So I've been watching Babylon 5 lately, which is a really wonderful show that I think I've mentioned to everyone. But watching it has started my old noodle going and I've gearing up towards the Star*Drive campaign. One of the things I'm going to incorporate into the campaign is the interactive universe mapping software called AstroSynthesis, which will give you a map of the universe to do whatever the heck you want to do in.
More so than any other campaign I've run this will be player-motivated. I have events I'm going to incorporate, but the thrust of the campaign will be driven by the players not by flavor text or scripted occurrences. Because of this I'll need more detailed backgrounds for characters with NPCs that I can mine to make things more involved.
The other thing is that the campaign is moving to the Savage Worlds rules rather than the clumsy Alternity rules. Savage Worlds is fast, furious, and fun, and very easy to pick up and use for everyone. The system is light on details and heavy on story, and the presented rules are very simple for starship construction and modification. I'm working on a hybridization of the detailed Alternity starship rules and the overly-simplified Savage Worlds starship rules. I think that will give the players access to the toys they want and the customization options while still making my job easy.
Star*Drive is coming. It won't be long. Soon we're going to need a session to remake characters (I hope everyone keeps their characters). Reminder of who they are:
* Luke - Axel Hargreaves, grizzled old starship captain of the Iron Fox
* Harris - Philander Shirow, smooth arms merchant and smuggler
* Griff - Jack Krueger, human former space marine
* Aaron - Sheshak, t'sa engineer and parts expert
* Lee - Ereshkigal, sesheyan assassin and freedom fighter
Those are the players who made characters for Star*Drive originally. There were also two extra characters (Katrina Apollo, human thief played by Jesse and Gar "Sawbones" Torgin, weren surgeon and field medic played by Travis). If Jesse and Travis are interested in playing they can create their own characters or use these pre-gens.
Soon. Not long now.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
More MovieJerking Ideas
So I was thinking about this yesterday, and I think for each Moviejerk session we should go around and everybody rates the movie ... with a letter grade and something odd and very nonsensical. For instance, rate this movie on the following scale:
* Jellybelly flavors
* Comic book heroes
* Crayon colors
* Comic book villains
* Calendar months
* Weekdays
* Meat
* Cheese
* Presidents
* Mammals
Or anything else, but the rating should be as descriptive as possible. For instance, let's say we were MovieJerking Star Wars Episode III and we decided that it was going to be rated on the Jellybelly flavor scale. I would give it a D- and call it the Sour Ear Wax flavor - it's got a rush at first taste but quickly fades, leaving only the waxy buildup that tastes just like regular ear wax. Things like that.
For this nonsensical rating scale we should come up with it beforehand in order to put as much time and thought into them. It's hard to come up with a good rating on such a nonsense scale off the top of the head.
* Jellybelly flavors
* Comic book heroes
* Crayon colors
* Comic book villains
* Calendar months
* Weekdays
* Meat
* Cheese
* Presidents
* Mammals
Or anything else, but the rating should be as descriptive as possible. For instance, let's say we were MovieJerking Star Wars Episode III and we decided that it was going to be rated on the Jellybelly flavor scale. I would give it a D- and call it the Sour Ear Wax flavor - it's got a rush at first taste but quickly fades, leaving only the waxy buildup that tastes just like regular ear wax. Things like that.
For this nonsensical rating scale we should come up with it beforehand in order to put as much time and thought into them. It's hard to come up with a good rating on such a nonsense scale off the top of the head.
GenCon 2008 w00t!
Allright, so I accept the fact that there probably won't be a trip to California this year, and that truly bums me out. However, that leaves room in my schedule and budget for GenCon 2008. GenCon is August 14-17 in Indianapolis, IN. Let's look at some numbers shall we?
4 day badge: $65 pre-reg, $75 on-site
Lowest of the low hotel room: $50/night, $200 total for four nights (arrive Wed, leave Sun)
Gas: It's roughly 600 miles to Indianapolis. Figure at least another 50 miles puttering around and 600 to get back puts it at 1250 miles. In my truck highway gas mileage is 18 miles/gallon. That's roughly 70 gallons of gas. At (perhaps conservatively) $4.50/gallon cost that's $315 for gas for the trip.
