e20 Core Classes

[Animus]

Awesome stuff.

With your breakdown of what the class themes should be like I can see the use in having 6 classes. If the final product ends up being close to this I will be a happy camper.

[GMSarli]

Awesome stuff.

With your breakdown of what the class themes should be like I can see the use in having 6 classes. If the final product ends up being close to this I will be a happy camper.

What he said.

Seriously, Jared's breakdown of class descriptions is almost 100% on the nose of what I'm aiming at. He even managed to guess some of the talents I've already written up!

This exercise -- and Jared's breakdown, in particular -- illustrates perfectly why something as seemingly minor as changing a class's name (e.g. from Strong Hero to Vanguard) can have such a substantial effect on the tone, flavor, and perception of each class and its role. It looks like we've managed to pick out some archetypes that have a distinct identity and function while still fitting in almost any imaginable genre.

[JaredGaume]

So, Jared, your proposing to divorce skills from classes as well, like say class skills and non class skills...another seperation from previous versions of the system? If so, then that's totally cool.

Yes. Thanks

I am proposing that your occupation is your base source of skill training and acquisition. You may use a skill training feat to acquire any additional skills without restriction.

So classes won't give the Bab, because of the combat skills, and they won't really provide skills either? Leaving that to Occupations. Is that what you mean?

Yes, exactly.

Occupations are about where you came from, how you make your living in the world, your base skill set.

Classes are about how you advance your character. A source of unique and amazing feats and talents.

Awesome stuff.

With your breakdown of what the class themes should be like I can see the use in having 6 classes. If the final product ends up being close to this I will be a happy camper.

What he said.

Seriously, Jared's breakdown of class descriptions is almost 100% on the nose of what I'm aiming at. He even managed to guess some of the talents I've already written up!

This exercise -- and Jared's breakdown, in particular -- illustrates perfectly why something as seemingly minor as changing a class's name (e.g. from Strong Hero to Vanguard) can have such a substantial effect on the tone, flavor, and perception of each class and its role. It looks like we've managed to pick out some archetypes that have a distinct identity and function while still fitting in almost any imaginable genre.

Awe shucks, thanks guys

[Animus]

Divorce skills and BAB from class and attach it to occupations? Win!

As a minor point kind of related to this, I think "Background" rather than "Occupation" would be a better word, like in True20. An occupation can be a background, but a background doesn't have to be an occupation. Get my drift?

[jazzencat]

Awesome stuff.

With your breakdown of what the class themes should be like I can see the use in having 6 classes. If the final product ends up being close to this I will be a happy camper.

What he said.

Seriously, Jared's breakdown of class descriptions is almost 100% on the nose of what I'm aiming at. He even managed to guess some of the talents I've already written up!

This exercise -- and Jared's breakdown, in particular -- illustrates perfectly why something as seemingly minor as changing a class's name (e.g. from Strong Hero to Vanguard) can have such a substantial effect on the tone, flavor, and perception of each class and its role. It looks like we've managed to pick out some archetypes that have a distinct identity and function while still fitting in almost any imaginable genre.

Hehe. I'm borrowing these names for template ideas I'm working on with ORE and nWoD systems. No infringement is intended, Gary

^,^

[Elsidar]

Occupations or Backgrounds should not be required by default. There might have to be completely separate lists of occupations/backgrounds for each setting; being a hyperdrive mechanic before you started adventuring doesn't make much sense in Medieval Europe.

If we include required occupations or backgrounds by default, in order for them to be genre-less, they'd end up so broad and flavorless that any mechanical effects they produce would feel forced.

Also, Animus, Base Attack Bonus has been tossed. Attack bonus will progress exactly like skills because they are skills now.

[bone_naga]

I think the best way to handle backgrounds is once the player chooses his background, he gains 1 or 2 skills based that fit his background, subject to GM approval. The rest is fluff.

[GMSarli]

OK, here's an idea that would mesh class skills with backgrounds:

• At 1st level, you get to pick X trained skills (or, more likely, X trained weapon skills and Y trained nonweapon skills) from a class skill list. This is just a free feature of being a 1st-level hero in a given class.
• Your background (which is genre-specific in almost every case) will also have one or two skills have trained for free. If you already have these skills trained from your free class-skill training, you instead get Skill Focus in that skill.
• "Class skills" have no other function whatsoever -- they're only there for the purpose of picking your free trained skills at 1st level. You can become trained in any skill -- class skill or not -- by taking the Skill Training feat.

How does that sound? Classes and backgrounds have complementary functions without any redundancy (i.e. you can improve a trained skill to a focused skill). On the other hand, the fact that they will stack from trained to focused might make certain combinations qualitatively better. It's still the same number of feats, of course -- it's just a difference between diversifying by taking a background with little overlap or specializing by doing the opposite, and you can still spend your normal 1st-level feats on Skill Focus if you want.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

I love it Gary.

Could we even link it back to Race? Like, you pick a race, and you can pick from three skills one or two to train in, to represent early upbringing.

Then your occupation provides one or two

Then your class provides the rest. And if you end up picking the same one, like one from Race and one from Class, you get like a +2 bonus to that skill, or something like that.

Could that be feasible?

[GMSarli]

Could we even link it back to Race? Like, you pick a race, and you can pick from three skills one or two to train in, to represent early upbringing.

Then your occupation provides one or two

Then your class provides the rest. And if you end up picking the same one, like one from Race and one from Class, you get like a +2 bonus to that skill, or something like that.

Could that be feasible?

Hmmm ... not sure. I'd originally wanted racial traits to be something other than straightforward skill training. Instead, I'd prefer that if a race is meant to be particularly skilled with a given skill, give them some racial trait (racial talent? racial enhancement?) that gives them some neat trick they can do with that skill. (We did stuff like this in Saga, for example.) I'm not set on that, though, so there's definite room for discussion about the best way to handle that.

