In the intro edition of my forthcoming fantasy RPG Soul's Calling, I'm going to be using Templates for CharGen. They're not character classes, as they don't affect character advancement, and in the advanced edition of the game Templates won't be used at all, but basic characters are 100% portable into the advanced game.

Here's the list I'm going with for the moment:-

* Cultist [a member of a benevolent but secretive cult - the best at magic]

* Faerie-Blooded [but seemingly human - has weak magic]

* Scout [the stealthiest]

* Targeteer [the best at ranged combat]

* Trader [the most charismatic]

* Warrior [the toughest]

What do people think?

Any improvement on the names, or on the selection?

Is the list too long or too short for an introductory edition of an RPG?

[The setting is the Enshrouded Lands from my Omnifray RPG.]

Six is probably a good number. This is all anecdotal, but I've found when I introduce new players, giving them options is a good thing so they don't have to do the heavy-lifting themselves (say like a game in the mold of GURPS), but too many choices can seem overwhelming. And they might worry they're making a "wrong" choice.

So, six seems like a solid number. Different enough that they can find something they like but not so many to be intimidating.

Yeah, six is about the right number for an intro. Like Kaz my brain tends to explode when offered too much choice. Obviously just how much is too much is debatable, but you can probably find psychological studies on the 'Net that give you the right amounts of xyz kinds of data for the average person (although roleplayers are obviously above the average in so many ways ).

With regards to naming: I'm in the camp that says that on the whole you should stick to words that most folks recognise/are generally accepted, even if they do slightly different things in your game (you can explain that in the fluff text). So 'Targeteer': What's that exactly- Ranger? Hunter? Other? And why no Rogue archetype? And why is there no melee/hand combat specialist? I guess it must be to do with the setting, although as the Enshrouded Lands are '1K worlds in 1' surely there's room/a need for them?

The current list is [edited]:-

Cultist
Halpfae (Faerie-Blooded)
Marksman / Markswoman
Merchant / Peddler [technically Peddler is a variant of Merchant]
Scout
Warrior

Apparently Markswoman is in the dictionary and I've decided I prefer it over Expert Shot. Master Shot is still male-sounding. Targeteer apparently is someone with a target shield, or who calls in artillery fire.

The Warrior is a hand-to-hand / melee specialist. He may also be respectable with ranged weaponry, but it's not a given.

I had to change Trader to Merchant when it became apparent that this Template was going to include literacy.

The "Thousand Worlds in One" thing is really for the full-fat Omnifray books. If I produce a Guide to the Enshrouded Lands (may well do), that would do the same thing. It's not going to be a feature of the basic edition of Soul's Calling, I suspect.

I'm not sure I see the point in separating the melee warrior and ranged warrior archetypes. I would just prefer to have a generic warrior who is good in both types of combat from the get-go and can become truly formidable in one or the other by having a high attribute, putting skill points in it, etc. etc..

Quote from: Omnifray;621002Apparently Markswoman is in the dictionary and I've decided I prefer it over Expert Shot. Master Shot is still male-sounding. Targeteer apparently is someone with a target shield, or who calls in artillery fire.

The Warrior is a hand-to-hand / melee specialist. He may also be respectable with ranged weaponry, but it's not a given.

Ok, got it.

Quote from: Omnifray;621002I had to change Trader to Merchant when it became apparent that this Template was going to include literacy.

Why is literacy class-specific? Or are you simply saying that that class would be likely to have the highest stat in literacy? And, still no Rogue? In which case, how do you get hold of stuff if you don't have enough money or resources for bartering?

Quote from: Omnifray;621002If I produce a Guide to the Enshrouded Lands (may well do)

Go ahead. I'm a big fan of supplementary materials and splat books etc.

Quote from: catty_big;621040Why is literacy class-specific? Or are you simply saying that that class would be likely to have the highest stat in literacy? And, still no Rogue? In which case, how do you get hold of stuff if you don't have enough money or resources for bartering?

Literacy is something you either have or don't (in a particular script). In the Enshrouded Lands setting the ability to read and write is the preserve of the wealthy social elite, religious orders and a few niche occupations slightly lower down the chain such as scribes. Riff-raff simply won't have an opportunity to learn to read and write. Only Merchants (not Peddlers) and Cultists have the ability to read and write as standard.

The templates aren't exactly character classes in the sense that advancement is not tied to class. So perhaps the basic edition rules will allow a Warrior, Scout, Peddler, Marksman/Markswoman or Halpfae to acquire the ability to read and write later on, after CharGen.

If you want to play a starting character who's, say, a knight who can read and write, you could either (i) gen up a Cultist or Merchant, have him be wealthy gentry and style himself as a warrior or (ii) use the rules in the advanced edition.

The reason for this as with many of the other restrictive aspects of CharGen in the basic edition is simplicity. And yes, the Merchant and the Cultist are the most likely to be able to read and write. Merchants need to be able to keep track of their stock. Cultists - at least those in the "inner sanctum" of the cult who may even develop magical powers (and that's the point of this character template) - need to be able to read scriptures.