A four hour event at GenCon: $4.00.
Misc. food and merchandise expenses.
So for me to go it would cost $515 for hotel and gas. That sucks. But if someone else went with me, it would be $260 each. Much nicer. And if a third person goes with it drops to about $175 each. Totally do-able. More than three people I think and another hotel would be required. And the hotel and badge registration is done up front, so the only expenditure at the time of departure would be gas and misc. food and merchandise expenses.
So ... who's up for GenCon 2008? Details can be found at http://www.gencon.com/.
4 day badge: $65 pre-reg, $75 on-site
Lowest of the low hotel room: $50/night, $200 total for four nights (arrive Wed, leave Sun)
Gas: It's roughly 600 miles to Indianapolis. Figure at least another 50 miles puttering around and 600 to get back puts it at 1250 miles. In my truck highway gas mileage is 18 miles/gallon. That's roughly 70 gallons of gas. At (perhaps conservatively) $4.50/gallon cost that's $315 for gas for the trip.
A four hour event at GenCon: $4.00.
Misc. food and merchandise expenses.
So for me to go it would cost $515 for hotel and gas. That sucks. But if someone else went with me, it would be $260 each. Much nicer. And if a third person goes with it drops to about $175 each. Totally do-able. More than three people I think and another hotel would be required. And the hotel and badge registration is done up front, so the only expenditure at the time of departure would be gas and misc. food and merchandise expenses.
So ... who's up for GenCon 2008? Details can be found at http://www.gencon.com/.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Moviejerking ... Or Something
I think we should start being Movie Jerks. Well, we already are, but I think we should start posting stuff. And by stuff I mean videos of our movie discussions. Reviews - kind of, but more than that. Anyone can read or watch or do a review. It's just an opinion. But a discussion about the movie, for people who have already seen it or are thinking about seeing it, I can't think of any precedence. I'm sure it's out there, I just can't think of it.
So what do we need to get this started? Not much. A topic, a video camera, and a place to have this round table discussion. I suggest Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull as the first to be "moviejerked". We try to keep it civil but these discussions would probably get emotional. Off the cuff kind of stuff, not much planning just thinking beforehand.
We start with an introduction of the Movie Jerks and then initial reaction. Discussions follow from there. We should shoot for 15 minutes and see where that takes us. Once we're done we can post it up on YouTube or some other media sharing site. I bet we could get Cracked to post it.
Let me know your thoughts.
So what do we need to get this started? Not much. A topic, a video camera, and a place to have this round table discussion. I suggest Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull as the first to be "moviejerked". We try to keep it civil but these discussions would probably get emotional. Off the cuff kind of stuff, not much planning just thinking beforehand.
We start with an introduction of the Movie Jerks and then initial reaction. Discussions follow from there. We should shoot for 15 minutes and see where that takes us. Once we're done we can post it up on YouTube or some other media sharing site. I bet we could get Cracked to post it.
Let me know your thoughts.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Vacation Road Trip 2008!
So in 2006 it was Seattle. In 2007 it was Boston. Now, we come to 2008, and I'd like to get a road trip rocking to the west coast. Specifically, to San Francisco. But not just San Francisco! Hitting the bay area and then driving north along California's coast to Portland for a short time. And then returning home from Portland.
Here's some numbers to munch on.
Mound to San Francisco: 1,950 miles, 30 hours.
San Francisco to Portland: 650 miles, 10 hours.
Portland to Mound:1,725 miles, 25 hours.
That's a total of 4,325 miles for just the big legs. Taking a vehicle that gets around 17 miles to the gallon, that's a total of 254 gallons. Estimating gas to be about $4/gallon that comes out to around $1,000 TOTAL in gas. Split that four ways and it's $250 per person.
