as a charismatic hero.
I think that Paragon Paths should be used to simulate Prestige Classes. But, a new mechanic should be create, Advanced Paths. One chooses their advanced path at 3rd level. I have not fully decided what an advanced path should grant. Perhaps it should open up a small list of new powers (one new power option for every level slot of attack and utility powers). Perhaps it should grant a new class ability. Perhaps it should grant a new "class ability." I am not sure. Paragon Paths will work as they do in D&D 4e. All Advanced and Paragon Paths will be divided up as "belonging" to each of the six different classes. However, a character can choose any Advanced Path as long as they have at least X (not sure what number works best) powers that belong to that Advanced Path. Characters can only choose Paragon Path if they either a) are of the class that that paragon path belongs to or b) have chosen an Advanced Path that belongs to the same class as that Paragon Path belongs to.
As for the sorts of attack powers each of the classes would get, I was thinking something along these lines:
The Tough Hero would get both melee and heavy thrown weapon related powers. Neither of these powers would be particularly strong (in comparison to the Strong/Fast hero powers) in terms of damage or debilitating effects placed on the enemy. However, a lot of these powers would allow the Tough Hero to spend a healing surge after making the attack, or gain damage reduction as a secondary buff benefit, or regeneration, or that sort of thing. Also, a lot of his powers would allow him to make interrupt and/or reaction based attacks against enemies who attack the Tough Heroes friends. His melee/thrown based powers would be based off STR, but Con would be the primary ability off which all of his class abilities and secondary healing/buff based powers will be based off of.
The Strong Hero would get melee and heavy thrown weapon related powers. These powers would be all about high damage and dealing effects against the Strong Hero's enemies. His powers would pretty much all work of Strength. A tree of heavy firearms specific feats that work of strength (because these weapons are more about controlling recoil, or at least wielding a very heavy weapon, then having great eye hand coordination) would probably fit in here also.
The Fast Hero would get firearm and light blade/light thrown (rogue weapon) related powers. These powers would all be bout high damage and dealing effects against the Fast Hero's enemies. His powers would pretty much be all Dexterity based.
The Smart Hero would get a mix of powers that are not based on weapons at all, and maybe a couple weapons powers. His weapon powers would be called something like "smart shot," would use his Int and not his Dexterity, and would not deal great damage. They would, however, deal lots of status effects. His powers that are not based off weapons would require that he possess a "tool kit," and would pretty much allow him to create AoE persistent zone/trap effects. Pretty much, he gets to be McGuiver (spelling?), building things on the fly as needed. These powers would require the use of a tool kit. These powers would also be based of Intelligence.
The Charismatic Hero would get a mix of powers that are not based on weapons at all, and maybe a couple weapons powers. His weapon powers would not be about dealing damage. They would, in fact, deal poor damage. They would pretty much be basic ranged/melee attacks (maybe a little better, but you get my point). However, these powers would allow his allies to instantly perform certain actions, often attacks, with significant bonuses. This hero would not be all about doing great damage himself, but rather being able to allow his friends to get extra attacks. Additionally, this character would also get attack powers that don't use weapons at all. Instead these attack powers do no damage, but deal status effects like domination, dazed, etc. Basically, the ability to talk people down. All of his non weapon based powers would be based off Charisma. All of his weapon based powers would be based of Str (for melee) or Dex (for ranged) but would grant bonuses to his allies actions based off his Charisma.
The Dedicated hero would get a mix of powers not based on weapons at all, and maybe a couple of weapons powers. His weapon powers would not be about dealing damage. They would be similar to the Charismatic Hero's powers. Basically, a basic ranged attack. However, his powers would grant his allies the ability to spend healing surges, gain damage reduction, regeneration, that sort of thing. The attack would be based of Str (for melee) or Dex (for ranged) but would grant bonuses to his allies based of his Wisdom. Not sure what sort of non weapons based powers this character should get, but they should definitely get something. Something appropriate to the "I'm not attacking with a weapon, but I am still doing something beneficial to the group" theme.
Note: The above means that all of three "non-combat characters," that is to say Charismatic, Dedicated, and Smart, would gain attack powers that fall in line with the "Burden" idea listed above. The Charismatic heroes ability to "Dominate" opponents, Daze them, etc, without dealing damage falls in line with that. Something along the same lines should be worked out for the Smart and Dedicated heroes as well.
