Quote from: Pat on February 02, 2021, 04:15:18 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 02, 2021, 04:12:34 PM

Quote from: Pat on February 02, 2021, 02:50:13 PM
Just to emphasize how easy class building is in B/X, here's the fighter:

Yeah, I can't do rules-lite like that. I'd be immensely frustrated by having to rely almost entirely on "GM May I" to accomplish anything. I HATE "GM May I" with the fiery passion of a thousand suns.

It's not mother may I, that's a bad mischaracterization of how it works. The rules are objective, and once set they're set. What you're doing is collaboratively designing the rules by which your character will be played. Which is no different than saying let's play OD&D, or let's play Traveller. Or saying no to magical flying pixies in a Star Trek game.

Sounds like you just had a bad DM.

It's funny.  I have a reaction similar to Chris but on this issue it is from the other side of the screen.  I intensely dislike doing that kind of thing, whether you call it "Yes, Player you May" or collaborative one-off character design.  If it was a bad experience with the DM that caused it, I have no one but me to blame.

It's not as if I don't enjoy working with players on rules and system and setting design.  I do that all the time.  It's only that when I do it, I want to do explicitly that.  By the time we are into character generation, my head is in another space.

Perhaps it is related to my tastes in character modeling.  I really dislike the idea that a character from a fantasy novel is lifted as is and made an archetype with little discernment.  It's why so many of the D&D versions of the ranger rub me the wrong way.  Because Aragon isn't merely a ranger.  He is a leader of the rangers with an unusual background and the abilities that go with that.  Not to mention the whole, "Hands of the Healer" thing is a very specific prophecy property of his character, not a ranger thing.  So I'm just not wired to enjoy having the conversation of, "I want to play Samwise Gamgee except as a female nature priest."  At least not mixed with rules design at the same time.  "Female hobbit druid" may sound like close to the same thing but somehow isn't in my head.

I get that other people are wired differently.  For them, having the conversation about the concept and the mechanics at the same time is a highly useful shortcut.

Quote from: Pat on February 02, 2021, 04:15:18 PM
Sounds like you just had a bad DM.

No, I had quite possibly one of the worst DMs to ever attempt to DM. One so bad I almost gave up on RPGs entirely in my early teens and so formative in my experience with role-playing that it utterly poisoned even the IDEA of playing D&D to the point that I didn't touch it again for DECADES, and even then it was 3e and I dumped that for 4E as soon as it was available (and 4E remains the ONLY version of D&D I actually enjoy playing).

To be plain... I despise OSR-style play. I can't stand even the thought of playing Basic or AD&D, much less OD&D. I know its residual to my experiences. I don't care. It's a visceral reaction and I have better things to do with my time than try to get over those feelings about a type of entertainment I can easily avoid (just like I haven't gone ATVing since I had a rollover that nearly cost me a leg... some things just aren't worth the time to revisit).

Give me any Palladium game, Mekton, WEG Star Wars, Mechwarrior (any edition), Champions, the World of Darkness (oWoD preferably, but I've played some nWoD and didn't hate it), LUG Star Trek, Mutants & Masterminds, 4E D&D or Ruins & Realms (the system I wrote; so obviously is right up my alley)... and I'm game.

But I would rather go watch the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy (the one so bad I STILL haven't seen Rise of Skywalker) followed by a full binge of She-Ra and the Princesses of Power than touch anything based on TSR-era D&D.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 02, 2021, 04:12:34 PM
Yeah, I can't do rules-lite like that. I'd be immensely frustrated by having to rely almost entirely on "GM May I" to accomplish anything. I HATE "GM May I" with the fiery passion of a thousand suns.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 02, 2021, 05:01:07 PM
I have a reaction similar to Chris but on this issue it is from the other side of the screen.  I intensely dislike doing that kind of thing, whether you call it "Yes, Player you May" or collaborative one-off character design.  If it was a bad experience with the DM that caused it, I have no one but me to blame.

It's not as if I don't enjoy working with players on rules and system and setting design.  I do that all the time.  It's only that when I do it, I want to do explicitly that.  By the time we are into character generation, my head is in another space.

This seems like it's a different topic than atypical race/class combos -- maybe it should be broken out into its own thread? Are y'all interested in discussing the issue further (of bespoke chargen vs by-the-book)?

Quote from: jhkim on February 02, 2021, 05:55:36 PM
This seems like it's a different topic than atypical race/class combos -- maybe it should be broken out into its own thread? Are y'all interested in discussing the issue further (of bespoke chargen vs by-the-book)?

If there is such a topic, I'll probably have something to say about it.  At the moment, I can't say what that might be beyond what I already said.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 02, 2021, 05:36:37 PM
To be plain... I despise OSR-style play.

