e20 Core Classes

[Jatku]

We are the champions ‒ my friend
And we'll keep on fighting till the end
We are the champions
We are the...

Wait, what were we discussing?

You can be a Champion of whatever you want!

Champion of talking.
Champion of hitting people.
Champion of running fast.
Champion of swimming.
Champion of looking good.
Champion of drawing.
Champion of shooting.

Champion!

[Inquisitor Tremayne]

It won't really matter if the names are all made of win but the class system sucks.

Well apparently from the bajillion other threads discussing the names it would seem pretty important. However, I agree with you. We have a lot of work ahead of us before we should be debating minor things like this.

[jazzencat]

Well, if the majority is happy with the 6 classes as they are in d20M and each class has a focus on one of the 6 ability scores (but not exclusively because of multi-classing) then this is the last thing that needs to be ironed out. Or, since people seem to be heading towards SWSEr2 then take the 5 from SWSE, drop Jedi, add 2 more and rename the rest to something and just keep the function the same. Not exactly an evolution, but since it ain't broke... yadda yadda.

[Inquisitor Tremayne]

Well, if the majority is happy with the 6 classes as they are in d20M and each class has a focus on one of the 6 ability scores (but not exclusively because of multi-classing) then this is the last thing that needs to be ironed out. Or, since people seem to be heading towards SWSEr2 then take the 5 from SWSE, drop Jedi, add 2 more and rename the rest to something and just keep the function the same. Not exactly an evolution, but since it ain't broke... yadda yadda.

Did I miss something? I know we voted that e20 WILL have classes but we have yet to determine what shape or form they will take. Unless a final decision has been made that I was unaware of.

[fodigg]

Even the six class thing was still on the table for debate as far as I knew. Or the "all classes = stats" design.

I wouldn't mind the six classes being:

• Physical (STR, DEX, CON)
• Mental (INT, WIS)
• Social (CHA)
• Physical-mental
• Physical-social
• Mental-social

[jazzencat]

Even the six class thing was still on the table for debate as far as I knew. Or the "all classes = stats" design.

I wouldn't mind the six classes being:

• Physical (STR, DEX, CON)
• Mental (INT, WIS)
• Social (CHA)
• Physical-mental
• Physical-social
• Mental-social

Yeah, a division like that is a good balance between giving people the class system they want to see for familiarity and creating a versatile division that will be quite genre-neutral, as the design goals state.

[fodigg]

Yeah, that was my thinking. Familiar, but open enough that you'd never need to start adding more classes for more concepts. I also like that this system kind of covers "cross-class" archetypes out of the box.

If I had to name them, using the common ones, it'd probably be:

• Champion — Physical (STR, DEX, CON)
• Expert — Mental (INT, WIS)
• Arbiter — Social (CHA)
• Sentinel — Physical-mental
• Challenger — Physical-social
• Adept — Mental-social

I actually like the names "Champion" and "Challenger" better in this context. Champion makes more sense to me as the name of the dedicated physical-stat class, and Challenger works with a sort of social component. The Challenger strikes me as the sort who might actually be invited to a social setting but then challenge someone to a duel.

[Elsidar]

Even the six class thing was still on the table for debate as far as I knew. Or the "all classes = stats" design.

I wouldn't mind the six classes being:

• Physical (STR, DEX, CON)
• Mental (INT, WIS)
• Social (CHA)
• Physical-mental
• Physical-social
• Mental-social

With a class division like that, what's the point of multi-classing, then? This is essentially trimming down the class list to three, then offering 50-50 hybrid options of each. Free multiclassing with these divisions would get redundant pretty quickly. This looks a lot more restrictive than what we're currently looking at.

[jazzencat]

Why? Pick the Menta-Social class and multi-class to Physical or vice versa. Social initially, multi-class to physical, then mental or physical-mental. Physical/Physical with two different focuses could be said to be redundant as well (Vanguard/Dreadnought) I can pick Vanguard, put 2 highest into Str and Con, then use a multi-class feat to cross-train talents from Dreadnought and Vanguard. I don't see the current vs this idea as being much more restricting compared to what I could do with classless. Since e20 must have classes there will be some redundancy in multi-classing and some restrictive forms.

