Quote from: CRKrueger;649180Except I haven't said shit about Next this week.  Good example of you mixing the arguments though.  

You accused me of being a Next fanatic.  That's why I made that comment.  So why don't you explain then why you think I'm a Next fanatic.

QuoteBTW, that is cool. My only reservation is that now I see them doing something very cool with Backgrounds, Themes, Whatever-you-wanna-call-ems, and now putting everything in Feats, which sucks.

And this is what I've been trying to say.  There is no functionality difference than earlier.  They're calling them feats (a mistake IMO), but the structure and functionality is no different than class based abilities in AD&D or packages in the first playtest packages.  I suspect they are calling them feats to appeal to the 3e crowd, and technically they do allow you to ignore the packages and do char op like in 3e.  But the core structure is prepackaged themes where you don't go through a feat list looking at what to choose.

Quote from: CRKrueger;649180Except I haven't said shit about Next this week.  Good example of you mixing the arguments though.  

BTW, that is cool.  My only reservation is that now I see them doing something very cool with Backgrounds, Themes, Whatever-you-wanna-call-ems, and now putting everything in Feats, which would suck.

Why do feats suck? if the DM can tailor them, set them to a class and if they include stuff that isn't just combat. Then they are just like class powers. Except you have a pool of them and not unique ones for every new class.

Now maybe they will fail at getting that last bit right I do fear that the mass of feats will be combat or combat related

I suspect Basic will have just themes/backgrounds and the feats will all be part of standard edition.

Quote from: jibbajibba;649184Why do feats suck? if the DM can tailor them, set them to a class and if they include stuff that isn't just combat. Then they are just like class powers. Except you have a pool of them and not unique ones for every new class.

Now maybe they will fail at getting that last bit right I do fear that the mass of feats will be combat or combat related

I suspect Basic will have just themes/backgrounds and the feats will all be part of standard edition.

WotC use of Feats sucked in 3e, I don't have faith in them making them not suck in 5e.  The package idea was good, however, I get the sense they're just saying "Fuck that package stuff is hard, let's use Feats and replace them with Stat bonus for the old fucks." *wipes hands*

Quote from: Elfdart;649135I've always been amused by those who shriek "OH NOES! TEH BARBARIAN CAN HAS TWENTY HIT POINTS AT 1ST LEVEL!", since a 1st level ranger can have 24 -plus his own assortment of wanked-out powers.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;649138Yeah, I know.  Since feats in 5e are prepackaged, they aren't any more complicated than class abilities in 1e.  I posit that because they're called feats, OSR fans get the panties in a bundle because it's a 3.e term, and the feat mechanic in 3.e is pretty darn screwy.

It's not that anyone's particularly bent out of shape about just one class, or that someone somewhere used the term "feat". It's that many of us old school types object to that nickel-and-dime list of powers approach used in the Barbarian, and the Ranger, and the Monk, and hell, even the Paladin... and the switch to Feats just exacerbates that. The hit point arms race is bad, too, but it's minor in comparison to that list of powers approach, and the list of classes needed to support every possible list of powers.

Screw it. We need just three or four classes, plus maybe three hybrids, and you can customize them mostly by changing the "fluff" for any particular ability, or by limiting one ability and bringing in a limited version of a single ability from another class, or both.

I've been writing up lots of class variants, myself, but I don't think of them as actual classes, since they all follow the same pattern: two or three class features, maybe split one feature into two limited versions. These classes are more examples of how to customize the base classes than actual stand-alone classes.

If D&D Next did something like that, it would be interesting. I don't want feats, but if D&D Next did feats the same way, making two to four base feats as patterns and creating new feats by changing the fluff, it might be bearable.

The same applies to retro-clones, or OSR supplemental materials. If they use the variant approach, that's great. If they add new classes that take the UA Barbarian or AD&D Ranger or Blackmoor Monk approach, that's not what I want.

Im a little late to this all. But wasnt the UA barbarian designed for solo play. Just the DM, and a single player. Thats why the class is stupid powerful. To act as a one man party? So to speak? So tone down the class, and make it a fighter with some primitive culture extras and bam. Barbarian thats not overpowered and makes sense to put in a party, Modern or OSR.