[Animus]

Also, Animus, Base Attack Bonus has been tossed. Attack bonus will progress exactly like skills because they are skills now.

Er...Um...Yeah, I knew that . Slipped my mind when I wrote that.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

Could we even link it back to Race? Like, you pick a race, and you can pick from three skills one or two to train in, to represent early upbringing.

Then your occupation provides one or two

Then your class provides the rest. And if you end up picking the same one, like one from Race and one from Class, you get like a +2 bonus to that skill, or something like that.

Could that be feasible?

Hmmm ... not sure. I'd originally wanted racial traits to be something other than straightforward skill training. Instead, I'd prefer that if a race is meant to be particularly skilled with a given skill, give them some racial trait (racial talent? racial enhancement?) that gives them some neat trick they can do with that skill. (We did stuff like this in Saga, for example.) I'm not set on that, though, so there's definite room for discussion about the best way to handle that.

We can do that to, makes more sense. Maybe it depends on the race.

[JaredGaume]

Reposting a comment I made to the house rules thread, it seems appropriate to the current discussion here:

I'm not advocating using starting occupations in the same way as 3.x. For example, someone with a military or law enforcement background is going to have weapon and combat training as a feature of their occupation. A white collar employee might have those things, but its something he or she is going to have to get on their own time and expense. From a game standpoint a combat oriented occupation would get some combat skills/talents up front, where any other character would have to burn their development budget to get those same things. This creates a synergy between occupation and class in certain directions that isn't just a "select skill and make it a class skill with a +1 bonus." With classes being open enough, choice of occupation can be used to further validate certain character choices, or provide unique benefits in terms of occupation skills or talents. Think of an occupation as the back 1/4 to 1/2 of your class at first level.

From a genre feel, I like my Modern character to have a "day job" since adventures realistically are probably the exception rather than the norm. Otherwise every character is going to have to be an adventurer, mercenary, police officer, military man, bounty hunter, or criminal to justify their otherwise antisocial activities. I.e. I make my living as an action hero by beating up "bad guys" and taking their stuff. Although with those occupation choices, that is a valid option, just not the only one.

From earlier in this same thread I mused about character creation choices:

Race: Human by default, could be other things. (Humans may be light or non-existant on race based feats, talents, and enhancements, much more strongly tied to class or broader developments).
* Ability Scores. Your race gives you ability score bonuses. Human might give you +2 to any two, other races may have more defined bonus slots.
* Race Feats. You may choose these if you want to, but you don't have to. Many traditional race features would end up in this bucket.
* Race Talents. Special race abilities you may choose. You don't have to take these, but they are available to you.
* Race Enhancements. Unique exploits, stances, or powers inherent to your race. (only members of your race may take/recieve these enhancements).

Profession: Not a lot talked about this, but there are some rumblings. Basically your day job, background, and source of formal training. (aka Starting Occupation in d20M)
* Skills. Your selection of trained skills is defined by your profession. You get to pick a number of these skills to be trained in for free.
* Wealth. Your profession gives you a broad idea about your standard of living and available finances. (Whether we use "Wealth bonus", "real money", or some other system is up for debate)
* Professional Enhancements. Enhancements that may be granted by your profession. (probably only used if you can take one or two enhancements up front, these would be generally available enhancements otherwise, unlike race enhancements)

Class: An archetype you are choosing, defines how your character will process and use experience, i.e. gain levels.
* Hit Points. May grant your up-front hit points, deffinately defines hit point progression.
* Defenses. Gives you an up-front bonus to one or more defenses.
* Class Feats. You may choose these if you want to, but you don't have to. Many traditional class features would end up in this bucket.
* Class Talents. Special class abilities you may choose. You don't have to take these, but they are available to you.
* Level Progression. You level up in your class(es), as you gain levels you gain access to more feat and talent slots, among other benefits.

For what it's worth: In a way I keep thinking of occupation (profession, background, etc...) in a similar vein as race. It is very appropriate to describe an occupation as genre specific, since the types of occupations available are a product of culture, technology, and development. Whereas class may be viewed as archetypical and genre transcendant.

[babs]

OK, here's an idea that would mesh class skills with backgrounds:

• At 1st level, you get to pick X trained skills (or, more likely, X trained weapon skills and Y trained nonweapon skills) from a class skill list. This is just a free feature of being a 1st-level hero in a given class.
• Your background (which is genre-specific in almost every case) will also have one or two skills have trained for free. If you already have these skills trained from your free class-skill training, you instead get Skill Focus in that skill.
• "Class skills" have no other function whatsoever -- they're only there for the purpose of picking your free trained skills at 1st level. You can become trained in any skill -- class skill or not -- by taking the Skill Training feat.

How does that sound? Classes and backgrounds have complementary functions without any redundancy (i.e. you can improve a trained skill to a focused skill). On the other hand, the fact that they will stack from trained to focused might make certain combinations qualitatively better. It's still the same number of feats, of course -- it's just a difference between diversifying by taking a background with little overlap or specializing by doing the opposite, and you can still spend your normal 1st-level feats on Skill Focus if you want.

The advantage some backgrounds have over others should be watched out for. However, there are quite a number of simple solutions for this:
1. Allow in addition to picking X trained skills to pick a single Skill Focus feat. Now, regardless of background, you can be the best in any skill at 1st lvl.
2. Somewhere inbetween 2 to 5'th level, hand out a Feat which must be spend on Skill Training or Skill Focus. This allows characters who aren't focused due to their background to catch-up while at the same time it doesn't allow characters who already have skill focus to get ahead by selecting other cool feats.

I actually prefer the second solution.

Babs out!

[babs]

Awesome stuff.

I like your list, but I would have placed aptitude for Martial Arts in the Sentinel (wisdom) class.

Also, there are no further comments on the class names as is, so I guess this will become the definite list:
Vanguard
Corsair
Dreadnought
Savant
Sentinel
Envoy

Babs out!