That's fine. People like different things.

AD&D was the first version of D&D I played, so I'm used to separate-race-and-class.  (Holmes Basic was the first D&D I owned.) But I also like race-specific classes like Adventure, Conqueror, King System (ACKS) uses, where there instead of just a Dwarf race-as-class there are Dwarven Vaultguards, Dwarven Craftpriests, Dwarven Delvers, Dwarven Furies, and Dwarven Machinists.   Where instead of an Elf race-as-class there are Elven Spellswords, Elven NIghtblades, Elven Courtiers, Elven Enchanters, and Elven Rangers.  And there is, in the Players Companion, a reasonably complete but not onerously complicated system for coming up with more for your specific campaign/setting. (And of course you can use the same system to come up with more human classes as well.)  That way all the different races feel different.

I had forgotten that orcs in AD&D didn't have an intelligence penalty. If they have +1 Str, +1 Con, and -2 Cha then they actually make better wizards than humans assuming you don't use maximum level limits, which was a ridiculous way to balance races.

Anyway, instead just having a standard set of racial modifiers or having a different set of classes for each race, maybe it would both be cooler and allow for more diverse options to have a different racial ability or abilities (or even disadvantages) based on class. For example, an orc wizard might get +1 damage per die for spells, a elven wizard might be able to cast an extra enchant/charm spell each level per day, a dwarf wizard could cast in light armor, and so on. This way you could have a thematic advantage for each race and class. Personally, I don't even like rolling for attributes, so if I wanted to tie race to attributes, I would probably just change attribute maximums. Elves could have at most 20 Dex and 16 Con, for example.

I suppose that attribute bonuses or penalties could be tied to a combination of race and class - so orc wizards get -2 Cha. Orc sorcerers could get -2 Wis. Orc clerics could get -2 Int. This could allow for a mental attribute penalty that didn't affect a casting stat.

On the racial modifiers, one of the things I don't like about them in WotC D&D is that the stats have remained static as the game has changed out from under them.  Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha isn't the perfect set, but it works pretty darn well on a rare mod for Basic/Expert or (near as I can tell) OD&D.  When stats begin to inflate and more classes get introduced, it shows a little strain.  By the time WotC gets a hold of it, it really doesn't fit the game anymore.

If the tradition is so strong that the ability score modifiers must remain the same, then the things that make them work should also stay the same.  Or if the other things can change, so can the ability scores.  If we are to have racial mods, then they should be mods to something that isn't already having its own issues unrelated to the races.

Quote from: ShieldWife on February 02, 2021, 10:20:33 PM
I had forgotten that orcs in AD&D didn't have an intelligence penalty. If they have +1 Str, +1 Con, and -2 Cha then they actually make better wizards than humans assuming you don't use maximum level limits, which was a ridiculous way to balance races.

No level limits, half-orcs just aren't allowed to be magic-users. AD&D1 specified which races were allowed to take which classes, and even which class combinations were possible for multi-classed characters of each race. Half-orcs were only allowed to be clerics, fighters, thieves, assassins, or the combos of C/F, C/T, C/A, F/T, or F/A. And yes, they all had racial level limits (C4, F10, T6-8 depending on Dex), with the exception of assassin, which was limited to 14th (15th) level anyway. And that doesn't get into other factors, like racial mins and maxes. Half-orcs, for instance, had a max Int of 17. Which means no wishes, even if they were allowed to be magic-users. At least not without ability enhancing help, which is another complicated topic.

AD&D has a very complex set of racial restrictions.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 02, 2021, 11:23:42 PM
On the racial modifiers, one of the things I don't like about them in WotC D&D is that the stats have remained static as the game has changed out from under them.  Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha isn't the perfect set, but it works pretty darn well on a rare mod for Basic/Expert or (near as I can tell) OD&D.  When stats begin to inflate and more classes get introduced, it shows a little strain.  By the time WotC gets a hold of it, it really doesn't fit the game anymore.

If the tradition is so strong that the ability score modifiers must remain the same, then the things that make them work should also stay the same.  Or if the other things can change, so can the ability scores.  If we are to have racial mods, then they should be mods to something that isn't already having its own issues unrelated to the races.

I don't think that the standard six attributes are bad. They have a few flaws but I think over the years the systems have been tuned to improve things. I honestly might combine Strength and Constitution, as Strength is so often a worthless attribute if you're not a close combat character. Also, it's hard to imagine an incredibly strong character who isn't tough as well. Intelligence in 3.x was good because anybody could benefit from more skill points, but it seems like it's worthless for almost any class aside from the wizard now.