If there's enough people (and I would want three or four) to get this going, I'd like to go for around 2 weeks if possible and leave sometime in August. September would work as well.
So ... who's up for a road trip to the west coast?
Here's some numbers to munch on.
Mound to San Francisco: 1,950 miles, 30 hours.
San Francisco to Portland: 650 miles, 10 hours.
Portland to Mound:1,725 miles, 25 hours.
That's a total of 4,325 miles for just the big legs. Taking a vehicle that gets around 17 miles to the gallon, that's a total of 254 gallons. Estimating gas to be about $4/gallon that comes out to around $1,000 TOTAL in gas. Split that four ways and it's $250 per person.
If there's enough people (and I would want three or four) to get this going, I'd like to go for around 2 weeks if possible and leave sometime in August. September would work as well.
So ... who's up for a road trip to the west coast?
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
D&D 3.75 Race Updates I
To go hand in hand with the class update article I just posted here's some racial information. More specifically, how it ties into class. In 3rd Edition (3.5) each race had a favored class, broken as follows. I'm also going to include their 3.75 ability score adjustments for reference.
Dwarf -- Fighter; +2 Con, +2 Wis, -2 Cha
Elf -- Wizard; +2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Con
Gnome -- Bard; +2 Cha, +2 Dex, -2 Str
Halfling -- Rogue; +2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Str
Half-Elf -- (any); +2 to any attribute
Half-Orc -- Barbarian; +2 Str, +2 Wis, -2 Int
Human -- (any); +2 to any attribute
The reasoning behind this was not explained to my knowledge, but kind of makes sense. The dwarves are a very martial race, so it makes sense they would gravitate towards fighters. Elves are an inherently magical race so the path of the arcane comes easily to them. With fifteen classes to choose from now it makes sense that the list of favored classes would get expanded. Since the classes are based around ability scores, and the races get bonuses and penalties to ability scores, it stands to reason that the two would be tied together.
Here's the breakdown of classes associated with each ability score:
Strength: Fighter, Sorcerer, Cleric, Knight
Constitition: Barbarian, Warlock, Monk, Shaper
Dexterity: Rogue, Filch, Ranger, Bard
Intelligence: Wizard, Sorcerer, Filch, Warlock
Wisdom: Priest, Cleric, Monk, Ranger
Charisma: Lord, Knight, Bard, Shaper
With fifteen classes I think it makes sense for each race to have four favored classes based around their primary ability score. This works in most cases. The elf would have a favored class associated with Intelligence; the halfling would favor those classes based around Dexterity, etc. The two races that this doesn't work for are dwarf and half-orc. Dwarf would have Strength-based classes, while the half-orc would have Constitution. Reversed but it makes more sense thematically.
Dwarf -- Fighter; +2 Con, +2 Wis, -2 Cha
Elf -- Wizard; +2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Con
Gnome -- Bard; +2 Cha, +2 Dex, -2 Str
Halfling -- Rogue; +2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Str
Half-Elf -- (any); +2 to any attribute
Half-Orc -- Barbarian; +2 Str, +2 Wis, -2 Int
Human -- (any); +2 to any attribute
The reasoning behind this was not explained to my knowledge, but kind of makes sense. The dwarves are a very martial race, so it makes sense they would gravitate towards fighters. Elves are an inherently magical race so the path of the arcane comes easily to them. With fifteen classes to choose from now it makes sense that the list of favored classes would get expanded. Since the classes are based around ability scores, and the races get bonuses and penalties to ability scores, it stands to reason that the two would be tied together.
Here's the breakdown of classes associated with each ability score:
Strength: Fighter, Sorcerer, Cleric, Knight
Constitition: Barbarian, Warlock, Monk, Shaper
Dexterity: Rogue, Filch, Ranger, Bard
Intelligence: Wizard, Sorcerer, Filch, Warlock
Wisdom: Priest, Cleric, Monk, Ranger
Charisma: Lord, Knight, Bard, Shaper
With fifteen classes I think it makes sense for each race to have four favored classes based around their primary ability score. This works in most cases. The elf would have a favored class associated with Intelligence; the halfling would favor those classes based around Dexterity, etc. The two races that this doesn't work for are dwarf and half-orc. Dwarf would have Strength-based classes, while the half-orc would have Constitution. Reversed but it makes more sense thematically.
