Base Classes Tied to Ability Scores

[deaddmwalking]

Right, but saying 'two options are slightly redundant' does nothing to say that they shouldn't exist. Ultimately, some options may be synergistic some of the time and redundant some of the time. If a single option can be both at the same time it's not really an issue of either a or b, no other possibility.

Just as an example of how this might happen - someone wants to use a ranged weapon to disarm a melee opponent. Melee skill (knowing how your opponent holds his weapon and how to most effectively make him drop it) might influence the check. Ranged skill (actually hitting with the attack) might also influence the check. While potentially a rare situation, it is at least possible that two normally unrelated abilities combine in a synergistic fashion.

Sure, there are opportunity costs and you can't be good at everything, but there are plenty of reasons that you might choose skills that are usually exclusive because they increase your breadth. If I prefer swording, but I spend character resources learning the bow, not only would that not be surprising to anyone - it is likely a more effective character DESPITE the fact that only one will be useful in a given encounter. The fact that some encounters have other factors that impact the usefulness of the preferred option shows that clearly.

This can be true in social situations, too. Having 'seduction' as a social skill might be a preferred option for some targets. Having 'deceit' as a social option might be a better choice for some characters than 'stealth' or some other non-social skill. While 'seduction' likely give me different options with a success than deceit (see James Bond), it is probably effective against a more limited range of opponents (see Bond Girls). If you want to use social skills to bypass Dr. No, seduction might be off the table, so the question is whether 'deceit' is a better investment than 'shooting' using character resources.

Whether it is or not depends on the costs (of course), but also expected circumstances. If seduction and deceit use the same attribute (for instance), you might consider that to be a 'discount'. Being good at multiple social things (even if they can only be used one at a time) might appear a better option than trying to be good at social things and an unrelated field.

If 'deceit' and 'seduction' both use 'Charisma', they can be both synergistic and redundant. Synergistic in that you can improve both with the investment in a single resource, but Redudant in that you can only use one against particular opponents (ie, if I Seduce someone, my Deceit is useless for that encounter).

Games are complex - synergy and redundancy are also complex. Sometimes things that usually don't mix well may mix spectacularly in some circumstances.

[momothefiddler]

Having multiple abilities that do similar things, e.g., spill HP on the ground, is the definition of redundant.
The degree of redundancy can be debated, but the definition cannot.
How good melee is vs. ranged is actually kind of irrelevant to this point. If melee and ranged are different options that cost the same, choosing both is the opposite of synergistic.

I actually don't really get this. Maybe I'm missing something, but:

Having multiple abilities that do similar things, e.g., get people out of your way, is the definition of redundant.
The degree of redundancy can be debated, but the definition cannot.
How good combat is vs. persuasion is actually kind of irrelevant to this point. If combat and persuasion are different options that cost the same, choosing both is the opposite of synergistic.

I think the only real difference here is granularity - you might want your game to be entirely about combat, in which case different methods of spilling HP are potentially worth it, or you might want combat to be a small minigame, in which case putting the whole thing in one skill is good enough.

[Cyberzombie]

But if they are strong enough to be worth taking once you have the gun, then they will be too strong for a character who doesn't. Much of what they do overlaps, so they will need a big buff. However, that big buff will then be worth enough that it will be unbalancing in the absence of overlap.

You could avoid this be discounting abilities based on their overlap with existing ones. Under this, buying claws is very cheap once you have guns. However, it would be ridiculously complex.

Having the ability to magic missile something or cast burning hands doesn't necessarily invalidate either ability or make burning hands too strong if the guy elects not to take magic missile or vice versa. If you go by that logic, it's not even possible to ever have more than one offensive ability.

[Username17]

Right, but saying 'two options are slightly redundant' does nothing to say that they shouldn't exist.

No. But it's proof positive that K's claim that everything should be wholly orthogonal is an impossible pipe dream, which in turn sinks his argument that no abilities should be tied to or benefit from particular ability scores or other abilities.

Just as flight is more effective if you have a ranged attack, social abilities are more effective if you have a means of making people talk to you. And thus, it is completely OK if Presence is Charisma based. Really. It is.

Making a game where all abilities are completely orthogonal and none of them are synergistic or redundant is only possible if you have a very very small number of abilities and a quite boring game. K's suggestion to get rid of all the synergy so that players wouldn't be able to make fail characters is something that sounds superficially good until you realize how limited the remaining game must necessarily be. And then you realize it's not a good idea at all.