With this one you can get access to all types of talents: Physical+Mental-Social, Mental+Physical-Social, Social+Physical-Mental. That's actually not too bad. It would seem to cover all the different combinations that one wants, without having a large number of combination choices. This makes it easier to balance and less likely that a newbie will end up with a non-viable combination because they don't know the system. By incorporating classes into the system we already are creating some niche protection anyway. Providing both a multi-class feat option (cross-training) and a full multi-classing option gives the room to do most character concepts especially if Professions and Backgrounds are added. Skills are divorced from abilities anyway, so are Talents going to be specifically tied to primary attributes because this is what it looks like in e20 Lite. The talents are tied to the primary ability of each of the 6 classes. Which can end up heading back into the territory of 5 dump-stats.

By going with the 3 specialized and 3 hybrid-type classes you can combine the hybrid and specialty to get access to all aspects, or pick one of the hybrids for a dual-class type. If the specialized have more than one talent tree available then that deals with the restrictive idea. Physical has talent 2 or 3 talent trees, for example, same with social and mental, which is what we already have in our current system, but what we don't have is hybrid talent trees, and you end up with few talents from each class under the current system because of how talent advancement is done. So free multi-classing under the current rules, really isn't much different from what is proposed above.

[fodigg]

Even the six class thing was still on the table for debate as far as I knew. Or the "all classes = stats" design.

I wouldn't mind the six classes being:

• Physical (STR, DEX, CON)
• Mental (INT, WIS)
• Social (CHA)
• Physical-mental
• Physical-social
• Mental-social

With a class division like that, what's the point of multi-classing, then? This is essentially trimming down the class list to three, then offering 50-50 hybrid options of each. Free multiclassing with these divisions would get redundant pretty quickly. This looks a lot more restrictive than what we're currently looking at.

I don't see how it's restrictive. Multiclassing would still be free. You'd still be multiclassing for Talents, which is the only reason you'd ever multiclass in the proposed e20 system even with the e20-lite STAT-based classes.

The only difference is now you can have a talent tree that is, in itself, half-and-half between playstyles, so you wouldn't have to multiclass if you didn't want to (but of course you still could for unique talent combinations).

[lucasjung]

I realize that I'm showing up to this party very late, but something Gary said recently in another thread gave me an epiphany. Here's my two cents on how to break down the classes. Please keep in mind that I'm more concerned about the roles than I am about the names. I chose these names because I felt that they best fit the roles I came up with, but I also like a lot of the other names that have been bouncing around on this thread. My overarching goal was to make sure that every party member will be useful in any sort of encounter or situation, so that you don't have "social" characters taking a back seat in combat encounters, or "combat characters" taking a back seat in social encounters, or that one guy who has nothing useful to do until a puzzle or trap needs to be solved, at which point everyone else in the party is twiddling their thumbs.

The Strong Hero => The Contender (I also like Vanguard, which seems very popular, but Vanguard essentially means "front man," and honestly different members of the party should take that role in different situations)

• Role in Combat Encounters: Do as much damage to the enemy as possible.
• Role in Social Encounters: Emphasize the advantages of fulfilling the party's goals/needs/desires.
• Role in other situations: Alter the environment to meet the needs of the party. This could mean anything from digging a trench to building a structure to rearranging the furniture.

The Fast Hero => The Harrier (I think this is the perfect name: it can be defined as "one who intimidates, antagonizes, and annoys," but also simply as "one who runs.")

• Role in Combat Encounters: Disrupt the the enemy's actions and frustrate their attempts at teamwork (heckling, flanking, sniping, etc). Also, bend conditions to the party's advantage (flanking, setting traps, throwing grenades/caltrops, creating smoke, creating or blocking light, etc).
• Role in Social Encounters: Emphasize the disadvanteges of going againts the party's goals/needs/desires.
• Role in other situations: Facilitate the party's free movement from place to place. This could mean anything from piloting an aircraft from one continent to another, to rigging a rope bridge across a chasm, to opening a locked door.

The Tough Hero => The Bulwark (I have to admit that, even though I like "Contender" better than "Vanguard," I think that "Vanguard" and "Bulwark" sound really good together.)

• Role in Combat Encounters: Keep the entire party in good condition. Different characters could take different approaches to this: some might focus on protecting the party from damage by stopping attacks from hitting, others might simply act as high-HP "meat shields," while others might focus on healing damage after it occurs (yes, that's right, I just moved the "healer" role--I truly believe it fits better here).
• Role in Social Encounters: Downplay any doubts or negative arguments about the party's goals/needs/desires.
• Role in other situations: Sustain the party. In the wild, this could mean finding food and safe drinking water and rationing them. On a space ship, it could mean tracking fuel and oxygen consumption to make sure they don't run out. In a city, it might mean keeping a budget for the party so they don't go broke. In any situation, it might mean finding a safe place where the party can rest and recouperate after an encounter.