[j0lt]

I still prefer the generic names from d20 Modern.

[astralcataclysm]

Elsidar said:
Occupations or Backgrounds should not be required by default. There might have to be completely separate lists of occupations/backgrounds for each setting; being a hyperdrive mechanic before you started adventuring doesn't make much sense in Medieval Europe.

If we include required occupations or backgrounds by default, in order for them to be genre-less, they'd end up so broad and flavorless that any mechanical effects they produce would feel forced.

Also, Animus, Base Attack Bonus has been tossed. Attack bonus will progress exactly like skills because they are skills now.

Looking through the list of d20 Modern Occupations, a lot of them aren't genre specific. Academic, Adventurer, Athlete, Law Enforcement... I think most likely you should have a core set of genre-indifferent backgrounds like these, and then that you would want a set of genre specific backgrounds, to give a stronger feel of being a part of that genre for the character that choose them, in campaigns where they're appropriate. You just want to, in the descriptions of these classes, give examples of where this occupation type can be found between multiple categories.

I think backgrounds should do a decent job of representing whatever a character's basic education was, and be sufficient to provide a character with basic competence in most of that education. I think that what skills you can know and be really good at makes more sense to come from your class than your background, whereas more of a proportion of what skills you do know at 1st level makes sense to come from your character background rather than your class.

For example, say that I'm a 1st level Vanguard, that came out of a modern rural background. I might know how to shoot a shotgun or rifle, might be a hulking football player, but chances are I've never run into a set of real body armor past sports pads in my life, much less be experienced in it, its really unlikely that I've had the chance to study rocket science, and while I might have some idea what's under the hood of tractor, I wouldn't know a thing about jet engines.

=GMSarli said: OK, here's an idea that would mesh class skills with backgrounds:

* At 1st level, you get to pick X trained skills (or, more likely, X trained weapon skills and Y trained nonweapon skills) from a class skill list. This is just a free feature of being a 1st-level hero in a given class.
* Your background (which is genre-specific in almost every case) will also have one or two skills have trained for free. If you already have these skills trained from your free class-skill training, you instead get Skill Focus in that skill.
* "Class skills" have no other function whatsoever -- they're only there for the purpose of picking your free trained skills at 1st level. You can become trained in any skill -- class skill or not -- by taking the Skill Training feat.


How does that sound? Classes and backgrounds have complementary functions without any redundancy (i.e. you can improve a trained skill to a focused skill). On the other hand, the fact that they will stack from trained to focused might make certain combinations qualitatively better. It's still the same number of feats, of course -- it's just a difference between diversifying by taking a background with little overlap or specializing by doing the opposite, and you can still spend your normal 1st-level feats on Skill Focus if you want.

I think this is on the right track. I think, though, that it would be good to do something like, gain a +1 bonus to all the skills you didn't train from your background, or something; something that frustrated me about the structure of d20 Modern's Occupation system was that it was rare for an Occupation to reflect what a basic high school education would include, where most Occupations were things inferring a college education. Perhaps not so broad; perhaps you gain Training in 2 background skills, and +2 in two others (building the Skilled Feat into your background but requiring you don't spend it on your very best skills.) The idea being, your background generally gives you some experience and exposure to a whole bunch of things, not just your ultimate specialty.

* At 1st level, you get to pick X trained skills (or, more likely, X trained weapon skills and Y trained nonweapon skills) from a class skill list. This is just a free feature of being a 1st-level hero in a given class.

Do you have any idea how you'd organize this for different classes? For example, would one class have more weapon vs nonweapon options than another? Would any one have more total skills than another? Would we be sorting weapon proficiencies into themed sets, divided amongst the classes? (heavy melee weapons going to the Vanguard, light melee weapons going to the Harrier? I can't see a lot of options weapon-wise that are natural preferable choices for Int/Wis/Cha classes in fantasy, in which case does magic of appropriate sorts become their "weapon" skills? This doesn't work so well if you run a low-magic or no-magic swords and horses game.)

[j0lt]

* At 1st level, you get to pick X trained skills (or, more likely, X trained weapon skills and Y trained nonweapon skills) from a class skill list. This is just a free feature of being a 1st-level hero in a given class.

Do you have any idea how you'd organize this for different classes? For example, would one class have more weapon vs nonweapon options than another? Would any one have more total skills than another? Would we be sorting weapon proficiencies into themed sets, divided amongst the classes? (heavy melee weapons going to the Vanguard, light melee weapons going to the Harrier? I can't see a lot of options weapon-wise that are natural preferable choices for Int/Wis/Cha classes in fantasy, in which case does magic of appropriate sorts become their "weapon" skills? This doesn't work so well if you run a low-magic or no-magic swords and horses game.)

It was decided earlier that we were going to do away with class skills, and instead have all skills be available for all characters. I can see having some classes gain more skills than others, but it shouldn't be a large difference, certainly not like D&D's Rogue vs Fighter.

[GMSarli]

It was decided earlier that we were going to do away with class skills, and instead have all skills be available for all characters. I can see having some classes gain more skills than others, but it shouldn't be a large difference, certainly not like D&D's Rogue vs Fighter.

Not exactly -- I'd wanted skills to be usable by anyone, and Skill Training can make you trained in any skill, but I still like the idea of class skills being used for your free skill selections at 1st level. Unlike 3.0/3.5, class skills aren't a limitation (i.e. "you can learn only these skills" or "skills outside this group cost twice as much"); in e20, they're a list of no-cost choices (i.e. "you get X trained skills for free, chosen from the following list") you get at 1st level to reflect the particular strengths of a given class.

[GMSarli]

Do you have any idea how you'd organize this for different classes? For example, would one class have more weapon vs nonweapon options than another? Would any one have more total skills than another? Would we be sorting weapon proficiencies into themed sets, divided amongst the classes? (heavy melee weapons going to the Vanguard, light melee weapons going to the Harrier? I can't see a lot of options weapon-wise that are natural preferable choices for Int/Wis/Cha classes in fantasy, in which case does magic of appropriate sorts become their "weapon" skills? This doesn't work so well if you run a low-magic or no-magic swords and horses game.)