Which is not to say that games wouldn't benefit from being streamlined and having accounting minigames that you can lose removed. Because they totally would. I don't think games benefit from being able to buy the same power for 5 points or 25 points depending on which talent tree you buy them through, for example (that is a real example from FFG's EotE). Just that the argument that we can't have powers synergize with specific attributes or skills because of a desire to eliminate means of losing chargen is actually a failed argument.

-Username17

[TiaC]

But if they are strong enough to be worth taking once you have the gun, then they will be too strong for a character who doesn't. Much of what they do overlaps, so they will need a big buff. However, that big buff will then be worth enough that it will be unbalancing in the absence of overlap.

You could avoid this be discounting abilities based on their overlap with existing ones. Under this, buying claws is very cheap once you have guns. However, it would be ridiculously complex.

Having the ability to magic missile something or cast burning hands doesn't necessarily invalidate either ability or make burning hands too strong if the guy elects not to take magic missile or vice versa. If you go by that logic, it's not even possible to ever have more than one offensive ability.

Having Magic Missile makes Burning Hands less valuable. It is not worthless, but you seem to have missed the concept of partially redundant the last few times it was spelled out. Here it is again: Redundant does not mean useless.

Since they cannot be used together, the second offensive ability must be cheaper to be balanced. If you will only use it 20% of the times you would in the absence of the first ability, why should you pay full price?

Every warrior buys a weapon. It is a must-have option. If you say that options don't get weaker with overlap then it would remain a must-have option no matter how many weapons you already have. However, no one buys out a weapon shop.

Having taken Magic Missile as a spell known means that you are unlikely to pick Burning Hands next. It would be far better to take Sleep.

[Cyberzombie]

Having Magic Missile makes Burning Hands less valuable. It is not worthless, but you seem to have missed the concept of partially redundant the last few times it was spelled out. Here it is again: Redundant does not mean useless.

Since they cannot be used together, the second offensive ability must be cheaper to be balanced. If you will only use it 20% of the times you would in the absence of the first ability, why should you pay full price?

I see it differently. I say that all abilities should be priced at the reduced cost right from the start (whatever you think a 20% of the time ability is), because you expect everyone to take at least one method of attack. In fact, I think everyone should get multiple forms of attack. So instead of having some kind of complicated math effect where attack forms get cheaper and cheaper, I'd say just make them all cheap from the start, expecting people to invest in multiple attacks. Because there aren't going to be any characters who choose to not to be able to attack anything. So long as all your attacks have strengths/weaknesses, people will want to take multiple attacks.

The D&D wizard should be the model to copy, not the one weapon fighter who spams one maneuver the entire fight.

[ishy]

Well the fact that it's a marginal improvement is dependent on how much better the claws are than the gun. And that's the kind of thing you tweak in game design. If the claws aren't worth it, buff the claw damage. At some point you'll find a number where people think it's worth having a dedicated close combat weapon. If the close combat seems too good, nerf the damage or simply include more terrain/highly mobile foes. Not really rocket science here.

You don't want to solve everything through damage. You're probably better off making the claws and guns synerize a little. Like say, claws allow you to scale buildings, thus you have a better vantage point for your gun, or you can shoot people while hanging on a wall.
Or just offer different solutions, like claws allow you to duel the leader of the army, while a gun allows you to shoot him from a distance.

[Laertes]

You're probably better off making the claws and guns synerize a little. Like say, claws allow you to scale buildings, thus you have a better vantage point for your gun, or you can shoot people while hanging on a wall.
Or just offer different solutions, like claws allow you to duel the leader of the army, while a gun allows you to shoot him from a distance

I like this. I really like this.

It leads, I think, to an abstracted form of power setup where each form of attack is rated by what special things it can do as well as merely reducing HP. Like Shadowrun attack spells, in fact.

So you would have:

Combat skill
- Sniper speciality: Increase range to sight. Attacking does not break concealment. You may not make nonlethal attacks.
- Claws speciality: Adds synergy bonus to Climb rolls. Allows formal duelling. +2 dice on weapon concealment rolls.

[Cyberzombie]

You don't want to solve everything through damage. You're probably better off making the claws and guns synerize a little. Like say, claws allow you to scale buildings, thus you have a better vantage point for your gun, or you can shoot people while hanging on a wall.
Or just offer different solutions, like claws allow you to duel the leader of the army, while a gun allows you to shoot him from a distance.