D&D 3.75 Class Updates Part I
Well, I've been thinking a lot about how D&D works, what with the impending release of 4th Edition and the continuing releases of the Pathfinder RPG (D&D 3.75). Seeing the changes implemented in Pathfinder to the classes has sparked my thought process, which boiled down to this: How the heck are classes in D&D defined? I don't think there is any rhyme or reason behind it beyond "hey this sounds cool" and "it's been in the game since the beginning."
It's time to throw that thinking out the window, my friends. I wanted to start with my thought process behin the whole thing. I've struggled a lot with how to classify the classes (?). What separates them mechnically? How could they be grouped? 2nd Edition D&D broke the classes down into the following four categories
Warrior - Fighter, Ranger, Paladin
Priest - Cleric, Druid
Wizard - Mage, Illusionist
Rogue - Thief, Bard
Those were the base classes as presented in the 2nd Edition PHB. In 3rd Edition I started to break it down even further. Thoughts that came into mind included grouping by base attack bonus (low, middle, high), ability focus (feats, skills, magic), or traditional (warrior, priest, wizard, and rogue). Nothing really fit.
Here are the 11 classes as presented in the 3rd Edition PHB:
Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard.
Of these classes I've had problems with two specifically - Paladin and Sorcerer. The Paladin was too specific, and basically meant that all Paladins were the same beyond their personality (which with LG characters still tended to be the same). The Sorcerer was not different enough from the Wizard to justify a separate class. It had fewer spells and received new spells less often, which meant that a party with a Sorcerer instead of a Wizard would always lag behind in terms of spellpower.
In addition, 3rd Edition took the approach that the party should be composed of four characters - Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard. All of the encounters are based around the presence of these four classes, or at least classes that fulfilled their function. What did this requirement actually mean? You need a tank, a healer, a skill-user, and a spellcaster. That's the approach that 4th Edition is taking, and I don't really like identifying them as such. Too World of Warcraft-y.
And then it hit me. There are six ability scores - Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. These abilities have been with the game since the beginning, and have persisted throughout each incarnation. Why not base the classes around the ability scores? Heck, 75% of that work's already been done!
So you have the six ability scores, and you can divide them into two groups - Physical and Mental. That gives you six base classes. When you look at it like that you start to see how the classes came into being. Fighter? Strength. Wizard? Intelligence. Taking it a step further you can combine abilities between the two groups to create a few more. Bard? Dexterity + Charisma. While combining the aspects of two classes, these new classes took on a life of their own.
With that in mind I started looking at the six ability scores and matching them up between the two groups. Strength, Constitution, and Dexterity VS. Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Here's the list I came up with:
Strength
Constitution
Dexterity
Intelligence
Wisdom
Charisma
Strength/Intelligence
Strength/Wisdom
Strength/Charisma
Constitution/Intelligence
Constitution/Wisdom
Constitution/Charisma
Dexterity/Intelligence
Dexterity/Wisdom
Dexterity/Charisma
Fifteen combinations. Looking at the list like that you can see some immediate corrollations between existing classes. Bard = Dexterity/Charisma. Barbarian = Constitution. Etc. D20 Modern took a similar approach to this but genericized it too much. They removed the classes and made Strength heroes and Intelligence heroes. Too generic for D&D.
In comparing the list above to the clases there are still a few inconsistencies. As I stated earlier, the Paladin was a problem. What was the Paladin? A martial Cleric? Isn't the Cleric already martial? Isn't the Paladin really just a Cleric with less spells and a few specific abilities? The Paladin gets dropped to remove duplication.