If you run out of money, earn some or [as a fictional character in this game] try to steal it. Anyone can try to steal stuff, and the Scout will be quite good at it, though he is not a specialist thief. The Peddler makes a pretty good charlatan if you want to swindle people (so does the Merchant, though he doesn't usually need to).

Quote from: Premier;621039I'm not sure I see the point in separating the melee warrior and ranged warrior archetypes. I would just prefer to have a generic warrior who is good in both types of combat from the get-go and can become truly formidable in one or the other by having a high attribute, putting skill points in it, etc. etc..

Either the Marksman or the Warrior can start out very good in both, but will be at least slightly better at the one than the other.

I see these two specialities as as different as, say, stealth versus melee, or archery versus magic.

After all, stealth is partly useful for melee-assassination, and archery and magic can both come into their own for ranged combat. But magic can't be used openly in the setting (a severe restriction whenever ordinary humans are around), and stealth is only useful in the right circumstances, and is never a complete guarantee of your safety as your assassination attempt may go wrong. Ranged combat and melee combat can both be used in a skirmish fight, but some combat will be fought purely at a distance - you may be separated from your enemy by terrain for instance, or they may be flying. And some combat can start within melee reach, plus only good melee ability is associated with the ability to survive melee attacks.

So for me these are two very different things in terms of game balance. Plus melee relies on strength, speed, coordination, bravery and experience of melee combat, whereas ranged attacks rely on strength (indirectly in the case of crossbows - you have to be able to cock the thing in the time available), eyesight, concentration, patience and experience. They are quite different.

Quote from: Omnifray;621124Either the Marksman or the Warrior can start out very good in both, but will be at least slightly better at the one than the other.

I wouldn't have a problem with this; after all, that's how it works in regular armies: you have signallers and engineers etc., or more specific weaponry experts such as snipers, which would equate to Expert Shot/Ranged Combat in RPGs.

Quote from: Omnifray;621124Plus... melee relies on strength, speed, coordination, bravery and experience of melee combat, whereas ranged attacks rely on strength (indirectly in the case of crossbows - you have to be able to cock the thing in the time available), eyesight, concentration, patience and experience. They are quite different.

Yes, they're qualitatively rather than quantitatively different. You can't have simply +n in combat.

Must admit, Marksman / Markswoman is the one I am not feeling either.

Mainly because it put you in Robin Hood territory, and suddenly you realise you meant to tick Scout instead.

If "Crossbowman" were a gender-neutral term, I'd be using that.

If Crossbow-Archer were a real phrase, I'd be using that.

They are basically archers, just with crossbows, not handbows.

Not all scouts are necessarily going to be ranged weaponry specialists. Some might literally be just scouting. Others might be scouting and skirmishing.

Quote from: Omnifray;621142If "Crossbowman" were a gender-neutral term.

Etymologically speaking it is, as it derives from an Anglo-Saxon/Old High German word meaning person. Cf. the modern German Mann.

Quote from: Omnifray;621142If "Crossbowman" were a gender-neutral term, I'd be using that.

"Arbalester"

Although I am still not convinced it's cool enough to be a template most people would want to play.

Quote from: jadrax;621153Although I am still not convinced it's cool enough to be a template most people would want to play.

Works for me. As a word it's up there with arquebus and trebuchet etc.

Quote from: jadrax;621153"Arbalester"

Although I am still not convinced it's cool enough to be a template most people would want to play.

Very interesting!

I shall have to sleep on it.

I had honestly never heard that word before.

Technically, Marksman / Markswoman is more accurate in the sense that their excellent aim is useable with any ranged weapon... but crossbows will tend to be the natural choice...

Which is more appropriate flavour-wise? - for a quasi-Medieval quasi-Russia with a concealed supernatural element...

Quote from: catty_big;621143Etymologically speaking it is, as it derives from an Anglo-Saxon/Old High German word meaning person. Cf. the modern German Mann.

Oh Leo. Next you'll be telling us that "etymologically" the English word "history" derives from the Latin/Greek word "historia" and not from a phallicly-oriented combination of "his" and "story".

Meanwhile according to this link one of the etymological roots is "histor" meaning "wise man" thus the phallus is plainly there to be seen!!!

I am, of course, being subversive here, but the point is that even if "crossbowman" is completely gender-neutral on a far-reaching etymological view, what matters is the impression it makes on the modern reader's mind. And the modern reader I have in mind probably hasn't studied the finer nuances of etymology.

But I take your point.

So, arbalester, eh? What do we think of that? Arbalester, or Marksman / Markswoman?

"Arbalester" is a great word but after much consideration I am going with Marksman / Markswoman.

I think "arbalester" is just too obscure a word and I'm using one obscure word already ("halpfae", a word of my own invention). This is meant to be for the basic edition of the rules to introduce people to the game and give them a bit of a leg up to start play. I think "marksman" is a more familiar concept.

Also "arbalester" sounds a bit like "molester"...