How would you Improved PFrpg,s OCC?

[gaby]

How would you Improved PFrpg,s OCC?

[The Beast]

I'd get rid off all OCCs and most RCCs, and replace them with some kind of point-based system that also uses your character's IQ and background into consideration.

[kiralon]

Change XP tables
Add lots of house rules, this is to smooth out certain things but i did add perks.
But mostly i find that letting the build to their differences works pretty well.
For example i have a player who plays lots of dwarf soldiers.
The current one uses magic, cooks, sings and plays music and cant find his way around a forge.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Remove calling all the 'Character Classes' '.O.C.C.'s and just call them 'Character Classes' when talking about ALL the character classes. This would remove most of the confusion about which character classes are being talked about. In my opinion this was one thing PB should of done with RUE to make the Rifts game simpler.

I'd get rid off all OCCs and most RCCs, and replace them with some kind of point-based system that also uses your character's IQ and background into consideration.

So you would keep the PCCs that are within the current canon text?
& When you say RCCs (there are about 4 RCCs in the PF game books) did you really mean the Races that inhabit the PF world? If you did, then leave the RIFTS terminology for use in the Rifts Forum. In the PF game the races are correctly talked about as races & RCCs are correctly used to reference those Character Classes restricted to certain races.
-- I Hate the idea of getting rid of all the different races, because that is one of the things that make a Fantasy setting a Fantasy setting.
-- Point system, is GURPS' Stick.
-- EXP Tables: reducing the level of EXP for each consecutive level would go a long way to making the game more enjoyable due to faster level advancement.

[Grazzik]

From the top...

Alignment breakdowns are generally meaningless as players are going to pick whatever alignment they want to play. The breakdown is really to help understand the broader group of NPCs that form that particular class, which should cover the full spectrum. But does it really matter that 12% of Imperial Soldiers are Anarchist vs the 10% that are Unprincipled? (WB8 pg 26)

I don't believe in racial restrictions as any being with a working brain should be able to learn a skill with enough time and effort. IRL animals teach technical skills and cultural aspects, like regional songs, to their young. So I figure even the lowliest Hairy Jack should be able to aspire to be something greater if they have the right attributes... which they probably won't. See below for ideas re cultural or biological limitations.

Use simply character classes (CCs).

Treat the CCs as generic archetypes that represent a foundational world view - fighter (violence), leader (power), mage (magic), artisan (creating), laborer (work), etc.

All fighters, for example, would have the same extremely basic CC skills to set a foundation that aligns with the character's world view as a fighter. Distinctions between the types of fighters would be made through the use of groups of CC related skills akin to a MOS or Skill Programs used in other PB games. So a mercenary would have the same fundamental CC skills as a legionnaire that makes both a fighter, but they would have different CC related skills as represented by the Skill Programs that reflect their different training and focus. This would allow characters to mature by adding either individual skills (as is currently the case) or entire Skill Programs over time through training. It might also prevent players picking that weird skill from the category marked "Any" that has no bearing on their backstory. Skill programs help frame that backstory up better than individual skill selections. That said, some skill programs might still allow players to select weird skill combinations, but at least they are given a modicum of context.

Keep using attribute requirements for CCs, but also have relevant attribute requirements for the skill programs (most likely IQ, PS and PP, but other attributes may be relevant, e.g. ME or MA for healing skill programs). Some legionnaires make good front line warriors, but might not grow beyond their basic understanding of fighting to master the art of war because their IQ or MA is too low.

For characters that grow and mature, for example a fighter that retires and becomes a barkeep, there is no dual CC - simply add the relevant Skill Program if they have the prerequisites (if any). However, the character's foundational CC should remain unchanged - we shouldn't be able to escape our past.

Speaking of changing careers, be explicit as to who can learn magic and when. MoM touches on it on pg 18 and pg 66 giving confusing age ranges, but clear cut rules would be helpful. Can a 19 yo who has been a Squire for three years turn around and learn magic? Yes or no?

Side note: What's this sexist BS about 80% of spell casters are male? No rationale given. (MoM pg 17)

Cultural differences that come from being a member of a Dwarf community, Wolfen tribe or whatever should be a separate set of skill minimums or bonuses if the skill is already known via CC. Kind of like the "automatic" skills in other PB games, like language, literacy, math basic and pilot automobile. These cultural skills could be restricted to a specific Skill Program only available to members of that particular culture or community. For example, if the Skill Program is unique to Wolfen tribes, then the members of those tribes would typically be the only ones who'd have access to that Skill Program. However, if some Wolfen tribes have accepted Dwarves and Humans as members, then it would be understandable if some of these Dwarves and Humans learned the restricted Skill Program. But this requires the character's backstory be explicit about how they came to have access to the skills.

If a skill is specifically requiring a biological aspect - like being 10ft tall or see in the dark - make the skill description clear about requiring the natural ability. So, for example, if a specific Wolfen physical skill requires a height of 10ft, Dwarves could not learn it, but Ogres presumably could.

In addition to skill programs, character context would provide different skill bonuses. For example, a Western Empire legionnaire may get a different bonus to WP Siege Engines than an Eastern Territories legionnaire, simply because the difference in military doctrines, modes of war, and cultural biases between the two regional powers may affect how that skill is taught or prioritized for mastery.