The problem then becomes what defines a Wisdom based class versus a Strength/Wisdom class. So I took a look at a niche that was missing - the pure divine spellcaster. Someone who eschews combat for spells, just like the Wizard. That relegates the Cleric to the Strength/Wisdom niche, which means their spells are going to get reduced (not much) in favor of more abilities. I'm thinking more specific abilities around Domains.
The Wisdom class then becomes a pure divine spellcaster with no combat abilities. I'm going to call this class the Priest since that is what it is. Now things make sense - the paladin is now a Cleric of Heironeous (or other LG ideal) and the Cleric is now able to function as a fighting divine spellcaster.
The Druid is also a problem. What is a Druid but a nature-themed Cleric who can shapechange? The Druid as written gets dropped and its abilities get absorbed into nature-themed Domains. The wild shape gets turned into something else, but I'll get to that in a moment.
Taking the classes as presented in the 3rd Edition PHB here's what I came up with when applying them to the fifteen combos:
Strength -- Fighter
Constitution -- Barbarian
Dexterity -- Rogue
Intelligence -- Wizard
Wisdom
Charisma
Strength/Intelligence
Strength/Wisdom -- Cleric
Strength/Charisma
Constitution/Intelligence
Constitution/Wisdom -- Monk
Constitution/Charisma
Dexterity/Intelligence
Dexterity/Wisdom -- Ranger
Dexterity/Charisma -- Bard
Sorcerer is too much of a duplicate class to include, and both the Paladin and Druid get eliminated as discussed above. I think the matches make an eerie kind of sense actually - the Ranger is really a Dexterity and Wisdom based class, and the Monk combines Wisdom and Constitution. Now to fill in the gaps.
Let's just populate Wisdom with Priest. It's abilities need to hammered out but getting the concept is the hardest part, which is already done.
Charisma and Constitution are problems, and have been a problem in D&D for a long time. These two ability scores are pretty important for EVERYONE depending on how you view your character, Constitution more so because it governs hit points. Charisma is definitely a "throw away" ability score - few game mechanics are based around it.
The fix for that is to create a game mechanic that is based on Charisma and to base a class around it. In 3rd Edition they tried this with Sorcerer, but failed to make it unique enough. So where to go from there?
I toyed with the idea of making the Charisma-based class psionic in nature. It kind of makes sense - the force of your personality fuels mental powers. But the flavor never really felt altogether there and I abandoned it.
One phrase that kept rolling around in my head surrounding this conundrum was "sphere of influence." I don't know why, but I've always associated Charisma with this phrase. Playing around with some naming conventions I decided to create a mechanic that this Charisma-based class would have access to surrounding the idea of "Spheres."
Some of the names I considered for this class (since I think the name tells a lot about the thing) include the following: weaver, beguiler, psion, noble, wellborn, and patrician. Nothing jumped out at me, though I liked weaver (and Beguiler was a new class presented in PHB II). I've come around to the idea that this Charisma-based class was going to be an influencer of people and have abilities that make the party better, kind of like the Bard.
After mulling the idea around I settled on Lord. The Lord is my Charisma-based class with abilities relating to spheres (like the Cleric/Priest has abilities surrounding domains and the Wizard has abilities surrounding schools). The name lord has kind of a noble connotation, but I think the name works - it's simple, it's direct, and it can apply to any number of character concepts. The Lord is someone who can stop a swordblow from landing, command men and women to do his bidding, and to control the situation from behind the scenes. That covers Charisma.
With that in mind the Strength/Charisma class almost writes itself - Knight. This fulfills the honorable warrior role the Paladin previously occupied and creates a new class to incorporate more of the sphere based abilities. I'm going to start with the Knight as presented in the PHB II but take it in a different direction.
Four left - Strength/Intelligence, Constitution/Intelligence, Constitution/Charisma, and Dexterity/Intelligence. You could make an argument that the Bard is really a Dexterity/Intelligence class, but I decided to focus it on Charisma instead. One idea I've always liked and haven't seen implemented well in 3rd Edition is the concept of the spellfilch - a thief/mage combo from 2nd Edition. Changing it slightly to be just Filch fills the role of the Dexterity/Intelligence class, which will have abilities akin to the Arcane Trickster prestige class from the DMG.
