New Occupational Character Classes

[Guest]

I've seen a few of these types of poll over in the Rifts forum, however, I'm looking for a discussion more generic than just covering Rifts with it's thousand and one O.C.C.s, half of which duplicate some other existing O.C.C. or provide such a little difference that there was no point in having the O.C.C.

Hmm...I probably should have included an option for dividing games by whether they have enough, too many, not enough, etc. O.C.C.s...

[Natalya]

Oooo....first vote!

None really fit how I feel. The number of OCCs doesn't really bother me. What does bother me is that there are gaps in some areas that really could use an OCC that I often have to bend and break a few rules with an existing OCC to make it work, and there are other OCCs that are little more than a carbon copy of another.

So my answer is two-fold. Don't make anymore OCCs that aren't distinct. Do make more that are distinct.

[Guest]

Oooo....first vote!

None really fit how I feel. The number of OCCs doesn't really bother me. What does bother me is that there are gaps in some areas that really could use an OCC that I often have to bend and break a few rules with an existing OCC to make it work, and there are other OCCs that are little more than a carbon copy of another.

So my answer is two-fold. Don't make anymore OCCs that aren't distinct. Do make more that are distinct.

Uh, Naty, that option WAS included in the poll: "While there *could* be room for more O.C.C.s that are truly diverse, there's too many existing O.C.C.s that don't"

[Natalya]

Oooo....first vote!

None really fit how I feel. The number of OCCs doesn't really bother me. What does bother me is that there are gaps in some areas that really could use an OCC that I often have to bend and break a few rules with an existing OCC to make it work, and there are other OCCs that are little more than a carbon copy of another.

So my answer is two-fold. Don't make anymore OCCs that aren't distinct. Do make more that are distinct.

Uh, Naty, that option WAS included in the poll: "While there *could* be room for more O.C.C.s that are truly diverse, there's too many existing O.C.C.s that don't"

Touche. I interpreted that to mean "don't add anymore, because while there are gaps, you're not hitting them, so just give up". I didn't realize exactly what you were saying.

[Northern Ranger]

Whether or not more OCC's are required depends on the game system. (I believe you mentioned something similar in your first post, Kuseru.) For example, games like Beyond the Supernatural and Nightbane could likely use a few more OCC's. (I myself, being a die hard PF fan, think there is a lot of room for more OCC's there, if their done right.) But Rifts I think could benefit from a reduction in OCC's. It's starting to seem like there are more "heroic" occupations on Rifts Earth than there are standard occupations for ordinary people!

[Vrykolas2k]

I voted for the OCCs that have a purpose option.
Really, it's like Palladium and WotC are in an arms race to see how many character classes they can make...

[J. Lionheart]

I don't mind 'em when they have a purpose.

Honestly though, many seem to be written as whole new O.C.C.'s, when there is no difference at all between them and a previously existing one - they just reverse which skills were O.C.C. skills, and which you took as other skills (all ending up with the same load-out anyway).

The other thing I dislike is the over-powered O.C.C.'s. So many folks seem to keep whipping out things that are the new "ultimate power in the universe" "only one exists" types, which honestly are completely useless to anybody who follows their write-up. How about providing some O.C.C.'s that actually can legitimately have significant numbers of people in it?

Both of these complaints are directed more towards The Rifter than towards PB canon... PB canon has been doing alright, so far as I'm concerned (though I'm not a RIFTS player).

[Guest]

Interesting, all told, it looks like 60% of the voters have no problem with new, diverse OCCs that actually have a purpose.

[glitterboy2098]

i see no problem with more OCC's.

with the following conditions:
it is signifigantly different from an existing OCC, even if it shares a role (compare Merc Robot pilot to CS RPA, for example)

there is a reason for it's existance.

for example, no one would suggest using CS military OCC's to make NGR soldiers, despite the OCC's being similar. this is because the two come from different backgrounds and settings, which means the differences are more pronounced.

it's the same with Japan or Austrialia. you can't really use existing OCC's there because of unique local needs.

however, we don't need a 'pigman' CS soldier OCC, when you can use the normal CS soldier. you don't need a SAMAS pilot OCC when you can use an RPA. ect.