Keeping track of the differing EXP requirements to level is a royal pain. I understand the thinking - a fighter may gain real world wisdom faster than a bookworm scholar through experience, but we don't need pages and pages of EXP tables. Have them for the very limited number of top level CCs, but in that case all fighters, whether Merc or Imperial Janissary, would use the same table.

Drop the starting equipment unless specific to the player backstory. Simply give X GP and let the player purchase what gear (weapons, armor, tools, etc.) they think they will need. If the backstory is that they are enlisted in a formal army or members of a regimented guild, then the organization description should state what their standard issue is... not the CC.

Of course, this would be a large undertaking to rewrite across the entire game, but I think worth it to add depth to characters and structure to their backstories. Also, if done right, it would scale better as the world of Palladium expands - perhaps avoid the cut, paste, edit that seems to happen in Rifts from time to time. By keeping the CC/CC Related structure, it would also remain aligned megaversally for those who play as such.

Just some ideas... feedback is welcome.

[The Beast]

Remove calling all the 'Character Classes' '.O.C.C.'s and just call them 'Character Classes' when talking about ALL the character classes. This would remove most of the confusion about which character classes are being talked about. In my opinion this was one thing PB should of done with RUE to make the Rifts game simpler.

I'd get rid off all OCCs and most RCCs, and replace them with some kind of point-based system that also uses your character's IQ and background into consideration.

So you would keep the PCCs that are within the current canon text?
& When you say RCCs (there are about 4 RCCs in the PF game books) did you really mean the Races that inhabit the PF world? If you did, then leave the RIFTS terminology for use in the Rifts Forum. In the PF game the races are correctly talked about as races & RCCs are correctly used to reference those Character Classes restricted to certain races.
-- I Hate the idea of getting rid of all the different races, because that is one of the things that make a Fantasy setting a Fantasy setting.
-- Point system, is GURPS' Stick.
-- EXP Tables: reducing the level of EXP for each consecutive level would go a long way to making the game more enjoyable due to faster level advancement.

I'd go through the RCCs and eliminate the more "job"-orientated ones but keep the "nature"-orientated ones. And by that I mean there are some species that are borderline inteligent and/or sapient enough that they have some skills, but the species hasn't quite evolved enough to be able to learn skills outside of what they've traditionally needed to survive would be ones that stay as RCCs. But those species that have a human level of IQ and/or sapience and could learn skills the same as a human but tend to stick to their traditional roles solely out of tradition wouldn't be a RCC anymore. Instead their species description would have some sort of footnote saying something like "the males of the species tend to be warriors" or whatever, and that members of that species that go outside of those traditional roles may be shunned, banished, hunted down and executed, or something like that. And then if there's a species like dragons that start out like a nature-orientated RCC as a hatchling, but transition to a job-orientated RCC when they reach adulthood would stay the same I guess. Someone would have to go through each and every RCC and try to figure out how their author envisioned them.

With psychics and PCCs I think it'd be kind of the same, but with an added caveat that for the job-orientated PCCs you have to have psychic powers before choosing that class, unless it's the inital class upon character creation. So if your CS Grunt wanted to be a Mind Mage they'd need to have randomly rolled (or got permission from the GM to have) psychic powers when the character was made. But even if that grunt had psionics they couldn't transition into a Psi-Stalker because that's a nature-orientated PCC. But just as with the RCCs someone would have to go through each PCC and see if that class was meant as something you had to be born into or it was something anyone with psychic potential could learn to do.

And in case it wasn't clear, yes, I'd eliminate OCCs from each and every Palladium book. When I first started playing Robotech back in '88 I thought it was ok because it made character creation a bit easier when I didn't know what I was doing. However my tastes in what I want from a game have changed and now I feel that the OCC system results in cookie-cutter characters, with some sprinkles on top. And by that I mean each and every Veritech Pilot will have the same base skills. as will every Ley Line Walker, as will every Ranger, as will every Monk Scholar, as will every Temporal Wizard, and so forth. Then they can be slightly varied through the OCC Related and Secondary Skills, but not by much due to skill restrictions on every class. I feel the Power Category system from Heroes Unlimited is slightly better at giving you a more unique character but not by much, especially if your GM enforces the random roll for education level and you roll poorly.

[Library Ogre]

Oof. Big question, somewhat ties to the entire system.

I tend to prefer single XP table games, these days, so that would be a consideration.

I would definitely look into condensing some of the OCCs, especially the Men at Arms. Wizards, Warlocks, and Diabolists are all very different characters, because their special abilities and magical powers MAKE them different. .. Mercenary Fighter and Solider are different jobs for the same sort of character... rangers aren't even all that different from them, just a different skill suite (that can be closely replicated by skill choices).

I would also likely make the Knight/Paladin background table universal... everyone comes from somewhere, and a background table provides a clear distinction between "Mercenary Warrior who comes from a poor family" and "Mercenary Warrior who comes from a noble background".

I'd also move non-CC psychic powers to a paid-for option (in skill selections), maybe with enhancements for each particular OCC... so a Thief can take any psychic powers they want, but if they take these powers, they get some bonus ISP, because that's one that's closely aligned with the class.

[Kraynic]

I would definitely look into condensing some of the OCCs, especially the Men at Arms. Wizards, Warlocks, and Diabolists are all very different characters, because their special abilities and magical powers MAKE them different. .. Mercenary Fighter and Solider are different jobs for the same sort of character... rangers aren't even all that different from them, just a different skill suite (that can be closely replicated by skill choices).