I'm not 100% set on how to organize this yet, honestly. I'm still working out the different possibilities for the e20 Lite Beta document, and when that's finished I'll have a first take that's ready for patron input.

[ronin]

I still prefer the generic names from d20 Modern.

I agree. The proposed names sound like they are changing just so we can say they are different.

[JaredGaume]

Looking at two skill models. Only interested in how you get skills. Skill lists are only conjectural for analysis sake, not meant to be deffinative.

Gary's rough draft skill list:

Nonweapon Skills:

Acrobatics
Analytics (everything from research to crime scene investigation)
Athletics (possibly including Ride?)
Bureaucracy
Computers
Deception
Endurance (this is going to have some cool trained-only applications, like getting being able to draw from your reserve hit points more than once during a single encounter)
Focus (fills the Concentration and Use the Force niche, but will also be useful to more mundane characters)
Initiative
Intuition
Knowledge (no sub-skills -- instead, you automatically gain knowledge about different areas from your profession and background, and you can learn additional areas either through direct experience during play or by training behind the scenes -- also fills the general "trivia" niche)
Linguistics
Mechanics
Medicine
Perception
Persuasion (Diplomacy and Intimidation -- however, as I'm planning to de-couple skills from attributes, you can add your Strength bonus when intimidating someone, and it might go so far as adding your Intelligence bonus if you're trying to argue about something technical)
Pilot
Stealth
Streetwise (probably also includes stuff like Thievery in 4E)
Survival (possibly including Ride?)
Tactics

Weapon Skills:

Archery
Chained Weapons (flails, chains, kusari-gama, etc.)
Gunnery (just about any weapon emplacement or vehicle-mounted weapon)
Hafted Weapons (axes, maces, hammers, etc.)
Heavy Blades
Light Blades
Longarms
Pole Weapons
Sidearms
Simple Weapons
Thrown Weapons
Unarmed

Traditional Skill Model
Using Gary's proposed skill list (above), this is how skills might be balanced. You are given a skill list based on class, that class then gives you free skill training in a number of these skills. I think Gary is indicating that he wants to follow this paradigm.

Vanguard
Athletics, Endurance, Initiative, Survival, Tactics,
Chained Weapons, Gunnery, Hafted Weapons, Heavy Blades, Longarms, Pole Weapons, Sidearms, Simple Weapons, Thrown Weapons, Unarmed

Dreadnaught
Athletics, Endurance, Survival, Tactics,
Chained Weapons, Gunnery, Hafted Weapons, Heavy Blades, Longarms, Pole Weapons, Sidearms, Simple Weapons, Thrown Weapons

Corsair
Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Initiative, Perception, Stealth, Streetwise,
Archery, Light Blades, Longarms, Sidearms, Simple Weapons, Thrown Weapons

Savant
Analytics, Bureaucracy, Computers, Focus, Knowledge, Linguistics, Mechanics, Medicine, Pilot, Tactics,
Sidearms, Simple Weapons

Sentinel
Analytics, Athletics, Focus, Intuition, Knowledge, Medicine, Perception, Persuasion, Survival,
Archery, Simple Weapons, Unarmed

Envoy
Bureaucracy, Computers, Deception, Focus, Intuition, Knowledge, Perception, Persuasion, Streetwise,
Sidearms, Simple Weapons

Race
Adds bonus(es) to skill use.

Starting Occupation (d20M)
Gives you a wider set of "class" skills. If you "double" up on a skill you get a bonus to its use. Starting occupation also granted you a bonus feat or two. Only used as a feature of d20M.
In other games like D&D and Star Wars, your occupation was basically "Adventurer", if you were anything else you were one of the background characters (shop keepers, storm troopers, nobles, etc...), or retired. This was usually incorporated into race and class choiced (see above)

Analysis:
To make classes genre neutral, each genre is going to have to scrub the class skill list for appropriate and innapropriate skill choices.
For example, in a setting without firearms you won't use longarms and Sidearms. In a modern setting, more archaic weapon choices are not commonly trained (i.e. chained weapons, hafted weapons, heavy blades, and pole arms, not to mention computers).


My Proposal: Occupational Skills
Don't have class define your skill set. Use occupation or profession instead. Occupations can be "toggled" by setting, allowing the classes to remain genre/setting neutral.
This also allows for interesting class/occupation combos. In the traditional method you often had to take a class because you wanted certain features, but would get stymied by your skill selection. I.E. you wanted to spend your feats on things other than skill training.
What I am proposing is a method where you might be, say a Jedi, but that might be your "occupation", so you could be a Vanguard Jedi, or a Dreadnought Jedi, an Envoy Jedi, etc... Jedi would give you your skill set, but class would give you how you used that skill set. This would mean obvious class/occupation choices like say a Savant with an Academic occupation, but could also mean something more varied.
From a campaign building scenario, you might limit all your characters to one occupation choice. Like say a military campaign where all the characters are members of a military unit. You still get your class choices, but your opening skill list is much more focused and themed.

Class
Your class does not grant you your skills. Your class may give you how many starting trained skills you get for free, choose from your occupation list (see below)

Race
Race primarily gives you ability score bonus(es), and may provide feats that grant certain skill bonuses. Of itself, a race provides no skill bonuses.