Sure, you can toss some extra abilities onto claws or guns to add more differentiation, though I still hold onto the base concept that melee should do more damage than ranged, or at least should be a more efficient investment of resources to get more damage.

[ACOS]

I actually don't really get this. Maybe I'm missing something, but:

Having multiple abilities that do similar things, e.g., get people out of your way, is the definition of redundant.
The degree of redundancy can be debated, but the definition cannot.
How good combat is vs. persuasion is actually kind of irrelevant to this point. If combat and persuasion are different options that cost the same, choosing both is the opposite of synergistic.

I think the only real difference here is granularity - you might want your game to be entirely about combat, in which case different methods of spilling HP are potentially worth it, or you might want combat to be a small minigame, in which case putting the whole thing in one skill is good enough.

I thought that I had addressed that very thing in that same post:

In a game that has more than just stabbing/shooting things to death (but also happens to have stabbing/shooting), Alice is over-specialized, and is boring as hell. To make matters worse, stabbing+shooting has no synergistic effect.
As long as you have a HP-spilling option, you've checked that box and it's time to move on to the rest of your character.

Ishy addressed ways to further differentiate modes of attack, and DDMW mentioned some edge case contrivances; but that involves introducing additional effects that aren't necessarily part of the assumed baseline. Their additions actually HIGHLIGHT the issue, rather than negate it.

[momothefiddler]

I thought that I had addressed that very thing in that same post:

In a game that has more than just stabbing/shooting things to death (but also happens to have stabbing/shooting), Alice is over-specialized, and is boring as hell. To make matters worse, stabbing+shooting has no synergistic effect.
As long as you have a HP-spilling option, you've checked that box and it's time to move on to the rest of your character.

Ishy addressed ways to further differentiate modes of attack, and DDMW mentioned some edge case contrivances; but that involves introducing additional effects that aren't necessarily part of the assumed baseline. Their additions actually HIGHLIGHT the issue, rather than negate it.

So as long as "doing damage" is not the only thing in the game, two ways to do damage is too many. But as long as "getting people out of your way" is not the only thing in the game, two ways is too many. As long as "making money" is.... As long as...

Actually, the more examples I come up with, the more I agree with you. "Making money", "Changing physical location", "Making people like you", "Making people stop damaging you" (I think "doing damage" overlaps heavily but not entirely with that one).

If you can get past a guard or stop someone from stabbing you by using violence or by using charisma, the only reason to have both is if they don't overlap perfectly (charisma won't knock down a door and violence won't get you a bargain on purchases without the watch coming after you). And even then, you're spending 10 points on A+B and 10 points on B+C and thus only getting A+B+C out of your 20 points, which is not as good as it theoretically could be.

Is that what you're saying?

[ACOS]

If you can get past a guard or stop someone from stabbing you by using violence or by using charisma, the only reason to have both is if they don't overlap perfectly (charisma won't knock down a door and violence won't get you a bargain on purchases without the watch coming after you). And even then, you're spending 10 points on A+B and 10 points on B+C and thus only getting A+B+C out of your 20 points, which is not as good as it theoretically could be.

Is that what you're saying?

Yup.

Of course, that's not to say that there shouldn't be multiple options for each available; just that a given character doesn't need to, and thus shouldn't, load up on all of them.
If I can choose 3 things to do in the game, and my options are {A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, C1., C2, C3}, where A, B, and C are types of actions (e.g., A=combat, B=socializing, C=mechanical aptitude), then picking A1,2,3 over A2, B3, C1 is pretty silly.

[Laertes]

If I can choose 3 things to do in the game, and my options are {A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, C1., C2, C3}, where A, B, and C are types of actions (e.g., A=combat, B=socializing, C=mechanical aptitude), then picking A1,2,3 over A2, B3, C1 is pretty silly.

Thus in that example you could have 1,2,3 be the classes / skills / Disciplines / whatever the players buy for their characters, each of which has applications in A,B,C.

That dovetails nicely back to K's idea of Five Things Every Adventurer Should Be Able To Do.

[OgreBattle]

Do you see this "class= what stat you focus on" paradigm affecting the way you'd design monsters for your game too?

[Prak]

Ok, these are still broad strokes, and we're going to assume that skills and the social combat minigame have been figured out.

In general, I'm looking at something like Frank's Damage and Soak system both for combat and for social combat (different tracks of course), just using different skills. Other than that, the basic assumptions are that the resolution system is d20+ability+skill+equipment, level measures a character's relative plot importance but not necessarily how resilient they are, and skills are condensed (though combat skills reinflate the list a bit), and use something like the Pathfinder system instead of ranks.