I would also likely make the Knight/Paladin background table universal... everyone comes from somewhere, and a background table provides a clear distinction between "Mercenary Warrior who comes from a poor family" and "Mercenary Warrior who comes from a noble background".

The way backgrounds work is something that I definitely altered in my games. I started with simply expanding the list to get more options, but even then you only receive skill bonuses from them if you adhere to the examples in the book. I eventually filled those out to include a few skills that would potentially add skill options that may be absent for some OCCs (or add bonuses if the skills are already on the list for the character's OCC). Of course, that is for 1E that has a definite divide between Elective Skills (skills that may not be available to all OCCs) and Secondary Skills that are available to all. Coming up with a good framework for tweaking skill selection (or even how some skills work) would go a long way towards being able to take a "basic idea OCC" and being able to make multiples of that OCC that are sufficiently different from each other to "feel" different in game.

The first character I played in the 1E system was a poor Paladin, who walked everywhere until level 3 or 4. Due to his backstory, I had loaded him up with a fair selection of ranger/outdoorsman type skills. He wasn't nearly as good at them as a ranger would be, but they certainly helped keep him alive at the start, and aided certain investigations later. As long as the skill system can allow for (or even promote) somewhat oddball concepts like that, I am all for it.

[drewkitty ~..~]

PF RPG 2nd ed RCCs...From what I can tell/remember; except for the Dragon's learned in the egg skills; they are 'Way-of-life" CCs. Not needing any change.

PF RPG 2nd ed PCCs...are all master class psychics. With a rule that they can not be changed to nor changed from. Which which means there is no 'needing psychics to change to' there is just no changing to them. This is because of the nature of master psychics, the nature of the char's mind/drive/way-of-thinking/personality that leads them develop the powers to be ones to start off as a PCC. And even if a char wants to develop into a PCC (change classes to one) they don't have the nessessary PPE to burn off to develop the skills/powers to develop into a PCC.
Since these are a part of the overall published Changing Class Rules in the PF game, If you import those rules 'as a whole' to other PB games, the no changing to nor changing from PCCs would still apply.
Or you could just bring back the BTS1 way of getting psi powers, and pay for them with perm PPE burn offs.

Moving from a CC to an education model.....like with HU1&2, N&S, BTS 2...or an appentiship/background ed like in ATB2....That is fine by me. But the problem with the ed model games is that you have the same problem when talking about skill programs.

[Grazzik]

While I'd prefer skill programs to give some context as to why those particular skills are selected, I'm not a fan of education tables. Too prescriptive as people with "just" a high school education can have many talents and lots of skills while some people with university level education may double or triple down on one particular skill. It would be easier to simply have the CC select X programs or specify which programs to build out on char gen, but then open up program selection later (subject to attribute reqts or cultural / biological limitations) to allow for a more diverse lived experience.

I like the idea of setting out clearer rules on forfeiting skill selection for psi powers. However, for non-master Psychics, I'd simply assign a skill penalty to X number of skills to reflect the innate, but distracting, aspect of the psi power. For master Psychics, the psi powers could be treated as equivalent to X skill programs, reflecting the dedicated time and energy in developing the powers. I agree with Drewkitty that masters are masters from char gen, but I think that over time masters could develop diverse skills like other CCs, but perhaps with a skill penalty as skills and powers would be integrated by the master.

Same could go for magic or non-psi powers.

So, you could have a fighter that specializes skills as a legionnaire, but gets a -X% skill penalty because they have minor psychic powers that retires later in life as a barkeep by selecting a skill program appropriate for tending bar that reflects a couple years working full time in a tavern. However, technically the legionnaire-turned-barkeep is a bad barkeep as they sacrificed a few skills to instead learn the spells Water to Wine (to stay well stocked) and Cleanse (to wash the mugs).

No figuring out dual OCCs. No skill monkey/gun bunny/LLW munchkinism.

A completely separate idea wrt improving PFRPG OCCs, or OCCs in general, is their ability to learn/develop. Most descriptions say X number of skills at prescribed levels. However, I've always thought that learning new skills should come with a penalty to older skills given the time and energy spent learning new rather than practicing old. The dual OCC rules seem to bear this out as there are penalties to old skills when switching. However, my thought was that it would be easier and less drastic to simply use XP to buy new skills rather than just having them granted. The cost of each skill would be sufficient to perhaps drop a level or two (lowering skill %s overall accordingly), most likely so prohibitive at lower levels as to not be possible. Then, if you do want to dual OCC, this gets rid of the need to freeze skills and do a lot of math crunching until OCCs catch up to each other. Instead just buy the skills you need to effectively know the new CC and reduce the %s for old skills accordingly. It also gives a new currency to XP other than simply leveling. It also means new skills could be bought with XP whenever players want after gaining enough XP to equate to leveling up a few levels, rather than only reaching a level. Some players may choose to save up for higher levels before spending on new skills. At that point the player faces a conundrum - enjoy the higher % of current skills or suffer the penalty of getting a new useful skill? Choices, choices. Timing and availability of teachers would have to be also considered.

Considering the bit above re psi powers (or magic) vis a vis skills, the same could be done with XP to buy new powers. Why go adventuring in the first place? To become a better person... perhaps quite literally. This also could prevent overly front loading powers onto Lvl 1 PCs.