The game must be made more gritty. I have some rules in my signature that show one of the ways that this can be done. However, I REALLY liked the Saga condition track. I think maybe one of the best ways to make the game more gritty is to include such a condition track. Perhaps each time a character takes more damage then their Healing Surge value (1/4th their total hit points) a character should drop 1 step down the condition track? I think something like that should work.
That is pretty much what I am hoping for.
Suppose there's this combat system. You roll your d20 and add your bonuses (equipment, training, feats, etc.) to see if you hit your target. (It can only be your target, since no-one else has a chance of hitting this thing). If you do, the opposition is beaten. If you miss, you lose. Combat over.
That's pretty much it.
If you tell me that sort of system sucks, why do you put up with it for skill usage? Do you want non-combat sections dumbed-down for some reason besides getting into combat quicker? Are non-combat characters scared of mechanical complexity?
My idea is to make non-combat as mechanically interesting as combat. This includes powers that do more than give you a +5 bonus (ignoring the penalty for moving while using 4E Stealth, anyone?) or let jumps count as running jumps (which is just a disguised x2 multiplier in 4E), etc.. Skill Challenges are a start, since it's basic group combat for skills (your allies can buff you, protect you against failure, etc.).
I don't have any mechanics yet, but I think the idea is sound.
___
As non-combat would be equivalent to combat, if you take a cool non-combat power, you get a dull combat power to compensate (Mr. Librarian is a Burden in combat, which is the bare minimum to 'take out' his share of the enemies - but when Knowledge and Research are required, he's practically an action hero).
would be the Charismatic Hero.
And if one can simply talk a guy into being farther from death (regain HP)
what exactly is stopping our ChaHero from talking guys into being CLOSER to death:
Verbal HP Drain, the reversed application of charismatic martial healing
Thats right, 'The ChaHeros that say Neee'.
.. like our moms, "I can talk life into you and I can talk it right back out of ya"
Seems like the simplest way to make ChaHeros very formidable in combat,
when the Fighter can do 7[12] it seems right that the ChaHero should PowerNeee 2per level 2x30. Sure, at low levels it will all be simple stuff like YoMomma slams to eat away at the targets ability to carry on, but it can work up thru GunnySarge "Numnuts" and "Malfunction" powers, and later levels have EvilCheerleder "EsteemExtermination" attacks that can really suck the HP right out of ya.
and the best part, they will be ' vs WILL'
Watch out for that ChaHero, he can talk you to death... I mean it Jim, you'll frickin die
My idea is to make non-combat as mechanically interesting as combat. This includes powers that do more than give you a +5 bonus (ignoring the penalty for moving while using 4E Stealth, anyone?) or let jumps count as running jumps (which is just a disguised x2 multiplier in 4E), etc.. Skill Challenges are a start, since it's basic group combat for skills (your allies can buff you, protect you against failure, etc.).
I don't have any mechanics yet, but I think the idea is sound.
I suppose one pitfall of this is that my sessions would be 9 hours long instead of 5 hours. :P
Also, Charismatic based heroes would not gain the ability to heal allies ala D&D leaders. Instead, they would gain the ability to allow a character to spend a healing surge and gain a number of temporary hit points equal to what the dedicated hero can heal someone for with a med-kit. Its not that they can heal people with words, its that they can inspire people with words, causing people to push themselves harder then they otherwise would.
Maybe roughly explaining how I see the skill system will help me get my 'Burden' idea across to some of you:
Suppose there's this combat system. You roll your d20 and add your bonuses (equipment, training, feats, etc.) to see if you hit your target. (It can only be your target, since no-one else has a chance of hitting this thing). If you do, the opposition is beaten. If you miss, you lose. Combat over.
That's pretty much it.
If you tell me that sort of system sucks, why do you put up with it for skill usage? Do you want non-combat sections dumbed-down for some reason besides getting into combat quicker? Are non-combat characters scared of mechanical complexity?
I do think that that system sucks. But:
My idea is to make non-combat as mechanically interesting as combat. This includes powers that do more than give you a +5 bonus (ignoring the penalty for moving while using 4E Stealth, anyone?) or let jumps count as running jumps (which is just a disguised x2 multiplier in 4E), etc.. Skill Challenges are a start, since it's basic group combat for skills (your allies can buff you, protect you against failure, etc.).
I don't have any mechanics yet, but I think the idea is sound.