Skills come in four levels of proficiency--Archetype, Cross Archetype, Against Archetype, and Untrained. Characters buy Skill Proficiency with Skill Points, and receive a base rank depending on the level of proficiency:

• Archetype: Any skill which appears on the character's skill list has a base rank of Character Level+3.
• Cross Archetype: Any skill which appears on the skill list of a character's Minor Archetype has a base rank of Character Level.
• Against Archetype: Any skill which does not appear on a character's Major or Minor Archetype skill lists has a base rank of half level.
• Untrained: Any skill which the character does not select with their skill points is untrained, and has a base rank of 0. Some skills may not be used untrained, or take longer to use untrained.
  
  Skill List
  Acrobatics (Dex) Combines Balance, Jump and Tumble
  Athletics (Str)Combines Climb and Swim
  Batter (Str) Melee based combat skill
  Computer Use (Int)
  Deceive (Cha) Combines Disguise, Forgery and Bluff
  Dodge (Dex) Evading attacks
  Finesse (Dex) Ranged and agile combat
  First Aid (Wis)
  Handle Animal (Cha) Combines Handle Animal and Ride
  Legerdemain (Dex) Combines Escape Artist, Sleight of Hand and Use Rope
  Linguistics (Int) Decipher Script, with secondary Read/Speak/Write Languages function
  Knowledge (Int) Multiple areas, includes Appraise, Craft and Related Profession tasks
  Operations (Dex) Drive, Pilot
  Parry (Str) Blocking attacks
  Perception (Wis) Combines Listen, Search and Spot
  Persuade (Cha) Combines Diplomacy, Gather Info and Intimidate
  Perform (Cha)
  Research (Int)
  Sabotage (Int)
  Sense Motive (Wis)
  Stealth (Dex) Hide, Move Silently
  Survival (Wis)
  
  Spellcraft and all that: Spellcraft is a part of Kn. Arcane. I don't know what to do with UMD at the moment. None of the main classes have either KnArcane or UMD, so it doesn't matter quite yet.

Archetypes and Occupations
Characters are composed of several pieces—two archetypes (Major and Minor), and an Occupation.
A character’s Major Archetype describes their primary method of problem solving, the sort of problems they are most readily able to solve (called their Arena—Combat, Research or Social), and how they use that to solve other problems. Their Minor Archetype is their lesser inclinations, the jock who also takes Honors Chem, for example. Their Occupation is a specific set of skills which they have an aptitude in that does not necessarily come from an Archetype.

The Archetypes
There are three basic major archetypes:

• Expert- The character primarily solves problems through mental means, either by having or finding information, their arena is Research. Their traits are Informed, Logical and Rhetorical, and Detail Oriented.
• Jack- Jacks of all trades, mostly social ones, also —the Jacks arena is Social Interaction. Their traits are Social, Adaptable, and Tricky.
• Martialist- The character primarily solves problems through physical, and probably violent, means, the Martialist’s arena is Combat. Their traits are Athletic, Persistent, and Aware.

Each Major Archetype provides a list of Archetype skills—including a list of four skills they can pick two of to be trained in without spending skill points, one good Save, and three traits.
A Minor Archetype provides one trait of another Archetype and the character’s Minor Archetype skills.
Archetypes have a variable length. It is generally assumed that a character in Tides of Shadow doesn’t have more than about five levels of one of these basic archetypes, after which point they pick up an Advanced Archetype, which tends to be more involved and specific.

Expert
The Expert is a mentally focused person. They are commonly seen with their nose in a book, or hunched over a keyboard. If one gets in an argument, they commonly whip out a smartphone to google the facts, any facts that will help them win. People in highly intellectual fields, straight A students, and garage tinkers all tend to be Experts.

Good Save Experts excel at withstanding mental assault. They have Good Will saves (1/2 character level+2), Fortitude and Reflex saves are poor (1/3 character level)
Class Skills Computer Use (Int), First Aid (Wis), Linguistics (Int), Knowledge (Int), Operations (Int), Research (Int), Sabotage (Int).
Experts automatically have full ranks in two of the following skills: Computer Use, Knowledge (pick one), Research or Sabotage.
Skill Points per level: 4+Int

TRAITS
Informed: Informed characters are full of little pieces of trivia and facts. This may include the specific obscure weakness of a given monster; the properties of a specific chemical including melting and boiling points, atomic weight and the like; the business record of a specific company; a performer’s body of work—basically the contents of a thing’s Wikipedia page, if it had one.
Once per session per point of Intelligence modifier, an Informed character may state that they know a specific piece of information with no roll needed. In game terms, this means that an Informed character can take 20 on a knowledge check, even for a knowledge they don’t normally possess.