Granted, this changes some foundational game mechanics and it may be argued that it changes the game itself. In order to improve PFRPG OCCs to address the cookie cutter feel or to give players more agency, I'd suggest some of these mechanics may need to revisited. However, until such changes find their way into a book, I'll likely keep playing as close to RAW as possible.

[Library Ogre]

While I'd prefer skill programs to give some context as to why those particular skills are selected, I'm not a fan of education tables. Too prescriptive as people with "just" a high school education can have many talents and lots of skills while some people with university level education may double or triple down on one particular skill. It would be easier to simply have the CC select X programs or specify which programs to build out on char gen, but then open up program selection later (subject to attribute reqts or cultural / biological limitations) to allow for a more diverse lived experience.

This is part of why I lean towards something like the Knight/Palladin backgrounds. Everybody gets 3 skills to round out their background.

I like the idea of setting out clearer rules on forfeiting skill selection for psi powers. However, for non-master Psychics, I'd simply assign a skill penalty to X number of skills to reflect the innate, but distracting, aspect of the psi power.

My usual method is, instead of skill % penalties, simply cost a number of skill selections.

Minor psychic? 1 skill. You don't know any powers unless you spend another skill for each power. Reach a threshold (I think it was 4+ minor powers), you can spend another skill to upgrade to a major psychic. Reach another threshold and you can spend another skill to become a master psychic. You're not the least bit equal to a real mind mage... they have a score of powers for relative free, while you're sacrificing everything about your class to get a fraction of their power... but if you want to put the practice in, you get better, at a distinct cost.

Same could go for magic or non-psi powers.

The original manuscript for Mysteries of Magic included skill-purchased options for wizards (hedge wizards), warlocks (suppressed warlocks), and priests (lay priests). I suspect that's where the "half-wizard" and "Forsaken Mage" OCCs came from.

These work easily within the current rule system, and adapt with it; if you make it easier or harder to learn skills, it has an impact on the skill-acquired options.

[drewkitty ~..~]

The only game I have a house rule that lets a char take the same skill to improve it is Ninja & Superspies. And that is most just the WP pistol skill because it is in like half the skill programs.

What I would like is have a Rifter article that has more Skill Programs to use in the ed skills format.

[Library Ogre]

The only game I have a house rule that lets a char take the same skill to improve it is Ninja & Superspies. And that is most just the WP pistol skill because it is in like half the skill programs.

Was that a 1e rule in PF, or was it a houserule that I've internalized?

[kiralon]

It is a rule in 1st ed but is described when you multiclass and choose the skill again saying you just get the bonus and the skill doesn't start increasing again until you get to a level above that of the previous class.

[drewkitty ~..~]

It is a rule in 1st ed but is described when you multiclass and choose the skill again saying you just get the bonus and the skill doesn't start increasing again until you get to a level above that of the previous class.

And in 2nd ed the is no generalized mechanism to take the same skill multiple times to raise that skill's %.
--Except with Domestic skills only, which taking the skill a 2nd time raises the skill to a professional quality & +10%. With a limit of only doing this once. There is no third time allowed.

Spoiler:

Even though this is a misnomer because being a professional only means getting paid to do the work.

[kiralon]

2nd ed says to use the highest bonus from multiple OCC's and not to add them together as well.

[Hotrod]

There are different ways to treat this question as I see it.

"How would you change the PFRPG O.C.C. System" is how others are handling this one. There are a lot of approaches out there for handling character occupations out there, and I'm not particularly tied to any one of them.

"How would you improve PFRPG O.C.C.s within the current system?" is more interesting to me. I've got a few thoughts on this:
1. I'd revamp how O.C.C.'s handle melee combat and combat skills such that men-at-arms have more significant built-in advantages in melee combat. I've explored this at some length, but here are a few O.C.C.-related specifics:
-Non-Men-At-Arms can only take W.P.'s for a weapon if they also have a non-combat skill that uses that weapon as a tool. W.P. Knife and Staff require no other skills, but all others require at least one other skill that uses the item in question.
-W.P. Paired Weapons and W.P. Shield are exclusive to men-at-arms O.C.C.s.
-Only Men-At-Arms can take a hand-to-hand above the Basic level. Exceptions for warrior monks and maybe priests who are specifically dedicated to warrior gods
-Non-Men-At-Arms get a more restricted physical skill list: Hand-to-Hand: Basic, Athletics, Climb, Prowl, or Swimming; nothing else.
-Hand-to-Hand: Assassin would no longer be alignment-restricted, but would be available to all men-at-arms.

2. I would eliminate O.C.C.'s that amount to an improved version of another O.C.C., or I would change them to become something more distinct.
-Janissary and Western Empire Soldier would become the Soldier O.C.C.
-Bizantium Marine O.C.C. would blend the Sailor and Soldier O.C.C. and maybe reduce the number of "other" skills.
-Knights would be the premier mounted warriors and start with (by default) better hand-to-hand and horsemanship than the Palladin. The Palladin could upgrade horsemanship to the top tier by expending some "other" skills. I'd write Knights to be better at dealing with and fighting people, whereas Palladins would be better at dealing with and fighting the supernatural.