Quote from: talysman;649325It's not that anyone's particularly bent out of shape about just one class, or that someone somewhere used the term "feat". It's that many of us old school types object to that nickel-and-dime list of powers approach used in the Barbarian, and the Ranger, and the Monk, and hell, even the Paladin... and the switch to Feats just exacerbates that. The hit point arms race is bad, too, but it's minor in comparison to that list of powers approach, and the list of classes needed to support every possible list of powers.

Screw it. We need just three or four classes, plus maybe three hybrids, and you can customize them mostly by changing the "fluff" for any particular ability, or by limiting one ability and bringing in a limited version of a single ability from another class, or both.

I've been writing up lots of class variants, myself, but I don't think of them as actual classes, since they all follow the same pattern: two or three class features, maybe split one feature into two limited versions. These classes are more examples of how to customize the base classes than actual stand-alone classes.

If D&D Next did something like that, it would be interesting. I don't want feats, but if D&D Next did feats the same way, making two to four base feats as patterns and creating new feats by changing the fluff, it might be bearable.

The same applies to retro-clones, or OSR supplemental materials. If they use the variant approach, that's great. If they add new classes that take the UA Barbarian or AD&D Ranger or Blackmoor Monk approach, that's not what I want.

I have noted before my heartbreaker has 3 classes. Rogue (skills specialist) Warrior (combat specialist) Magus (spell specialist).
Within that there is a template to create archetypoes (much like 2e Kits with a bit opf S&P variation)
the GM creates archetypes for his setting they take about 5 minute to make and are composed of Class + skill pools (from a set of 12 most classes get 2 so A scout might get Wilderness + Stealth) then some variaton on HD, and the costs of stuff when you level.
Its not quite right yet but I am very happy with the class model.
I just ported the whole thing over to a Strontium Dog Sci fi setting. With 3 PCs each playing a Stront but one from each class, Warrior, Rogue (actually a pilot) and a Psyker (who replace Magus) and it looks good. The Rogue has plenty of skills and is meh at combat with a psychic power he isn't trained in, the Warrior is hard a couple of skills at reasonable levels but bristling with weapons and the Psyker is crap in combat except she has armed herself with tech (targeting computer and a few customer programs to help her out) and she has precongition which she can use to give her bonuses becuase she literally knows what you are going to do next.
Anyway the point is that I ported the entire game to a different genre and all I needed to do was update the skill lists, draw up some random mutation tables, create a Psyker system which is just a port and switch on the basic magic system.
There was no need to build any new class powers work or new classes, I don't need a pilot, a space marine, a smuggler as classes because with the archetype pattern I can just roll out whatever archetypes I want on the fly and they are all roughly balanced and full of flavour.

Always comes down to whether the character is based on flavor or mechanics.  In the OSR style, for me anyway, a Barbarian is a Fighter with flavor.  Player and GM can simply put their heads together and mash up a "template," perhaps like this:

P: "I'm playing a fighter."
GM: "Okay."
P: "I'm a barbarian from the Elk Tribe, and  God is Tempus."
GM: "That's cool.  Anything else?"
P: "Yeah.  I served as an indentured servant for a crusty old dwarven weapons master, who saved me from execution after my tribe was wiped out in an ill-conceived attack on a local "civlized" settlement.  Over the years, my innate barbarian prejudices and fears were tempered, and I came to see the dwarf as a surrogate-father."
GM: "Okay, cool.  Anything else"
P: "Yeah.  The dwarf made me a magic hammer that always returns to me when I throw or summon it."
GM: "...no..."

New school:
GM: "Okay, what ya got?"
P: "I'm playing a Human Barbarian with the following Feats (sundry list follows).  I also would like the "Prodigal Son" and "Outsider" backgrounds.
GM: "Okay, cool.  Anything else."
P: "I also want a magic hammer that always returns to me when I throw or summon it."
GM:"...no..."

Six of one, half dozen of the other, though the first seems more fun.

I personally don't see the need for a barbarian in a OSR style game. When I run OD&D the rules are easy enough that when one of my players wants to make their character stand out from the standard fighter we just work it out on the spot if we feel the need for an ability or something. I might would give a barbarian some kind of bonus on rolls in a survival situation or something, other than that I don't see why they should be much different than any other fighter. I guess it depends on what your idea of a barbarian is, I think of Conan and I don't think that kind of character is significantly different from a standard fighting man.