Logical and Rhetorical: Logical and Rhetorical characters can spot a man’s tell, recognize the flaws in a performance—and discuss them loudly, or baffle them with bullshit. In addition to using this to weaken a rival’s social endeavours, they can also use it advise an ally on a plan of negotiation, help the creative through the power of analysis, and strengthen arguments.
As a standard action, a Logical and Rhetorical character may make a special Sabotage check to apply a morale bonus or penalty equal to 1/3rd their character level (minimum 2) to one of a character’s social skills (Deceive, Perform, Persuade or Sense Motive) for a number of rounds equal to the Logical and Rhetorical character’s Intelligence modifier. When used to apply a penalty, the Sabotage check is opposed by a Will save. When used to apply a bonus, the Sabotage roll is made at a DC of 10+the target’s base rank in the Skill.

Detail Oriented: Detail Oriented characters spot every chink in the armour, and weakened bridge. They can quickly identify choke points, and the idiosyncrasies of an opponent’s combat style. If they take a move action to observe their environment or an opponent, they may benefit from a circumstance bonus to 1/5th their character level (minimum +2) on their next check made with one of the following skills, chosen when this ability is invoked (pretty much anything that isn’t social). They may take a standard action to instead communicate the tactical advice to an ally.
A Detail Oriented character may instead take two rounds doing nothing but observing the environment and challenges within it, making an Intelligence check (DC15+EL) at the end of the second round. If this check succeeds, the Detail Oriented character receives a circumstance bonus equal to 1/4th character level to two skills for the remainder of the encounter, or may take an additional round to communicate a plan to their allies, in which case the Detail Oriented character and his allies all benefit from the bonus for the remainder of the encounter.
When a Detail Oriented character communicates their advice or plan to allies, there is a chance of opponents modifying their behavior to foil it. If the Detail Oriented character is not using a microphone and ear piece, or similar measures, to communicate with allies, they must succeed at an Intelligence check (DC 10+most relevant enemy’s base rank in Perception), or the use of Detail Oriented fails.

---

I'll work up the Martialist and Jack tomorrow, for now, I need sleep. Let me know what you think. Yes this is for my Urban Fantasy thing. Advanced Archetypes will cover people with magic and make the magic skill available.

[PhoneLobster]

Let me know what you think.

1) You are segregating your social mini-game too much, and then declaring that your main classes are specialists in the three main mini-games of "Physical combat, social combat, other bullshit". That reads like a mission statement of "I want every player to sit there twiddling their thumbs for 2/3rds of all game play". Your sample material marginally contradicts this stated bad plan of segregating and specializing in "Arenas" with the sample traits not actually going along with that, but it's still a bad plan, and now it's a bad plan that turns out to be misleading class labelling.

2) 3 pre selected traits from level 1 and only 1 freely selected "minor" trait, also from level 1? Really? Character diversity is going to be sort of poor and kinda silly. Also level advancement is going to be dull as all hell until you get out of your class and get any actual new class abilities ever.

3) Your sample major traits are also dull as all hell. And kinda lame. One of them is an "other bullshit" ability so it's use is questionable fairy tea party. But all in all for a major trait one of the only four you get, and the ONLY trait out of three focusing on the specialist Arena of the specialist in "Other Bullshit" it feels kinda lame. "I can succeed on random knowledge checks an incredibly limited number of times per session and long elaborate sessions with lots of plot advancement randomly screw that up for no reason!".

4) Your other two sample traits somewhat contradict your Arena specialization plan/intentions/whatever that was. What with them being social and physical combat related. They also totally suck being lame ass, action expensive and highly conditional boring numeric bonuses. Little better than lame versions of some sort of deformed bastard child of aid another and divine favor AND it's for some reason separated into a social version and a physical combat and other stuff version with marginally different excessive costs and conditions for no conceivable reason. These major traits do not seem exciting or interesting they don't make me want to play an "Expert" character or your game. They certainly don't make me want to do that for the "about five levels" before I would get any other abilities.