The two Constitution classes took some thinking. I came up with the idea of a class who cannibalizes his own body for power, and thus the Warlock was born (Constitution/Intelligence). Not sure what its abilities will be at this point but the concept is there. Perhaps a focus on summoning (kind of like the World of Warcraft warlock). Still thinking on that one.
To me, the idea of Constitution and Charisma brings to mind someone who uses their body to change how they appear. With a little creative tweaking this becomes the Shaper - a classed based around the wild shape Druid ability but with expanded abilities. The Shaper could be a totem-based warrior or an avenger of nature.
That leaves Strength/Intelligence. There are quite a few prestige classes that work to fill this niche (including Eldritch Knight and Spellsword) but nothing's really struck me as being the right fit for a base class. What about fitting the lame 3rd Edition Sorcerer into this role? Unearthed Arcana had alternate class abilities for all of the base classes, and one of them was the Battle Sorcerer - access to fewer spells but combat abilities to compensate. Why not turn the Sorcerer into this variant? I decided on that and thus the Strength/Intelligence-based Sorcerer class was born.
That rounds out the list, which looks like this now along with the classes primary focus:
Strength -- Fighter (combat feats)
Constitution -- Barbarian (rage)
Dexterity -- Rogue (sneak)
Intelligence -- Wizard (schools)
Wisdom -- Priest (domains)
Charisma -- Lord (spheres)
Strength/Intelligence -- Sorcerer (arcane combat)
Strength/Wisdom -- Cleric (divine combat)
Strength/Charisma -- Knight (presence)
Constitution/Intelligence -- Warlock (
Constitution/Wisdom -- Monk (personal training)
Constitution/Charisma -- Shaper (wild shape)
Dexterity/Intelligence -- Filch (arcane skullduggery)
Dexterity/Wisdom -- Ranger (wilderness)
Dexterity/Charisma -- Bard (music)
Fifteen classes. The new ones (Priest, Lord, Sorcerer, Knight, Warlock, Shaper, and Filch) I think fulfill existing roles and create interesting combinations that would otherwise have required multiclassing for lesser effect. Each class needs to stand on its own, and it also needs to make sense from a multi-class standpoint.
I'm going to give this post a publish to give myself a breather.
It's time to throw that thinking out the window, my friends. I wanted to start with my thought process behin the whole thing. I've struggled a lot with how to classify the classes (?). What separates them mechnically? How could they be grouped? 2nd Edition D&D broke the classes down into the following four categories
Warrior - Fighter, Ranger, Paladin
Priest - Cleric, Druid
Wizard - Mage, Illusionist
Rogue - Thief, Bard
Those were the base classes as presented in the 2nd Edition PHB. In 3rd Edition I started to break it down even further. Thoughts that came into mind included grouping by base attack bonus (low, middle, high), ability focus (feats, skills, magic), or traditional (warrior, priest, wizard, and rogue). Nothing really fit.
Here are the 11 classes as presented in the 3rd Edition PHB:
Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard.
Of these classes I've had problems with two specifically - Paladin and Sorcerer. The Paladin was too specific, and basically meant that all Paladins were the same beyond their personality (which with LG characters still tended to be the same). The Sorcerer was not different enough from the Wizard to justify a separate class. It had fewer spells and received new spells less often, which meant that a party with a Sorcerer instead of a Wizard would always lag behind in terms of spellpower.
In addition, 3rd Edition took the approach that the party should be composed of four characters - Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard. All of the encounters are based around the presence of these four classes, or at least classes that fulfilled their function. What did this requirement actually mean? You need a tank, a healer, a skill-user, and a spellcaster. That's the approach that 4th Edition is taking, and I don't really like identifying them as such. Too World of Warcraft-y.
And then it hit me. There are six ability scores - Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. These abilities have been with the game since the beginning, and have persisted throughout each incarnation. Why not base the classes around the ability scores? Heck, 75% of that work's already been done!
