Oh no! It's.. Frankengame!!
- Dimirag
- Posts: 3613
- Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:24 pm
- Location: Buenos Aires (C.A.B.A.), Argentina
- Contact:
Re: Oh no! It's.. Frankengame!!
Yes, using the Ability Roll table, for easier or harder task you can give a bonus or penalty to the roll
Sorry for any misspelling or writing error, I am not a native English speaker
Drawing portfolio: https://www.instagram.com/m.serena_dimirag/
Drawing portfolio: https://www.instagram.com/m.serena_dimirag/
Re: Oh no! It's.. Frankengame!!
Thanks guys.. Getting some great ideas here..
I'm thinking that the 5e idea of everyone starting out as one of the 4 or 5 basic classes, then "specializing" about level 3 is a good one. That way, fighters are solidly fighters, "rogues"/thieves are just that, etc. I would have fighter, thief, cleric, mage/MU/wizard/whatever; and I might add druid, as they are distinct from clerics in many ways (unless we can fold their special features into a cleric mold/subclass. Wildshape as a spell?)
We have the following subclasses:
Fighter: paladin, ranger, swashbuckler, "weapon master"
Thief: acrobat(?), assassin, thug (?), scout (?), bard
Cleric: domain priests (ala 2e); druid as a specialty priest (?)
Mage: school specialists (ala 2e+)
Not sure if swashbuckler is better as a thief build; BECMI had "rakes" as an option for thieves. And is a ranger better off merged with the "scout"? If so, should it be a fighter or "rogue"?
Just curious: Are we calling MU's "wizards" as a rule now? I'd think "mage" is a better successor to "magic-user." And are thieves better labeled as "rogues" as a main class?
Thanks again, y'all!
Michael
I'm thinking that the 5e idea of everyone starting out as one of the 4 or 5 basic classes, then "specializing" about level 3 is a good one. That way, fighters are solidly fighters, "rogues"/thieves are just that, etc. I would have fighter, thief, cleric, mage/MU/wizard/whatever; and I might add druid, as they are distinct from clerics in many ways (unless we can fold their special features into a cleric mold/subclass. Wildshape as a spell?)
We have the following subclasses:
Fighter: paladin, ranger, swashbuckler, "weapon master"
Thief: acrobat(?), assassin, thug (?), scout (?), bard
Cleric: domain priests (ala 2e); druid as a specialty priest (?)
Mage: school specialists (ala 2e+)
Not sure if swashbuckler is better as a thief build; BECMI had "rakes" as an option for thieves. And is a ranger better off merged with the "scout"? If so, should it be a fighter or "rogue"?
Just curious: Are we calling MU's "wizards" as a rule now? I'd think "mage" is a better successor to "magic-user." And are thieves better labeled as "rogues" as a main class?
Thanks again, y'all!
Michael
- Dimirag
- Posts: 3613
- Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:24 pm
- Location: Buenos Aires (C.A.B.A.), Argentina
- Contact:
Re: Oh no! It's.. Frankengame!!
You are welcome, glad to helppaladinn wrote:Thanks guys.. Getting some great ideas here..
I would allow specialization at character creation or at any other level as it allows for more background and character development.I'm thinking that the 5e idea of everyone starting out as one of the 4 or 5 basic classes, then "specializing" about level 3 is a good one.
The BF druid has animal shape as a spell, it also depends on what features a Druid loses and gains, if you keep the turning ability as primary and remove the spells or if you do the opposite......I might add druid, as they are distinct from clerics in many ways (unless we can fold their special features into a cleric mold/subclass. Wildshape as a spell?)
I see Rangers as fighters that focus on outdoors protecting people and nature by eliminating threats in the wild, wile Scouts are sneaking infiltrators and explorers of the wildNot sure if swashbuckler is better as a thief build; BECMI had "rakes" as an option for thieves. And is a ranger better off merged with the "scout"? If so, should it be a fighter or "rogue"?
Whatever you think works best for your game, if going with class groups like the Advanced game I like Magic Users and Rogues, as they are more generic in meaning, for core classes Thieves and Wizards are OK, Magic Users is also good as the classes are more defined but the MU is still a kind of generalist.Just curious: Are we calling MU's "wizards" as a rule now? I'd think "mage" is a better successor to "magic-user." And are thieves better labeled as "rogues" as a main class?
Sorry for any misspelling or writing error, I am not a native English speaker
Drawing portfolio: https://www.instagram.com/m.serena_dimirag/
Drawing portfolio: https://www.instagram.com/m.serena_dimirag/
Re: Oh no! It's.. Frankengame!!
I'm thinking to have players start as basic as possible. In BECMI, fighters had to be "just fighters" until "name level." I don't want to make players wait till then to specialize; but waiting a little while (I'm thinking lvl 3/4/5) would ensure that fighters are really fighters before adding anything to the mix. Same with rogues: I might not allow sneak attack until 3rd level as part of "specialization", as that is the point where bards and assassins deviate from the base.I would allow specialization at character creation or at any other level as it allows for more background and character development.
Thinking of the casters.. mages' "specialization" has to do with selecting one spell school on which to focus. I'm thinking that mages should have access to whatever they get at level 1 and 2, but the school focus should start at lvl 3 (spell lvl 2?). Clerics might be different tho, since their powers come from their deity. Or from nature, in the case of a druid.
I'm still wondering if we need a scout And a ranger, especially if I don't allow rangers to have spells. The original ranger had D6 hit dice, even if they started with 2 dice. If a ranger is a fighter with a few rogue-ish skills, why do we need a rogue scout?
Onward and upward!
Michael
- Dimirag
- Posts: 3613
- Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:24 pm
- Location: Buenos Aires (C.A.B.A.), Argentina
- Contact:
Re: Oh no! It's.. Frankengame!!
Your idea reminds me of the Descriptor Classes from Havenshield, which is different from what I initially thought.
As to the Rangers vs Scout, both are quite similar but play quite different
The Ranger would focus on combat while having some thieving skills, but not all, plus some extras like tracking and combat bonuses
The Scout would have all the thieving skills plus some other skills like awareness, searching and improve wilderness movement.
It all depends on what do you want your specializations to offer for the core class and how that is represented mechanically.
As to the Rangers vs Scout, both are quite similar but play quite different
The Ranger would focus on combat while having some thieving skills, but not all, plus some extras like tracking and combat bonuses
The Scout would have all the thieving skills plus some other skills like awareness, searching and improve wilderness movement.
It all depends on what do you want your specializations to offer for the core class and how that is represented mechanically.
Sorry for any misspelling or writing error, I am not a native English speaker
Drawing portfolio: https://www.instagram.com/m.serena_dimirag/
Drawing portfolio: https://www.instagram.com/m.serena_dimirag/
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 29 guests