Occupation
Gives you your starting skill list. Your choice of class may describe how many skills you may select as trained for free. For example (not an exhaustive list):

Academic
Analytics, Bureaucracy, Computers, Knowledge, Linguistics, Mechanics, Medicine, Persuasion,
Simple Weapons

Adventurer
Initiative, Intuition, Mechanics, Pilot, Stealth, Streetwise, Survival,
Archery, Light Blades, Longarms, Sidearms, Simple Weapons, Thrown Weapons, Unarmed

Athlete
Acrobatics, Athletics, Endurance, Focus, Initiative
Archery, Chained Weapons, Heavy Blades, Light Blades, Simple Weapons, Thrown Weapons, Unarmed

Criminal
Deception, Initiative, Intuition, Persuasion, Stealth, Streetwise
Light Blades, Sidearms, Simple Weapons, Thrown Weapons

Investigator
Analytics, Bureaucracy, Computers, Deception, Intuition, Perception, Persuasion, Streetwise
Sidearms, Simple Weapons

Law Enforcement
Athletics, Endurance, Perception, Pilot, Streetwise, Tactics
Longarms, Sidearms, Simple Weapons, Unarmed

Military
Athletics, Endurance, Mechanics, Pilot, Survival, Tactics
Gunnery, Light Blades, Longarms, Sidearms, Simple Weapons, Unarmed

Technician
Analytics, Computers, Knowledge, Focus, Intuition, Mechanics, Perception, Pilot,
Simple Weapons

Jedi (Star Wars)
Acrobatics, Endurance, Focus, Initiative, Knowledge, Perception, Pilot,
Light Blades, Simple Weapons, Unarmed

Magician (Fantasy)
Analytics, Deception, Focus, Knowledge, Linguistics, Perception, Persuasion,
Simple Weapons

[Animus]

I still prefer the generic names from d20 Modern.

I agree. The proposed names sound like they are changing just so we can say they are different.

I like the proposed names myself, but when I threw those names out to a friend over lunch discussing the concept of the project he thought that set of names for a generic modern-type game didn't fit, with the exception of Savant. They sounded too sci-fi to him.

Which leads me to a question. Will the e20 book be like GURPS, completely generic and flavorless with setting books fleshing things out, or like d20 Modern where there is more of a default genre but be adapted to many different genres via modules? Perhaps this is something that needs to be put to a vote when the patronage goal is hit.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

It's already assumed to have a wide variety of genre modules built into the core book, or we are defeating the very purpose of this game. Then, if need be, we can expand upon them with later books, but the core book has to give the tools for the GM to come up with whatever genre he wants... that is what this game is all about.

I think, for skills, do a combination of the Background skills (don't use the term Occupation), and Class skills, but more like...

Background -

Criminal (from previous post)
Deception, Initiative, Intuition, Persuasion, Stealth, Streetwise
Light Blades, Sidearms, Simple Weapons, Thrown Weapons

I like this... But then:

Vanguard -
Non-Combat skills: Pick 2 more skills to get trained in.
Combat skills: Pick 3 more skills to be trained in.

Envoy -
Non-Combat skills: Pick 4 more skills to be trained in.
Combat skills: Pick 1 more skill to be trained in.

Dreadnought -
Non-Combat skills: Pick 0 more skill to be trained in.
Combat skills: Pick 5 more skills to be trained in.

Corsair -
Non-combat skills: Pick 3 more skills to be trained in.
Combat skills: Pick 2 more skills to be trained in.

Savant -
Non-combat skills: Pick 5 more skills to be trained in.
Combat skills: Pick 0

Sentinel -
Non-combat skills: Pick 1 more skill to be trained in
Combat skills: Pick 4 more skills to be trained in

It's an idea, but its obviously one that would have to be worked on. The numbers might have to be tweaked, but if we did something like this, having a full blend of Background skills to be trained in and Class skill picks to be trained in, I think that we could have some very versatile characters.

Have this for another option for players when picking class skills: If you pick a skill you are already trained in from your Background, gain an additional +2 to your skill rolls. You can do this with up to a maximum of 3 skills during character creation. This way, if a player wants to specialize somewhat, they can.

[JaredGaume]

Just some random d20 observations based on existing material (d20M, SWSE, D&D 3.0/3.5/4.0, ...)

Class is an excuse for defining a niche character.
In D&D this worked out to be a controller, defender, leader, or striker character. Your class was just a flavor of this. An outgrowth of the original D&D when there were only 4 classes (+ demihumans, and mystics, and druids): Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Magic User. The demihumans and the two additional classes were outgrowths/combinations of these four base classes. Later itterations of D&D (advanced, 2e, 3e, 4e, ...) were basically different ways to flavor this idea: Warrior, Priest, Rogue, and Magic tiered classes.

In d20M the move was tentatively made to create an amalgam of a class/classless system based on the the D&D model. This ended up creating two tiers of character builds, combat and skill jockey. Within those two branches you basically end up with melee fighters, ranged fighters, technical skill jockeys, and social skill jockeys.
When I first skimmed through d20M it looked like they took the 3.0 NPC templates and turned those into character classes, essentially creating weaker versions of the D&D classes:
Strong hero was like a nerfed fighter or a de-powered cleric.
Fast hero was basically the rogue, but with more hit points (nice).
Tough hero had the hit points of a fighter, but fights like a cleric, another nerfed fighter.
Smart hero was basically the wizard without spells, or a rogue without combat skills.
Dedicated hero was like a nerfed cleric, lacked the HP and the spells, and didn't have much to make up for it.
Charismatic hero was like a weak bard, basically there to cheer on his allies, but doesn't bring much to the table himself.

In Star Wars the classes were dropped down to 5 base classes and a bunch of prestige classes.
Jedi was the uber class, kind of like a cleric/wizard/fighter combo but without giving up anything. All the goodies were defined for the Jedi, everybody else was just there for flavor.
Noble was like a depowered but suped up rogue/bard, has the mad skills, but best options were those that boosted allies.
Scoundrel was basically the rogue of the bunch.
Scout was like an optimized ranger.
Soldier is basically the fighter.