___
As non-combat would be equivalent to combat, if you take a cool non-combat power, you get a dull combat power to compensate (Mr. Librarian is a Burden in combat, which is the bare minimum to 'take out' his share of the enemies - but when Knowledge and Research are required, he's practically an action hero).
I agree with all of this. I like skill challenges because they make non-combat encounters more meaningful then a single "roll the die, win or lose" mechanic. I certainly would love for the non-combat utility powers to interact with the skill challenge mechanic in a more meaningful way then "gain +X to skill Y until the end of the encounter."
But seriously, it's nice to know I'm not the only one who likes this idea.
As an example non-combat power idea, off the top of my head, let's try revolutionising learning languages.
Polyglot__________Smart Skill 7
After a period of focused study, your new vocabulary becomes second nature.
Special * Intellectual, Study 10.
Special: You can use this power once per level, or twice with the Linguistic feat.
Special_____Personal
Requirement: You must have access to material relevant to learning the new language.
Check: Int vs. Listed DC.
Effect: You count as fluent in the chosen language.
Then there would be a table giving the DCs of common languages, uncommon languages, dead languages (nonverbal only), etc.
Keyword:
Study N - you spend 8 uninterrupted hours a day to make N successful checks. Failing a check does not end the process. This need not be a continuous period of time; days off are allowed.
___
To summarise the effect of the above power: To learn a new language, you sit yourself down in front of some textbooks for 8 uninterrupted hours a day and make an Int. check against the language's DC. After 10 successes, you are fluent in the language.
Since this is a power, you're giving up other beneficial powers, which I feel pays for what you're getting.
P.S.: There could also be an earlier power called Pidgin, which lets you learn the language well enough to ask for simple things, but marks you as a foreigner.
P.P.S.: I also like the idea of an Intellectual power source.
My Working Hypothesis:
The new 4.S e Modern would be a mix of the sorts of mechanics used in 4e and Saga....
Excellent! Tks for posting this. I'm working on mine.
[*]The 6 base classes (smart, charismatic, strong, tough, fast, dedicated) should be turned into ROLES that replace the 4 D&D roles.
[*]As in 4e all classes (gunslinger,etc) would be tag with a role.
[*]Skills should be collapse in much the same maner as in SWSE
[*]Talent trees converted to Power Disciplines
I don't think it is appropriate to adapt the 4e roles for Modern. It works in D&D because it is at heart a table-top game centered on an elite team of ass-kickers and name-takers. d20 Modern needs to be a lot more flexible.
It would, perhaps, be more appropriate to suggest a set of roles for a given campaign setting. E.g.: A mecha campaign "needs" a pilot, a tech and a coordinator. A police campaign "needs" a street cop, a detective and a forensics expert. A rock star campaign needs band members, a manager and groupies.
I'd like to see the next edition of Modern as an "advanced" 4e where character abilities don't have to be simplified in the way 4e's powers are. I guess that works well for the kind of kill-teams you can expect in a fantasy setting, but... The main reason d20 Modern boiled down to the six basic classes was that they didn't want to deal with the dizzying array of character classes you'd need to cover Fireman, Electronics Engineer, Holistic Healer, Farmer and so on. In the same it would be wise to avoid overy specific "powers" such as "Arrest Criminal", "Collect Evidence" or "Play Concert".
Talent trees are great, at least in my book. I'd love to see more of them - perhaps a small tree attatched to each occupation?
-DF
I don't think it is appropriate to adapt the 4e roles for Modern. It works in D&D because it is at heart a table-top game centered on an elite team of ass-kickers and name-takers. d20 Modern needs to be a lot more flexible.
It would, perhaps, be more appropriate to suggest a set of roles for a given campaign setting. E.g.: A mecha campaign "needs" a pilot, a tech and a coordinator. A police campaign "needs" a street cop, a detective and a forensics expert. A rock star campaign needs band members, a manager and groupies.
I'd like to see the next edition of Modern as an "advanced" 4e where character abilities don't have to be simplified in the way 4e's powers are. I guess that works well for the kind of kill-teams you can expect in a fantasy setting, but... The main reason d20 Modern boiled down to the six basic classes was that they didn't want to deal with the dizzying array of character classes you'd need to cover Fireman, Electronics Engineer, Holistic Healer, Farmer and so on. In the same it would be wise to avoid overy specific "powers" such as "Arrest Criminal", "Collect Evidence" or "Play Concert".