5) Your fluff description of your "Expert" Archetype sounds more like "Douche Bag" Archetype. You should really fix that. No really. I mean do you want people to actually play this class or just cringe at it? Or worse, if by some miracle that fluff sells someone on those lame traits... what if someone actually plays that Douche Bag fluff as their character?

So yeah. You seem undecided on what you are really doing with role/minigame segregation. Your traits REALLY could use less cowardly bullshit restrictions and more exciting oomph. Your potential character ability progression has serious gaps for multiple levels. Your character diversity is going to be poor. And your fluff text describes a laughably annoying git.

[tussock]

Bit late in here, but if you're going to have stat-based anything, you could fix the stats.


So "Strength" stops being "big dude with muscles" and becomes "whatever works in a fight". So Jackie Chan and Magical School Girl are both very high "Strength".

And at high level Strength is also passwall and disintegrate and freedom and whatever else you need to actually participate in fights.

Dex = graceful and charming and slippery and surprise, you're dead.

Con = Psionics. gravity is sdarwkcab, hands are swords, the world is fire, these are not the droids you're looking for. Also, telepathy. Con is because it all hurts, makes your lungs and eyes bleed.

Int = Forbidden Lore. Madness. Secrets. There's no physical limits on what anyone can do, the world isn't even real, but those madmen you see in the streets of every city, always in robes, they tried too much. It's what you don't learn that keeps you sane.

Wis = Piety. Chosen. Purposed. Destined. Selfless. Begging mercy from Gods is useless, but giving them the opportunity to twist the world as they please, ....

Cha = Courage. Performance, Leadership, Respect, Awe. Just generally making other people think twice about messing with you, or failing you. Because with a morale system, Charisma matters.

[Prak]

Ok, I want this game to have functional martial combat and social combat minigames. As someone who like in game crafting, it'd be nice to have a crafting system*, and I feel it's in genre to have a research minigame (I don't care what Denners think Research minigames, it's a genre convention so it's in).

So my "mission statement" is to define three specific minigames and define the classes by which minigame they're best at, and how they contribute to the other minigames. I'm specifically trying to avoid making players sit on their thumbs for two thirds of the game.

Admittedly, the "know stuff" trait for Experts actually obviates their minigame and is thus actually bad. I'll take another pass on that.

But so basically the classes each get two skills on top of whatever they spend their skill points on to ensure that the Martialist can fight, the Jack can socialize, and the Expert can find shit out:

• Expert- Two of Computer Use, Knowledge, Research, Sabotage
• Jack- Two of Decieve, Perform, Persuade, Sense Motive
• Martialist- Two of Batter, Dodge, Finesse, Parry

Then with their minor archetype, each character gets to pick a secondary area of lesser specialization. At base, an Expert's limited to 1/2 Level Bab, essentially (assuming they actually buy a combat skill), while the Martialist has Level+3 Bab. However, if the Expert selects Martialist as their Minor Archetype, they can put a point into Batter and have Full Level Bab. Ideally, "Martialist as your Minor" is not the "I win" button, since this is a modern setting game and not everything will devolve into combat. Providing an actually workable Social minigame, at least, should help with that. And the Research minigame should basically provide buffs for combat and social combat.

*yeah, yeah, I didn't mention crafting before. It should probably be class agnostic anyway

---

The idea with the Expert is that their primary utility is knowing stuff. So if you have an expert in the party, once you've figured out that you're fighting a fire breathing chicken demon in the Research game, they get to say "Oh, I've read about these. I didn't think they were real, but there's a secret mix of 11 divine herbs and spices that can be applied to weapons to kill them." And yes, this is explicitly supposed to be a Fate style "make shit up" ability, it just requires them to know the enemy. Or it's a "hold on, let me look up this real thing on Wikipedia" ability. In combat and socialization, they don't stop being the "Know Stuff" class, so they're basically a support character in those parts of the game, providing buffs to their side of a debate or diplomacy and debuffing the other side, or saying "This guy's got a glass jaw, punch him in the face" and buffing the martialist's next attack roll.

Also... levels one to five are fucking boring anyway. I'm running D&D right now, and I can't fucking wait for the party to hit sixth level so that I can throw something that isn't a shitty low level monster or base-class npc at my party. The game I'm designing is basically "Levels 1-3: muggle. You might be a good cop, but you don't know about Shadow. Level 4: Hey, you've learned about magic, congrats! Here are less mundane, more exciting, more specialized archetypes! (start getting smite, favoured enemy, magic, etc). Level 10 is probably the point where they start hitting more high level D&D type stuff, so they're tapping into elemental planes, manipulating Shadow, pledging themselves to outsiders, and that sort of thing.