Race started out as its own class (demihumans in OD&D), but later became a character choice (AD&D). The original solution was to give the race some up-front bonuses.
By 3e the bonus stack could be so out of balance that some "powerful" races required level adjustments to keep them "fair", or in my view nerf your character.
4e tried to alleviate this by shifting race boons into "selectable" options, then backed off this, and went more for "balancing" races out. Your choice of race would give you bonuses to different groups of skills. Races then became optimized to favor a couple of classes based on ability score bonuses and skill boons.


Occupations were a unique addition to the d20 set. My take on seeing them was as a substitute for race in d20M, since everyone was human. So occupation filled the race niche by giving you skill bonuses and free bonus feats.
There really were only a handful of valid occupation choices, anything else was basically nerfing your character.
You wanted to go for money by taking a "rich" occupation like Dilletante, max out the profession skill, and take a couple of windfall feats to get your wealth bonus high enough to buy all the wonderful toys.
Or you wanted to go for useful by taking occupations that gave you free bonus feats, essentially you would get your base 2 feats plus 1 more. This meant that you were taking the Adventurer, Criminal, Investigative, Law Enforcement, Military, or Rural occupations. And mainly these were so you could get the personal firearms feat for free.
If you chose any other occupation you were nerfing your character because you were losing a feat or not getting enough wealth to offset the loss.


Skills were an expansion of abilities added to OD&D. In that system you were rolling d20 and trying to get a result less than the skill's associated ability score, do that and you succeeded.
In AD&D skills were relegated to non-combat roles like cooking, smithing, etc...
By 3e/d20M skills were split into feats and skills. The current d20 mechanic was introduced where you now roll d20 + skill bonus, if you meet or beat a target number you succeed. However, skills enjoyed a massive expansion to the point that you could only be good in a handful of the scores of available skills.
SWSE and 4e reduced the number of skills into broader catagories by consolodating the 3e skill set.


Feats were introduced in 3e as a way to either focus or expand your character. A feat was basically a lite version of a class feature. In theory you could start as any class, and use feats to customize your class more in line with what you wanted.
My first reading of 3e rules was that I could start as say a fighter and take a few "magic" feats to give myself some lite spell-casting. That sadly wasn't the case, but it was an interesting idea. Inversely you could start as a spell-caster, say a cleric, and take all kinds of fighter feats and thereby get the best of both worlds (A bastard sword wielding cleric of doom!).
Futher d20 based systems continued in the 3e line where some classes basically get the better end of feat choices, while others are pretty much locked on a particular feat path.


Talents show up as an innovation for d20M, and while a good idea, they were highly variable. The idea was for a talent to be a lite version of a feat. In the 3e model your class or race would have a feature, say it was worth +6; a feat was worth +4; but a talent was worth +2. The interesting thing about talents was the ability to "customize" your character's class features in the direction you felt was important. In practice unless you picked the right class and talent(s), talent bonuses were either underwhelming or overpowering.
In SWSE talents were greatly expanded for each class, and improved. But still suffer the same quantitative failings of d20M. While every class got talents, the Jedi class got the best ones.


From an evolutionary point of view:

Is class an archetypical view of your character, or a job deffinintion?
As an archetype we can use a handful of classes across multiple settings and genres.
If it is a job deffinition then we will need a lot of classes dependant on setting and genre (see current/past d20 systems).

How will different "races" fit in? How do we scale power and ability, especially in reference to "powerful" races?

Do we continue using the notion of d20M "occupations" (or backgrounds if you will)? If we do, do we continue using them in the same way?

What exactly are skills and how are we going to use them? From a character generation point of view are we following historical paradigms?

Are feats going to continue in the vein of "lite class/race features"? Will certain class choices give better feat exposure than others? Or will feats be a way to either focus or broaden a class?

Are talents going to follow the 4e path, where you will have to be in a specific class to use specific talents? Or, will class talents be "selectable" class features? Will there be class-independant talent trees (that is you take a feat or background to access)?

[Superkid]

These class names sound too exotic to me. I like the d20Modern names because they are both simple and descriptive, but they are rather bland. I believe the D&D classes are more iconic because the class names tell us what those characters actually do. I would like to see that in the names of the e20 classes.

For exampe, “Vanguard” is a perfectly good name for a combat-oriented character, but for a physically strong character? The physical classes just seem to be split between the three aspects of combat: offense, defense/mobility, and durability. Those don’t sound like classes to me—they sound like tactics.

How are these?

Str Fighter (combat and tactics)
Dex Adventurer (athletic but not combat-focused)
Con Defender (protects others from harm)
Int Expert (possesses specialized knowledge)
Wis Supporter (devoted to a particular calling)
Cha Diplomat (works well with others)

P.S. Bear with me, I'm new.

P.P.S. Hi, everybody!

[JaredGaume]

Hi Superkid.

I like where your head is at.

Might want to think about Supporter as a class though. Might do better with a different concept. The rest are good though

[j0lt]

These class names sound too exotic to me. I like the d20Modern names because they are both simple and descriptive, but they are rather bland. I believe the D&D classes are more iconic because the class names tell us what those characters actually do. I would like to see that in the names of the e20 classes.

Str Fighter (combat and tactics)
Dex Adventurer (athletic but not combat-focused)
Con Defender (protects others from harm)
Int Expert (possesses specialized knowledge)
Wis Supporter (devoted to a particular calling)
Cha Diplomat (works well with others)

... Of all the various ideas I've seen for renaming the base classes, these ones are the best. I'm still in favor of keeping the generic d20M names, but these aren't bad! Welcome to the club, Superkid!

[fodigg]

I like the more exotic names. But I would want them to describe the class a bit and not just sound cool. I'd do (borrowing from previous lists):

• STR - "Vanguard"
• DEX - "Skirmisher"
• CON - "Guardian"
• INT - "Savant"
• WIS - "Sentinel"
• CHA - "Envoy" (in the spirit of Takeshi Kovacs)

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

Vanguard = Fighter (combat and tactics)
Skirmisher = Adventurer (athletic but not combat-focused)
Guardian (Dreadnought) = Defender (protects others from harm)
Savant = Expert (possesses specialized knowledge)
Sentinel = Supporter (devoted to a particular calling)
Envoy = Diplomat (works well with others)

Just combining the above two posts into one to see them side by side So, our class names, and their respective roles, together.