Talent trees are great, at least in my book. I'd love to see more of them - perhaps a small tree attatched to each occupation?
-DF
Interesting... Welcome to the discussion group DwarfFighter! Perharps you could expand more on your working hypothesis. You are proposing a setting based option. Neither Cyber-Dave or I are dealing with that avenue.
Forge ahead !!! ;)
The combat roles play second fiddle to what the GM tells you the campaign is about.
But I am not fond of the mentality that we 'need' to have each roll represented by that roles class.... 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...... didnt MichealCain and a few mates kill like 50000 zulus as 'defense' as Rifleman(Dex-Fast)?
Secondly, the player decides who their character is. SniperDan is SniperDan because Dan wants him to be. Actually Backstabbist your example is rather flawed if only because TWF is a feat, which any class can take.
Backstabbist your example is rather flawed if only because TWF is a feat, which any class can take
d20 is a Feats game
4e is a Powers game
Rangers get the TWF powers,
arent Fighters granted TWF powers the same potency as Fighter ranged powers?
(I really dont "know", I thought thats what I read a while back, but I have no PH4)
d20 is a Feats game
4e is a Powers game
Rangers get the TWF powers,
arent Fighters granted TWF powers the same potency as Fighter ranged powers?
(I really dont "know", I thought thats what I read a while back, but I have no PH4)
Well, I'm pretty sure in the D&D version of 4E your character ends up with the same or more feats than its 3e counterpart. However, I found Modern 1.0 extra special because it was a very feat-heavy game and I liked it for that. If WotC follows suit and lives up to Modern 1.0 all heroes would still be getting oodles of feats.
Now what you might be getting at Backstabbist is that rangers might get some powers to augment their TWF that fighters don't. Honestly I haven't studied the classes much, but for the sake of argument lets say you're right. I suppose my response then is: so what? Rangers are the quintessential dual-wielding class.
is why would we tell Tommy TwoShivs that he has to take fighter that gets no TWF powers and he cant take Ranger that has the quintessential dual-wielding powers... just because we need someone with the label Defender whether or not TommyTwoShivs will be defending SniperDan with his quintessential TWF
The 'so' that you are askin 'what' about
is why would we tell Tommy TwoShivs that he has to take fighter that gets no TWF powers and he cant take Ranger that has the quintessential dual-wielding powers... just because we need someone with the label Defender whether or not TommyTwoShivs will be defending SniperDan with his quintessential TWF
I am afraid I do not understand your argument. Firstly, ranger and fighter are practically the same role. Fighter tends to be a better tank, hence he defends better. Ranger gets more TWF, hence for damage per round, hence striker. This doesn't preclude a striker from standing beside someone and using his damage output to defend someone.
A role does NOT decide what your character does, that is left in the hands of the player. Second, don't want a Defender in your party? Then don't have one. The 4E PHB is pretty clear on this, saying it is not necessary at all to have 1 of each role. It even goes over other party setups with different role ratios and points out the advantages and disadvantages of each setup.
Is your complaint that Tommy and Dan can't be 1 Strong/1 Tough/1 Fast/1 Dedicated Hero? A roundabout multiclass argument? Because out with it, I don't feel like post-fencing for 10,000 posts like you and Dave.
but addressing the base concept of
Roles as what things you do in combat (Def,Strike,Lead,Control)
vs
Roles as how you do things like combat (mHero's)
that kinda is the relationship of Hypoth1 & Hypoth2 in the thread
a guy can be a DoorKicker or LockPicker,
and both are the combat role of Doorman,
while it is 2 very different Hero roles of 'Strong' and 'Fast'
.... would we take LockPicking out of Fast and give it to Smart because that is "Controlling" the enviroment?
I like what DF says.
The combat roles play second fiddle to what the GM tells you the campaign is about.
But I am not fond of the mentality that we 'need' to have each roll represented by that roles class.... 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...... didnt MichealCain and a few mates kill like 50000 zulus as 'defense' as Rifleman(Dex-Fast)?
Agreed. The campaign is tied to character roles, and it is a matter of convenience to first define the campaign and to define the appropriate roles second. Often the players will make their character without considering their role in the party, and this will change the nature of the campaign.