[PhoneLobster]

So my "mission statement" is to define three specific minigames

That's interesting because by my count "Physical Combat", "Social Combat", "Crafting", "Research" adds up to four minigames. Not to mention it leaves "Other Bullshit" out in the cold. I understand that you really want to roll Crafting, Research and Other Bullshit into one greater "Other Bullshit" category. But it's still silly.

...and define the classes by which minigame they're best at, and how they contribute to the other minigames.

I don't really see why smart guy needs to automatically be worst at fighting and socializing. I don't see why social guy needs to be automatically worse at uncovering information. What would be so bad if your sentence just there read more like "define the classes by how they contribute to the minigames" without the bit where rumor mongering is for some arbitrary reason automatically worse at 1/3rd of the game than wikipedia research?

Admittedly, the "know stuff" trait for Experts actually obviates their minigame and is thus actually bad. I'll take another pass on that.

Well, that depends on whether their "role" is research or crafting. Regardless, the problem wasn't that they got free bonus research results automatically. The problem was they got them in a sort of shitty limited way and it didn't seem all that exciting for their one big specialist flourish, especially beside the other two lack luster powers.

Then with their minor archetype, each character gets to pick a secondary area of lesser specialization.

Under your current system that is rather clearly intended to go in a way where the optimal 3 character party is one character from each class.

In practice only deeply accommodating players will be kind enough to the system to do that. Almost certainly a group of 3 players will game this mechanic by building something like 2x Physical Combat, 1x Social Combat and minor them all in expert IF they feel they even need to cover the bases of having all the traits experts have.

And while you clearly seem intent on having the skill system somehow motivate against that I strongly suspect your end product is going to be a situation where the correct answer IS for basically everyone to go Physical Combat and maybe bring one or two "face" characters relying on minors and NPC support for all the bullshit Expertise.

After all in the end is it REALLY worth it to exchange a boost in researching random bullshit pulled out of the GMs ass for a cut of more than half of all your combat stats/skills? (and yeah, even if you take the minor role in "having functioning basic fucking combat survival numbers" you are still at half, because hey, only five levels, you lose out on +3, your 5 level career averages that being half you BAB, and anyway you aren't even supposed to be forced to take that minor as a mandatory thing, supposedly Expert Major Social Minor are a thing...)

Really?

Especially when you could have all the best combat stats and have moderately good pull stuff out the GMs ass stats and cherry pick the "know some stuff for free" trait for 1 or more party members?

Is the cost of carrying one or more combat weaklings in combat actually going to be worth it in support buffs from those weaklings? Especially with variable party sizes. At what number of party members does the weaklings highly conditional highly limited +2 bonus to one check or +1 bonus to two things actually break even with just bringing even ONE more character who DOESN'T have less than half the BAB and physical defenses?

Why does the support buff character even have to be a combat weakling? Did you learn nothing from the whole "No one wants to be a fucking cleric, but someone has to" bullshit of 2E D&D and earlier?

Look at d20 modern. Look at the d20 star wars games. Look at their tech classes and "utility" classes. They are total fucking failures and they are failures exactly because of this sort of design paradigm that inexplicably demands that their role is not allowed to have nice things.

The idea with the Expert is that their primary utility is knowing stuff. ... so they're basically a support character in those parts of the game, providing buffs

Is this aside from and in addition to the buffs from their main traits? Because those main traits remain generally unpleasant in several ways. And just having more of them with even more arbitrary shifting limitations and unknowable values thrown in isn't really improving the situation.

Also... levels one to five are fucking boring anyway.

Not as boring as no new abilities at all. And considering you COULD have a new ability every level, or even just every second level, this seems like an entirely needless flaw.

What if all you three base classes had say... five traits. (And they weren't shitty).

Level 1) Major Trait, Minor Trait
Level 2) Major Trait
Level 3) Major Trait
Level 4) Minor Trait
Level 5) Major Trait

Or you know. ANYTHING not made out of 4 dead levels.

Also that sort of set up, where there are more traits to pick from and where even within their specialty class the character doesn't always pick (or immediately get handed) ALL their possible class relevant trait options will result in more customization and diversity.

Level 4: Hey, you've learned about magic, congrats! Here are less mundane, more exciting, more specialized archetypes! (start getting smite, favoured enemy, magic, etc).