[Guest]

i see no problem with more OCC's.

with the following conditions:
it is signifigantly different from an existing OCC, even if it shares a role (compare Merc Robot pilot to CS RPA, for example)

Those aren't significant differences.

there is a reason for it's existance.

for example, no one would suggest using CS military OCC's to make NGR soldiers, despite the OCC's being similar. this is because the two come from different backgrounds and settings, which means the differences are more pronounced.

No, instead they'd suggest a generic military O.C.C. class so you don't have tons of classes who are only slightly different, like the CS and NGR soldiers.

it's the same with Japan or Austrialia. you can't really use existing OCC's there because of unique local needs.

Not really, both Japan and Australia have a "cop" O.C.C. (among several others), when there's no reason to have a new O.C.C. just because it's a different area.

however, we don't need a 'pigman' CS soldier OCC, when you can use the normal CS soldier. you don't need a SAMAS pilot OCC when you can use an RPA. ect.

That's only half of the duplication of OCCs in Rifts, you illustrated the other half in your post.

[Mack]

I was just thinking a few days ago how many anti-evil warriors are wandering around Rifts North America.

Cyber-Knights
Lyn-Seral (I mis-spelled that, but you know who I mean)
Order of the White Rose
Magebane
Justice Rangers
Psi-Warriors
Undead Slayers & various other True Atlanteans
Tundra Rangers
Battle Magus, Lord Magus, High Magus (generally all good guys)
Grey Seers

That was just a quick list I through together, I'm sure I missed some. Imagine if all these groups managed to coordinate a little.

[GA]

I've said this before. Do it like Ninjas and Superspies have a few base classes and a bunch of skill packages. Skill packages could come up with different books possibly as terrain and location vary but the main classes wouldn't vary much. I'd probably have 5 Base Classes: Soldier (or to be a little more broad, military), Adventurer, Mage, Psychic, Martial Artist. And possibly a hybrid class for magical/psychic characters and/or battlemages.(although split classes might be in order).

Here's an example. The book has a ton of OCCs on the various kind of Soldiers. What you do is you jettison all those classes and then you make skill packages.

Like ok Coalition Grunt.

OCC Soldier
Basic Military Skill Program with a +15 on each skill in program. +1 to Strike.

Basic Communications Program
+1 to Strike with all Knives
Physical Skill Program
Basic Piloting Program
Select 1 MOS

Tundra Ranger

OCC Soldier
Guerilla Warfare Skill Program +10
Military Intelligence +10
Alpine Survival +5
Tundra Survival +25
Wilderness Survival +15
Sniper

Well we can debate on what those skill packages and skills should or shouldn't include but the point is you can vastly reduce the OCCs (although more than the 5 i suggested might be necessary, in fact i'm sure it is) and just mix and match Skills and Skill Programs for the various regions.

[Greyaxe]

i've always liked the 1st edition of PFRG personally.

only a few OCCs with lots of skill options for each one ... rather than a countless multitude of OCCs that all have the same set of skills.

i find most of the new OCCs are just getting repetitive, they all have the same skills that cannot be changed with only a little variance in special abilities.

I have to agree, it is basically a handfull of skills varrying each of these occs, you could get away with a skill package and bamb a new occ.

[Ahulane]

I personally would like to see an actuall Blacksmith OCC for PF...I own a majority of the books and haven't seen anything other than mystic smiths like Kuznya or Weapon Mage...but those aren't your basic Blacksmith.

Hmmmmm....maybe just more scholar/farmer/vagabond level OCC's just for fun imo. Nothing really special for OCC abilities, kinda like RUE updated OCC's where they have specialties.

I just voted for the more diverse option

There's too many.

Same with XP tables. Just condense to 3 or 4 and go with that.