3. I would make each specialty O.C.C. the undisputed best at that specialty.
-I'd buff the heck out of the Psi-Healer's healing powers and give them additional means of effective healing to boot.
-I'd adjust the healing powers of the Priest and some magic users such that a Healer would be a generally better and more efficient healer.

4. I'd revamp the Palladin and Psi-Sensitive classes, modifying and combining them into a hybrid class that specializes in hunting and fighting the supernatural.
-The Palladin would get the 2nd tier horsemanship skill and hand-to-hand by default (upgradeable to top tier, but not starting with it by default), and it wouldn't have as many O.C.C. Related skills as the Knight.
-I'd dial up the Palladin's anti-supernatural combat abilities and have them improve significantly with level.
-The net effect would be a knight-like class that isn't quite as skilled/specialized in mounted combat, but is more effective at hunting and fighting monsters.

5. I would rewrite the Druid O.C.C. almost entirely.
-I'd use some of the Mystic Herbology from Rifts England as a basis
-I'd also emphasize animal friendship, companionship, and maybe even metamorphosis rather than the animal sacrifice of its current form.

6. I'd build the importance of service and sacrifice into the Priest O.C.C.
-I'd like introduce some game mechanics of priests needing to do stuff for their deities specifically in line with their chosen deity, not just ask their deities for perks/blessings.

7. I'd combine the Diabolist and Summoner O.C.C.s.
-Rather than having them start off with the full knowledge of their craft, I'd make this new class have to acquire ward/circle knowledge as part of advancement.

8. I'd make the Alchemist a playable O.C.C.: a "jack of all trades" magic class that can learn from multiple schools of magic, but starts with less knowledge.
-I'd create a magical crafting system exclusive to this Alchemist O.C.C.
-Alchemists would never be as good at a given magical specialty as a Wizard or Diabolist/Summoner: less P.P.E, less spell/ward/circle strength, fewer automatic gains in knowledge than a Wizard; has to buy/acquire more in-game.

[Soldier of Od]

The only game I have a house rule that lets a char take the same skill to improve it is Ninja & Superspies. And that is most just the WP pistol skill because it is in like half the skill programs.

Was that a 1e rule in PF, or was it a houserule that I've internalized?

Skill specialisation by selecting a skill multiple times for improvement is also an official (but optional) rule in PFRPG 2nd edition.

[The Beast]

One of the Rifters had a system for improving weapon skills as well.

[kiralon]

Skill specialisation by selecting a skill multiple times for improvement is also an official (but optional) rule in PFRPG 2nd edition.

Do you know where it says that, as in the 2nd ed book it says that only certain skills, like Domestic skills noted above can be taken twice to get a +(10%) bonus, and there are a couple of others like art and sculpting and the like, but on the whole not.
The bit about multiclassing says you only use the one with the highest bonus if you pick a skill twice from multiclassing. I know it was a thing in first ed but i thought they had mostly changed their mind for second ed.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Skill specialization by selecting a skill multiple times for improvement is also an official (but optional) rule in PFRPG 2nd edition.

support your claim, book/page/paragraph please.

BTW the term is 'Officially Optional'.

[Library Ogre]

Skill specialisation by selecting a skill multiple times for improvement is also an official (but optional) rule in PFRPG 2nd edition.

support your claim, book/page/paragraph please.

Mysteries of Magic, page 78.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Mysteries of Magic, page 78.

Thank You.
---------------------
This referenced text does not (specifically) allow chars that change their class to boost duplicate skill in the new class. The mechanics problem for this idea, is that the skill being boosted by a second skill is that the skill being boosted is the one being frozen.

As a GM, I would rule that the skill selected to be boosted has to be a OCC Skill.

[Curbludgeon]

BTW the term is 'Officially Optional'.

Citation needed.

[Soldier of Od]

Skill specialisation by selecting a skill multiple times for improvement is also an official (but optional) rule in PFRPG 2nd edition.

support your claim, book/page/paragraph please.

Mysteries of Magic, page 78.

Yep, that's the one!

[drewkitty ~..~]

BTW the term is 'Officially Optional'.

Citation needed.

EDIT: I was speaking in english, so no citation is needed.

[Curbludgeon]

Being told to not give page citations in support of claims you make but still asking for them seems like quite the needle to thread.

To gaby's question, I'd only use a few character classes which each cover more ground. These classes would be modified by factors such as background, education/training, level of technology available, access to magic, access to psionics, equipment, and intrinsic abilities. One goal of this would be to have a rough ability to compare 2 characters' overall effectiveness in a game.

This comparison is unlikely to ever be particularly precise, mind you. For example, how does a Monk Scholar's education and defensive tactics compare to the spell access of a mid-level Warlock, and just how many psionic powers would it take to square the difference? What are three attributes above 20 worth in terms of Espionage skill slots? At a high enough granularity players can usually just game a system; if naturally being able to speak every language is equivalent to +2 to dodge and 200 percentile points in Technical skills, it's the same problem as "always take Boxing if available" just with extra steps.

Rather than reduce things entirely to a point buy, one could approach it in terms of tiers, such that a class like Mercenary Fighter, when combined with a particularly strong species like a Minotaur or Giant, is acknowledged within the rules as being closer in effectiveness to a Elf Wizard than is, say, a Gnome Mercenary Fighter.