[ronin]

I know I am in the minority but I'll post them anyway

Str = Strong = Vanguard = Fighter (combat and tactics)
Dex = Fast = Skirmisher = Adventurer (athletic but not combat-focused)
Con = Tough = Guardian (Dreadnought) = Defender (protects others from harm)
Int = Smart = Savant = Expert (possesses specialized knowledge)
Wis = Dedicated = Sentinel = Supporter (devoted to a particular calling)
Cha = Charismatic = Envoy = Diplomat (works well with others)

Now we have them all in one spot

[jazzencat]

I like the more exotic names. But I would want them to describe the class a bit and not just sound cool. I'd do (borrowing from previous lists):

• STR - "Vanguard"
• DEX - "Skirmisher"
• CON - "Guardian"
• INT - "Savant"
• WIS - "Sentinel"
• CHA - "Envoy" (in the spirit of Takeshi Kovacs)

The Kovacs "Envoy" would probably be a Paragon class. I mean these are guys that make the SEALs and SAS look liked toddlers, and would make Batou and the Major look quite old. In game terms they are likely to have started with nearly straight 18s BEFORE bonuses, and have between levels 18 and 24 across all classes in the game, just as a base. I like the way you think though. The UN of the future has some MAJOR teeth to back their resolutions and sanctions up.

[Imagist]

I’m also new to the forums, so I have been doing some catch-up and reading the posts in this thread. After reading through a lot of the newer stuff, especially Jared's post about class roles and traits; I just thought I would put in my two cents.

I personally like the idea of combining the Strength based character with the Constitution based character, if only thematically, because they both represent a sort of physical toughness and power that seems to be the flip side of the same coin. One side is of course Strength (attack), while the other side of that coin is Constitution (defense). Both are vested in the same physical fitness of body that would be represented by a "fighter class," but combining both into one class can create an overflow of options. Do I focus on my offense or defense? Can I focus on both? What about turning a strong offense into a strong defense or vice versa?

I feel each stat can stand alone if placed into its own class, but Strength and Constitution just seem like they go hand in hand. I know it is possible to be strong without being resilient, and I understand it is quite possible to be tough without possessing great strength. If I went with a five class system, combining Strength and Constitution, this is what I would use.

Str/Con = Guardian
* Invokes imagery of a protective figure, but less allied towards an ideal “neutral” image

Dex = Nomad
* Implies someone who moves about, not necessarily a combatant

Int = Exemplar
* Although I do like Savant as well

Wis = Seeker
* Seems a little cheesy to me, but hey I am new to game designing ^_^”
* Novitiate would be good for a wisdom based spellcaster
* Shepherd would be good for a wisdom based fighter

Cha = Imagist
* I fell in love with the imagery of the Imagist core class from the BoEF, as my forum name might suggest

[fodigg]

As mentioned elsewhere, I'm still not fond of Corsair. I don't see what DEX has to do with being a pirate.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

As mentioned elsewhere, I'm still not fond of Corsair. I don't see what DEX has to do with being a pirate.

Yea that Dexterity focused class is going to be the hardest to really pin down with a singular Class name that's a sort of exotic name that will please everybody.

My personal Favorite is, well, I dont really have one that is an absolute favorite. Pretty much all of them mentioned fit the bill.

The literal Definition of Corsair is Pirate or Pirate vessel of transport, but thinking broader what are Pirates but people who roam around in small groups, scouting for tactical advantage to pillage or take advantage of their targets, and are sneaky about it because they most certainly do not want to be caught by the authorities. Take it a bit broader, its a person who relies on his agile nature to overcome situations and react to danger. They are Rovers, freebooters, scavangers, marauders, robbers, looters, thiefs, ravagers...

So, Rover could work as a class name, Looter could work as a class name (but its more specific), Scavanger (ok, maybe not so much)... Corsair could fit easily.

[GMSarli]

As mentioned elsewhere, I'm still not fond of Corsair. I don't see what DEX has to do with being a pirate.

What I like about Corsair is what you find when you look at its linguistic roots; it shares its origin with "course" (n. race, path; v. to pursue, to chase), derived from the Latin word cursus ("running" or "a race") with the suffix -arius (changing it to "one who runs" or "one who races"). Thus, it was used to refer to a fast pirate ship, which is designed to catch marks and outrun the opposition, but the word itself represents speed, not piracy.

So, since we're looking for a word that substitutes for the phrase "Fast Hero," the word "Corsair" is almost a literally perfect fit. Yes, it has associations with other things, but I've yet to see a suggestion for Fast Hero that didn't have that problem to some degree.

[Imagist]

Noah Swift the Nomad

"Hey everybody, Noah here. Just thought I would pop in and throw in my vote for the "fast hero" being called the Nomad. Just saying."

[ronin]

While I still like the fast hero I have a couple of suggestions-

Swift hero (inspired by Noah)
Quick hero

Thoughts?

[Superkid]

I think most of us agree it should be a noun.

[steelmax73]

do we all agree that you have providence over all knowledge, I'm not in favor of dry and boring d20 modern style names.

[Imagist]

While I still like the fast hero I have a couple of suggestions-

Swift hero (inspired by Noah)
Quick hero

Thoughts?

Please, don't encourage him.

[fodigg]

As mentioned elsewhere, I'm still not fond of Corsair. I don't see what DEX has to do with being a pirate.

What I like about Corsair is what you find when you look at its linguistic roots; it shares its origin with "course" (n. race, path; v. to pursue, to chase), derived from the Latin word cursus ("running" or "a race") with the suffix -arius (changing it to "one who runs" or "one who races"). Thus, it was used to refer to a fast pirate ship, which is designed to catch marks and outrun the opposition, but the word itself represents speed, not piracy.