What ever imperfections that the traditional six attributes have, fixing them is probably not worth going against tradition for.

Quote from: Pat on February 02, 2021, 11:29:03 PM

Quote from: ShieldWife on February 02, 2021, 10:20:33 PM
I had forgotten that orcs in AD&D didn't have an intelligence penalty. If they have +1 Str, +1 Con, and -2 Cha then they actually make better wizards than humans assuming you don't use maximum level limits, which was a ridiculous way to balance races.

No level limits, half-orcs just aren't allowed to be magic-users. AD&D1 specified which races were allowed to take which classes, and even which class combinations were possible for multi-classed characters of each race. Half-orcs were only allowed to be clerics, fighters, thieves, assassins, or the combos of C/F, C/T, C/A, F/T, or F/A. And yes, they all had racial level limits (C4, F10, T6-8 depending on Dex), with the exception of assassin, which was limited to 14th (15th) level anyway. And that doesn't get into other factors, like racial mins and maxes. Half-orcs, for instance, had a max Int of 17. Which means no wishes, even if they were allowed to be magic-users. At least not without ability enhancing help, which is another complicated topic.

AD&D has a very complex set of racial restrictions.

AD&D was great in a number of ways, but the rules were also a convoluted arbitrary mess. 

Quote from: ShieldWife on February 03, 2021, 12:37:24 AM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 02, 2021, 11:23:42 PM
On the racial modifiers, one of the things I don't like about them in WotC D&D is that the stats have remained static as the game has changed out from under them.  Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha isn't the perfect set, but it works pretty darn well on a rare mod for Basic/Expert or (near as I can tell) OD&D.  When stats begin to inflate and more classes get introduced, it shows a little strain.  By the time WotC gets a hold of it, it really doesn't fit the game anymore.

If the tradition is so strong that the ability score modifiers must remain the same, then the things that make them work should also stay the same.  Or if the other things can change, so can the ability scores.  If we are to have racial mods, then they should be mods to something that isn't already having its own issues unrelated to the races.

I don't think that the standard six attributes are bad. They have a few flaws but I think over the years the systems have been tuned to improve things. I honestly might combine Strength and Constitution, as Strength is so often a worthless attribute if you're not a close combat character. Also, it's hard to imagine an incredibly strong character who isn't tough as well. Intelligence in 3.x was good because anybody could benefit from more skill points, but it seems like it's worthless for almost any class aside from the wizard now.

What ever imperfections that the traditional six attributes have, fixing them is probably not worth going against tradition for.

Quote from: Pat on February 02, 2021, 11:29:03 PM

Quote from: ShieldWife on February 02, 2021, 10:20:33 PM
I had forgotten that orcs in AD&D didn't have an intelligence penalty. If they have +1 Str, +1 Con, and -2 Cha then they actually make better wizards than humans assuming you don't use maximum level limits, which was a ridiculous way to balance races.

No level limits, half-orcs just aren't allowed to be magic-users. AD&D1 specified which races were allowed to take which classes, and even which class combinations were possible for multi-classed characters of each race. Half-orcs were only allowed to be clerics, fighters, thieves, assassins, or the combos of C/F, C/T, C/A, F/T, or F/A. And yes, they all had racial level limits (C4, F10, T6-8 depending on Dex), with the exception of assassin, which was limited to 14th (15th) level anyway. And that doesn't get into other factors, like racial mins and maxes. Half-orcs, for instance, had a max Int of 17. Which means no wishes, even if they were allowed to be magic-users. At least not without ability enhancing help, which is another complicated topic.

AD&D has a very complex set of racial restrictions.

AD&D was great in a number of ways, but the rules were also a convoluted arbitrary mess.

D6 Fantasy utilizes Physique as a sort of combination of str/con; while splitting dex into agility for general mobility and coordination for hand/eye and fine motor skills, thus shooting a bow is coordination while backflipping through swinging blades is agility. This is mostly a result of D6 system being skill based and thus needing enough skills under an attribute to justify its existence as an attribute. I think in D20 system there is only a single constitution skill, concentration or something.

Quote from: Slipshot762 on February 03, 2021, 01:06:38 AM

D6 Fantasy utilizes Physique as a sort of combination of str/con; while splitting dex into agility for general mobility and coordination for hand/eye and fine motor skills, thus shooting a bow is coordination while backflipping through swinging blades is agility. This is mostly a result of D6 system being skill based and thus needing enough skills under an attribute to justify its existence as an attribute. I think in D20 system there is only a single constitution skill, concentration or something.

I use a similar set for my d20-based game for the same reason:  Might, Lore, Will, Dexterity, Agility, and Perception. 