[Veknironth]

Well, some things that I'd like to see changed:

Go back to the 1st Edition H2H tables where each Man-at-Arms (MAA) OCC had its own distinct set of bonuses as you leveled up. I know the idea is to make the game work with all other Palladium titles, but it's too restrictive. I'd prefer to see different MAA OCCs fight differently with different bonuses. Maybe they even have specific attacks or actions that they can use that differentiate them from others.

There need to be more negatives for OCCs that are the template plus extra abilities. This is along the lines of Hotrod's Knight vs Palladin. If there is an OCC that receives extra abilities there should be some offset. While the Mind Mage is overpowered, at least it cuts back on skills and multiple OCCs.

Speaking of the Mind Mage, the power accumulation needs to be slowed down. 5 powers every level is just too much, and three 3 supers per level is even more out of whack.

Priests abilities should depend on their deities. There was a missed opportunity in Dragons and Gods to outline how each deity's priest differes from another. Plus, it makes all of these gods and goddesses useful. As is, you're a priest of light or dark, and the deity doesn't matter much.

Psi-Healer should be good at healing, as has been said.

Druid should just be the 1st edition. Or there should be some nature based spell casting for it.

Non-Man-at-Arms should be severely limited in their combat abilities. No paired weapons, only W.P. basic (or something worse), and very limited options of what they can take in terms of physical and weapon proficiency skills.

-Vek
"Never trust a Mind Mage."

[drewkitty ~..~]

level 5 edit

[Curbludgeon]

One advantage found in some point buy systems is the frequent inclusion of character benchmarks. If level one characters might have a potential modifier to, for example, strike of -2 to +20, then that exceeds the range of the RNG. What does the term level mean when it can't provide information save in relation to derived figures?

Some games find value in having multiple ways to illustrate comparative character effectiveness. Take for instance a Lower Paleolithic setting. Characters have considerable disadvantages, from low quality equipment to limits on both skill access and range of proficiency, to susceptibility to disease and infection due to inadequate diet and lack of healthcare. Countless hunter/fighter sorts would fall to Bronze Age troops due to the latter's superior technology and training. A minor MDC being with a 1d6 laser pistol would be a puzzle monster in such a game, whom might only be defeated by suffocation beneath a pile of dead.

One way to describe the Paleolithic hunter would be something like Wilderness Scout 1, with the MDC being a Soandso 1. That only relays information when the reader has some understanding of the range of potential ability for both types of classes. This process requires the same amount of system familiarity for each type of class; learning how Scouts compare to Soandsos doesn't really help one learn how Warlocks compare to Glitterboys.

A game-mechanically derived shorthand for such is valuable because it facilitates system mastery. Of potential interest to publishers, it also gives the opportunity for more charts to surround with fluff.

[Sambot]

I wouldn't get rid of OCCs. Characters of the same class are supposed to have the same training. What makes them different are the skills they have going into training and skills they pick up after. To reflect that, I would have educational and cultural skills and bonuses and penalties. We do see some of this occasionally with Common Skills, which I would also keep.

I would apply the above to Psychic and some Magic characters as well. Someone who grew up using those abilities or taught at a younger age, would be more advanced than someone who gain their abilities later in life.

For example:
A Mage from a poor area that distrusts Magicians would have a more difficult time reading spells do to a lack of education. They'd also advance slower as they can't openly practice their craft. At least not unless they leave the area and can practice more openly.

A Priest who grew up in the church or Mage who had parents teaching them magic as the grew up would have more spells and skills available to them than someone who just started being trained. The same goes for Psychics. An example of this would be the Weasley's who grew up with magic vs Harry Potter for whom magic was entirely new.

These changes let characters be different from one another even if they have the same OCC.

When it comes to RCCs, if the character has the attributes, and someone to train them, they can be any OCC even if their own culture isn't that advanced.

[Soldier of Od]

Skill specialization by selecting a skill multiple times for improvement is also an official (but optional) rule in PFRPG 2nd edition.

support your claim, book/page/paragraph please.

BTW the term is 'Officially Optional'.

Where is the term "Officially Optional" defined?
I think my description of the rule was perfectly valid - your correction feels unwarranted and unnecessary.

[Soldier of Od]

There have been a lot of good ideas put forward here - I agree with many of them. I don't think 'balance' is necessary - or even possible within the current rule set. It would take more than a few tweaks to adapt Palladium's rules to allow any kind of balance; we would need a complete overhaul. But I'm happy to play within the current rules. There are other reasons to play a character than how powerful they are or how they match up to everyone else. I had a go at creating a point-buy system for attributes, limiting each species to highest and lowest limits that would be achievable using the current dice rolls, and I also had a go at balancing out attributes so that each species has the same number of dice in total (24, same as humans). It kind of worked

But I do think that all character classes should have a certain something that makes them different from the others - a special ability, access to certain skills or abilities, or a unique combination of skills or abilities. And the class should be better than most, if not all, other classes at doing the thing they are supposed to be good at - the infamous Mind Mages are better at healing than Healers is a classic example.

I think backgrounds that affect a characters skills, as other people have suggested, are a very good idea, and would add a lot to the game. 1st PFRPG edition had them, and I think that backgrounds that provide two or three extra skills, and/or a bonus to certain skills would be a nice, simple way to round out a character, or access that pesky skill you really want to build the concept you have in mind.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Skill specialization by selecting a skill multiple times for improvement is also an official (but optional) rule in PFRPG 2nd edition.

support your claim, book/page/paragraph please.