So, since we're looking for a word that substitutes for the phrase "Fast Hero," the word "Corsair" is almost a literally perfect fit. Yes, it has associations with other things, but I've yet to see a suggestion for Fast Hero that didn't have that problem to some degree.

Maybe it's just me. Maybe it's my own problem. Because when I hear "Corsair", I will always think of my high school mascot:




I understand the root meaning and all that...but it still means pirate. A freebooter for the queen. That's what the word describes. Even if the root implies speed, such an implication is ancillary.

It's like saying that the word "Bullet" can describe mini-golf because it comes from "boulette" which means "little ball". I get what you're saying, and yes under certain circumstances a golf ball could indeed be considered a "bullet", but the modern meaning of the term makes it inappropriate, IMO.

[JaredGaume]

Corsair:
Corsairs were French privateers (corsaire in French). Since the corsairs gained a swashbuckling reputation, the word corsair is also used generically as a more romantic or flamboyant version of the word privateer, or even of the word pirate. The barbary pirates of north Africa were sometimes called "Turkish corsairs".

The name "corsair" derives from the commissioning document received from the king, the Lettre de Course ("racing letter" or "racing commission"). The "race", la course, was a euphemism for chasing down foreign merchant shipping. The Lettre de Course was known in other countries as a letter of marque and reprisal (in French Lettre de Marque). The French often preferred the different term of Lettre de Course but the document was the same in substance.


Okay for "fast" classes, the following are on the outs for being too specific:
Rogue, Scout, and Corsair.

Could consider ("fast" class ideas):
Avenger - One who avenges, strikes at enemies or specific targets (not just combat).
Infiltrator - Seeks to gain access, flanks opponents, gains access to "off limits" areas and information.
Intruder - Deliberately oversteps bounds, violates enemy territory, enters places they shouldn't.
Marksman - Goes after marks whether that is an enemy or goal.
Opportunist - One who seeks opportunities in anything they are doing.
Tracer - Traces a path, identifies/sets and follows a course, slips in and out of danger.
...etc...

[fodigg]

For the record, if a better term can't be found, I won't mind being overruled.

[JaredGaume]

Sorry fodigg, you got in there before I could finish editing my previous comment

[fodigg]

Well, the term "Courser" refers to a type of horse in the middle ages valued for speed over the larger Destrier" breed. Both were Rouncey breeds, all-purpose horses trained for warfare in the middle ages.

Such a term is similar to corsair, uses similar word roots, but refers directly to the steed that is valued for speed whereas "corsair" refers to a pilot of a type of vehicle that does a particular activity which is euphemized by a term for speed. I would find "Courser" (or any other direct reference to a "fast" combat mount/boat/vehicle) no less inappropriate than "dreadnought" or "tank".

[fodigg]

I also don't mind "Dragoon" which came to mean just "cavalry" but were originally infantry who were deployed by horse, sort of like modern motorized cavalry troopers or airtroopers.

Granted, the "mobility/speed" component tends to be focused on getting them to the battle and not running around the battlefield like Legolas, but such soldiers tended to be lightly armored/armed and depend on quick response/strikes to win battles. As "Trooper" is out (too commonly used just for soldier, especially in Star Wars), synonyms like "Dragoon" might serve.

From the wiki page on light cavalry:

Light cavalry refers to lightly-armed and armored troops mounted on horses, as opposed to heavy cavalry, where the riders (and sometimes the horses) are heavily armored. The missions of the light cavalry were primarily reconnaissance, screening, skirmishing, raiding, and most importantly, communications, and were usually armed with spears, swords, bows and later pistols.
Light cavalry was used infrequently by the Greeks and Romans (though Roman auxiliaries were often mounted), but were popular among the armies and hordes of Central Asia. The Huns, Turks, Mongols and Hungarians were all adept light cavalrymen and horse archers.
With the decline of feudalism and knighthood in Europe, light cavalry became more prominent in the armies of the continent. Many were equipped with firearms, as their predecessors had been with bows. European examples of light cavalry included stradiots, hobelars, hussars, chasseurs à cheval, cossacks, chevau-légers and some dragoons.[1]

From mobile infantry article:

Some cavalry units, such as dragoons and American Mounted Rifles units, had doctrines which emphasized that horses were to be used only as means of transportation, and soldiers dismount for battle. These can be considered more as mobile infantry then cavalry as well, although this distinction is rather blurred; most American Cavalry Units of the 1840–1920 period were actually such light dragoon or mounted infantry units rather than the true (and much heavier) cavalry of European and Latin American armies.

[fodigg]

Got another one, since "skirmisher" is out for some reason, we could focus on actual types of skirmishing or light infantry units:

• Peltast
• Velite
• Hoplite
• Jäger ("hunter")
• Voltigeur
• Tirailleur
• Bersagliere
• etc

And then there's the term everybody is trying to avoid, Ranger.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

Got another one, since "skirmisher" is out for some reason, we could focus on actual types of skirmishing or light infantry units:

• Peltast
• Velite
• Hoplite
• Jäger ("hunter")
• Voltigeur
• Tirailleur
• Bersagliere
• etc

And then there's the term everybody is trying to avoid, Ranger.

Ugh so not going to vote for Ranger.... people see that, they think D&D. It just has to many ties to that fantasy game, and because of that it is too genre-specific in feel, even if realistically it would make for a good fit, which it probably would, a lot of people will just associate it with D&D.

[fodigg]

Ugh so not going to vote for Ranger.... people see that, they think D&D. It just has to many ties to that fantasy game, and because of that it is too genre-specific in feel, even if realistically it would make for a good fit, which it probably would, a lot of people will just associate it with D&D.

Yeah. Pretty much why I figured it was being avoided. It's a great fit...but it's so closely associated with D&D. Even Scout was represented in D&D. And Hunter in WoW.