What if. What if that happened at level 2. Or level 1. After all it might be best if the actual fun game started as early as possible. Even if you want a "mundane weakling phase" or some crap like that. Level 1 would be enough. Or, have crappy "normal" NPC classes, start everyone with levels in them and let them convert levels over to the REAL classes they are MEANT to play once they have paid the apparent price of scooby and shaggying it up enough.

If your base classes were actually heroic and interesting then it would be OK to have them be a real phase and remain persistent. But if you actually intend to present this excuse that your base class abilities are lame, dull, and weak because the game isn't allowed to be fun until later then those base classes need to be minimized, truncated and eventually dumped entirely.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Prak, it pains me to say this, but I think this is the point at which you should give up on game design. Because you have clearly learned nothing of value in your years here.

[Dean]

I like your ideas for your research minigame. I actually have the thread saved were you talked about it originally. I think in a monster hunting style game it would be totally acceptable to have a character who specialized in the research minigame. If your research minigame tells players where the enemies are, what their motives are, and how to beat them then it's valuable enough to put a party member on. I think some people would find playing Willow perfectly interesting as long as, like Willow, they aren't left out of being allowed to play the combat game.

[Prak]

Prak, it pains me to say this, but I think this is the point at which you should give up on game design. Because you have clearly learned nothing of value in your years here.

Eh, this was a misstep. It was late when I was working on that class (and I don't know how it appears, but I was making it as I wrote it). I realized earlier that the effects of Detail Oriented, and Logical and Rhetorical should just be things people can do in combat and social encounters, with tweaked numbers.

There are several problems going on that I'm working through--

• I'm trying to not diverge so completely from D&D that:
  1. people would consider this game an entirely new system to learn
  2. prevent people from using the monster manuals with as short a conversion process as possible.

• I'm figuring out the minigames as I write (and the Archetypes thing was incomplete, I didn't write up any Occupations)
• I'm writing a game that's supposed to represent modern people, and a class and level system is a poor fit for that, but people have all but explicitly told me that "ok, if you're stupid enough to use d20 for this, it has to be class based" (or they suggest just using M&M)
• I'm not saying that the first five levels must be boring, or rather, it wasn't my intent to, but rather that it's the status quo for them to be.

PL made good points. I haven't done much direct work on the thing today because my mind is basically dead while the sun is up. I'm going to take another pass on the class structure, and attempt to do more than just hand bonuses out. I do feel that everyone needs to have options in each of the minigames (and PL, I hadn't included crafting when I was writing last night, Just hadn't thought about it). Look, I'm working on it, and I posted up the first class to get a feel for what people thought.

[Username17]

Also... levels one to five are fucking boring anyway.

What?

Why would you design a portion of the game you don't like and don't think would be fun? What the fuck is wrong with you?

I mean, I could go through your design an pick it apart piece by piece, because it frankly looks like a pile of crap. But i don't think that's necessary, because I think this right here is the problem. If you don't think that levels 1 to 5 are interesting or fun, and you don't think that you can make them be interesting or fun, why are you making this content at all?

-Username17

[Prak]

Because in my opinion, these abilities are at least useful, and conceptually interesting. Perhaps they need more fleshing out to actually be interesting, or maybe I'm looking at what I intended, rather than what people are actually seeing, but while these are a far cry from "spellcaster" interesting, they're better than "I waste it with my sword/bow/rage-strength fueled axe/let my wolf bite 'em."

Also I know that I am in the minority in thinking levels 1-5 of D&D are boring and uninteresting, and others may want to play "Level 1- mundanes discover weird goings on, Level 2- mundanes make Shadowkin friends, Level 3- mundanes acquire Shadowkin willing to teach them to use magic/Shadowloot phlebotinum."

[Laertes]

Because in my opinion, these abilities are at least useful, and conceptually interesting. Perhaps they need more fleshing out to actually be interesting, or maybe I'm looking at what I intended, rather than what people are actually seeing, but while these are a far cry from "spellcaster" interesting, they're better than "I waste it with my sword/bow/rage-strength fueled axe/let my wolf bite 'em."

Also I know that I am in the minority in thinking levels 1-5 of D&D are boring and uninteresting, and others may want to play "Level 1- mundanes discover weird goings on, Level 2- mundanes make Shadowkin friends, Level 3- mundanes acquire Shadowkin willing to teach them to use magic/Shadowloot phlebotinum."

So start your game at level 6. Easy. Done.