So you have the six ability scores, and you can divide them into two groups - Physical and Mental. That gives you six base classes. When you look at it like that you start to see how the classes came into being. Fighter? Strength. Wizard? Intelligence. Taking it a step further you can combine abilities between the two groups to create a few more. Bard? Dexterity + Charisma. While combining the aspects of two classes, these new classes took on a life of their own.
With that in mind I started looking at the six ability scores and matching them up between the two groups. Strength, Constitution, and Dexterity VS. Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Here's the list I came up with:
Strength
Constitution
Dexterity
Intelligence
Wisdom
Charisma
Strength/Intelligence
Strength/Wisdom
Strength/Charisma
Constitution/Intelligence
Constitution/Wisdom
Constitution/Charisma
Dexterity/Intelligence
Dexterity/Wisdom
Dexterity/Charisma
Fifteen combinations. Looking at the list like that you can see some immediate corrollations between existing classes. Bard = Dexterity/Charisma. Barbarian = Constitution. Etc. D20 Modern took a similar approach to this but genericized it too much. They removed the classes and made Strength heroes and Intelligence heroes. Too generic for D&D.
In comparing the list above to the clases there are still a few inconsistencies. As I stated earlier, the Paladin was a problem. What was the Paladin? A martial Cleric? Isn't the Cleric already martial? Isn't the Paladin really just a Cleric with less spells and a few specific abilities? The Paladin gets dropped to remove duplication.
The problem then becomes what defines a Wisdom based class versus a Strength/Wisdom class. So I took a look at a niche that was missing - the pure divine spellcaster. Someone who eschews combat for spells, just like the Wizard. That relegates the Cleric to the Strength/Wisdom niche, which means their spells are going to get reduced (not much) in favor of more abilities. I'm thinking more specific abilities around Domains.
The Wisdom class then becomes a pure divine spellcaster with no combat abilities. I'm going to call this class the Priest since that is what it is. Now things make sense - the paladin is now a Cleric of Heironeous (or other LG ideal) and the Cleric is now able to function as a fighting divine spellcaster.
The Druid is also a problem. What is a Druid but a nature-themed Cleric who can shapechange? The Druid as written gets dropped and its abilities get absorbed into nature-themed Domains. The wild shape gets turned into something else, but I'll get to that in a moment.
Taking the classes as presented in the 3rd Edition PHB here's what I came up with when applying them to the fifteen combos:
Strength -- Fighter
Constitution -- Barbarian
Dexterity -- Rogue
Intelligence -- Wizard
Wisdom
Charisma
Strength/Intelligence
Strength/Wisdom -- Cleric
Strength/Charisma
Constitution/Intelligence
Constitution/Wisdom -- Monk
Constitution/Charisma
Dexterity/Intelligence
Dexterity/Wisdom -- Ranger
Dexterity/Charisma -- Bard
Sorcerer is too much of a duplicate class to include, and both the Paladin and Druid get eliminated as discussed above. I think the matches make an eerie kind of sense actually - the Ranger is really a Dexterity and Wisdom based class, and the Monk combines Wisdom and Constitution. Now to fill in the gaps.
Let's just populate Wisdom with Priest. It's abilities need to hammered out but getting the concept is the hardest part, which is already done.
Charisma and Constitution are problems, and have been a problem in D&D for a long time. These two ability scores are pretty important for EVERYONE depending on how you view your character, Constitution more so because it governs hit points. Charisma is definitely a "throw away" ability score - few game mechanics are based around it.
The fix for that is to create a game mechanic that is based on Charisma and to base a class around it. In 3rd Edition they tried this with Sorcerer, but failed to make it unique enough. So where to go from there?
I toyed with the idea of making the Charisma-based class psionic in nature. It kind of makes sense - the force of your personality fuels mental powers. But the flavor never really felt altogether there and I abandoned it.