The moment you introduce skills (or something like them) to the classic D&D six characteristics, they start to show problems.  WotC keeps introducing things into the rules to try to make them continue to fit but this is the tail wagging the dog.  Extra skill points from Int in 3E is a perfect example.  It doesn't work very well (because the math is wonky and the scaling of skill points is off among other reasons related to how cumbersome it becomes) and is only in there for some misplaced sense of simulation and to try to make Int more important than it is.  Of course, the scale of the bonuses and when you get them also screws things up.  Racial modifiers to Int monkeying with atypical combinations is just the cherry on top, really.

That goes to show, if you want the game to readily support atypical race-class combos, then that needs to be a design consideration from the get go.  That's why people in this topic keep coming back to "race in class" as a solution.  A lot of people don't prefer it (me included), but it does solves that design issue as long as the GM is willing to produced new classes for the campaign or setting.  Because that is the way the game was designed to accommodate such changes. Chris is solving it a different way in his game.  I'm solving it a different way in my game.  There are numerous ways to solve it.  In a 5E game, probably the easiest way for a GM to solve it is to remove the racial modifiers entirely and then also limit the class/race combinations that are allowed in the setting.  You could even take the next step and package those together into templates to make it easier for new players to get into the game ...

As an aside to the previous point, if someone had the unenviable task of rewriting 3E to support more atypical race-class combos while being as true to tradition and to the 3E model as possible (and I couldn't convince them to run away), I suggest that the following strategy would be worth pursuing:

• Drop skills entirely.
• Rework feats to cover what skills used to, except in a few places put the skills back into the classes.  Of course, make feats meaningful in the process, which will be easier now that they aren't competing with skills for useful things to do.  Will also result in a reasonably short feat list.
• Tie the races and feats just a little. Could be a simple as races getting certain feats for free or more complex like qualifying for them notably sooner.  (This is 3E we are talking about after all.)
• If you want the gold medal, build in multi-classing from the start of your design instead of tacking it on as a half-thought, untested idea driven by narrow ideas about simulation and the mistaken assumption that all the fun in Hero and GURPS is the character building. That's not strictly necessary to accomplish the goal, but will make your users happier.  With all the time you save not trying to fit skills into a class-based game, you can at least make the attempt.

As a bonus, the resulting game will be marginally more acceptable to fans of AD&D.  Barely enough to move a small slice of them into willing to give it a try, but that's the way bonus marginal stuff works.  There, that's the hard way you keep the classic D&D characteristics in place and accomplish the goal.  Well, hard now that you've got the baggage of previous WotC attempts to overcome. If they hadn't made "feat" into a game design curse, your job would be easier.

Quote from: Slipshot762 on February 03, 2021, 01:06:38 AM
D6 Fantasy utilizes Physique as a sort of combination of str/con; while splitting dex into agility for general mobility and coordination for hand/eye and fine motor skills, thus shooting a bow is coordination while backflipping through swinging blades is agility. This is mostly a result of D6 system being skill based and thus needing enough skills under an attribute to justify its existence as an attribute. I think in D20 system there is only a single constitution skill, concentration or something.

Traditionally in D&D, Strength can still be pretty useful since melee combat is a popular choice, even though there aren't many Strength based skills and almost no Constitution based skills. In 5th edition D&D, both Intelligence and Strength became less useful since Dexterity based fighters and archers can just use Dexterity now for both damage and attack without jumping through the hoops that previous editions required.

In some games, Dexterity (or the equivalent) is the overpowered combat attribute, adding to all attacks and damage, to defense, and also all sorts of skills. In those games, combining Constitution and Strength makes a lot of sense. 

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 03, 2021, 09:04:06 AM
snip

I kinda like 3.x skills though. In fact, I that Intelligence adds to skill points. It emphasizes that being intelligent actually is important to everybody, even if you aren't studying a book or using alchemy to make a potion. I also would prefer a system where there weren't attributes which are entirely useless for certain classes. It seems like in recent editions there has been a push to focus on Charisma, perhaps the traditional dump stat going back decades, but now both Intelligence and Strength are nearly useless for anybody that doesn't have a class based primarily on those attributes.

I don't particularly like race as class either, though I think that it might be thematically appropriate to limit certain classes to certain races. I was once in a campaign where only elves could be bards, because the elven style of magic was to sing to create the magical effects, hence bard magic.

My solution to the stat issue was to try and ensure they all had fairly equal weight and use across all the classes. Part of this too involved drastically cutting down the number of skills in the system to just a dozen.