The Dedicated Hero => The Sentinel (This one represents a rather large shift in focus from the "willpower" aspect of WIS to the "knowledge and understanding" aspect of WIS; I think another good name might be "The Sage")
This character is supposed to enhance the party's Situational Awareness (SA). SA can be defined as "the degree to which one's perception of one's environment matches the reality of one's environment." At this simplest level, this starts with good perception: noticing the assassin sneaking up behind the party, or noticing the trap trigger on the floor, or noticing the hidden writing on the inside of the envelope. The next level up is rejecting false perceptions: realizing that you're looking at a small nearby tower rather than a very large and distant tower, or noticing that one guy at the bar who has been "sipping" the same drink for two hours, or recognizing an illusion spell for what it is. At the highest level, good SA involves putting together all of the little clues to build the big picture, ala Sherlock Holmes. Any reasonably perceptive person can be good at the first two levels, but this character class specializes in finding the connections between seemingly unrelated pieces of information, of finding the patterns in the chaos and understanding their meaning.

• Role in Combat Encounters: Know the position and condition of all party members and enemies, and share that information with other party members to the greatest degree possible. Similarly, know the terrain and environment where the combat is taking place, understand the significance of every aspect of the terrain and environment, and share that understanding with other party members to the greatest degree possible.
• Role in Social Encounters: Discern the true intentions, motivations, concerns, and fears of the people with whom the party is interacting. Understand which things they value most and which things they value least.
• Role in other situations: Understand the full circumstances of the party's situation, both immediate and secondary. Comprehensive knowledge of the party's immediate physical environment is important, but so is understanding the significance of things like current events, politics, economics, and culture.

The Smart Hero => The Strategist (The "Tactician" would also be a good name, but I think strategy is a better description of what this character does, with tactics falling more to individual characters)

• Role in Combat Encounters: Match the party's strengths against the enemy's weaknesses. Determine which enemies to focus attacks on, and what types of attacks to use against them. Similarly, determine which enemies are most dangerous to the party as a whole and to each party member individually, and how best to defend against them. Help other party members to choose the right time to act.
• Role in Social Encounters: Keep the conversation focused on the subjects most likely to benefit the party. Find and exploit flaws in the logic of those opposed to the party.
• Role in other situations: Consider all possible courses of action for the party and the most likely outcomes for each; conduct risk/benefit analysis.

Note: Where the Sentinel figures out how things are, the Strategist figures out what to do about it. These two classes complement each other strongly.


The Charismatic Hero => The Leader
There has been a lot of discussion and controversy on this thread about the term "Leader." Those who object to the name seem mostly to disapprove of the idea of one person being "in charge" of the party. However, that is not what true leadership is really about. True leadership is about getting a group of people to combine their diverse talents as effectively as possible to achieve a common goal. Sometimes, that requires telling people what to do, but the more important part lies in understanding what needs to be done by each person. A leader's job is to make true the phrase, "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." We can come up with other, more awkward words for this like "coordinator," "adjudicator," "advocate," or "envoy," or even "synergy consultant," but all of those words represent parts of leadership, while only "Leader" covers the concept in its entirety. In reality, the Strategist in a party will do more bossing than the Leader. The Strategist figures out what to do, the Leader figures out how best to work together.

• Role in Combat Encounters: Coordinate the efforts of the other party members so that their actions complement each other.
• Role in Social Encounters: Coordinate the efforts of the other party members so that their actions complement each other. Also, act as spokesperson for the party, and attempt to sway emotions in situations where reason alone is insufficient to convince others.
• Role in other situations: Coordinate the efforts of the other party members so that their actions complement each other.

[JaredGaume]

Welcome to the party

[lucasjung]

The Dedicated Hero => The Sentinel
This character is supposed to enhance the party's Situational Awareness (SA)...At the highest level, good SA involves putting together all of the little clues to build the big picture, ala Sherlock Holmes. Any reasonably perceptive person can be good at the first two levels, but this character class specializes in finding the connections between seemingly unrelated pieces of information, of finding the patterns in the chaos and understanding their meaning.