BTW the term is 'Officially Optional'.

Where is the term "Officially Optional" defined?

To ask for a Book/page/paragraph citation is normal.
To be rude would be to not offer plain correction.
I did not post anything other than a plain informative correction.

'Officially Optional' in english when used in the context of RPGs means an optional text within a canon gamebook.
Within the PB games the game text within the Rifters is also Officially Optional.(Unless it is listed as Official Text for one or more of the different PB games. Note: some of the Official listing for the earlier Rifters are just in the Rifter Index Due to PB not realizing those articles needed the Official listing.)
This was develpoed to help distinguish between what was being talked about. Ether Officially Optional text or just the optional text found here in the Borads.
Note: this was all worked out here on the boards and the chats over a decade ago. So any citations is but a search away....that is if those didn't get pruned.

[Soldier of Od]

Skill specialization by selecting a skill multiple times for improvement is also an official (but optional) rule in PFRPG 2nd edition.

support your claim, book/page/paragraph please.

BTW the term is 'Officially Optional'.

Where is the term "Officially Optional" defined?

To ask for a Book/page/paragraph citation is normal.
To be rude would be to not offer plain correction.
I did not post anything other than a plain informative correction.

'Officially Optional' in english when used in the context of RPGs means an optional text within a canon gamebook.
Within the PB games the game text within the Rifters is also Officially Optional.(Unless it is listed as Official Text for one or more of the different PB games. Note: some of the Official listing for the earlier Rifters are just in the Rifter Index Due to PB not realizing those articles needed the Official listing.)
This was develpoed to help distinguish between what was being talked about. Ether Officially Optional text or just the optional text found here in the Borads.
Note: this was all worked out here on the boards and the chats over a decade ago. So any citations is but a search away....that is if those didn't get pruned.

Asking for citation is fine - I didn't mention that as being a problem. The book and page number for my claim has been provided.

My only complaint was your correction of "official (but optional)" to "officially optional", which seemed incredibly unnecessary.
Where is the term "Officially Optional" defined? Support your claim, book/page/paragraph please.

[Grazzik]

My only complaint was your correction of "official (but optional)" to "officially optional", which seemed incredibly unnecessary.
Where is the term "Officially Optional" defined? Support your claim, book/page/paragraph please.

Can someone shut this pedantic argument down please?

Was the correction unnecessary? No, but it doesn't add anything either since we all knew what was meant.
Does the use of such gaming terms need citation? No and asking for one is petty.
If people want to use terms in describing their own gameplay, fair play.
If they correct a person by using a term you don't use, be the bigger person and ignore them.

Move on. Please.

[Hotrod]

There's one other aspect of O.C.C.'s I might change, and that would be to make skills relevant to magic and psionics.

A man-at-arms can take extra physical skills, upgrade hand-to-hand skills, and take more weapon proficiencies, becoming more effective at fighting. Magic and psionic O.C.C.'s have no such way of specializing and/or upgrading their abilities. However, a man of magic can take all manner of weapon proficiencies, upgrade to hand-to-hand: expert, and take some physical skills to become a pretty fair fighter on par with a man-at-arms O.C.C. character who doesn't take extra specializing skills.

It would be interesting to tie some skills to improvements in the performance of magic and psionic abilities, such that magic and psychic characters would have some incentive to specialize in magic and psychic stuff. This might not even require new skills, either:
+Art and literacy skills could provide bonuses to ceremonial magic
+Language and music skills might make a spell-caster more proficient at casting efficiently
+Advanced Mathematics could help improve P.P.E. or I.S.P. efficiency
+Astronomy and Navigation could help mages find and use ley lines more efficiently, as well as predict moments of extra magical potency for using them (eclipses, alignments, et cetera)

I'm just spitballing here; the gist is that there should be tradeoffs for players who take skills that hybridize their characters, with some gameplay benefits for specializing or hybridizing. Right now, magic users can hybridize as fighters with skill selection, and fighters can specialize in fighting. I'd like to see specialty mage/psionic characters and skill-based characters who could dabble a little in some minor magic powers through skill selection.

[Grazzik]

It would be interesting to tie some skills to improvements in the performance of magic and psionic abilities, such that magic and psychic characters would have some incentive to specialize in magic and psychic stuff. This might not even require new skills, either:
+Art and literacy skills could provide bonuses to ceremonial magic
+Language and music skills might make a spell-caster more proficient at casting efficiently
+Advanced Mathematics could help improve P.P.E. or I.S.P. efficiency
+Astronomy and Navigation could help mages find and use ley lines more efficiently, as well as predict moments of extra magical potency for using them (eclipses, alignments, et cetera)

Yes there are some obvious candidates in PFRPG and there could be skills ported over from other games/settings that would work well in a PFRPG setting... some ideas to consider...
+ Geomancy could give a buff on maximizing use of ley lines or nexuses (or Perception rolls re LLs if this mechanic is house ruled in)
+ Lore skills related to religions, the astral plane, and dimensions could give buffs to respective blessings, psi powers and spells
+ The Meditation skill ported over to PFRPG should help vis a vis psionics, as well as maybe improving focus while spellcasting under fire
+ Brewing, Holistic Medicine, and Use Poison skills could improve the odds of cauldron use and the making of potions
+ Porting over Barter or Appraise Goods skills could have an impact on potential witches entering a pact, while Interrogation or Resist Torture skills could affect the outcome of a battle of wills

[Library Ogre]

There's one other aspect of O.C.C.'s I might change, and that would be to make skills relevant to magic and psionics.