So Strength gets used as a primary attribute by fighters and secondary attributes for Big Lug gadgeteers, Potent Spirit mystics, Militant theurges and War wizards. It is used for all melee attacks unless a class ability allows otherwise (and those a limited to lighter weapons; note too that fighters have an option to use Str for attacks with bows; it's easier to aim when you have the strength to hold the drawn back arrow for a bit before you release than a weakling who has to basically snap shot it because they lack the strength to hold and aim).

Strength also determines your climb, jump and swim speeds (a base level of performance where no check is needed; a human weakling with a STR -1 can only manage a single pace and would need a check just to move through difficult climbing, jumping or swimming terrain; a mighty STR 4 human hero can make progress on anything but blocking terrain for climbing, jumping and swimming without needing a check), your base load and may determine your Armor (medium and heavy armor also has a strength requirement to avoid penalties) and Fortitude defenses.

Endurance's primary use is detemining your heroic surges (if you're familiar with 4E think of them as a combination of healing surges, action points, daily power uses and death saves) and how quickly they recover (ranging from 1/hour of rest to 3/hour if you had the D&D equivalent of an 18-20 Con). It also may determine your Fortitude defense (if it's higher than your STR) and is the key stat for the Fitness skill (which is used for pushing past your normal STR-based limits and to resist things like fatigue and disease).

Reflexes are the primary attribute for fighters focused on lighter weapons and the secondary attribute for Monkeywrencher gadgeteers, Swift Spirit mystics, Zealous theurges and War Wizards. It is the default for ranged weapon attacks unless a class ability allows otherwise. It determines initiative, may determine your Armor and Dodge defenses and governs the Acrobatics and Stealth skills (the latter of which includes sleights of hand/pick pocketing).

Wits are the primary attribute for Mystics and the secondary attribute of Wary fighters and masterminds, Troubleshooter gadgeteers, Faithful theurges and Lore Wizards. It may determine your Dodge defense (if it's higher than your Reflexes) and governs the skills of Insight (which includes D&D style perception; you perceive what you perceive, it's your training in Insight that lets you interpret what you're perceiving), Medicine and Nature.

Intellect is the primary attribute of Gadgeteers and Wizards and the secondary attribute of Tactical fighters and masterminds, Logical Spirit mystics and Faithful theurges. It may determine your Willpower defense and governs the skills of Arcana (which anyone trained can use to perform ritual magic), Culture (including history and language) and Engineering (building and disabling devices).

Presence is the primary attribute of Theurges and a secondary attribute for Daring fighters and masterminds, Mad Genius gadgeteers, Clever Spirit mystics and Social wizards. It may determine your Willpower defense and governs the skills of Deceit, Intimidate and Persuade (which is primary used to influence reaction rolls).

This means that every class has a potential use for every attribute (END being universally valuable to everyone regardless of class) so while a giant and a gnome have very different species attribute bonuses, each could be an effective member of any class, just in different ways (i.e. a strong wary giant fighter vs. a swift daring gnome fighter).

Also, for the few cases where a species attributes just didn't align with a primary class attribute, I added species traits to compensate;

- Beastmen don't get a PRE bump option, but do get a trait called Astral Alliance which grants a bonus spellcasting talent if they choose the Theurge class.

- Dwarves also don't get a PRE bump option, but get Astral Quality which allows them to treat their theurge spellcasting implements as one quality grade higher.

- Golems don't get a WIT bump option, but gets Deus Ex Machina which gives them a bonus spellcasting talent if they worship the Great Machine (their term for the monotheistic god in the setting) and select the Mystic class.

- Malfeans don't get a WIT or INT bump option, but get Spirit Kin which gives them a bonus primal boon if they select the mystic class, and Infernal Implements which lets them add a chosen additional quality to gadgeteer or wizard implements they wield.

So even when your primary stats don't quite line up, there's always a potential benefit to choosing any of the classes.

Also of note in the setting fluff is that the Beastmen and Elves have strong devotion to their astral faiths, making theurges the most common spellcasters among their numbers... the Beastman trait ensures that there's a bit of difference between Elven and Beastmen Theurges.

Likewise, the Malfeans and Eldritch are by far the most devoted to The Old Faith where mystics are the standard practitioners of magic. Eldritch come by it naturally (species bonus to WIT) because they're exiled primal spirits. Malfeans follow it based on a theological belief in The Promise despite a lack of innate ability, but get an extra bit of help if they're on the path from their primal spirit "cousins" (represented by the bonus primal boon)... again, same class with different species-based flavors.

So that's how my system handles the atypical race/class combos... first by making every attribute something each class can use, second by giving each species a range of options for their species attribute bonuses, and third by giving those few species that couldn't get a primary attribute bump for a class instead got another benefit that improved the class in a different way.