One phrase that kept rolling around in my head surrounding this conundrum was "sphere of influence." I don't know why, but I've always associated Charisma with this phrase. Playing around with some naming conventions I decided to create a mechanic that this Charisma-based class would have access to surrounding the idea of "Spheres."
Some of the names I considered for this class (since I think the name tells a lot about the thing) include the following: weaver, beguiler, psion, noble, wellborn, and patrician. Nothing jumped out at me, though I liked weaver (and Beguiler was a new class presented in PHB II). I've come around to the idea that this Charisma-based class was going to be an influencer of people and have abilities that make the party better, kind of like the Bard.
After mulling the idea around I settled on Lord. The Lord is my Charisma-based class with abilities relating to spheres (like the Cleric/Priest has abilities surrounding domains and the Wizard has abilities surrounding schools). The name lord has kind of a noble connotation, but I think the name works - it's simple, it's direct, and it can apply to any number of character concepts. The Lord is someone who can stop a swordblow from landing, command men and women to do his bidding, and to control the situation from behind the scenes. That covers Charisma.
With that in mind the Strength/Charisma class almost writes itself - Knight. This fulfills the honorable warrior role the Paladin previously occupied and creates a new class to incorporate more of the sphere based abilities. I'm going to start with the Knight as presented in the PHB II but take it in a different direction.
Four left - Strength/Intelligence, Constitution/Intelligence, Constitution/Charisma, and Dexterity/Intelligence. You could make an argument that the Bard is really a Dexterity/Intelligence class, but I decided to focus it on Charisma instead. One idea I've always liked and haven't seen implemented well in 3rd Edition is the concept of the spellfilch - a thief/mage combo from 2nd Edition. Changing it slightly to be just Filch fills the role of the Dexterity/Intelligence class, which will have abilities akin to the Arcane Trickster prestige class from the DMG.
The two Constitution classes took some thinking. I came up with the idea of a class who cannibalizes his own body for power, and thus the Warlock was born (Constitution/Intelligence). Not sure what its abilities will be at this point but the concept is there. Perhaps a focus on summoning (kind of like the World of Warcraft warlock). Still thinking on that one.
To me, the idea of Constitution and Charisma brings to mind someone who uses their body to change how they appear. With a little creative tweaking this becomes the Shaper - a classed based around the wild shape Druid ability but with expanded abilities. The Shaper could be a totem-based warrior or an avenger of nature.
That leaves Strength/Intelligence. There are quite a few prestige classes that work to fill this niche (including Eldritch Knight and Spellsword) but nothing's really struck me as being the right fit for a base class. What about fitting the lame 3rd Edition Sorcerer into this role? Unearthed Arcana had alternate class abilities for all of the base classes, and one of them was the Battle Sorcerer - access to fewer spells but combat abilities to compensate. Why not turn the Sorcerer into this variant? I decided on that and thus the Strength/Intelligence-based Sorcerer class was born.
That rounds out the list, which looks like this now along with the classes primary focus:
Strength -- Fighter (combat feats)
Constitution -- Barbarian (rage)
Dexterity -- Rogue (sneak)
Intelligence -- Wizard (schools)
Wisdom -- Priest (domains)
Charisma -- Lord (spheres)
Strength/Intelligence -- Sorcerer (arcane combat)
Strength/Wisdom -- Cleric (divine combat)
Strength/Charisma -- Knight (presence)
Constitution/Intelligence -- Warlock (
Constitution/Wisdom -- Monk (personal training)
Constitution/Charisma -- Shaper (wild shape)
Dexterity/Intelligence -- Filch (arcane skullduggery)
Dexterity/Wisdom -- Ranger (wilderness)
Dexterity/Charisma -- Bard (music)
Fifteen classes. The new ones (Priest, Lord, Sorcerer, Knight, Warlock, Shaper, and Filch) I think fulfill existing roles and create interesting combinations that would otherwise have required multiclassing for lesser effect. Each class needs to stand on its own, and it also needs to make sense from a multi-class standpoint.
I'm going to give this post a publish to give myself a breather.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)