Quote from: Arkansan;649788I personally don't see the need for a barbarian in a OSR style game. When I run OD&D the rules are easy enough that when one of my players wants to make their character stand out from the standard fighter we just work it out on the spot if we feel the need for an ability or something. I might would give a barbarian some kind of bonus on rolls in a survival situation or something, other than that I don't see why they should be much different than any other fighter. I guess it depends on what your idea of a barbarian is, I think of Conan and I don't think that kind of character is significantly different from a standard fighting man.

I don't see the need for any of the fighter sub-classes (ranger, barbarian, cavalier). The paladin could just as easily be a type of cleric.

I recently came up with a list of 21 types for a basically all-fighters game, and I thought it looked like a fun way to go. It's one easy way to give each character a distinctive specialty, and a quick hook for role-playing. (One can jump in with Mowgli or Orlando, Cassanova or Marco Polo in mind as a starting point and build from there.)

I also had 20 attributes (scores randomly generated) further to distinguish figures, which had started with a different set of 6 -- rather lumping than splitting -- from the usual D&D set.

That's on the shelf for now, though.

I'm thinking of going in the opposite direction: no special classes, and not even a uniform set of six attributes.

Instead, I'd like to have each player make up a few descriptors (I'm currently thinking three or four, ranked) to call out what's most significant about the PC. If you're acquainted with Risus, cliches would fit the idea.

Quote from: Phillip;650165I recently came up with a list of 21 types for a basically all-fighters game, and I thought it looked like a fun way to go. It's one easy way to give each character a distinctive specialty, and a quick hook for role-playing. (One can jump in with Mowgli or Orlando, Cassanova or Marco Polo in mind as a starting point and build from there.)

I also had 20 attributes (scores randomly generated) further to distinguish figures, which had started with a different set of 6 -- rather lumping than splitting -- from the usual D&D set.

That's on the shelf for now, though.

I'm thinking of going in the opposite direction: no special classes, and not even a uniform set of six attributes.

Instead, I'd like to have each player make up a few descriptors (I'm currently thinking three or four, ranked) to call out what's most significant about the PC. If you're acquainted with Risus, cliches would fit the idea.

Marginally related to this I was thinking that measuring abilites on a 3-18 is a really poor mapping of reality. I recall the AD&D DMG suggesting for NPC you count 1s as 3s and 6s as 4s giving a range of 6-15.

In reality the range for most things is much lower apart from maybe IQ which I suspect was the benchmark point they started with (no idea if that is true of course).
A game where you can have an ability like "Smart", "Quickwitted", "Strong as an Ox" etc instead of having stats does work although not sure it gives you much benefit.
It would be interesting to see genuine medical facts on range of human strength, co-ordination etc. Although havogn read the Traveller 5 thread with the genetics of your parents affecting your stats I suspect it could lead to DISASTER

Quote from: Elfdart;650153I don't see the need for any of the fighter sub-classes (ranger, barbarian, cavalier). The paladin could just as easily be a type of cleric.

That is my mode of thinking as well, I see the classes as more of a broad category than a specific thing. I think the distinction between a knight and a typical fighting man is in how the player runs them. If there is a real need, or a good argument on the part of a player for some distinguishing feature we can just work out something on the spot rather than having a whole new class.

I suspect a lot of "just work out something on the spot" looks pretty much like the D&D character classes of my acquaintance. How the heck much simpler than the old D&D, Arduin, etc., write-ups is it really possible to get (apart from plain vanilla fighting-man)?

Quote from: Phillip;650286I suspect a lot of "just work out something on the spot" looks pretty much like the D&D character classes of my acquaintance. How the heck much simpler than the old D&D, Arduin, etc., write-ups is it really possible to get (apart from plain vanilla fighting-man)?

I like to put a frame work rounf 'just work it out' for the DM to avoid pitfalls of imbalance. They can always ignore it.

Also I want the DM to actually think about their setting and establish what type sof figthers the PCs can be as opposed to allowing everythign a PC can think of without putting that into the wider world context.
So a swashbuckler in a Roman campaign doesn't fit, maybe play a gladiator or a pirate instead. etc ...
My current pet grips is DMs not thinking enough about their settigns.