A man-at-arms can take extra physical skills, upgrade hand-to-hand skills, and take more weapon proficiencies, becoming more effective at fighting. Magic and psionic O.C.C.'s have no such way of specializing and/or upgrading their abilities. However, a man of magic can take all manner of weapon proficiencies, upgrade to hand-to-hand: expert, and take some physical skills to become a pretty fair fighter on par with a man-at-arms O.C.C. character who doesn't take extra specializing skills.

Part of the problem is that pretty much anyone can become an OK fighter (defined as "HtH Expert or better, and WP for one or more decent weapons"), but there's no way to access magic through skills (except for scrolls through literacy), or psionics save by xCC or random luck. Heck, you can't even help to resist psychic powers better through training, which is a staple. While I think a lot of "1e Hand to Hand was so much better and way more flavorful!" is overblown, the stark difference between "Gets an automatic parry" and "doesn't get automatic parry" made a big difference.

In the later Palladium design style, the men at arms OCCs really need more class abilities.

[Curbludgeon]

In a game which applied skill-based methods to specialize in magic, I'd say it would be good to mechanically incentive this with specialist casters. A Fire Warlock should be able to get more benefit out of a flame magic skill module than a Wizard taking the same. As is the generic practitioners of magic in Palladium games are potentially able to learn most specialist magics, and generally have more PPE to boot. This leads to a situation where, for instance, a Ley Line Walker can be better with Blue Flame Magic or Combat Magic than the classes which specifically focus in it.

This is suggestive of what cap such specializations should provide, which I'd pin to what could otherwise be done with the expended character building resources. If a Wizard is able to pick up a Ceremonial Magic focus by giving up 3 skills (say HtH:Expert and 2 W.P.s) then the focus can't be all that valuable. If the CM focus requires not having a HtH at all, then it can have a bit more oomph. If it cuts P.E. in half, PPE by a third, and requires giving up an eye then things could be in the neighborhood of superpowers.

There's also potential in providing ability capstones for meeting different tiers of a given casting style's prereqs. Perhaps Combat Magic, after learning x number of spells with different elements gains a +1 to spell strength with such spells; then after getting Dance, Military Etiquette, and Prowl to X% increase the level of spells castable in one melee action by one. At a high level, with some story-related goal requirement, perhaps they gain the casting special from the Smoker class from the first Manhunters book.

[Soldier of Od]

Move on. Please.

You are totally right. My apologies.

[Library Ogre]

Aren't "Skills that help with your magic" specifically what Nightbane's Through the Glass Darkly's Sorcerous Proficiencies did?

[Library Ogre]

Aren't "Skills that help with your magic" specifically what Nightbane's Through the Glass Darkly's Sorcerous Proficiencies did?

So, hey, let's look at those proficiencies!

1) Keen Eye. You're good at finding magic books. No real mechanics given, just that you're more likely to do so.

2) Invisible to Magic. Magic just doesn't detect you. You can't be targeted by most spells, "any magic that others affects or respond[s] to the character automatically fails." Carries the downside that you can't get good magic, either. Can't cast spells, can't perform rituals (but you can help). A note goes on to say you can be hurt by magic with direct physical effects... if I cast Call Lightning and point at you, the magic can hit you... but you'd be immune to a ward, for example, because the ward can't tell that you're interacting with the thing it is protecting.

3) Ritual magician... half PPE cost for double range and duration, but only for rituals.

4) Incantation specialist: Four bonus spells (level 1-4), +5% to learn new spells, +1 spell strength... but no ritual magic at all, and -1 to save against ritual magic.

5) Mystical Lineage: Generations of magical knowledge available to you; +10% to research and +10% to learning and creating spells.

6) Sensitive to magic: you can tell when magic is around; usually not stuff below level 5. Sort of a permanent Sense Magic and Presence Sense for magical stuff.

7) Magic resistance: Less severe Invisible to magic... you take half damage and half penalties and duration. But you can still use magic.

Sensitive to Supernatural: #6, but spooky stuff.

9) Group casting: A group of wizards, all with the spell and the proficiency, can work together to upcast a spell... all cast it at the same time, but you get more oomph for every extra wizard (double if you have 1 extra, triple if you have 2 extra, etc.)

10) Artistic. Not much mechanics... things you make look cool, and you get a +1 to MA and PB.


So, the idea of "spend some skills to make yourself a different specialization of wizard" is there, but it is, IMO, not very good. Some are crazy good (one skill to take half effect from most magic!), others are very GM-dependent ("Your stuff looks cool!" "You find magic stuff first!")

[Curbludgeon]

I guess I'd perhaps want something akin to Heroes of Humanity style Advanced Training, where giving up x number of skill/2x of secondary skill slots grants a series of bonuses, and there's a maximum number of Training programs a given character can take.

I'm thinking it might be easier to have a list of specialties to determine requirements and benefits for, rather that trying to map the space the other way around. I've been thinking cribbing some of the path and tradition names from Shadows of the Demon Lord could provide a decent list to work from. If someone happens to know of a useful listing of potential abilities from a dork wiki I'd be delighted to hear about it.