Maybe an option for a complete book of OCC's?? Included is a section with all the xp tables for easy reference...don't know if anything like that is in the works...if not, could make it similer to the new D-bee's book with existing OCC's and then new ones. People would still have to buy other books though because there wouldn't be any background information on the various places in Rifts earth or PF and whatnot...could also just make a book to include all OCC"s from World Books 1-30, then when you get another 30...make another book to include those OCC's. Pretty sure people would purchase something like that just for the ease of reference and to avoid all the hassel of shuffling through 50+ books to look for something.

Just my thoughts on the OCC deal though...

[verdilak]

I would like to see more O.C.C.'s that are more than just a story and skills.

Like in Northern Hinterlands, the Blacksmith and Fletcher have special skills that make them what they are, whereas the Lumberjack doesn't. In my mind, there is no need of the Lumberjack O.C.C. without something that sets him apart, even if it's a single special skill.

I love more O.C.C.'s, but only as long as they are surving a worldwide purpose and not just to be more powerful variants.

[CyCo]

One of the issues I have with some of the Rifts OCCs, is having a piece of equipment being an OCC.

Cyborg, Juicer, Crazy, Glitterboy Pilot being just a couple, and from the RMB at that.

Really, these could have all used a basic 'Soldier OCC', then apply a particular 'MOS' to get the 'extra skill selection' for your chosen specialty. Hell, you don't even need Pilot: PA Elite, or Headhunter either.

I could go on, but I'm sure you can see where I'm heading with this.

[Spinachcat]

I really like the diversity of OCCs...even when there is crossover with an OCC from another book. I view each Worldbook as an isolated zone worthy of having its own campaign so if there are some pages devoted to OCCs that are similiar to core OCCs from North America, I'm still cool.

My caveat is this: every OCC has to be tied into their setting and add coolness to the setting by their presence.

The generic classes lead to generic settings. As long as the OCC is tweaked for extra coolness, I'm a happy puppy.

[Dustin Fireblade]

One of the issues I have with some of the Rifts OCCs, is having a piece of equipment being an OCC.

Cyborg, Juicer, Crazy, Glitterboy Pilot being just a couple, and from the RMB at that.

Really, these could have all used a basic 'Soldier OCC', then apply a particular 'MOS' to get the 'extra skill selection' for your chosen specialty. Hell, you don't even need Pilot: PA Elite, or Headhunter either.

I could go on, but I'm sure you can see where I'm heading with this.

i completely agree ... juicers, crazies and borgs are augmentations not professions. but while power armour might be equipment, being a pilot is a profession.

That's pretty much what I've done as well. I use a "soldier" and a "super-soldier" OCC's.

[Spinachcat]

People love their Palladium characters for a reason.

I think the wide amount OCC options certainly add to this.

[leonmallett]

I voted:

I don't mind seeing new O.C.C.s that actually have a purpose

My vote was in context of HU2 which is the Palladium game I concentrate on. I feel there is always room for new categories (or modfied categories) as long as the experience progression, abilities/skills allocation and so on are reasonably balanced and most importantly that the new category/modification offers something distinctive (and power creep is not what I mean by distinctive).

[CyCo]

One of the issues I have with some of the Rifts OCCs, is having a piece of equipment being an OCC.

Cyborg, Juicer, Crazy, Glitterboy Pilot being just a couple, and from the RMB at that.

Really, these could have all used a basic 'Soldier OCC', then apply a particular 'MOS' to get the 'extra skill selection' for your chosen specialty. Hell, you don't even need Pilot: PA Elite, or Headhunter either.

I could go on, but I'm sure you can see where I'm heading with this.

i completely agree ... juicers, crazies and borgs are augmentations not professions. but while power armour might be equipment, being a pilot is a profession.

What I meant about the PA Pilot, is that I don't really see the need for multiple PA/Robot Pilot based OCCs. Just like having multiple Soldier OCCs isn't really needed either.

[lather]

Maybe we can have the why be a mercenary fighter when you can be a knight conversation again?

But granularity can get out of hand, I totally agree of course.

[Aramanthus]

I did vote!