The d20 Modern and d20 Future both provided a set of interesting campaign concepts as suggestions to the GM and players. Adding a suggestion for the roles of the PCs within each campaign is a great way to expand the format of the campaign concept, and gives GMs something to work with when they come up with their own campaigns. So while the make-up of character roles should be unique to each campaign, there's no need to provide an exhaustive list.
So in conclusion, the roles of "striker", "leader" etc. are incidental - they happen to fit the core D&D campaign concept, and are maintained through-out. Change the campaign concept to one of "trade and exploration" or "courtly intrigue", and you can just as well rework the roles.
Also, it's easy to assign a 4e class a role - multi-classing really isn't a real concern in that system.
-DF
Skills are collapsed down, more so than in Saga or 4E, but certain applications use more than one skill.
If you don't have all the required skills, you can still do the action, but you take a hefty penalty.
If you work together with an ally who has the other skill, however, your group suffers no penalties.
For example, Gather Information might be Social + Analysis.
If you only have Social, people will talk to you but some references won't make sense and you won't get the full picture.
If a friend with Analysis tried the same thing, they wouldn't talk to him, but he'd learn what he could from overheard conversations and so on.
But if you get them talking while your friend listens in, or relate to your friend what they told you, then you get all the information.
Mostly the d20 systems will involve synergy bonuses and "aid another" instead. 4e skill challenges looks like an extension of those, but rather than using supporting checks and synergies to improve the primary check each check counts towards a target number of successes.
-DF
Sticking to the Doorman scenario-
A simple task like opening the door can involve IR/Sonar alarms network controled with dyebag/CSgas/lockdown traps... and thats all before we get to the thing that is actually locking the door.
Search, Computer hacking, Disable... maybe more depending whats left in the consolidated skill list
you blow those rolls and it can release the hounds
or the killer bees
or the robotic hounds that shoot killer bees when they bark
or the robotic Richard Simmons'es
I just looked at the D&D4-PH and except for two brief mentions in the second chapter, the "roles" don't get mentioned again, and are clearly fluff to communicate with players indoctrinated by MMORPGs as to what the classes are.
Personally, I've played 4e, and noticed that it was way to close to playing in a computer RPG game for my investment, but that is neither here nor there.
D20 Modern has Occupations, aren't they roles enough? Or am I missing something?
It seems to me that we've been fighting over labels, and not practical rule issues. I would love to see a new D20 Modern, in any form.
I just want the rules to make sense and be balanced...
and extremly versitile...
and non-fantasy specific...oh hell, I want what Bill, Jeff, Rich and Charles already made, but updated and shiny.
All right. Please bear with me, but what does "Roles" have to do with it?
I just looked at the D&D4-PH and except for two brief mentions in the second chapter, the "roles" don't get mentioned again, and are clearly fluff to communicate with players indoctrinated by MMORPGs as to what the classes are.
Personally, I've played 4e, and noticed that it was way to close to playing in a computer RPG game for my investment, but that is neither here nor there.
D20 Modern has Occupations, aren't they roles enough? Or am I missing something?
It seems to me that we've been fighting over labels, and not practical rule issues. I would love to see a new D20 Modern, in any form.
I just want the rules to make sense and be balanced...
and extremly versitile...
and non-fantasy specific...oh hell, I want what Bill, Jeff, Rich and Charles already made, but updated and shiny.
I have to respecfully disagree with you on roles.They are in fact seminal as they determine the type of powers a class is built with. Roles are the back bone of 4E.
Bringing up occupations is a good thing. In 4E occupations are gone. Your occupation IS your class. You have trained to become a fighter, ranger, wizard, etc. I personally will not bring back occupations for PCs in my hypothesis for Modern 4.S. The classes and the associated powers should be in sync with real life occupations : Soldier, Law Enforcer, Personality, Agent, Diplomate, Engineer, Field Medic...etc.
4E is a reboot from the ground up of d20 mechanics and D&D. Everything has been streamlined, balanced and simplifed as much as possible. D&D 2.0 and forward have always had (for me) the feeling of a patch on job similar to Windows. What's the new trend in RPG these days? Skills? Let's add skills... etc!
I see 4E as the perfect generic core rules to graft on modules. At the same time I admit that at this point 4E is a bit «basic». Its a quality I like which makes 4E very solid ground to build upon IMHO.
I have to respectfully disagree with you on roles. They are in fact seminal as they determine the type of powers a class is built with. Roles are the back bone of 4E.I respect the disagreement, but I still do not see any facts or such to prove that Roles are anything but an Out Of Game (OOG) label that may be applied to various Classes.