I always have a hard time explaining this highest level of SA, because good examples are hard to come by. Just now, inspiration struck and I realized that a bad example might be even better. A couple of friends were discussing mob movies, and I remembered a great example of poor SA involving Joe Pesci. I can't remember for sure which movie it's from, but I think it was Goodfellas. In the scene I'm thinking of, Joe Pesci's character has been told that he's going to be "made" (inducted as a Mafia boss, essentially). The other "made men" (i.e. the extant Mafia bosses) get into a car with him to take him to a "ceremony" where he will be "made" at a family vacation home out in the country. The whole time, he's chatting and joking amicably: he's excited--his life's ambitions are about to be fulfilled. He even comments on the fact that his companions seem uncharacteristically reserved and distant, but doesn't bother to reflect on why that might be. They park the car, get out, and round the corner to enter through side door. He opens the door and sees that the house is empty; immediately his whole demeanor does a 180 and he says something to the effect of "oh, hell," a moment before he is shot in the back of the head.

He was never going to be "made." It was all a story to get him to come quietly so they could kill him, which they had to do because he was a hot-head who had killed another family's "made man" without permission, almost triggering a mob war. Initially his SA was very low: he never picked up on the cues that something was wrong. At the very end--after it was far too late--he finally exhibited very high SA: he saw that the room was empty (first level of SA) and immediately understood the full implications of that fact within his immediate context (the highest level of SA): the room was empty because there was no reception...there was no reception because he was not really going to be made...if he was not going to be made, the only reason for the whole charade was to get him out into the middle of nowhere to kill him discreetly..."oh, hell." From a very basic and seeminly unrelated perception (the room is empty) he is able to deduce the fact that he is about to die.

[teh603]

So am I the only one here who looks at this and wonders "what exactly am I supposed to do with a 'speedy hero' type?" There's no easily-defined role for any of the classes. How is this going to benefit new gamers who might try to pick up this game? Or people from other games who are used to having some obvious role for each class?

Let's say I want to make a pilot. In Alternity, I go with Tech Op, Free Agent, or Combat Spec depending on how much space combat is likely. In Star Wars Saga Edition, I'd probably go Scoundrel or Soldier, or maybe a Jedi with Force Pilot if the GM allowed Force users. But in e20, I can't get past the tropes. "Speedy hero"? "Determined hero"? lolwhut?

[lucasjung]

So am I the only one here who looks at this and wonders "what exactly am I supposed to do with a 'speedy hero' type?" There's no easily-defined role for any of the classes. How is this going to benefit new gamers who might try to pick up this game? Or people from other games who are used to having some obvious role for each class?

Let's say I want to make a pilot. In Alternity, I go with Tech Op, Free Agent, or Combat Spec depending on how much space combat is likely. In Star Wars Saga Edition, I'd probably go Scoundrel or Soldier, or maybe a Jedi with Force Pilot if the GM allowed Force users. But in e20, I can't get past the tropes. "Speedy hero"? "Determined hero"? lolwhut?

This is a pretty long thread, so I can understand why you wouldn't have wanted to read all of the way through it, but if you had gone just a little bit further you would have found that e20 isn't using ability-aligned classes (strong hero, fast hero, tough hero, smart hero, dedicated hero, and charismatic hero). Before I explain what we did end up using, I want to point out that those classes, which you found so laughable, are exactly the classes that were used by d20 Modern, which was quite successful and still has a dedicated following even today. To answer your specific question about which class would make a good pilot under that system, you would definitely want levels in fast hero, and possibly some in smart hero as well.

The class examples you gave from Alternity and SWSE are very setting-specific: they wouldn't work in a fantasy setting, or even a pre-industrial historical setting. Heck, they would even need some tweaking to work well in a modern setting. Because professions change so much with time and place, profession-based classes like those are setting-limited by their very nature, so a game that is designed to support a wide range of settings can't use them. That was certainly one of the reasons why d20 Modern didn't use them, and it's one of the reasons why e20 isn't using them.