If there are specific page numbers, and/or book(s) sections that you could point me to that would support Roles as a core game feature, I would appreciate it, as I've looked through the four books I have on hand to no avail. I've not found any instance of the Fighter's in the game describing themselves as Strikers, or the Wizards and Priests do not debate the focus of Controllers. It seems to be just an arbitrary label to me.
I am aware of the Monster Roles, from the DM Guide and the Monster Guide, but they are simple descriptive implementation tools for a DM to utilize.Bringing up occupations is a good thing. In 4E occupations are gone. Your occupation IS your class. You have trained to become a fighter, ranger, wizard, etc. I personally will not bring back occupations for PCs in my hypothesis for Modern 4.S. The classes and the associated powers should be in sync with real life occupations : Soldier, Law Enforcer, Personality, Agent, Diplomat, Engineer, Field Medic...etc.
Again, I'm not trying to start a fire, or rain on a parade, but just because the 4E D&D does not have Occupations, it does not stand that a 4E Modern would not need them.
Likewise, I'm conflicted because the idea that Occupations become your Character Class would be cool, but could quickly become unwieldy and overbearing, IMHO. But they seem to be a better label for what the Character’s Role is, than the simple and limited D&D 4E Roles.4E is a reboot from the ground up of d20 mechanics and D&D. Everything has been streamlined, balanced and simplified as much as possible. D&D 2.0 and forward have always had (for me) the feeling of a patch on job similar to Windows. What's the new trend in RPG these days? Skills? Let's add skills... etc!
Hehe, I'm partial to D&D 3.0+ (and to Skills) for the simple fact that it did answer questions and take away a huge cloud of confusion over how things should and could have worked, game rule wise. I, as do many other old grog nards, have horror stories of how various DM's handled/interoperated the rules/skills/ spells of the previous Advanced D&D series.
I had hopes that the same focus would be carried on in 4E, but our tastes differ in how far away from expectation, the reality of the DnD 4E rule set stands. But I respect your opinion about 4E, and I hope you’ll respect my opinions of D&D 3.0+.I see 4E as the perfect generic core rules to graft on modules. At the same time I admit that at this point 4E is a bit «basic». Its a quality I like which makes 4E very solid ground to build upon IMHO
.
Ahhh, now I see the point of where we differ. I feel the new D&D is not a generic set of core rules at all, but is incredibly limited and defined in scope to its Fantasy Adventure settings. D20 Modern was an exceptionally more open generic rule set than the new 4E rules are.
In any case the OP if this thread clearly states that we have already had the discussion about the Pros and Cons of 4E VS Modern 1.0. The forum is split on the issue. We are forging ahead with our own 4E and Saga derived ideas on what Modern 2.0 could be.
You can review the debate 4E VS Modern 1.0 at this tread :
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=1175729
After a few weeks of wracking my brain over 4E, Saga, GURPS and other RPGs I came up with the basis for a new RPG mechanic completely different from d20 or 4E. *shrugs*. Not what I was going for at all... But its very exciting!
Having few «real life» moments I can spend on RPGs. I've had to choose between a game WotC will develop on their own and something I can call me own. It was an easy choice.
So in conclusion, the roles of "striker", "leader" etc. are incidental - they happen to fit the core D&D campaign concept, and are maintained through-out. Change the campaign concept to one of "trade and exploration" or "courtly intrigue", and you can just as well rework the roles.
Also, it's easy to assign a 4e class a role - multi-classing really isn't a real concern in that system.
-DF
I think that is something of an oversimplification. If the game is all about courtly intrigue, the roles work the same way; you are just defining them with social combat instead of physical combat.
Roles in social combat:
Controller: You hinder the social abilities of your enemies, reducing their impact or duration of their effect.
Leader: You buff your allies' social skills and let them perform additional social actions by setting them up with opportune openings.
Striker: You harry your foes with debate points and cutting whiticisms that undercut their argument or make their position look bad.
Defender: You are the self-deprecating rock that takes verbal abuse directed at your allies. You are the good-natured social punching bag.
At this point, I should highlight that what determines any given class' social role is going to be their skillset and the social powers available to them. As such we have no current 4e example of a Social striker that is also a brawling striker. This is mostly due to the current dearth of social powers in 4e; which I hope will be remedied in later texts.