With e20, we decided to define the classes along different lines: the classes are defined by their approach to addressing problems, challenges, and obstacles. Not only is this setting-independent, it also helps put the focus on the "role" aspect of roleplaying. The classes in e20 are:

• Vanguard: To a Vanguard, problems are little more than enemy to be overpowered or an obstacle to be obliterated.
• Dreadnought: Secure in the knowledge that they will be the last to fall, Dreadnoughts outlast their enemies and persevere through their problems.
• Corsair: Deft of hand and slippery of mind, Corsairs understand the value of bypassing a problem in lieu of meeting it head on.
• Savant: Relying less on physical prowess, Savants prefer to think around their problems and outsmart their foes.
• Sentinel: By recognizing the signs of impending danger, Sentinels endeavor to mitigate a problem before it becomes unmanageable.
• Envoy: Using their force of character and influential personality, Envoys attempt to preempt their problems and negotiate with their enemies.

These classes are still loosely ability-aligned, but not to the same degree as the classes from d20 Modern--more of a mild inclination rather than a definite characteristic.

e20 will not have prestige classes. Instead, it will have advanced talent trees, which only certain classes have access to (the ones in the core rulebook will each be available to two classes). One of the advanced talent trees currently under discussion is for pilots of vehicles and riders of mounts. Right now we're leaning towards making it available to the Sentinel and the Envoy, so if you wanted to be a pilot in e20 you might look at the list of advanced talent trees, see the one for pilots, and choose a class that gives you access to that tree. Really, though, you could use any of the classes as a basis for a pilot character--it really depends on what kind of person your pilot is.

[teh603]

This is a pretty long thread, so I can understand why you wouldn't have wanted to read all of the way through it, but if you had gone just a little bit further you would have found that e20 isn't using ability-aligned classes (strong hero, fast hero, tough hero, smart hero, dedicated hero, and charismatic hero). Before I explain what we did end up using, I want to point out that those classes, which you found so laughable, are exactly the classes that were used by d20 Modern, which was quite successful and still has a dedicated following even today. To answer your specific question about which class would make a good pilot under that system, you would definitely want levels in fast hero, and possibly some in smart hero as well.

The class examples you gave from Alternity and SWSE are very setting-specific: they wouldn't work in a fantasy setting, or even a pre-industrial historical setting. Heck, they would even need some tweaking to work well in a modern setting. Because professions change so much with time and place, profession-based classes like those are setting-limited by their very nature, so a game that is designed to support a wide range of settings can't use them. That was certainly one of the reasons why d20 Modern didn't use them, and it's one of the reasons why e20 isn't using them.

Not really. Tech Ops translate out to craftsmen in 2e D&D, and Free Agents are basically rogues. As for those classes being "setting-specific," Alternity had no actual core setting, the same as 2e D&D. And yes, Alternity had rules for societies going down to the stone age.

Then again, when d20 Modern came out, I was still really burned up about Alternity having been let die so the OGL could support stupid genre pastiche, so... yeah. I intentionally ignored everything WotC produced until Star Wars Saga Edition came out.

With e20, we decided to define the classes along different lines: the classes are defined by their approach to addressing problems, challenges, and obstacles. Not only is this setting-independent, it also helps put the focus on the "role" aspect of roleplaying. The classes in e20 are:

• Vanguard: To a Vanguard, problems are little more than enemy to be overpowered or an obstacle to be obliterated.
• Dreadnought: Secure in the knowledge that they will be the last to fall, Dreadnoughts outlast their enemies and persevere through their problems.
• Corsair: Deft of hand and slippery of mind, Corsairs understand the value of bypassing a problem in lieu of meeting it head on.
• Savant: Relying less on physical prowess, Savants prefer to think around their problems and outsmart their foes.
• Sentinel: By recognizing the signs of impending danger, Sentinels endeavor to mitigate a problem before it becomes unmanageable.
• Envoy: Using their force of character and influential personality, Envoys attempt to preempt their problems and negotiate with their enemies.

These classes are still loosely ability-aligned, but not to the same degree as the classes from d20 Modern--more of a mild inclination rather than a definite characteristic.

e20 will not have prestige classes. Instead, it will have advanced talent trees, which only certain classes have access to (the ones in the core rulebook will each be available to two classes). One of the advanced talent trees currently under discussion is for pilots of vehicles and riders of mounts. Right now we're leaning towards making it available to the Sentinel and the Envoy, so if you wanted to be a pilot in e20 you might look at the list of advanced talent trees, see the one for pilots, and choose a class that gives you access to that tree. Really, though, you could use any of the classes as a basis for a pilot character--it really depends on what kind of person your pilot is.

Hm... that actually makes sense, which is too much to ask for most of the other d20 derivatives I've seen. People try to invoke the Rule of Awesome too many times, and it ends up being downright stupid.